SANCTORVM frustra frequent ari omnino damnandos esse after this manner so that they who affirm the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented for the obtaining their Aid that is the Aid of the Saints are to be condemned fixing Eorum to its Substantive Sanctorum which follows in the same Sentence rather than to Monumenta in the foregoing from whence it is separated in most of the Editions I have seen by a Hyppooolon I say I appeal to any Jury of Scholars Whether I did not give the true sense of the Sentence and whether the Defender be not short in his Translation But if he have a mind still to pursue the Cavil all I can do is to wish him a clearer sight or to send him to the Words as they are Printed in Bail 's Summa Conciliorum Sess 25. de Invocat Venerat c. pag. 701. E. Where he will find the Word Eorum quite left out which will I hope satisfy him that we neither make our Prayers I'a ut affirâ—â—â—tes Sanctâ—rum Reliquits veneratienem at que benerem non debevi veleas aliaque sacra Monum â—ta a filelibâ—â— inuâ—iliter bonâ—rari atque opis impetrande causi Saâ—â—orum Memorias frustra frequentars ommine damnindes esse c. Memoriae Sancterum alia sacra Monumenta are the same and therefore if corum hâ—d been referred to the Monuments or Memorials it ought to have been of the seminine gender in that sentence thus earum memoriarum opis in petrandae causa Non qued credatur inesse aliqua in its Diviâ—itas vel virtus propâ—er quam sint colâ—â—dae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid peiendum vel quod fidutia in Lâ—â—agin but sit figâ—â—da c. to the Monuments nor to the Reliques nor Memorials of the Saints The Council then as appears plainly by the words of it condemns three forts of persons The first those who affirm that Veneration and Honor is not due to the Reliques of Saints The second those who affirm That Reliques and other Holy Monuments are unprofitably honored and the third those who say that the Memorials of the Saints are in vain frequented in order to obtain the aid and assistance of those Saints and they who give another sense wrest the Words and impose a Doctrin which never any Divine of the Church of Rome held nor any that I have met with but the Defender accused them of and yet this must be again repeated in his Close as a piece of old Popery but he should rather have called it new Calumny and a fearful Blunder of his own They who doubt whether I speak truth or no may be pleased to Read the Council it self and some Lines further they will find that it professes it does not believe that any Divinity or Vertue is in Images for which they ought to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or any trust to be put in Images and I think the same case holds in Monuments There remains one Objection from Bellarmin §. 28. concerning the Veneration of Images mentioned by the Defender in his Close which is Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 21. p. 1697. Ch. 22. Non esse dicendum Iataginibus deberi culium Latriae Ch. 23. Imagines Christi improprie velper accidens posse honorari culiu Latriae Ch. 24. Imagines â—er se propries non esse colendâ—â—â—o cultu quo 〈◊〉 ipsum colitur Ch. 25 Quina conelusio Culous qui per se proprie debetur Imaginibus est Cusius quidam impersedus qui a 〈◊〉 reductive peranet ad speciens ajue Culius qui debeiur examplari That he affirms the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be Venerated not only by accident and improperly but also by themselves and Properly so that the Veneration is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves and not only as they are the Representatives of the Originals But had he looked into his Explication he would have found that the Veneration he there speaks of is only such as is given the Book of Gospels or the Sacred Utensils of the Church And the Titles of his three following Chapters and the Conclusion he draws from them in the fifth shew that the Vindicator and he did not differ in their Faith. ART V. Of Justification THe Defender is very free in his Accusations §. 29. Desence pag. 25. but very unfortunate in his Proofs He tels us of sirange abuses with which the true Doctrin of Justification was over-run at the beginning of the Reformation and wonders at my confident denial of it without any Proof when at the same time he brings no other himself but a bare affirmation that he must be very ignorant in the Histories of those times The Catholic Church falsely accused c. I must confess we shall find in those Ages strange Accusations of the Catholic Doctrin but who ever peruses the Acts of our Councils will find they were only mere Calumnies and Misrepresentations I need not send oun Defender further than to the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685 Where he will find those Calumnies Injuries and Falsities proved out of their own Authors But what our Defender means now by the true Doctrin of Justification is not very easie to Guess unless he State it in Calvins way or the 11th Article of his Church which yet he knows tho' he have a mind to keep counsel is disavowed by the best and honestest Divines of the English Church I speak not here of Mr. Thorndike but of many others as Dr. Taylor Dr. Hammond Mr. Bull and who must be set by himself Mr. Baxter Nay Report too says that the Pulpits also as many as do not persevere in Calvinism do directly declare against it and that with all the reason in the World that Men may no longer perish by wresting St. Pauls difficulter expressions to their own Damnation which 't is believed (a) 2 Pet. 3.16 St. Peter points at we are sure (b) Jac. 2.20 26. St. James doth Yes yes time was they tell us that the Church of Rome was loudly accused of Erring in Fundamentals because she taught Justification by Faith and Works without which Faith is but Dead but now the Fundamental Error is found to lye elsewhere God be thanked and yet Justification must still remain for so goes the Game a Bone of Contention Want of Charity will always keep us asunder and tho' we be agreed yet the spite of it is we will not agree The Defender knows upon what Politic motives things are so managed and who are to be gratified at this Juncture lest there should appear a possibility of union * See the Advertisment to the Bp. of Condoms Exposition pag. 8. Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England pag. 21. with that Church from which they separated themselves principally upon account of our Doctrin of Justification tho'
difference betwixt the Idea and this Material Image than that the one is in our Mind by something which was formerly in our Senses and the other is in our Mind by something which at that time strikes our Senses but the Adoration which is there performed is neither in the one nor in the other to the Image but to God whom it Represents And this is all that Scholastic Divines and that Cardinal Capisucchi means in that passage which our Defender cites from him which I give you entirely in the Margent * Ex his constat in Concili Niceno secundo in Tridentino alijsque Latriam duntaxat idosala ricam sacris Imaginibus denegari qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis propter ipsas exhibeitur quaque Imagines sen Numina aut Divinitaâ—em continentia more Gen ilium colamur de hujusmodi enim Latriae Controversia crat cum Judaeis Haereticis qui hae ratione nos Imagines colere asserchant Caeterum de Latria illa quae Imaginibus S. Triritatis Christi Domini aut Sâ—â—ratissimae Crucis exhibetur ratione rei per eas repraesentatae quatenus cum re repraesentatú unum sunt in esse repraesentativo nullamque Divinitatem Imaginibus tribuit aut supponit nulla unquam suit aut esse poruit Controversis Nara liâ—jusmodi Latria Imaginibus Exhibetur non propter seipsas nec in iysit sistendo sed propter Exemplar in quod Adoratio illa transit unde sicut Purpura Regis etsi non sit Rex honoratur tamen codem honore quo Rex quatenus est conjuncta Regi cum Rege facit aliquomodo unum humanitas Christi etsi sit Creatura adoratur aderatione Latriae quia est unita personae Verbi unum Christum cum persona Verbiconstituit ita Imago Christiquia in esse representativo est unum idem cum Christe adoratur eadem Adoratione qua adoratur Christus whose Sense is in other more intelligible words what the Bishop of Meaux says that we do not so much honor the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in Presence of the Image If the Bishop of Meaux chose rather to speak in such intelligible terms and according to the Language of the Church in her Councils and Professions of Faith leaving the harder expressions of the Schools it do's not follow that he and Cardinal Capisucchi differ in the true meaning neither is it a mark that Papists as he says think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrins they dislike I have shewn him in what Sense that may be true tho' it seems he did not understand it that is when the Principles in those Books touch only probable opinions or Philosophical conclusions they may approve what they dislike But I told him that in matters of Faith they do not think it lawful to set their hands to or approve the Principles they dislike neither can our Desender shew one Instance without wresting it to a Sense not intended by them What I have said of Images may be said of Relics Relics As for Justification §. 14. Justification if persons would but rightly understand things there can be no Controversie betwixt them and us the Council of Trent having declared so plainly Conc. Trid. Sess 6. cap. 8. that we are Justified Gratis and that none of those Acts which precede our Justification whether they be Faith or good Works can Merit this Grace but if after such a Declaration they will not believe us we can only pity them and Pray to God to make them less obstinate Again Merit Sess 6. can 26. for Merit of good works done after this Justification we say with the Council of Trent that the just may expect an Eternal reward from God through his Mercies and the Merits of Jesus Christ The just may expect a reward for their good works done in Grace if they persevere to the end in doing good and keeping the Commandments But the Council tels us nothing at all of the School questions as whether this Merit be of Justice or Fidelity or Condignity or Congruity and therefore they ought to be excluded from our disputes as being no necessary matters of our Faith. As to Satisfactions for Temporal punishments due to sin Satisfaction We satisfie by Christs satisfaction it is not of Faith as appears by the Conncils silence in those Points that our satisfactions are of Condignity or of congruity by justice or by mercy But it is of Faith that through the Merits of Christ we satisfie for such pains Sess 14. can 13.14 and that by Jesus Christ we satisfie for our sins by the help of his satisfactions which Merits of Christ proceed meerly from his mercy towards us Oppose this last then only and our Controversie will be shorter What a deal of stuff have we seen of late concerning Purgatory even by those who acknowledge §. 15. Purgatory that all the Council of Trent determins is that there is a Purgatory or middle state and that the Souls that are detained there are helped the suffrages of the Faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar It is not what Bellarmin looks upon as Truths that we ought to maintain but only what is of necessary Faith and that is defined by the Council It is therefore no Article of necessary Faith without the belief of which we cut our selves off from the Communion of the Faithful that there is a Fire in Purgatory A short summary of the Principal Controversies c. pag. 42. neither has the Council of Florence defined it tho' a late Pamphlet says it did It is not defined what the pains are nor how grievous nor how long they shall last Had those Authors therefore let these Points alone and only Written against such a middle state the Printer would have got less by them but the People more Separate also what is not of Faith from Indulgences and the Controversie will be brought to this whether the Power of Indulgences hath been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ Indulgences and whether the use of them be beneficial to Christian People or no so that we should have nothing to do in our disputes about the Treasure of the Church nor about Indulgences whereby the punishment due in the Court of God sin remitted may be taken away or the pains in Purgatory but only about a Power to remit to Penitents some part of their public Canonical Penances if their life and laudable Conversation seemed to deserve it We affirm only §. 16. Sacraments that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments in the New Law Instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind tho' not all to every one And our Advesaries say there are two only generally
they now adventure to say that were things clearly stated and distinguished one from another the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very grew a and that they can safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be will and rightly explained And he has advanced nothing but what is the Doctrin of the Council of Tront The Expositor and I were agreed in most things §. 30 Sanctification and Justification only I told him I thought he would be hard put to it to prove the Distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification to be the Doctrin of the Church of England and that he imposed upon us when he affirmed us so to make our Inward Righteousness a part of Justification that by Consequence we said our Justification it self is wrought by out good Works To the first It appears indeed he is hard put to it when he is forced to a Deduction how clear let others judge from their 11th and 12th Articles and from the Homily of Salvation which as he cites it calls the forgiveness of sins Justification but does not say that Justification is only the Remission of our sins which was his undertaking But had I told him of the little less than contradictions he fell under in that place he would have seen the difficulty of getting clear For having told us before that they confess with M. de Meaux Expos pag. 19. that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed but actually Communicated to the Faithful He here tels us Pag. 20. They believe their sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us Nay tho' he tell us their Church by Justification understands only the Remission of sins Contradictions and by Sanctification the Production of the habit of Righteousness in us yet within two lines he tells us that this Remission of sin is only given to those that Repent and that they who Repent are those in whom the Hoty Ghost produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and holiness of Life which is just as much as to say we distinguish Justification and Sanctification But no man can be Justifiel unless he be also Sanctified That our sins are Pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us but that his Merits are not only imputed but actudlly Communieated to us He will oblige us if he please to tell us how these agree as also how the Doctrin of their 11th Article We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour J. Christ by Faith and not for our own works and deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a wholesomt Doctâ—in and very full of comfost Art. 11. Sparrows Canons pag. 95. that we are Justified by Faith only is consistent with what he tells us pag. 19 of his Exposition that none of those things which precede our Justification whether our Faith or our Good works could Merit this Grace And what he summs up pag. 21. That Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commandments from time to time and if we persevere in this Cavenant Crowns us finally with Eternal Life Thus far he But Is awaking and answering to his Call is persevering in his Covenant no good works And if these be necessary to have God freely Justifie us and Grown us with Eternal Life how are we I pray Justified by Faith only As for the other part in which I told him §. 31. he imposed upon â—s as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of our Justification and so by consequence said that our Justification it self is wrought also by our Good works A false Imposition Doth he think that I told him he imposed upon us when he affirmed that we comprehend under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the Production of that inherent Righteousness which they call Sanctification No the Imposition did notilie in that part of the Proposition Our justification is gratis Gratis autem justificari ideo dicamur Quia nihileorum quae justificationem praeccdunt sive fides sive opera ipsam Justi ficationis gratiam promeretur Si enim Graâ—ia est jam non ex operibus Alioquin ut idem Apostolus inqun Gratia jam non est Gratia. Conc. Trid. Sess 6. de Justif cap. 8. but in the consequence which he drew viz. That we say our Justification is wrought also by our Good works This was the Imposition and if he had remembred what he had Copied out of the Bishops Exposition and the Bishop from the Council he would not have gone about to justifie his Accusation For the words are these We believe with him the Bishop of Meaux That our Sins are â—eely for given by Gods Mercy through Christ and that none of those things which precede Iustification whether our Faith or our good works could merit this Grace to which very words the Council of Trent adds this reason for if it Justification be a Grace it prâ—ceeds not from Good Works for other wise as the same Apostle says Grace would be nom no more Grace Well how do's he justifie his Imposition By a Canon of the Council forsooth which has not one word in it to his purpose but it seems he either did not understand it or else had a mind so to blunder it in his Translation that they who understood not the Latin might take it for granted to speak his Sense And by I know not what negligence of the Corrector fuerit was Printed instead of fiunt so that even those who did understand the Language could not find out the Error without consulting the Council it self The Council speaks of persons already Justified Si quiâ— dixerit konsinis justificati boma opers ita esse dexa Dei ut non sint etiam bona ipsim Justisicati merita aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei Gratiam Jesu Christi meritum cujus vivum membrum est fiunt non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae vitam aeternam iâ—siut vitae aeternae si tamen in gratia decesserit consecutioâ—em atque etiam Glorie augmentum Anathema sis and tells you that their good works performed through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Members they are do truly Merit Increase of Grace and Eternal Life and that they are not so the gifts of God but that they are also the
good Merits of the same Justified person But how do's all this prove that the good works of a person who is not Justified Merit his first Justification There 's the Point We say indeed that it is necessary the free Will should co-operate with the Grace of God and that a person should be disposed by convenient preparations to receive that Grace but still we say it is a Grace which is given us Gratis and as I said before from the Council which neither Faith nor good works which precede Justification could Merit for us His Translation is amiss in this A false Translation that he renders these words Aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus c. Thus Or that he being Justified by good works do's not truly Merit increase of Grace c. As if he were Justified by his good Works Whereas the Sense is manifestly this Or whoever shall say that he who is Justified do's not by his good works which are performed by him through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Member he is truly Merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life let him be Anathema That this was the Sense of that Canon he seems to have understood when in the next Page he expresses it thus that our Doctrin of Merits in that Canon is That Man being Justified by the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ do's then truly Meru both encrease of Grace and Eternal Life So that it appears manifestly tho' he would disguise it that we do not say our Works done out of the state of Grace are meritorious of Grace or Salvation But we say that those good works which are done in the state of Grace do Merit an increase of Grace and if they be persever'd in to the last the reward of Glory If he deny this let him speak plain but let him take care how he thwarts the many express Texts of Scripture which prove our Doctrin ART VI. Of Merits I Told him upon this Article that the Niceties of the Schools §. 32. Vindic. pag. 48. Scholastic Niceties to be avoided as they make no Division in the Church so ought they not to make any amongst Christians But yet for all this our Defender must have recourse to them for want of better hold The Opinions of Bellarmin Vasquez Scotus c. must be brought again and their words quoted in the Margent as if the whole stress of the cause lay there But would he have considered what he was forced to acknowledge that Bellarmin is against Scotus Vasquez against Bellarmin c. and have reflected that all of them were Catholics united in the Principles of one Faith tho' dissenting in these School Questions I say would he but have considered these things he would have saved himself a great deal of pains and his Readers much trouble But he says he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our Greatest Men whose names were neither less nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations than M. de Meaux 's or the Vindicators forsooth can be now No doubt those persons Names were and are deservedly Celebrated in Generationibus suis and whatever proportion the Bishop of Meaux may Challenge in the esteem of the World amongst these Celebrated Writers the Vindicator defires only to rest in his obscurity But to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our greatest Men is what may pass in Discourse or from the Pulpit where no body contradicts him but should not have been exposed to view in Print because it will not abide the Tryal I never heard that these persons writ direct Expositions upon the Council it self tho' they make use of it for the establishment of their private opinions And to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools when he had recourse to Merit de Condigno and the various opinions of Catholic Divines upon that Question is such a piece of Boldness Bellarmin having summed up the three opinions the Defender mentioned and rejected the first and third tho' he affirmed them to be far from Heresie says he looks upon the middle Sentence to be the more probable Nobis media sententia probabiltor esse videtur de Justif lib v. c. 17. A. pa. 1122. The very Titles also of the Chapters cited by the Desender shew that what Vasquez there disputes of is only a Scholastic Question In operibus justerum non esse meritum simpliciter aut condignum vitae aeternae nonnulli Scholastici docuerunt Vasquez Quaest 114. disp 213. cap. 3. Tit. See also the Titles of the 1 2 3 and 4. Chapters of his next Disputation that cannot pass the honest Readers censure What I have already observed of the various opinions of Catholic Divines summed up by those Authors he mentions in the respective Chapters is a sufficient proof of what I say and I shall not trouble my Readers with any other But the Council of Trent has he says spoken so uncertainly in this point § 33. as plainly shews either they did not know themselves what they would establish or were unwilling that others should How great pity it is so learned and sincere a Censor as this Defender is lived not in that Age or assisted not at that very Council What is it they did not know Was it the Doctrin of the Church concerning Merits Or was it the Doctrin of the Schools Neither the one nor the other But this he may say and that truly that they were not willing to enter into the particular disputes of the Schools nor to mix uncertainties tho' of the highest probability with what they had been always taught to be of Faith No wonder therefore if they speak not so positively in those differences he proposes seeing they are not Doctrins of the Church but the opinions of our Schools I say therefore to him that if he like not Vasquez nor the Cardinals opinion pray let him follow that of Scotus and he will be still a Catholic as to that point But Maldonate comes in The Defender says my Exception against his false Quotation is Impertinent Why so good Sir To tell you A mutilation that you mutilate Sentences at pleasure and give us what you please for the Sense of our Authors His words were We do as properly and truly when we do well together with the Grace of God Merit areward as we do Merit punishment when we do ill without it And is it Impertinent to tell you you read the Author in hast or copied the words from some other which made you leave out those words together with the Grace of God Yes says he It is impertinent as to them who dispute not the Principle but the Merit of Good Works Pray who ever maintained that Good Works had any Merit or were acceptable unless joyned with the Principle the Grace of God And if you will not take the Principle