that your Priests are convinced of their Idolatry in worshipping of Images because they are so willing to shuffle off the second Commandement which forbids it least that should also convince the common people wherein a late German Bishop and Clergy of yours shewed too much fraud to be accounted men of conscience and too little Art to be accounted men of cunning for commanding that the Lords Prayer the Angelical salutation the Creed and Ten Commandements should be distinctly and leisurably repeated in the German tongue every Lords day by the Parish Priests that the people might be able to repeat understand and learn them Distinctè ac tractatim ut populus legentem repetitione subsequi ea discere memoriae mandare possit Synod Augustensis cap. 25. yet left not so much as any blind footsteps of the second Commandement in their German translation which they appointed the Priests to read There was little conscience in leaving out one of Gods Commandements and as little cunning in commanding the Parish Priests to read them All when they themselves had left out One for they could not think by their false copy which quite left out the second Commandement and called the third the second to blind their Priests though they did think by it to blind the people They would be thought very zealous in teaching those committed to their charge all the Fundamentals of salvation yet purposely concealed one main practical fundamental because they had formerly mis-taught or at least mispractised the same finding it more agreeable with their honour though less with their honesty to let the people continue still in ignorance then to recall their own errour The like was the tender care and conscience of your Trent Fathers to instruct the people in their prayers Sess. 22. cap. 8. Etsi Missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem non tamen expedire visum est Patribus ut vulgari linguâ passim celebraretur Ne tamen oves Christi esuriant Pastores frequenter aliquid in Missâ exponant Though the Mass contain in it very great and necessary instructions for faithful people yet we do not think fit to put it in a language they can understand notwithstanding least Christs sheep should be bunger-starved the Pastors are required often to expound some parts of it A great seeming Fatherly care of souls to fear they might perish for want of food but no Fatherly kindness nor resolution rather to let them perish then make them able to feed themselves But the cause was the same in both The peoples ignorance was to keep them in their sinful obedience For the less they knew the more they would obey in things so plainly against the Law of God Therefore these two Synods had rather the common people should worship God without their Reason then with their Conscience though they could not worship as men without their Reason nor as Christians but with their Conscience But so it is Reason and Conscience must both be laid aside or lulled asleep when men are to act upon false Principles as in this particular The Commandment was to be thrown down that the Images might be kâ—…pt up For that is so plain in its Prohibition and so powerful in its Commination that if the people had understood it they would not have committed so gross Idolatry or would full soon have become very penitent Idolators And good reason for Images are but a relick of Paganism Ex Gentili consuetudine as saith Eusibius Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of a Paganish custom and therefore long kept out of the Churches of Christians and longer kept out of their Religion though now they so abound in your Churches and Religion as if you meant that even in your most populous Cities these your new Gods should exceed and out-vie the number of their worshippers so that I might justly hint at your pictures and Images all my fault was I did only hint at them I will now make some part of amends and down-right strike at them though by other mens hands not mine own For in this case I have the primest Champions of Christendom to prove that Images were long kept out of the Churches of Christians and longer kept out of their Religion and either of these is enough to break them in pieces 16. First that Images were long kept out of the Churches of Christians and for this we have the testimony of Epiphanius for the Greek and of Saint Hierom for the Latine Church both in one Epistle to John of Hierusalem which was indicted or composed by Epiphanius translated and approved by Saint Hierom. The testimony is in these words Cùm ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra authoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imaginem scidi illud magis dedi consilum custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperem mortuum eo obvolverent efferent Precor ut jubeas Presbyteros ejusdem loci deinceps praecipere in Ecclesiâ Christi ejusmodi vela quae contra Religionem nostram veniunt non appendi The story is this Epiphanius going to say his prayers in a Church at Anabaltha there spied a vail or curtain which had in it the picture of Christ or of some Saint at which he was so offended That he cut down the said veil or curtain and wished the Keepers of the Church to bury a dead man therewith alledging it was against the authority of the holy Scriptures and the purity of Christian Religion that such Images should be set up in Churches and desiring the Bishop of Hierusalem in whose Diocess it was to require the Clergy there to admit no more such pictures or images into that Church Contra authoritatem Scripturarum contra Religionem nostram No Christian Bishop can have stronger arguments or rather adjurations either for the casting out or the keeping out of Images from his Church then that the retaining or the receiving of them is against the authority of the Scriptures the custom of the Church and the conscience of Religion All which are here alledged by Epiphanius For he that saith Contra Religionem nostram against our Religion doth appeal to the custom of Christians as well as to the conscience of Christianity And this quotation is such a Gordian not to your Cardinal that after all his pains to loosen and untie it at last Alexander like he cuts it off saying Verior solutio haec verba esse supposititia Bell. lib. 2. de sanct cap. 9. The truest answer is The words are supposititious But words entailed upon the Church for so many hundred years together are not so easily cut off The same Authority had before troubled Waldensis yet he denies not the truth of the story only saith That Epiphanius did this thing in hatred of the Anthropomorphites and out of zeal not according to knowledge Wald. de Sacramental Tit. 19. c. 157. So likewise Alphonsus a Castro lib. de Haer. voce Imago denies not the
he never so glorious yet he is as far from God as my self for betwixt finite and infinite the distance is infinite whether the finite be glorious or inglorious for be he never so glorious yet he and his glory both are nothing in comparison of him to whom Cherubins and Seraphins continually do cry Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy Glory 7. Having vindicated mine own allegation against praying to Saints I come to oppose your Cardinals allegations for it which though they savour much more of learning authority yet not one jot less of impertinency And yet you and all yours swallow them as glib as once you swallowed the holy league and Covenant or as still you are desirous to swallow up all other Churches into your own pretended mother Church that is as that Behemoth swalloweth waters of whom it is said Behold he drinketh up a river and hasteth not he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth Job 4. 23. A large swallow you have to let down your own Camels whiles you strain at our gnats not considering the advice of the first Bishop of Hierusalem to his Clergy My Brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons Jam. 2. 1. If you had not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons more then of causes you would rather be exceptious against your own writers for most shamefully misapplying the holy Scriptures to set up your false worship then with ours for rightly applying them to pull it down since it is so much to the dishonour of Christ our Redeemer and to the danger of those Christian souls which he hath redeemed And yet your late writers seeing the unwritten word so unequal a match to grapple with the written word for the Protestants have opened their eyes though God alone can open their hearts and we pray him to open them do labour to prove all your false adorations and false invocations out of the holy Scriptures notwithstanding they are so plainly and so directly against the express letter of the Law of Moses and therefore cannot be according to the letter of the Prophets which are no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…aw But I will confine my self to your moâ—…â—…ed Dogmatist and desire you with me to consider the strange impertinency and if wilful the stranger imprety of his allegations out of the Text to maintain your invocation of Saints And amongst them all two only shall serve my turn 8. The first is that of Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads Hic apertè sanctus Jacob Aâ—…gelum invocavit saith Bellarm. Here holy Jacob did manifestly invocate an Angel If he did 't is manifest he took that Angel for the God of his Fathers Abraham and Isaac for the God which fed him all his life long and redeemed him from all evil for he invocateth none other to bless the lads but only that God so saith the Text God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which â—…ed me all my life long to this day The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the â—…ads 'T is palpable all these particulars do concern but one and him Jacob desireth to bless the children If that one were an Angel he did not pray for Gods blessing upon them so the lads were little beholding to him If that one were God he did not pray to an Angel to blesâ—… them so 〈◊〉 â—…olding to your Carâ—… Nay indeed all that are concerned in this Text for the Angel though named yet is not concerned in it are litâ—…le beholding to him for all are losers by this interpretation 1º God loseth his honour of accepting feeding redeeming and blessing his servants 2º Abraham and Isaac lose their God For it was the Almighty God not an Angel that said to Abraham Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17. 1. and God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk saith this Text. 3º The poor infants lose their blessing for t is clear an Angel could not bless them but only ministerially from God 4º Jacob loseth his Religion for he calleth upon a false God if upon an Angel instead of God All these cannot lose by this interpretation the Interpreter himself be no loser therefore though I will not say he lost his honesty by seeking to wrest a text yet I must say he hath lost his authority by seeking to oppose it For it is not an exposition but an opposition of the Text when words are taken Grammatically in their own sense that should be taken Theologically in Gods sense The Grammatical sense of a word is according to its own signification But the Theological sense of a word is according to Gods use of it or Gods application As Genesis 18. 2. The Lord appeared unto Abraham but v 2. Lo three men stood by him And again v. 16. The men rose up from thence yet v. 17. And the Lord said and 't is evident by all Abrahams prayer that it was the Lord appeared unto him for he calleth him the Judge of all the earth v. 25. and v. 33. 't is said The Lord went his way as soon as he had left communing with Abraham If you take this word men Grammatically as 't is in its own signification you must say Abraham prayed to a man But if you take it Theologically as 't is in Gods use or application 't is no less then the Lord appearing in the likeness of a Man and you must say That Abraham prayed only to the Lord So in this Text mis-interpreted by your great Doctor if you take the word Angel Grammatically as it signifies in it self 't is plain Iacob invocated an Angel but if you take it Theologically as God useth it 't is no less then the Lord in the likeness of an Angel and so 't is plain Iacob invocated none but God And truly the one Text might as well have been urged to prove that Abraham invocated a man as the other to prove that Iacob invocated an Angel Both good proofs Grammatically but neither a good proof Theologically For Grammarians look upon words as they signifie in themselves but Divines look upon words as they signifie in their use the reason is because the work of the one is to understand the Thing but the work of the other is to understand the Truth therefore as doubtful Propositions in the New Testament are to be expounded according to the Analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed that we may have Truth in our Belief So doubtful Propositions in the Old Testament are to be expounded according to the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue that we may have Truth in our Obedience And as that Proposition This is my body must be taken Theologically that is in the sense of the speaker because taken Grammatically that is in the bare sense of the words it
the hearers of the law there is Faith for what can any sacrilegious Enthusiast say more who robs God of mens hearts in regular and sound prayers to place all Religion in the ear sure there were many hearers of St. Pauls Sermon for it was preached on the Sabbath and in a place where prayer was wont to be made Act. 16. 13. who heard more than the law for they also heard the Gospel yet only one Lydia for ought we know was judged faithful unto the Lord and the text gives this reason of her Faith whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul Therefore the hearers of the law have not Faith but the doers of it at least in vote and desire i. e. those who labour to do it yet they when they have done all are taught to say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do Luk. 17. 10. Their doings cannot fully reach the obligation of their duty and how can they be a satisfaction for their undutifulnesse All their works of righteousnesse when they have laboured to do all those things which are commanded and as they are commanded them will leave them unprofitable and much more must their works of unrighteousnesse make them unacceptable so that you have only supposed a false Faith in the hearers of the Law not disprov'd Justification by Faith in the doers of it for he that saith not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified doth not thereby suppose much less averre any men to be so compleat doers of the Law as to rely upon their good deeds for their justification 12. You might happily better have appealed to St. James than to St. Paul for justification by works and yet neither would he have befriended this your appeal much lesse have justified that your position for St. James doth not contradict the doctrine of St. Paul but doth only correct those who had misunderstood or at least misapplied it bidding them add to their Faith Vertue as St. Peter had done before 2 Pet. 3. 5. or not expect to be justified by it wherefore those two Apostles may very well be said to have delivered but one and the same doctrine concerning justification if we take their words not as we please but as they intended them for St. Paul writing against proud Justitiaries among the Jews who sought for righteousness from their own works according to the Law of Moses and rejected the righteousnesse of God by Faith in Christ strongly denyed Justification by works meaning works properly so called that is to say a perfect and perpetual observation of the whole Law because all men whatsoever Christ only excepted had many wayes transgressed the Law But St. James writing against licentious and profane Hypocrites among the Christians who pretending to Faith in Christ lived not according to the Rule of the Christian Faith but altogether neglected the study and practice of good works affirmed Justification by works meaning by works the very obedience of Faith or a working by love and obedience The one writ against the proud opposers the other against the fond Pretenders of Faith in Christ therefore the one tells the proud Jews that their works were not answerable to the Law in which they trusted that he might teach them the necessity of Faith in Christ The other tell the hypocritical Christians that their works were not answerable to the Gospel of which they boasted that he might teach them the obedience of that Faith accordingly as often as St. Paul affirmeth in sense at least if not in words That we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith working by love Gal. 5. 6. or an unfained unhypocritical Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a Faith as belongs not to hypocrites 1 Tim. 1. 5. And as often as St. James denieth that we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith not working by love a Faith only in profession or in perswasion not in obedience or in affection a Faith belonging to hypocrities not to good Christians a Faith in noise and in word but not in truth and in deed as appeares from the manner of his expression ver 14. If a man say he hath Faith for the Apostle would not say it for him because he had only a dead Faith A Faith without works and therefore without life operari sequitur esse the Faith of devils from the evidence or power of truth convincing the understanding not the Faith of Abraham or Rahab from the acceptance and love of truth converting the will therefore these two positions are not contrary A man is justified before God not by the works of the Law which he cannot have but only by Faith in Christ which alwaies worketh by love and A man is justified before God not only by Faith that is an historical knowledge of the Gospel and an emptie profession of Faith but also by works that is an affectionate love of the Gospel and a sincere obedience of Faith The former position is maintained by St. Paul against those Jews who rejected the Gospel of Christ the latter position is maintained by St. James against those Christians who profaned the same Gospel Both Apostles teach one and the same Justification by Faith in Christ only St. Paul speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper object even to Christ because he went to convince gainsaying Jews and to make them Christians St. James speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper effect even good works because he went to convert revolting Christians and to make them good Christians For so himself saith concerning Abraham Seest then how Faith wrought with his works and by work was Faith made perfect ver 23. He saith not By works was his justification made perfect but only his Faith whereby he was justified requiring works only to the Faith that justifieth but not to the act of justification And after the same manner are we to understand his conclusion ver 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only as if he had said From this example of Abraham you may gather that 't is not the wording but the working not the professing but the performing Faith that justifies a man before God requiring works in that man which is justified but not denying to Faith the power and prerogative of justifying 13. You have well reconciled St. Paul with St. James in your question But what Faith which intimaâ—…eth that a justâ—…fying Faith is such a 〈◊〉 as workeâ—…h by love but you have ill reconciled your selfe with St. Paul in your position That works are required to Justification as well as Faith which plainly asserteth the contradictory of St. Pauls doctrine And surely 't is not safe for any Divine to differ in this Doctrine of Justification from St. Paul no more than it is safe for him
A Christian Vindication OF TRUTH Against ERROUR Concerning these Seven Controversies 1. Of Sinners Prayers 2. Of Priests Marriage 3. Of Purgatory 4. Of the second Commandment and Images 5. Of praying to Saints and Angels 6. Of Justification by Faith 7. Of Christs New Testament or Covenant By Edw. Hide D. D. sometimes Fellow of T. C. in Cambridge and late Rector Resident of Brightwell in Berks. Holding forth the faithful word as he hath been taught that he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers Tit. 1. 9. Idcirco doctrinam Catholicam contradicentium obsidet impugnatio ut fides nostra non torpescat otio sed multis exercitationibus elimetur Aug. Serm. 98. de Tempore London Printed by R. White for Richard Davis Bookseller in Oxford 1659. The General Contents of each Chapter CAp. 1. Of Sinners prayers p. 1. 2. Of Priests Marriage p. 13. 3. Of Purgatory p. 69. 4. Of the Second Commandement and against Images p. 129. 5. Of Praying to Saints and Angels p. 245. 6. Of Justification p. 359. 7. Of Christs New Testament or Covenant p. 471. Courteous Reader The pages above-mentioned will shew theâ—… the full Contents of all particulars handled in each Chapter TO THE Christian Reader HE that writes Devotion is like to please all good Christians and is sure to please himself because he walks with God in whose presence is joy and at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore But he that writes Controversie is sure to displease many even all that are either Unchristian as coming short of Religion or Antichristian as going beyond or against it and cannot easily please himself because he walks among briers and thorns which may entangle but must annoy and offend his footing I did little think when I took some few steps in Golgotha to teach my self and prepare others how to dye That I should have met with thorns instead of dead mens skuls though I made a publick impression of those steps in my Christian Legacie for others the more plainly to see and the more easily to follow them But such is the contentiousness of this carping and quarreling age That it turneth even Devotion it self into controversie and no wonder then if it turn controversie into contention and contention into bloodshed Let the Apostle cry never so lowd Foolish and unlearned questions avoid knowing that they do gender strifes And the servant of Christ must not strive 2 Tim. 2. yet this captious world will afford more questions concerning strife then Godliness not considering that the Spirit of God calleth them foolish and unlearned questions though they be invented with never so much wit and maintained with never so great learning And such I think are most of these ensuing questions raised by so many exceptions lately brought against the doctrine and practice of the Church of England by one G. B. neerly devoted to the Church of Rome 1. Of Gods hearing the Prayers of Heathens for what is that to Christians 2. Of Purgatory for what is that to the Christian Faith 3. Of Priests marriage for what is that to the Christian Religion 4. Of worshiping Images for they are both directly against Religion. 5. Of Praying to Saints 6. Of Justification by works for that 's against Faith in Christ. 7. Of Quarrelling about the words of Testament and Covenant for that 's at least vain if not profane or sinful babling As t is meerly upon words so t is vain as t is quarrelling upon those words so it may easily be sinful For he that saith Hold fast the form of sound words 2 Tim. 1. 13. bids us stand upon Propositions which signifie true or false not upon single Terms which are unsignificant as to the Truth whether speculative or practick for there can be neither Faith nor Love in them yet I have endeavoured to make the Answers to these Questions though grounded on such unnecessary exceptions to contain some very necessary and sound Divinity for which purpose I have put them into large Chapters and have assigned to each Chapter large Contents being resolved to answer the Cause for the satisfaction of others rather then the Objection for the vindication ofmy self And I think I had a good occasion and a better reason so to do for though our Brethren most oppress us yet our Adversaries most revile us and therefore every true Son much more Servant of this distressed Church ought to believe and observe his Church now speaking to him in the language of St. Paul Be not thou therefore ashamed of the Testimony of the Lord nor of me his Prisoner but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the Power of God 2 Tim. 1. 8. He that is ashamed of his Religion is ashamed of the Testimony of the Lord He that forsakes his Church when she is the Lords Prisoner did hypocritically follow her when she was the Lords free Servant and refusing to partake in the afflictions of the Gospel shews he embraced the Gospel according to the custom of men not according to the Power of God But the Word of God is not bound 2 Tim. 2. 9. These Truths which we profess according to Gods word will alwaies be professed to the worlds end though with less visibility yet not with less constancy and if Protestants shall go from them Papists shall return to them For God that can raise Children out of Stones will never be without witness among his own children and I look upon all Christians at large as his children though only upon good Christians as his dutiful children And if they should hold their peace the very stones would speak crying Hosanna to the Son of David our blessed Saviour ascribing unto him the Truth of our Religion and the honour of our Salvation And we desire no more may obtain no less Let our adversaries shew any one Tenent or Practice wherein we of this Church leave them to be more for the honour of Christ then that which we embrace and we will acknowledge our selves the worser Christians nor be any longer in that particular Protestant against them but detestant of our selves But till they can shew that we beseech them to shew themselves good Christians in not railing and raging against us for being so because we cannot think God hath given any Church Dominion over Religion or his Servant power above his Son yet men of their perswasion then most call to be answered when they least resolve to be satisfied disiring only to hinder Orthodox Ministers from confirming Protestants because they have power by prohibiting their own Proselites the use of their Books to hinder them from converting Papists yet for my part I should not have laid open the corrupt doctrines and practices of Popery had I not been constrained to vindicate Protestancy for I had rather spend my time and zeal about doctrines of Conscience the of Contestation or of Corruption and these for the most part are both
Accordingly Binius is forced to confess That the second Council of Carthage though it was so in Title yet was not so in Truth but was such a second as had at least five before it Post quinque saltem anteriora hoc quod secundum appellatur habitum fuisse oportet Which he proves first from the Bishops names recited in the Acts of this Council Genedius Alypius Faustinus who were not Bishops till long after the year that Valentinian was the fourth time Consul Secondly from the very words of this very second Canon which you have alledged For that begins thus Quùm in praeterito consilio de continentiae castitatis moderamine tractaretur relating to a fore-past Council which fore-past Council saith Binius was that Africane Council celebrated the first year of Pope Coelestine which was the year 424. after Christ according to Helvicus A great distance sure from 390. And the 37. Canon of that Africane Council saith Binius is that which is here related to The like he affirms concerning Fortunatus his words in the third Canon Memini praeterito consilio fuisse statutum I remember in a fore-past Council it was ordained where saith the same Binius That fore-past Council was the forenamed Africane and Fortunatus reflected back to the tenth Canon of that Council But if this Council in which were so few Bishops and concerning which are so many uncertainties may deserve the credit and authority of the particular Africane Church yet sure it will be hard to prove That the words alledged by you deserve to have the credit or Authority of a Canon of this Council to that purpose for which and according to that sense in which you have alledged them 3. Wherefore thirdly I make bold to assert That this your Canon as you have applyed and urged it was no Canon of the Africane Council called the second of Carthage for the Fathers in Trullo Can. 13. do upon this very occasion of Priests continency cite that yery numerical Canon of Carthage with an addition of other words and in another sense saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We know that those who met at Carthage and took care of the grave and sober behaviour of Priests did say That at some proper and set times they should abstain from their wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant So that this and no other but this is the doctrine which the second Council of Carthage did say The Apostles had taught and antiquity had practised And this is no more then what we find in Saint Pauls writings Except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves unto fasting and prayer 1 Cor. 7. 5. which though spoken generally of all married men yet may without any violence to the Text and with great zeal of and advantage to godliness be appropriated à fortiori to the married Clergy But for Priests total abstaining from wives you must find it in some other Canon or say the Trullane Fathers did either want Honesty in mis-citing this Canon or Learning in mis-understanding it or Iudgement in mis-applying it Whereas on the contrary they were so far from wanting any of these that they had moreover power and authority to have reversed it and would have used that power had they indeed found it a Canon of the Africane Church For they are so bold as plainly to reverse a Canon near of kin to it delivered in the Roman Church requiring married men if they were made Priests to promise they would after that time not co-habite with their wives And to assure us and all the world That these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning which in truth is all the controversie came not either by surreption or by mistake into their Canon The reason of this restriction is thus given in the ensuing words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oportet enim eos qui altari afsident quum sacra manibus tractant in omnibus continentes esse not bidding Priests contain from marriage at all times but only at such times as they were to administer the holy Sacrament This was certainly the sense of your second Canon of the second Council of Carthage or not only Greece did not understand carthage but also Carthage did not understand it self Whence Balsamon is so bold as to assert in plain terms That they of Rome and their accomplices were much mistaken who inferred from this or any other Canon of the Councils of carthage That Priests and Deacons might not have their own wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But were bound to keep themselves single and unmarried vid. Bals. in Can. 3. 4. Concil 3. Carth. And he proves his assertion from the 70. Canon of the third Council of Carthage meaning the 73. as we commonly say the 70. when we mean the 72. interpreters where the injunction is plain That they ought to abstain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum proprios terminos At their proper or peculiar times viz. At the times of their Administration Nay yet more Aurelius who is said to have propounded this your Canon doth himself thus alledge or at least thus interpret it in the Greek Canons of the third Council of Carthage as they are entred and received in the Code of the Africane Church your own Binius being my witness For there Can. 25. he requires Priests to abstain from wives only at some proper times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis ab uxoribus abstineant v. Bin. Concil Tom. 1. edit Colon. p. 580. in alterâ editione quorundam Canonum Concilii tertii Carth. ex codice Africano But the Latine interpreter in Binius rendring these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum priora statuta priora instead of propria and Binius foâ—…lowing that reading in the 37. Canon concil Africani sub Coelestino Benifacio and preferring it as the better of the two in his notes upon Concil Carth. 5. sub Anastasio cap. 3. even contrary to the reading of that same Canon as it is in its own edition makes me suspect that the Africane Canons have not been derived to us so entire and incorrupt in the Latine copies as in the Greek wherein if I am mistaken you may well pardon my mistake because your own new Glossator upon Gratian hath presumed to correct the Latine Copy of this very Canon as he had found it in the Books then commonly received by the Greek Copy leaving out exemplo after Apostoli docuerunt as I shewed before for this one reason amongst others That he found it not in the Greek Copies I know Binius is of another mind so impossible is it there should be Unity where there is not Verity and saith concerning the carthage Canons That the Latine Edition is of a greater authority then the Greek translation But confessing two various editions of the Latine Canons Secundum propria statuta and priora statuta and not being able to shew any more then one translation
of the Greek he hath unawares granted that the Latine Canons are not of so great certainty and should not be of so great authority as the Greek For one of Two cannot be so certain as One by it self Again profâ—…ssing that secundum priora statuta in the Latine is the better edition of the two Quaedam alia lectio melior habet secundum priora statuta he hath unawares granted it is the worse for that could not have been quaedam alia lectio if the other of propria statuta had not been before it and surely of two various readings the first must needs be the best because that was the Original according to the rules Id verum quod primum Id bonum quod verum Thirdly confessing secundum priora statuta to be the Original in that it was the better for else the Original was falfe and the variation from it was the true reading he hath as unadvisedly taxed the Greeks for mistaken Interpreters Graeci haec verba malè intelligentes vertêrunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if he mean these for the words ill translated secundum propria statuta the Greeks did not ill translate them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth fairly and fully express those words But if he mean for the words ill translated secundum priora statuta then it is not credible the Greeks intended to translate them for they must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they had read secundum priora statuta in the Latine copies and meaned to translate what they had read T is much more probable that the Greeks found secundum propria statuta in the Original Africane Canon which sure was penned in Latine for the Africane Fathers writ in Latine and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa did therefore take Saint Augustine while he was yet but a Priest to officiate for him in the Pulpit contrary to the custom of that Church because himself being a Greek and not expert in the use of the Latine tongue could not Preach so well to the edifying of the Africane people as saith Possidius in the life of Saint Augustine And it is as probable That the Latines did at first read that same Canon secundum propria statuta as did the Greeks till some of later years sc. after the Prohibition of Priests marriage in that Church thinking priora statuta would better serve their turn then propria statuta not only because it took off the specification of time but also because it put on the face of antiquity ventured to shuffle that in for the other For it is evident that Gratian did read that very Canon secundum propria statuta concerning which Binius avoweth secundum priora statuta to be the better reading v. Grat. Dist. 84. cap. 3. But indeed Binius in this assertion is confuted not only by his own Latine interpreter in his own Councils in this very particular Canon upon which he hath passed this unwarrantable sentence but also in Balsamons Councils by Gentianus Hervetus if that marginal note be his upon the 13. Canon of Trullo Legerat interpres Graecus in Canone Carthaginensi secundum propria statuta And if that note be not his we have gotten a new author to confute Binius but we have not lost our old confutation For in the Latine translation which without doubt belongs to Hervetus we see not only that he so read but also that he so understood those words for he there thus interprets them Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant Let them abstain from wives at proper and peculiar seasons or times that is At the times of their administration as saith Balsamon So that Binius sheweth more his animositie then his ingenuitie in his ensuing words Hac translatione nostri temporis haeretici caelibatum Clericorum impugnant quasi hujus Canonis authoritate Clerici ab uxoribus in ordine tantùm Vicis suae abstinere deberent reliquis verò temporibus iisdem maritali consortio cohabitare liceret For we say no more in this then Balsamon had said four hundred years before us your own Hervetus being his interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vicis suae tempore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eo sc. tempore quo sacrificant Bals. Concil Trul. cap. 13. Nay we say no more in this then the whole Council in Trullo had said 600. years before Balsamon as hath been proved already in most express words yet in truth we have no reason to be angry with Binius for though he hath given us bad language he hath given us a good advantage for having said that secundum priora statuta was the better and therefore the antienter and truer reading of this Canon he hath not only justified our appeal to former Canons concerning this matter but hath also confuted his own new exposition of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is this secundum proprias regulas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim non tantùm significat terminum sed etiam regulam ac praeceptum For though we may admit that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Regula yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been an improper translation in Greek for secundum proprias regulas in Latine in which language the Canon was first penned because it would have been equivocal and therefore unexprâ—…ssive and uncertain But it must have been an impossible translation of these Latine words secundum priores regulas for all the world cannot make priores signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more then priority signifie property And yet he confidently avoweth that secundum priora statuta was the better reading of the two The upshot of all is this whether we look to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the Latine secundum propria statuta for priora was a meer device I will not say a forgerie If we will look upon certainties not upon conjectures the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import terminum temporis not terminum orationis a determination of time not of law and so likewise the Latine word statutum or the whole Greek Church did not rightly understand their own tongue and the Africane Church did not intend their Canon should be rightly understood wherefore I hope you will pardon this my Descant upon Binius because you see I have done it not to shew my self a Grammarian but a Divine not a bold Critick but an honest Church-man For I have followed that sense of the Africane Canon which I find given it not only by the Greek but also by the Latine Church And therefore this your Canon may not bear that sense which you have given it because it may not contradict all other Canons of the same Africane Church according to the judgement of all Greek and Latine Interpreters And yet this seems to me the best defence you have made for Siricius whereby you have taught us Protestants very ingenuously though very Covertly to believe That a Pope may need
an Antecedent that is a meer nothing but pretending to be somthing it is no longer a meer nothing for it is a Lye which is worse then nothing I say A Consequence without the rules of Logick is a Lye and I am forced to say it as a Christian Divine That I may not betray the Truth of Christ nor bely the Church of Christ For how many Truths doth the Church of Christ teach me to believe which are Divine Truths only as they are Logical Consequences whereas it is palpable A Logical Consequence cannot be a Truth but an Unlogical Consequence must be a Lye I will instance but in one The Monothelite who said Christ had but one will is condemned for an Heretick by the sixt general Council and yet it is only a Logical Consequence That Christ had two wills from this Antecedent That two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Whence cometh this Syllogism Two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Christ had two compleat rational Natures sc. the nature of God and the nature of man Therefore Christ had two wills Here is a Truth inferred by Logical Consequence which hath a Being in it self and chargeth them for Hereticks who deny it because it is a Divine Truth whereas such inferences as are only from Prudential not Logical Consequences have no being save in the fancy of him that makes them and therefore Charges all with Heresie that believe them because they are not Divine Truths but only humane imaginations For it is an heresie to believe that for a divine Truth which God hath not taught in his Word neither explicitly nor implicitly neither as a doctrine nor as a deduction neither as a Theological Principle nor as a Logical Conclusion For such a belief doth not only set up Fancy or rather Falsity instead of Truth or man instead of God for the author of our Faith but it also disbelieveth that Truth whereof God is the undoubted Author For he which believeth that which God hath not taught concerning any Truth must needs in some respect not believe that which God hath taught concerning the same Truth as in this particular case concerning the remission of sins He that believeth remissionn of sins in the next world which God hath not taught must needs not fully believe remission of sins in this world which God hath taught For what sins are left to be remitted there cannot be remitted here so I must not believe remission of all sins here though upon never so earnest a repentance never so true a faith that I may believe the remission of some sins hereafter So dangerous a thing is it for any Divine to set up rules of prudence rather of imprudence instead of rules of Logick that is to say Phantastical additions instead of rational deductions even as dangerous as to teach men to believe a Lye instead of believing Truth For what is inferred from any Text of Scripture by Logical consequence is a Theological conclusion and may not be disbelieved without an affront to God the Author of Logick that is of Reason But what is inferred without Logick is not a Theological conclusion but a Phantastical Addition and may not be received by us either as Christians because it comes not from God nor as men because it comes not by Reason And I think such a conclusion is that of the same Cardinals lib. 3. de euch c. 7. Per divinam Potentiam posse ab homine tolli facultatem intelligendi interim ut maneat Homo That by Gods Almighty power may be taken from a man the faculty of understanding and he may still remain a man A Consequence doubtless from the first Article of our belief I believe in God the Father Almighty but inferred only by the Rules of this new prudence not by the Rules of old sound Logick and therefore to be looked upon as a meer fiction for it supposeth an Impotency in Omnipotency as if God could deny himself working contradiction and making a man not a man a reasonable creature not a reasonable creature at the same time and in the same respect But however this Consequence hath found us out a man fit to believe other such like Consequences For such Consequences are clearly without Reason and therefore the man that can believe them had need be a man without Reason 9. But it is high time to leave your Cardinal whom yet I had not traced so far had it not been to follow your footsteps and since our Countrey-man could not his own Countrey-man shall stop his mouth For Saint Thomas of Aquine as good an Italian as himself and a far better Divine seeth here no remission of sins in the next world but proveth the contrary both out of Saint Augustine and out of Saint Chrysostom in his Commentary upon this Text that is out of the two chiefest Doctors both of the Greek and of the Latine Church And he sets down Saint Chrysostoms exposition with the approbation not only of its Truth but also of its perspicuity Chrysostomus valdè planè exponit dicit c. Saint Chrysostom expounds this place very plainly and saith That we are here told of a twofold blasphemy one against the Son of God calling him a wine-bibber and for this they had some excuse because of their ignorance The other against the Spirit of God calling him Beelzebub and for this they had no excuse because they were sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures that evil spirits could not be cast out by an evil spirit but by the good Spirit that is the Spirit of God and therefore this blasphemy should not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come which saith he is spoken upon this ground Because some sins are punished in this world some in the next some both in this and that The sins punished only in this world are those of Penitents yet your Purgatory will needs punish them and only them in the next world The sins punished only in the next world are those of miscreants of whom it is said Job 21. 13. In a moment they go down into Hell But the sin which is punished in this world and in the next is the sin against the Holy Ghost Therefore it is said concerning that sin â—…t shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come Non quia sit remissio in futuro sed quia poena erit in futuro unde sensus est quod non remittitur quin poenam patiatur in hoc seculo in futuro Not because there is any forgiveness in the next world but because there shall be punishment in the next world wherefore the meaning is It shall not be forgiven but he shall suffer punishment for it both in this and in the next world Thus the Angelical Doctor expoundeth this Text and his Exposition stood good a long time and was generally received in the Latine Church for your own Ferus hath followed it saying
Minus dicit plus significat vult enim quod non solum in futuro sed etiam hic punitur tale peccatum He speaks little but he signifies much for his meaning is That such a sin is punished not only in the next world but also in this 10. Your late Jesuites tell us of a remission of the sin with a reservation of the punishment but your old Divines take remitting for not punishing without which in truth it cannot be remission For God doth not afford us a less forgiveness then he doth require us to afford one another and that is so to forgive the sin as not once to think of punishing or of revenging it For indeed to forgive sin is nothing else in its own nature but not to reserve it to be punished and because God punished our Saviour for our sins it is said He made him sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. For so Christ took our sin upon him that is to say not our Guilt but our Punishment and he took it upon himself that he might not leave it upon us For he was wounded for our transgressions Isa. 53. 5. He was bruised for our iniquities that is He was punished that we might be acquitted The chastisement of our peace was upon him that is His chastisement was our Peace and with his stripes we are healed And blessed be God we are so for sure it is we could never be healed with our own stripes it is his wounds work our cure and not our own yet I will not follow Scotus who to confute them that denyed contingency did say It is pitty but such men should be under torments till they should confess it were possible for them not to be tormented I will not say in like manner It is pitty but they who deny our souls to be healed with our Saviours stripes should themselves be beaten with many stripes till they should confess that their own stripes could not heal them for then I know they would be under the lash for ever But I must say That it were just with God to put them under such a confutation For they are under a gross denyal not of a Metaphysical but of a Theological Truth and that of such a Truth as hath joyned Gods Mercy and Justice both together in mans salvation and therefore such a Truth as may not be denyed without great uncharitableness to man and greater unthankfulness to God I think few of those men who now most stand upon this new Divinity of remission in the next world to be obtained by our own stripes and others suffrages because it brings them so good a market would be willing at their deaths to venture their souls upon it for fear it should bring them as bad a remedy And I cannot but wonder at your Cardinal who hath said concerning this Text Hinc colligunt Sancti Patres quaedam peccata remitti in futuro seculo per orationes suffragia Ecclesiae Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 4. Hence the holy Fathers do gather that some sins are forgiven in the next world by the prayers and the suff ages of the Church for he could not say this if Saint Thomas said true without putting Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom out of the Catalogue of the Fathers 11. I know our Country-man Backet was swayed by Saint Augustine to conclude for Purgatory but I fear either he mis-applyed or mis-understood Saint Augustine or Saint Augustine mis-understood himself For Saint Augustine hath most dogmatically determined against it lib. 13. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. In requie sunt animae piorum à corpore separatae Impiorum autem poenas luunt donec istarum ad aeternam vitam illarum vero ad aeternam mortem corpora reviviscant The souls of the righteous are in rest of the unrighteous in torment after they are separated from the flesh till the bodies of the one shall be raised again to eternal life the bodies of the other to eternal death 12. But he that will not teach Fancy instead of Faith must take God for the Author and Gods Church for the Pillar and ground of that Truth which he teacheth else he may chance rove in uncertainties to the worlds end especially if he shall take Metaphorical allusions for dogmatical conclusions and florid declâ—…mations for solid determinations as Divines now usually are on all sides in their citations out of â—…he Fathers upon any argument making some of them speak against their own doctrine to speak for new devices and in effect to write contradictions rather then not write for the great Diana of these clamorous Ephesians Therefore I will not here examine the citations of the Fathers for surely A Christian Divine is bound to teach no other Faith for Christian then such as hath been manifestly declared in the Word of Christ and generally and constantly professed by the Catholick Church of Christ And your Cardinal finds not so muth as the word Purgatory in all the Scriptures nor in any one general Council till the fourth of Laterane under nnocent the third above twelve hundred years after Christ which was as far from being Oecumenical as Rome is from being all the Christian world and if it had been so yet hath only furnished us with Consultations not with Canons or Constitutions your own Platina being my witness who saith thus in the life of Innocent the third Venere multa in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things were debated but nothing was openly decreed in this Council and I hope you will not say that they passed their decrees in private or by any underhand dealing An observation that may weaken some of your other Tenents no less then Purgatory which you obtrude upon the consciences of men as established by the Canons of this Council which in truth made no Canons at all if your own Platina be worth belief 13. Next I meet with your Cardinals Reasons whereof some do rather put then prove this new Article of Faith contrary to Aquinas who allows not of Ratio ponens but only of Ratio probans radicem fidei par 1. qu. 32. art 1. ad 2. arguing not so much from the authority of Gods Word as against it As particularly that reason lib. 1. cap. 11. Intelligibile non est quomodo verbum ociosum ex naturâ suâ dignum sit perpetuo odio Dei maneat igitur quaedam esse peccata venialia solâ temporaâ—…i poenâ digna No man can understand how an idle word is in its own nature worthy of Gods eternal hatred therefore let it stand for a Truth that some sins are venial and only worthy of temporal punishment A strange way of arguing for a Divine who should not exercise his Readers curiosity but establish his conscience Christ saith That for every idle word men shall give account in the day of Judgement to make men repent before hand even of their least sins that judging themselves they may not be
judged of him Bellarmine saith It is not intelligible how a man should be judged for an idle word and therefore it must be taken for such a picro such a little sin as cannot come into Judgement An excellent Doctor sure to correct his master as if he had wanted Truth and to corrupt his Scholars as if they did not want Repentance 14. For this Text if rightly urged will rather ptove no sin venial in its own nature but only by Gods mercy For if not an idle word is venial then much less a greater sin but not an idle word is venial for that shall be accounted for at the last day if not repented of before at least virtually in the contrition if not actually in the confession Thus he first makes bold with Gods Justice proving some sins to be venial that he may find or make matter for Purgatory and afterwards he teacheth others to make as bold with Gods Mercy that he may the better follow his proof for he telleth us that a man may die a true penitent for no other hath hopes of Purgatory and yet die with a resolution of abiding in sin Potest quis dùm moritur habere voluntatem per gendi in peccato veniali igitur tale peccatum deleri in morte non potest A man when he dies may have the purpose of continuing in a venial sin therefore such a sin is not to be abolished by death He means a man in the state of grace for no other is capable of the benefit of his purging flames So he cares not to pull down repentance that he may set up Purgatory whereas sure it more suits with conscientious and sound Divinity to pull down venial sins to set up repentance For it is not possible that man should die in the state of true repentance who dyeth with a purpose of retaining any sin in his soul that displeaseth God for by that very purpose he prefers his own will and pleasure above Gods and therefore loves not God with all his heart and consequently is not a true believer because not a true lover and not a true penitent because not a true believer Surely this cannot be a doctrine of Piety which teacheth Impenitency since no man now hath hopes of being righteous by his innocency but only by his repentance Nor had Saint Augustine such a light esteem of venial sins if we may believe Gratian Par. 1. dist 25. cap. 3. For this was his doctrine Nullum peccatum est adeò veniale quod non fiat criminale dum placet No sin is so venial but it may be made mortal if it please the sinner and this it must do if he hath a will and purpose to continue in it And Consequently if he die having such a will and purpose his venial sin is become mortal and by that means is made fewel for Hell not for Purgatory And so venial sin is also in danger of falling which is the other supporter of this your new building Isto enim fundamento posito quod tollitur satisfactio descrimen peccati mortalis à veniali necessario sequitur nullum esse Purgatorium Bell. lib. 1. c. 2. This foundation being laid that there is not satisfaction for sin sc. of our own and that there is no venial sin sc. in it self it must follow there can be no Purgatory And this foundation may very safely be laid by us because it is without if not against the Text that you have laid the other foundation 15. I know your Cardinal alledgeth many more places of the Bible besides those three formerly mentioned to prove this new Article of Faith But there is so much straining of the Scripture in his allegations I will not say wresting because I hope it was not to his destruction that he comes under that condemnation of the wise man There is an exquisite subtiltâ—… and the same is unjust Eccles. 19. 25. Men may by their wit and exquisite subtilty make Gods Word seem to say any thing but it is unjust for them so to do and they must be unrighteous in so doing and had need be very penitent for that unrighteousness For if we shall give an accounâ—… for every idle word of our own much more for endeavouring to make Gods Word partake of our idleness And indeed Gods Word being to be interpreted according to the analogie of Faith Rom. 12. 6. it is fitter for Infidels then for Christians to seek after such interpretations thereof as are not agreeable with that analogie But herein your writers are partly excusable for being over-ruled by the determination of your Church to set up a new Article of Faith which is not reducible to any of those in the Apostles Creed they have been after a sort constrained to interpret the Scriptures according to that new Article lately made by your Church and not according to the Analogie of that Faith which was at first left by the Apostles For sure it will pose an ordinary understanding to shew how your Purgatory is consistent with the Communion of Saints and with the forgiveness of sins which are both in that Creed since they cannot be of the Communion of Saints who are in a separation from God and perchance under the power of the Devil nor have they obtained remission of sins who are still under torments for them Nor can I see how this doctrine doth agree with that which is the very marrow and substance of the whole Gospel to wit That we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. and That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. For if there be a punishment reserved the trespass is imputed But 〈◊〉 there be an actual reconciliation aâ—… doubtless there is for true Penitents anâ—… true Believers then surely no punishment is reserved and no future satisfaction is necessary and so we may fully believe the remission of sins according to ouâ—… Creed And no present separation is possible and so we may as fully believe thâ—… Communion of Saints The woman thaâ—… came behinde our blessed Saviour anâ—… touched but the border of his garment was healed immediately Luke 8. 43. Dâ—… not you say A soul shall come not behiâ—… but before him look him in the face naâ—… go into his bosom to dwell in him and he again dwell in that soul and yet it shaâ—… not be healed unless you will recall thâ—… of the Psalmist Bless the Lord O my soul who forgiveth all thine iniquities who heaâ—…eth all thy diseases Psalm 103. 3. For whâ—… is the disease of the soul but sin or hoâ—… is that healed but by forgiveness Hoâ—… is sin forgiven if it must be satisfied oâ—… how is the soul healed if it must be tormented for sure not healing but wounding cometh from torment He that took upon him our flesh that he might save us did thereby shew He more willed our salvation then our flesh and how
tanta varietas orta est ex faecunditate radicis Halal c. He finding the positive or proper sense so diverse and repugnant according to Grammatical construction took that for the most proper which was most agreeable with the comparative and with the illative sence and that was this He put no trust in his servants and his Angels he charged with folly For this is his exposition Melius in communi accipitur pro Sanctis sive Angelis sive hominibus nam nemo fit tà m inconcussae constantisque naturae qui mutari non possit This place is best taken of the Saints in general whether they be Angels or men for none of them all is of so unshaken a temper but he may be changed Comparing both places together and sinding in the fourth Chapter first servants then Angels in the fifteenth first Saints then heavens which Targum expounds Angels and weighing the intent and purpose of both places was to beat Job from an opinion of his own rightousness and to make him humble himself before his Maker He gives this for the most proper Grammatical or positive sense oâ—… the words He put no trust in his servants and his Angels he charged with folly because this interpretation was most agreeable to the comparative sense of the words as they were compared with themselves or with their parallel place according to the connexion of the thing spoken And also because it was most agreeable to the illative sense of the words according to rational deduction from the intent of the Speaker So that the comparative and the illative senses did here shew which among so many was to be taken for the true positive sense A thing much to be observed to keep illiterate men from turning Interpreters of the Text who have not Grammer enough to understand the literal or positive sense of any one place of Scripture in the language it was written much less Logick enough to find out the comparative or the illative sense from other places yet more to be observed to keep learned men from quarreling with such interpretations which though seemingly different in words yet do really agree in all these three senses as doth our new English Translation though you are pleased to say It is contrary to it self and to all divine Scripture For Pineda had observed a greater difference in your old Latine translation both from it self saying in one place Non sunt stabiles in another Nemo immutabilis and from the new which said in both places Non credet yet finding the Difference to be verbal not real in words only not in â—…rse joyns all together in his Exposition because all this varitie did unanimously tend to one and the same Truth even to shew the instability and unsteadâ—…ness of Gods best Saints and Servants whether Angels or men whether in heaven or in earth 5. For saith he Job 15. 15. Pagninus ex Hebraeo Septuaginta Sanctis suis non credet i. Nemo est qui fidelis servus ex naturae suae merito ratione haberi usquequaque possit A verbo Aman quod est credere tanquam rei fideli constantâ—… aut fidele esse constans cui credi debeat Pagnine from the Hebâ—…ew and the Septuagint renders the place thus He putteth no trust in his Saints that is He hath none that of himself or by the merit of his nature ought to be accounted in all respects his true and faithful servant from the word Aman which is to put trust as to a thing faithful and constant or to be faithful and constant such as ought to be trusted And again Yea the heavens are not clean in his sight In re igitur clarissimâ perfectissimâ videt Deus maculas quae nos praetereunt Sic igitur de nostri aniâ—…i maculis existimare oportet Therefore God seeâ—… some 〈◊〉 and blemishes which we cannot see in the most clear and perfect substances And so ought we to think of the spots and bâ—…emishes of our souls Surely the Saints cannot be more quick-sighted to see further into our souls then we our selves and as sure that we shall be judged for those blemishes of our souls which neither they nor we our selves do see For God seeth them and will condemn them and us for them unless his Son exempt us from the condemnation How then can we reasonably much less Religiously pray to Saints to prepare us for Judgement by discovering to us our sins which they cannot see and much less to support us in Judgement by taking from us those sins which they cannot expiate So fully convincing is this Text against praying to Saints as it is expounded by a great Author of your own 6. And now Sir I hope our new translation He put no trust in his servants though in outward appearance it recede from our old and from your vulgar Latine may pass for current since it is avowed and attested not only by the Hebrew and the Greek but also by your own Pineda But your exposition of the old may not pass for current He found no steafastness in his servants that is in the bad Angels For how were they his servants after they had disclaimed and renounced his service and were become his enemies How were they his Saints when they were in actual Rebellion against their King How were they his Saints as the parallel place calls them after they were become obstinate sinners But I suppose you will little regard my arguments for you generally have a deaf ear for us Protestants though you will not have a dumb mouth Therefore again I produce your own Pineda against you who will either find acceptance with you as a Divine or force it from you as a Jesuite And he telling us that some understand this Text in particular of good others of bad Angels concludes in effect it is best understood in general of All Angels for so are his words Sensus uterque ad rem facit nam quicquid lucis laudis gloriationis in Angelis reperiri potest à Deo datum constitutum inditum est ex se nihil habent nisi insaniam negative i. nullam ex se sapientiam nullam virtutem bonitatem nullam Both interpretations make to one and the same purpose for whatsoever light or praise or exultation is in the good Angels it is all from God there 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primary signification Laudare gloriari vocem attollere From themselves they have nothing but madness negatively that is no wisdom no vertue no goodness there 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its secundarie signification by way of Antiphrasis Nequam pravum esse gloriâ nominis splendore indignum Here is then very much though you say here is nothing agaâ—…nst praying to Angels and Saints confirmed in grace and glory For what is their confirmation to my Religion or how comes my Religion which is the homage I owe to my Creator made communicable to a creature Be
Aquinas his exposition of them which was for praying to Saints He falls into this absurdity to say that at that time this Invocation was both in the custome and in the faith of the Church Tum in consuetudine tum in fide fuisse receptam which though Bellarmine be zealous to affirm concerning the Invocation of Angels yet he is not so hardy as to affirm concerning the Invocation of Saints A Tenent that creates their contradictions cannot invite our assent may not have our belief And the rather because Hieronymus Osorius a Bishop but not a Jesuit of their own Religion if at least the Religion of Jesuits may be called the same with the Religion of the Bishops in the Church of Rome in his Paraphrase upon Job gives us a quite contrary exposition of these words saying Denuntia quaeso alicui praestanti viro testimonium animadverte an sit aliquis qui tecum sentiat Ad quem enim ex Sanctis hominibus adibis qui tuae sententiae suffragari audeat Declare now to some excellent men your testimony and observe if there be any that hath the same thoughts with you For unto whom amongst all the Holy men can you go that will dare to be of your opinion This man was trained up in the Invocation of Saints as well as Bellarmine yet could not see how to ground it upon this Text For he expounds it not of Saints in Heaven but of Saints on Earth as Abenezra had expounded it before him Ex cujus ore sanctorum qui in terrâ sunt talia unquam audisti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Saints which are on earth out of whose mouth among all the Saints which are on the Earth did you ever hear such things But we may very well grant the words are rather to be understood of Holy Angels then of Holy men because he had spoken of the Angels a little before yet even so Bellarmines inference will not be made good that it was then the custome to call upon the Holy Angels for their Patronage tunc fuisse consuetudinem invocandi patrocinium Sanctorum Angelorum For the context will then require this sense as it is delivered by the most judicious and learned Mercerus Voca Angelorum aliquem eum inclama an vero eorum vel minimus tibi respondebit te suo sermone alloquio dignabitur Nullum sanè reperies Vides quantum à Deo distes quum ne Angeli quidem longè Deo inferiores te sint allocuturi si ad eos clames ob distantiam quae inter te est illos Call any one of the Angels and cry unto him and see if the meanest of them will answer thee or vouchsafe thee one word of discourse Thou will find none Thou seest then how far thou art distant from God when not so much as his Angels who are so far below him will answer thee if thou call to them because of the distance which is betwixt them and thee This is most probably the meaning of the words from the context for Eliphaz had a little before debased the excellencies of the Angels in regard of God and now comes to debase the excellencies of men in regard of the Angels all the scope and intent of his discourse tending to shew the emptiness and vanity of the Creature that so he might make Job humble himself before his Creator as hath been shewed a little before sc. Paragraph 3. 4 5 6. out of your own Pineda 11. But we must take to us the whole Armour of God that we may be able to withstand the assaults of men so furiously assaulting us and so watchfully besetting us To the Law and to the Testimony if others speak not according to that word 't is because there is no light no truth in them I ask then Doth this Invocation of Saints agree with the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed or with the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue I trow not For the one teacheth me to believe in one God the other not to call upon him in whom I have not believed and cannot believe And 't is clear that Invocation of Saints is against the whole current of devotions derived to us by the Spirit of God through the channel either of the Old or of the New Testament For there is scarce any prayer in either which our Saviour Christ who hath taught it us doth not pray with us for if he do not 't is in vain for us to pray since God heareth not our prayers but for his Intercession And therefore the Invocations that are used in the Psalms a peculiar Book of Prayers and Praises made by Gods own Holy Spirit for the use of his Church and constantly used by it in all ages are generally first spoken in the Person of Christ as appears in that he applied to himself very many of them as my God my God why hast thou for saken me Psal. 22. 1. and Into thy hands I commit my spirit Psal. 31. 6. and being first spoken in the Person of Christ are the more strongly recommended to all good Christians as composed by his Spirit sanctified by his lips and impowered and strengthned by his Intercession For Christus realis and Christus mysticus Christ personally and Christ mystically considered do constitute but one Communion of Saints He is the Head they are his Body and therefore they must pray in sin for in Schisme if they pray not to him as their Head for that is not to pray in Christs Communion as also in vain because in sin if they pray without their Head for that is not to pray in Christs Intercession Wherefore it being an undoubted truth that Christ was made obedient to the whole Law for man it necessarily follows that praying to Saints cannot be a duty of the Law but we must say That Christ the eternal Son of God prayd to Saints that is the Creator to the Creature And if it be not a duty of the Law how can it be command in the Prophets since they are but expounders not enlargers of the Law How in this Prophet Job whose book was penned in Hebrew by the Law-giver himself and only in Arabick by Job as saith your own Bellarmine de Script Eccl. cap. de Job because it is the judgement of the Catholick Church that Moses was the first Ecclesiastical Writer or the first Amanuensis and penneman of the Holy Ghost which by the way is another argument to prove that Bellarmine did not could not believe this Text of Holy Job was to be interpreted as a command Ad aliquem Sanctorū respice Look to one of the Saints but as a question or expostulation Ad quem sanctorum respicies To which of the Saints wilt thou look for without doubt so great a Scholar could not believe That Moses did bid us to do that in Job which he did forbid us to do in Exodus For the Commandement which saith Thou shall have no other Gods
be erected to Angels because they may not be worshipped And what do Papists say less but that there is a God above the Angels although they worship them so that if the acknowledgement of a God above the Angels be a good proof that the Cherinthians did not 't is as good a proof that the Papists do not or at least should not worship Angels and in this particular we may all joyn hands and hearts together as fellow Protestants and our poor ejected Ministers may say to your great Triumphant Doctors We would to God that not only you but also all that hear you and us this day were both almost and altogether such as we are except these Bondâ—… For if you would turn Protestants with us in the True worship we should not need turn Papists with you in the Publick worship of Almighty God But till you have a True worship according to the three first Commandements we cannot envy your publick worship according to the fourth Thus you see Baronius his Proof is not so great as his clamor against Theodoret yet upon this proof alone doth he infer this Conclusion Angelos venerari non Haereticorum sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit The worshipping of Angels was a Custom not of Haereticks but of the Catholick Church Sure if it had been so the Greek and Latine Interpreters upon St. Paul to the Colossians would not so unanimously have condemned it For if this false worship had gotten generally into their practice it would also have gotten into their Doctrine as it hath since into yours which makes all your late writers so zealous for it and so copious in it particularly Baronius who had not the patience to stay longer then the sixtyeth year after our blessed Saviours Incarnation to find out this Custome and had the confidence as soon as he had found it to foist it upon the Catholick Church because he saw it was practised in his own And the like favour hath he shewed to all your other present corruptions whether in Doctrine or in Practice bringing them all into the first century of years after Christ that what their own grosseness diminished from their native Verity his wit and learning might add to their pretended Antiquity But concerning this your present corruption in Practice I mean the worshipping of Angels he concludes thus Id verò quà m purè Sanctè religiosè c. How purely how holily how religiously it hath been alwayes practised in the Church I have shewed in my annotations upon the Roman Martyrologie on the 8. of May I was big with expectation of some invincible arguments in his Martyrology till I had consulted it but there I found only some several Apparitions of St. Michael the Archangel no proof at all that the Church had worshipped him save only Baronius his own word authentical enough perchance with some of you as it was with Binius to bear down poor Theodorete but I hope not authentical enough with any to bear down St. Paul Therefore in vain doth your Goliah speak of Purity in that which St. Paul imputes to a fleshly mind then which nothing is more impure and of Holiness in that which St. Paul saith beguils us of our reward for unholiness it all can do â—…o more And of Religion in that of which St. Paul saith And holding not the Head for we cannot well say more of the greatest Irreligion And as vainly doth he impute that to the Catholick Church which is so full of Impurity Unholiness and Irreligion And this manner of arguing is without doubt good in it self for it makes humane reason subordinate to Divine Authority as to an Infinitly higher Reason labouring to prove what God hath commanded us to believe even that his Catholick Church is pure and Holy and because it is so admits not any such gross practice of Impurity unholiness For what is made sin in it self by Gods Word cannot by the wit oâ—… men be made holiness in Gods Church But if this manner of arguing were not good in its own nature yet it were good against Baronius who useth no other argument to confute Theodorets Authority but only his own deductions confounding those two Topicks which are so distinct in themselves even Humane Reason and Humane Authority proving the Cherinthian Haereticks did not worship Angels because he had found a reason why they should not whereas if he would indeed have acted the part of a true Historâ—…an or of a good Divine he should have conâ—…uted Theodorets Authority by some greater and better Authority But that he saw was impossible for him to do for the whole stream of Ecclesiastical writers run with a full torrent and tide against him and we may well guess he was very much put to his shifts when he was forced to put so strange a gloss as he did upon the Council of Laodicea for whereas the Fathers there said Can. 35. It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to name the Angels sc. in their prayers as calling upon them instead of calling upon God for that were to be guilty of a secret Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to forsake the Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in St. Pauls language was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not holding the Head Baronius is pleased to say That the Canon is to be interpreted of those false Angels which the Heathen worshipped falsorum Angelorum eorum nimirum quos venerarentur idololatrae venerationem prohibuit alludens fortasse ad Genii cultuÌ„ c. Bar. an 60. nu 23. He might as well have said that the Council made Canons for Heathens and not for Christians though they expresly say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God And that they had forbid such men to leave the Church who were never of the Chuch had called them secret Idolaters who were most open Idolaters had required them not to forsake Christ who had never come near Christ and in one word had called that worshipping of Angels which was indeed worshipping of Divels Such dangerous Rocks are skillfull Pilots cast upon who will not stear by the Card of Gods Word but let their own phansie fill their Sailes for that is little better then a tempestuous wind called Euroclidon which will drive them up and down either in Adria or in Tiber till they have made Shipwrack of the Truth And if you think me overlavish in thâ—…s expression pray consider its a less immodesty in me to put a fancy upon your Baronius then t was in him to put a frenzy upon the Council Is not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be a slave to a received opinion why should that man think to overmaster anothers judgement who can be contented to enslave his own 18. I now come to your last argument for praying to Angels which is this least we should ungratefully slight them contrary to Gods command Exod.
way our errours have been so many against this Soul-saving Truth How far this may concern the grand factions of Christendome I will not determine but sure I am they whose Religion is rebellion and whose faith is faction have no other Truth but their own phansies or imaginations and consequently can have no other God but their own Perverseness Yet we doubt not but as Aarons Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians so will Religion at last swallow up rebellion and Faith will swallow up Faction and Truth will swallow up Phansie and Wisedome will swallow up Folly if not so as to be acknowledged of her enemies yet so as to be justified of her Children For the Apostle hath said most positively though more comfortably But they shall proceed no further for their folly shall be manifest to all And he that hath promised concerning the Preachers of his truth hath much more promised concerning the Truths they are to Preach especially those which so nearly concern the salvation of Souls They shall not be removed into a Corner any more But thine eyes shall see thy teachers and thine ears shall hear a word behind thee saying This is the way walk â—…e in it when ye turn to the right hand and when ye turn to the left Isa. 30. 20 21. 2. But if the Lovers of Gods Truth will hope to obtain this promise of a word saying This is the way they must endeavour to obey that command see that ye walk circumspectly Eph. 5. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Latine Church in the Text of Sixtus 5. See therefore how circumspectly ye walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek Church in the Text of St. Chrysostome See therefore circumspectly how ye walk Men that will not wander in the by-paths of errour must have their eyes in their heads to look about them to see which is the way of Truth and they must keep their eyes open in their heads to look before them to walk in that way If they want a good circumspection to look about them they may chance never come into the right way if they want a good Prospection to look before them they may soon go out of it self-conceit is a great enemy to circumspection self-interest is a great enemy to prospection and 't is commonly one of these two if not both that makes so many Christians not walk in the way of Truth but choose faction or phansie instead of Faith This may seem to be far fetcht but it comes very neer my purpose and I pray God it may yet come neerer some mens consciences For they who licentiously abuse this Doctrine of justification by faith in Christ choose phansie instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into wantonness They who wilfully oppose it to set up their own righteousness choose faction instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into nothing for as mans age so his righteousness is as nothing in respect of God All my goods are nothing unto thee Psal. 16. 2. Both alike with Elymas the Sorcerer seek to turn away others from the Faith and may justly expect the hand of God upon them selves to make them so blind as not to see the Sun of Righteousness for ever God of his infinite mercy take away this mist and darkâ—…ess from before the eyes of all his servants but especially of all his Seers for if the light of the world be darkness how great will be the darkness thereof If we delight in the inner darkness here how shall we escape the outer darkness hereafter If they were a rebellious people lying children children that would not hear the law of the Lord who said to the Seers See not Isa. 30. 9 10. then what are those Seeâ—…s who say to themselves See not who shut their eyes against the light and shut their hearts against the Power of this Truth But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith Gal. 3. 11. See the light of this Truth for it is evident see we the Power of this Truth for even the just shall not live by his works but by his Faith The just shall live by Faith q. d. The justest must that is hath that justice whereby he shall live eternally from his Faith not from his works from his Saviours righteousness not from his own God speaking this soul-saving Truth so plainly to the understanding and pressing it so powerfully upon the Conscience bids all Christian Divines admire his goodness in shewing the great need and benefit of Christ not discover their own wickedness in seeking to undermine the very foundation of Christianity Accordingly St. Chrys. expounds that precept see ye walk circumspectly of the Ministers of the Gospel Observe saith he how the Apostle doth forewarn and forearm the Preachers of Gods Truth againg all the oppositions of their and its enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole Towns and Cities waged war against them which the Canonist signally expressed after this manner Laici clericis Oppidò sunt infesti yet they are furnished with no other armour but this to defend themselves see that ye walk ciâ—…rcumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Give your enemies no other occasion of their enmity but onely from your Preaching which is an occasion rather taken then given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let that alone be the ground of their enmity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man be able to accuse you of any thing else and then your adversaries will accuse God not you An admirable gloss and seasonable for this Atheistical Age wherein men will not believe the Truth because they have pleasure in unrighteousness though St. Paul tell them plainly that they shall be damned for their unbelief That they all mâ—…ght be damned who believe not the Truth but â—…ad pleasure in unrighteousness 2 Thes. 2. 12. 4. It is the pleasure in unrighteousness which makes either the people not rightly believe Gods Truth or the Priests not rightly preach it and particularly this Truth of Justification by Faith which some of your Priests care not to preach because it will spoil their markets and some of our Priests had need preach more warily for fear it should spoil our people It is onely pleasure in unrighteousness that hath hitherto opposed this Truth in its doctrine or poisoned this Truth in its belief For why should a Truth so clearly revealed in the word of Christ so neerly concerning the glory of Christ so highly condâ—…ceing to the salvation of Christians be so violently opposed by some of your Priests in its doctrine but that it pulleth down the prices of Masses and Indulgences stopping the hands of silly and simple but yet liberal and munificent votaries Hence it is that Demetrius-like for love of gain they raise an uproar against St. Paul for it is not against us it is against him or rather Gods Spirit in him the main Preacher
to differ from the whole scope of the Law and of the Gospel since it is undeniable that Christ with his righteousnesse is the end of the Law and the subject of the Gospel This is St. Peters Divinitie Act. 10. 43. To Him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins i. e. in one word shall be justified And indeed what were all the propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices of the Law but so many types of Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse who is the Propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 2. so that in truth this part of the Ceremonial Law was little other than a dark representation of the Gospel foreshewing in shadows what the Gospel was to declare in substance that the Lamb of God should tâ—…ke away the sinnes of the world whence St. Paul ascribeth the Justification of the Jew and of the Gentile to one and the same sacrifice Aâ—… Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Their sacrifices did expiate sin only by vertue of this sacrifice And this is that which the same Apostle proves to the Jews in his Epistle which he peculiarly sent to them the sum whereof is briefly this That Jesus Christ whom he did preach to them in that Epistle being the eternal Sonne of God coessential and coequal with his Father perfect God and perfect man in one and the same person was that Messiah which God from the beginning of time had promised and in the fulnesse of time had sent into the world as the only King to Govern as the only Priest to reconcile as the only Prophet to instruct his Church according to the Covenant made before the Law to the types and figures given under the Law and all the predictions explications additions and confirmations by the Prophets so that unlesse they would reject all the documents given to them in their own Law and by their own Prophets throughout all the Old Testament they must thankfully acknowledge heartily embrace and dutifully obey Jesus Christ as the sole Author of their redemption and salvation or to speak yet neerer to our debate though not to Gods Truth as the sole author of Justification to redeem them from the guilt and of sanctification to redeem them from the bondage of their sins This is the Doctrine of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews which is briefly delivered in the first words and confirmed and enlarged in the sequele of that Epistle God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son There 's our blessed Saviour as Prophet to instruct the Church Whom he appointed heir of all things by whom also he made the worlds There he is as King to govern the Church which is his inheritance as man his workmanship as God When he had by himself purged our sins There he is as Priest to offer himself for a Sacrifice to reconcile the Church And all the Epistle after this in the doctrinal part of it is nothing else but an enlargement upon these Three Heads shewing the necessity of Christs three Offices and the excellency of his Person according to each Office viz. according to his Kingly Office in the first and second according to his Prophetical Office in the third and fourth Chapters and according to his Priestly Office in the rest till the nineteenth Verse of the tenth Chapter After which He treateth of those Offices and Duties which belong to Christians and that in the same method or manner as he had before of the Offices belonging unto Christ first briefly summing them up together and then fully and largely explaining them For so cap. 10. v. 22. He exhorts us to Faith and a good Conscience v. 23. To a firm hope and undaunted profession v. 24. To charity and to good works v. 25. To the publike exercise of all those duties of Piety which God had appointed for the nourishment and the increase of Faith Hope and Charity and the rest of the Epistle afterwards is but an enlargement upon these Will you say because he speaks so much for good works in the latter part of his Epistle He therefore requires them to Justification as well as Faith Look on the tenth Chapter you will soon recall that saying For there it is proved That the Law Sacrifices could not take away sin that is could not justifie those who offered them by two irresistible Topicks ab absurdo ab impossibili First From the command of the Law enjoyning those Sacrifices to be repeated every year which had been needless and therefore absurd if the worshippers could have been purged by them so as to have had no more Conscience of sin vers 23. Secondly From the nature of the Sacrifices that were offered which were not of so great an efficacy as to purge sin much less of so great an excellency as to expiate it For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins v. 4. And surely he that makes it his work to shew the weakness of the Law-Sacrifices to take away sin could not make it his intent to set up the Gospel-Sacrifices whether of the Heart by Meditation or the Lips by Prayer or of the Hand by Alms-deeds as expiations for our sins For the same Objections still hold against the one which were made against the other The necessity of their repetion is as great the proof of their imperfection is far greater I ask the soul of the most religious Votary that now lives whether he dare say that he ever prayed so devoutly but that either for want of firmness in his attention or of zeal in his affection he needed to ask forgiveness for his Prayers There was nothing of sin in the worst of Legal there is something of sin in the best of Evangelical Sacrifices and how then can it make an atonement for another sin 14. Therefore what ever be the excellency of good works as to Gods acceptance or the efficacy of them as to mans salvation yet they cannot be so excellent as to deserve nor so efficacious as to procure the Justification of a sinner no it cost more to redeem a soul so that He even the most righteous man that is must let that alone for ever Non dabit Deo placationem suam pretium redemptionis animae suae He can give to God what may please his goodness not what may appease his anger or satisfie his Justice He can offer up the homage he cannot offer up the price of his soul Accordingly we are bound to interpret all these and the like Texts concerning good works as declaring their indispensable necessity not as declaring their meritorious efficacy to our salvation as shewing them ot be consequents of the Faith that justifieth not Causes of Justification That honour must
end But the Faith which doth not this as it proceedeth not from the grace of Christ but from the strength of our own conviction and tendeth not to the glory of Christ So it is rather the Faith of Devils than of good Christians and may well let a man go to hell for it may go thither along with him and therefore as it is not the foundation of righteousnesse so it cannot be the foundation of blessednesse Again the same Father tells us That though our blessed Saviour had at first in effect called the woman of Canaan a Dog it is not lawful to take the childrens bread and give it unto Dogs yet when he saw in her soul â—…he fruit of that reproof he changed his dialect and said not O Dog but O Woman great is thy Faith Non ait O canis sed O mulier magna est fides tua mutavit vocabulum quia mutatum vidit affectum That Faith which Christ approved in her had changed the affection and 't is not possible but the Affection should change the Action and therefore St. James feared not to call an actionless Faith or a Faith not working by love a Faith not of Christians but of Devils Fidem non Christianorum sed Daemonum For they are not Christians but Dogs and Devils who persist in ungodly affections and in unrighteous actions nay indeed they are Infidels so farre from having true Faith in Christ that they do not know what is true Faith They rightly affirme saith he that whosoever will not believe in Christ doth in some sort sin against the Holy Ghost and put himself under a necessity of damnation but they do not rightly understand what it is to believe in Christ for that is not to believe as Devils but as Christians not to have a dead Faith but a Faith living and working by love Illud sane non absurde intelligunt eum peccare in spiritum sanctum esse sine veniâ reum aeterni peccati qui usque in finem vitae noluerit credere in Christum sed si rectè intelligerent quid sit credere in Christum non enim hoc est habere Daemonum fidem quae rectè mortua perhibetur sed fidem quae per dilectionem operatur Aug. ibid. cap. 16. I have of purpose alledged many quotations out of St. Augustine indeed most of them which concerned this argument that all the world may see that his intent in confuting those mistaken brethren who thought to be saved by Faith without works was only to shew out of â—…t James and the other Catholick Epâ—…stles what Faith it is that justifieth sc. a Faith working by love but not to ascribe the glory of Justification either to works or love because they hold of mansrighteousness but only to Faith which holdeth of the righteousness of the Son of God I will now to St. Augustine further add St. Ambrose who in his Comment upon the Romans cap. 3. hath these words Justificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt They are justified freely by his grace because working nothing sc. worth Gods acceptance and their own acquitment and making no recompence they are justified only by Faith through the gift of God And again upon those words cap. 4. Credenti autem in eum But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly he saith thus Sic decretum dicit à Deo ut cessante lege solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem The Apostle tells us it was so decreed of God that the Law ceasing sc. as to that male diction Cursed is he that continueth not in all things to do them The grace of God should require only Faith to our salvation we find no mention of a Decree in the Text either in the Greek Original or in the Latine Translation yet St. Ambrose sets down the words thus Ei vere qui non operatur credenti autem in eum qui justificat impium reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam secundum Propositum Gratiae Dei To him that worketh not but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is accounted for righteousness according to the Purpose of the Grace of God not intending by the addition of these words according to the Purpose of the Grace of God that any should cavil against the true reading of the Truth as of late some Criticks have taught us to do but that all should understand the true meaning of it and no more question that in justification of the ungodly Faith is accounted for righteousness then they dare question the Purpose of the Grace of God This is palbably St. Ambrose his Doctrine and therefore he asks him Is it possible the Jews should think themselves justified by the works of the Law according to the justification of Abraham when they saw that Abraham himself was justified not by the works of the Law but only by Faith Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae quum vident Abrahamum non ex operibus legis sed solâ fide justificatum He saith moreover That our Apostle proved this from the Psalmist pronouncing them blessed unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Beatos dicit quibus hoc sanxit Deus ut sine labore aliquâ observatione solâ fide justificentur apud Deum He calleth those blessed concerning whom the Lord hath determined that without their own labour and any observation of the Law by Faith alone they should be justified before Him which are so clear and high expressions for Justification by Faith alone that for any Divine now to say works are required to Justification as well as Faith is either to suppose the Apostles and Prophets not to have known Gods intent and meaning or to suppose St. Ambrose and St. Augustine not to have known the intent and meaning of the Apostles I must yet further add one more Testimony that in the mouth of two or three witnesses this so heavenly Word of Truth may be firmely established And that shall be the Testimony of St. Chrysostome who upon the two first Verses of the fourth Chapter to the Romans where the Apostle speaketh of Abrahams Justification giveth us this Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as much as the Jews did turn this point of Divinity upside down because their Patriarch the friend of God was first circumcised sc. before he was accepted as a friend The Apostle is resolved to shew them that even Abraham himself was justified by Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that a man should be justified by Faith who had no works were nothing strange But for one that flourished in deeds of righteousness not to be made just from them but from his Faith was very wounderful and doth exceedingly declare the power of Faith Therefore passing by all others he maketh mention only of him that is of Abraham Chrys. Aug. 11. in
have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin He that hath made the best use thereof is most concerned in it and comprehended under it therefore he cannot say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but he must lye to the Holy Ghost and be so far from cleansing his heart as immediatly to let in many unclean spirits the more to defile it For those two which God hath joyned together all the wit and power of man cannot put asunder even Satans filling the heart and lying to the Holy Ghost why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Acts 5. 3. And if Satan filleth the heart of those who make this lye then sure he also filleth the mouth of those who tell it And therefore the Church of God which is the pillar and ground of the Truth very much abhorreth this lye making this confession of her natural corruptions But we are all as an unclean thing Facti sumus ut Immundus omnes nos so the Hebrew and Chaldee in the singular number we are all but as one unclean man to shew the Uncleanness was from nature which was as equally derived to All as if all had been but one and making this confession of her personal corruptions which proceeded from the natural and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Isa. 64. 6. Wherefore since Protestants and Papists both agree together in the former part of this confession as a Principle of Divinity 't is irrational in the Papists to disagree from Protestants in the latter part of it which is but a conclusion proceeding from this Principle For the natural corruption is the cause of the personal and therefore all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags because we are all as an unclean thing This being the full argumentation All who are unclean have an unclean righteousnesse but we all are unclean therefore we all have an unclean righteousnesse Quia opus justitiae immundatur inquinamento as saith Aquinas because our righteousnesse is defiled by our unrighteousnesse and by this we may fully understand that other text If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 Joh. 1. 8. For we are clearly guilty of a double lye one against our own souls we deceive our selves another against the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth and the truth is not in us Both are such pernicious lyes as to bring upon us inevitable destruction for he that willingly deceives his own soul cares not for knowing the truth he that strives to deceive the Holy Ghost cannot come to know it For as he hath not the truth in him in that he deceiveth himself so he keepeth the Spirit of truth away from him that he may deceive himself for ever Nor can we possibly use any evasion upon this text as if some men might say they have no sin though others cannot for he must think himselfe better than the best of Saints the Disciple whom Jesus loved and questionlesse he had a very good reason of his love who will needs say he hath no sin though by saying so he is sure to prove himself worse than the worst of sinners for he maketh him a lyar who hath promised forgiveness of sins and he maketh his Word a lye which hath shewed our need or want of that forgiveness for in many things we offend all Jam. 3. 2. and he putteth himself out of their communion who alone obtain forgiveness even the communion of true penitents of whom it is said If we confesse our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1. 9. he that denyes himself to be one of this number denyes himself to be one of the communion of Saints unless St. John and St. James were no Saints and consequently makes himself uncapable of the forgiveness of sins Thus doth the second Milevitane Council gloss the words of St. John that they were not spoken out of humility but out of necessity and that the greatest the necessity of Truth Satis apparet hoc non tantum humiliter sed etiam veraciter dici Poterat enim Apostolus dicere Si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum nos ipsos extollimus humilitas in nobis non est sed quùm ait nos ipsos decipimus veritas in nobis non est satis ostendit eum qui se dixerit non habere peccatum non verum loqui sed falsum It is evident that this was spoken not only out of modesty but also out of truth for the Apostle might have said If we say that we have no sin we extol our selves and there is no humility in us But when he saith we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us he sufficiently sheweth that whosoever saith there is no sin in him doth not speak truly but falsly And thus also doth the same Council gloss the words of St. James saying The Apostle was holy and just when he said in many things we offend All for why did he add this particle All but to shew that he agreed with the Psalmist who had said Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal. 142. 2. and with Solomon who had said There is no man that sinneth not 1 King 8. 46. And with Daniel who had said We have sinned and have committed iniquity Dan. 9. 5. and afterwards added ver 20. whiles I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people he would not say Our sins but My sins and the sins of my people because he did foresee by the Spirit of Prophecy that some in after ages would be ready to put him and such as he nay indeed much worse transgressours out of the catalogue or number of sinners Quia futuros istos qui tam malè intelligerent tanquam Propheta praevidit And at last upon these and the like proofes the same Council denounceth a terrible curse against those who should dare affirme that forgive us our trespasses was said by the Saints rather humbly than truly quis enim ferat orantem non hominibus sed ipsi Domino mentientem qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle corde dicit quae sibi dimittantur se debita non habere For say those Fathers who can endure that a man in his prayers should tell a lye not to man but to God saying with his mouth Forgive us our trespasses and saying in his heart he had no trespasses to be forgiven him Thus we have the authority of the Scripture and the authority of the Church both agreeing together in this doctrine That all men are sinners And though this was but a particular National Council in it self yet was it Universal and Oecumenical in its authority as consisting of Catholick Bishops amongst the rest Alipius and St. Augustine as appeares by the Synodical Epistle to Innocent the first and having been approved by the Catholick
our Justification CAP. VII Of Christs New Testament or Covenant 1. DIvines are not to make new works much less new Divinity 2. Testament and Covenant though commonly used for the same thing may have their several considerations 3. The Latin Interpreter highly magnified whiles Beza is unworthily taxed yet He also promiscuously useth these two words though both are more delighted with the word Testament then Covenant 4. The Catholick Church prefereth Testament above Covenant in the Title of the holy Bible and the Sept. never use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Covenant but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament as it were by special providence because that word pointeth at the death of Christ and Gods free Grace and mercy towards mankind more then the word Covenant 5. No Christian may oppose or diminish Gods free Grace in Christ. 6. Ill quarreling with words which have Custom Conscience and Truth to justifie the use of them 7. No assertion concerning the new Covenant ought to be Authentical which is ambiguous because that is to put Salvation upon unknown if not upon impossible conditions 8. A definition of the New Covenant ought not to be such as may fit the Old Covenant 9. The Old and New Covenant put far asunder by God and not to be joyned together by man God will judge the world not by the Old but by the New Covenant 10. The Law as a Rule of Righteousnesse reinforced in the Gospel but as a Covenant of Life abolished by it 11. The Jews under the Law expected to be saved by the Gospel and whiles they covenanted obedience did hope for Salvation by Faith and Repentance 12. The Covenant of works pressed upon the Jews to make them more thirst after the Covenant of Grace 13. Christ the Mediator of a better Testament then Moses because the Covenant of Grace hath better promises and better conditions then the Covenant of works How these came to be called Two Covenants and how they differ one from the other not only in the administration but also in the expression 14. St. Paul disputes against the Law not materially in it self as the Rule of righteousnesse for so it is the end of the Gospel but formally in its use to the Jew as a Covenant of life for so it stood in opposition against the Gospel And thus far we may proceed without being Antinomians and must that we confound not the New with the Old Testament 15. The vast difference betwixt the Old and the New Testament as betwixt Agar and Sarah 16. The condition of the New Testament is not to be placed in Doing but in Believing For Doing as a condition of Life belongs to Moses his Covenant not to Christs Testament if it be taken properly that is for our Personal and not for our Virtual doing 17. The true definition of the New Testament admits obedience into its constitution but only Faith into its condition 18. The obligation of the New Testament not lessened by taking Faith for its condition and what Faith is required to fulfil the condition of the New Testament The seventh Exception IBidem sect 5. pag. 244. Having said Christ is called the Mediator of the New Testament Hebr. 9. 15. not the Mediator of the New Covenant as in other places you say also a little after I am afraid of the Covenant and flye to the Testament in the precedent Chapter Verse 6. your Old reads Mediator of a better Testament and in the margent Or Covenant your New reads better Covenant and in the margent or Testament This better is called ver 8 13. by your New The New Covenant by your Old The New Testament In the Original The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in all these places which properly signifies Testament yet in all these places Mr. Beza constantly translates faederis Covenant Nay you your self are not afraid of the Covenant but fly to it For in your ejaculation 20. using St. Pauls words Heb. 12. you say I am desirous to come unto Mount Sion and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant yet even there in the margent is or Testament And Mr. Beza contrary to his custome translates Testamenti Hence it appears that your own Translators use these two words indifferently to signifie but one and the same thing as meer synonyma insomuch as Mr. Beza above in the frontispiece writes novum faedus and a little beneath Novum Testamentum I cannot see then what comfort you can have out of those words Heb 9. 15. more then out of the rest For in very deed Christs New Testament is no other then a new conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound cooperating with his Grace to do very many things our selves docentes eos servare omnia quaecunque mandavi vobis Matth. 28. 20. for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we faile we shal never attain thereto For as your self say excellently well A covenant doth wholly depend upon mutual conditions which if either party fail the Covenant is broken and made of none effect The Answer 1. T Is unwarantable in Divines to make new work but t is unsufferable if not unpardonable in them to make new Divinity They make new work when they raise needless contentions and strifes about words They make new Divinity when they contend for those Things which God hath not taught or against those Things which God hath taught in his most holy Word This last and worst Age of the world hath been guilty of both and this your last exception may justly seem to come under the suspicion of the same Guilt For the first part of it makes new work by raising a needlesse contention about words Testament and Covenant which in common Scripture use are meer Synonyma signifying the same Thing And the latter part of it would faine make new Dâ—…vinity contending for such a new Covenant as is not whiles it labours to set up the Old instead of the New Covenant 2. But what though Testament and Covenant are promiscuously taken in their common use and have one and the same signification yet I hope in some peculiar respects they may have distinct notions and so come under several considerations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pâ—…esbyter and Bishop are promiscuously used in the New Testament will you therefore turn Presbyteâ—…ian and deny the distinct Office and Function of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are promiscuously used in the Monuments of the Church this being in the first Ephesin Council the inscription of Neâ—…orius his Epistle to Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Copie of the Epistle of Nestorius to Pope Cyril for Patriach will you therefore turn Protestant and deny the Supreme Jurisdiction now arrogantly challenged and as insolently exercised in the Papacy I hope though you cannot gainsay the promiscuous and common use yet you will still maintain the distinct and peculiar considerations of
us of loving what God commands if we hope to attain what God hath promised It requireth a sincere obedience of all doth not allow a wilful disobedience of any one of Gods Commands yet for all this if we will needs say That Doing or Obedience and Righteousness is the condition upon which Salvation is pomised to Christians we must take Sorrowing for Doing Repentance for Obedience and Faith for righteousness or we must teach a new Covenant of our own not of Gods making sure I am the Holy Church hath taught us both to say Deus qui conspicis quia ex nullâ nostrâ actione confidimus Lord God which seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do And she hath taught us to say so at that Time when we are to prepare for our strictest Doings sc. those which accompany our Lenten Fast for this is the collect of Sexagesima Sunday So far is Holy Church which is much holier then the best of her members from placing the hope of life and Salvation in her Doings wherefore in this doctrine as in most others that we reject your late Church-men have sided against holy Church and consequently our Church-men can the better justifie their siding against them CAP. VIII The Conclusion 1. THe Doctrines and Practices of Papists as such are so grosly against the known word of God as to make all those of our Communion inexcusable who out of pretence of not having a flourishing Church chooâ—…e not to have a flourishing Religion 2. Their foretelling the mischiefs now befaln us was no more from the Spirit of Prophecy then their contriving or effecting them from the spirit of Piety THus have I gone through all your exceptions as plainly as I could but much more largely then I intended For the more I enquired into them the more I found cause to dislike them and could not but fully express my dislike for their sakes who by the effrantery of your late emissaries and by the impiety of our sad times are almost if not altogether perswaded to forsake the Church wherein they were made Christians under fond hopes of bettering their Christianity They are so beguiled with the pretence of your flourishing Church as to abate though I hope not to abandon the love of their own Saving Religion not considering that the same argument of a flourishing Church which is now used to make Protestants turn Papists would once have made all Orthodox Christians turn Arrians and may at this time make Papists turn Mahumetans and ere long if the sword proceed to cut and carve out Religion may chance make Protestants and Papists both turn Atheists Sure t is not just nor safe for Christians to go to Church as Dogs no more than to go to Hell as Devils for Company since they cannot hope to be saved for the greatness of their communion but for the goodness of their Religion And since the business of Religion is the love and the honour of God How can you seek the Patronage of the Creature as if he were more friendly and loving to you than the Creator and not sin against this love How can you religiously adore or invocate the Creature as if he were equally to be honoured with the Creator and not sin against this Honour The Angels see thou do it not is in this case most justly our Negative and though your men commonly say we are all for Negatives yet is the same Angels worship God as justly and as readily our Affirmative Do not then ask me where is my Church till you can answer me where is your Religion For 't is not in the adoration of Saints and Angels much less of their Pictures Reliques and Images because that 's against the second Commandement Nor in the invocation of Saints and Angels because that if mental is against the first if Vocal is also against the third Commandement and I hope you will not call that Religion which is directly against all Gods Commandements concerning the substance of Religion i. e. against all the three first Commandements Rather consider that by setting up your Church against Gods Word you do in truth pull down your Church since that can neither have Religion nor Communion nor Jurisdiction neither Verity nor Unity nor Authority but from Gods Word unless you will allow your Church to be a Society of your Own not of your Saviours making that is to be a Combination of sinners instead of being a Communion of Saints As for our parts we cannot but think it very impious and injurious for the Trustees of Gods Truth and mens souls to seek to baffle any private mans reason by inferring to him false conclusions much more to seek to baffle his Religion by imposing on him false Principles whether in doctrine against the Creed or in works against the Decalogue And such are the Conclusions the Principles of Religion you have obtruded in your exceptions and your Zealots would obtrude upon our belief and practice By which alone though I let pass all the rest it is evident to common sense that Protestants are not so faulty in receding from Papists as Papists are faulty in receding from Gods Truth Bring you Gods Truth and your Church together and blame us if we keep our Church and your Church asunder But till you do so though you more love to make Objections yet we can better justifie the making them For whiles you object against our Church we object against your Religion and doubtless those Objections more savour of Truth and are less in danger of blasphemy which are righteously made against a false Religion than those which are unrighteously made against a true Church because the one are made for God but the other against him This is plain that whiles we object against your doctrine and worship we dispute for the Decalogue for the Creed whereas you cannot object against any doctrine that we profess or any worship that we practise by the order of our Church but you must dispute against an Article of the Creed or a Commandement of the Decalogue And though I will not undertake to justifie all our opinions much less all our practices yet for these doctrines wherein our Church dissents from yours and for this worship for which our Church separates from yours I dare boldly say God is not angry with us though you be 2. And here I cannot but add one observation which though it concern not your exceptions yet it very much concerns our defence that the world may not think us forsaken of God because we are oppressed by men And that is this Your writers indeed heretofore designed us to this very same destruction we now groan under by their Predictions but t was whiles they plotted it by their contrivances that the common rout might repute them Prophets whiles they were no other than murderers Hence as soon as we had withdrawn from you I mean as to your corruptions though not as to your Communion