Note that faith hath not of it self any efficacy as it is an act of ours for remission and reconciliation but all its vertue doth proceed from its object Christ whose vertue and merit God hath ordained to apply to the sinner for his Justification through faith in him Suitable to this expression of the reverend assembly in their larger Catechism Faith say they justifies a sinner in the sight of God not because of these other graces which do alwayes accompany it or of good works that are the fruit of it nor as if the grace of Faith or any Act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification but onely as it is an instrument by which he applieth and receiveth Christ and his righteousness But Eunomius's error was rather that attributed to Simon Magus than this as appeareth by Augustine and as such also opposed by us Aug. de haeres c. 55. 3. Inst Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin Answ Protestant Churches abhor this doctrine as much as Papists In the Harmony of Confessions the Confession of Saxony the Augustin Confession do disown it and the latter Confession of the Switeers expresly condemns Florinus and Blastus and all that make God the Author of sin to which I will add our late Confession of Faith The Prouidence of God extendeth it self even to the first fall and all other sins yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth onely frâ—m the creature and not from God who being most holy and righteous neither is nor can be the Author or approver of sin 4. Inst Origen robd and spoyled Adam in his fall and in him all his posteritie of that precious Gem the naturall Image of God Freewill Answ No Protestants I met with deny naturall freedom of will to fallen man i. e. a liberty to naturall civill and morall actions Yea as to evill man is most free though as to supernaturall good he is unable his condition is such after the fall of Adam that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own naturall strength and good works to faith and calling upon God Harmon confess Sect. 4. Mr. Baxt. Everlast rest part 3. c. 2. Sect. 14. Marg. See the Doctrine of Free-will in fallen man excellently set forth in the Later Helvetick Confession and others M. Baxter observes that Austin himself and all the Fathers and all Divines acknowledge Liberum arbitrium Free-will or choice who yet plead most for a necessity of grace 5. Inst Proclus left the regenerate all foul and conspurcate with sin Answ Protestants in acknowledging regeneration and sanctification do withall confess that those who are regenerate are not as they were before regeneration as to sin and its defilements according to that of the Apostle such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are Sanctified but ye are justified Protestants receive Baptism as a Sign and Seal of their spiritual cleansing by the Holy Ghost we bless God for our Renovation And doth not all this free us from this error 'T is true our confessions of Faith assert that our Sanctification is but imperfect that there are Reliques of corruptions in us as there was in Saint Paul Rom. 7. yet we never say that the Regenerat are all foul and conspurcate with sin there is that in them which is truly good and which God accepts of and freely rewards See Harmony of Confessions Sect. 9. 6. Inst Novatus constituted a Church of meer just Answ Protestants if guilty of the error of Proclus then are free from this of Novatus or if they be guilty of this of Novatus then are they free from that of Proclus There errors cannot agree to the same persons 2. How contrary this error is to our judgment is visible both by the actual composure of our Churches wherein are good and bad tares and Wheat And also by our doctrine the English Divines in their confession of faith acknowledge that the purest Churches under Heaven Confes ch 25. ss 4. are subject both to mixture and error Mat. 13.24.47 which they prove by the Parable of the Wheat and Tears in one Field and of the good Fish and bad in one Net 7. Inst Jovinianus levelled sins by making them all equally grievous Answ 1. Protestants do not equallize sins The Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism affirm that All Transgressions of the Law of God are not equally heinous but some sins in themselves and by reason of several aggravatiens are more heinous in the sight of God then others The latter confession of Aelvetia doth expresly deliver this doctrine and condemns by name Pelagius Jovinianus and the Stoicks for making all sins equally grievous 8. Inst Pelagius did endeavour to stop the course of Original sin in Infants and thereupon bereaved Baptism of its due necessity Answ The Protestants are so full in acknowledgment of Original sin in their confessions Catechismes Systems of Divinity and Comentaries on Scripture and so harmonious in their administration of Baptism to Infants which is a clear evidence of their belief of Original sin that I wonder with what face this man could bring in Pelagianism in this point as a Doctrine wherein Papists and we mainly differ 9 Inst Berengarius grew to that height of wickedness as to out Christ of the Sacrament Answ This as you express it Protestants detest who unanimously hold and always did so that Christ is really present in the Sacrament The truth is Berengarius was no Heretique in this point he lived in that age when the irrational and Antiscriptural doctrine of Transubstantiation began to be broached This new error he opposed affirming that Christ was not bodily present as the Transubstantiators taught but in a spiritual manner as Protestants now teach and will maintain it against you 10. Inst Zenaius despised Images as worthless Answ Protestants acknowledge that Images have their use and consequently a worth in them They may be used privately for Ornament yea and publikely too as Historical remembrances of persons provided that the Images of the Trinity be not made and this was all the use they had amongst primitive Christians as Cassander fully shews saying Certum est initio c. It s most certain that in the beginning of the Gospel times for a good while Leven in the time of Agustin a little after there was no use of Images amongst Christians especially in Churches as appears by Clemens and Arnobius but afterwards they were admitted into the Church as Historical expressions of things done or as lively Images of Holymen And thus far I know no Protestant Church or rational Christian that can disalow them 'T is true we abhor the worship of them and complain of Papists as Irenaeus of old did of the Gnosticks for their worship of them But this will not prove that we despise Images as worthless 11. Inst Calvin drew compulsion upon humane actions Answ 1. If this were true yet its false that this is a point wherein Catholicks and Protestants
say the contrary is rashness and blasphemy Yet this is the faith and doctrine of the generality of Papists and vehemently asserted by the Rhemists in these words It is most clear to all not blinded with pride and contention that good works be meritorious and the very cause of Salvation so far that God should be unjust if he rendred not Heaven for the same Rhem. on Heb. 6.10 But they have their sentence from Durand to which I leave them 2. The Confirmation of your Argument is most evidently false viz. that bare Actions void of desert be looked onely as by way of gifts For actions may be looked on without any meritoriousness yet be no free gifts but due debts or duties such are the actions of Gods children filial duties they owe to God their Father as you grant in the next Section Now these they are bound to perform though there were no Heaven to reward them or Hell to punish them 2. You reply to the Objections It were indeed no less then blasphemy to go about to equal in worth other merits with Christ but the Roman Church offereth not any such thing whilest she believeth Christs merits to be of infinite value others onely of finite Christs merits to have their desert and worth from no other others to hold dependance fâ—r b th of them Ans 1. Supposing that inequality you speak of be truely asserted It s blaspemy still to make God a debtor to man and to assert that God is bound to give us Heaven and were unjust if he did not It s the taking upon you that power which belongs solely to Christ in every degree of it that makes you blasphemers you acknowledg that Christ is the only Mediator of reconciliation Now I durst appeal to rational men whether it would not be blasphemy for a man to say he were a Mediatour of reconciliation and a Redeemer of himselfe from the Curse though withall he should say he did not equal in worth his own price with Christs but did believe that Christ's price was of infinite value his but of finite Christ had its desert from no other but his had dependance on Christ It is the undertaking to be a purchaser with money and price when God calls us to buy without money and without price Isai 55.1 If Simon Magus will think to buy the gift of God with money the Apostle may presage the ruine of him and may conclude that he is in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity Acts 8.19 20. The new Covenant is a Covenant of grace the benefits of it depend not on mans merits but Gods free grace which according to the Apostle is exclusive of merits If by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace c. Rom. 8.4.11.6 Ferus Ferus in Cap. 20. Mat. ver 1. therefore gives a good direction Quod si aliquando c. If at any time thou hearest a promise of reward how that it is no otherwise due but by divine promise God hath freely promised he freely gives if therefore thou wouldst preserve the grace and favour of God make no mention of thy merits To deny the glory of our salvation to Gods grace and to give it to our works is indeed to give that to our selves which is due to God and is nothing less than blaspheming against God 2. Popish merits are very little lower than Christs nay in many particulars they are made equall to them see little more can be ascribed to Christs merits than the Rhemists give to mans in their notes on 2 Tim. 4.8 This place say they convinceth for the Catholicks that all good works done by Gods grace after the first justification be truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of everlasting life and that thereupon heaven is the due and just stipend crown or recompence which God by his Justice oweth to the persons so working by his grace for he rendreth and repayeth Heaven as a just Judge and not onely as a mercifull giver and the Crown which he payeth is not onely of mercy or favour or grace but also of Justice What can be said more for the value of Christs merits than this that they are truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of everlasting life What is it more to be of an infinite value And whereas you further say that mans merits have dependance on another for their desert and worth It s most evident that in the beginning of your answer you lay the ground-work of merit and demerit upon free-will as doth also Pererius and Aquinas Perer. in Rom. 6. Aquin. 22 ae q. 104 Art 1. ad 3m who saith A work is rendered vertuous laudable and meritorious especially because it proceeds from the will and therefore although obedience be a debt yet proceeding from a ready will t is meritorious Thirdly you reply Rather the Roman Church by asserting other merits and withall acknowledging their desert and worth to flow from Christs merits attributed more to Christs merits than they do who deny other merits for hereby are yielded to Christs actions a capacitie of meriting themselves and a communicability of the same to to other actions which are two perfections and to acknowledge two perfections in a thing is undoubtedly to give more to that thing than to acknowledge onely one Answ 1. It s fals that they attribute more to Christ who acknowledge mans merits though they affirm them to flow from Christs it s a greater glory oftentimes to be a solitary then a joynt agent Gods glory was greater for that he created the world by himself than if Angels had joyned with him in it though in their actings they must have had the Divine influence and concurrence Christs glory was greater in being the onely Redeemer than if men and Angels had concurred to the work therefore Christ glories in these words I have troden the wine-prâ—ss alone and of the people there was none with me Mine own arms brought salvation Isai 63.5 Solus Samson c. Samson alone having lost his hair is exposed to the Philistims neither Angel nor Archangel nor any heavenly Spirit nor any man either Jew or Gentile He alone fights he alone overcomes Jerom apud Lyr. Nor secondly is it any truer that these are two perfections in Christ for those are not a subjects perfections which cannot truely be attributed to that subject It s not an attributing of two perfections to God to say that he and Angels through his assistance made the world or a giving of two perfections to Christ to say that he redeemed not onely men but Devils though the Patrons of the Devils redemption might have urged it as well as you do communicability of merits they may plead that the larger the redemption is the greater is the glory of the Redeemer and that therefore they attribute more to Christ than others who say he onely redeemed mankinde We must not build upon our own imaginations and
necessity doth require and this is possible in our way c. Whence I infer that seeing charity reacheth only thus far that a man should endeavour to devote himself to God and divine exercises omitting other things so far as he can It cannot therefore extend to perfect and absolute obedience to Gods will This endeavour was all that St. Paul attained to Philip 3.11 12 13 14. It s most false and an uncomfortable Doctrine to true souls to say many a good endeavour burns in Hell For either such endeavours were not real or not seasonable and so not good But prove that a real a seasonable endeavour burns in Hell 2ly You answer It s equally unnatural to endeavour impossibilities and to desire things unknown Who would chose but smile to see one leap and skip as aiming to soà r and fly in the aire knowing it to be possible only for birds that are fitted with wings and feathers for the purpose Reas 1. There is a twofold impossibility 1. Natural or simple impossibility when a thing cannot naturally be done 2. Moral when the thing is in its own nature possible but there are divers intervening obstructions which for the present make it impossible 2. therefore I answer things that are simply or naturally impossible are not to be endeavoured we are not to endeavour to be Gods to make a humane body without the quantity and qualities of such a body to place one body in two places or two bodies in one or as your instanc is to fly in the aire as birds though perhaps art might make this possible But if the things have only a moral impossibility there is no question but they may be endeavoured And this way only are the Commandments of God impossible to us they are not contrary but according to right reason only reason being crazed its unable to be conformed to this rational Law this is asserted by St. Paul Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh c. The impossibility is not in it self but in our flesh that is our corruptions It were not unnatural for a poor man that owes a summe of money to endeavour to pay it though at present he be unable to pay any considerable part of the summe Nay it were wickednesse in him to lay aside endeavour because of present impotency qui non potest quod debet debet quod potest Hereafter we shall be able to do Gods Will at present we rather endeavour to do it then actually do it only here is our comfort we have a gratious father who will accept of his childrens endeavours as if they actually did what he commanded them 2. Obj. There are no particular persons can be pointed out of whom you can say these keep the Commandments Answ 1. Indeed to point at any particular that doth keep the Commandments is hard no man knowing Eccles 9. whether he be worthy of love or hatred Reply You have but worded it all this while now you come to speak indeed and now you are rather with then against us The Commandments say you may be kept but its hard to point at any particular c. 1. Hereby you tell us that your self have performed a very hard work for you have given us divers examples of particular men and women that have kept them 2. You comply with old Pelagians whose answer you borrow for when they were bid to instance in any that kept the Commandments they answered that they said not who did but who might keep them to which Hierom replyed Egregii Doctores c. Brave Doctors who say that may be done which they cannot shew us was ever done Hierom. You are the posterity of these Brave Doctors and the same weapons that slew your Fathers will kill you 3. The text you urge shewes only that by outward events none kows whether he have the love or hatred of God outward events coming alike to all Answ 2. But that all in general may keep them Christ himself assures it 1 Tim. 2. Wiling all to be saved God wills no thing impossible and he that wills the end wills the means Rep. You ventured very far in your last answer even to the wounding of your cause and therefore do wisely to come off and apply a plaister to your wound before you make a fresh assault This assertion is as wicked as the other is vain Can all in general keep the Commands Is not faith a branch of the Commandments Yet the Scripture expressly saith of some that they could not beleeve John 12.39 Is it possible for reprobates vessels of wrath to keep the Commandments Aquinas in that place I lately mentioned shewes they cannot How then can all in general 2. The Text you urge as the words of Christ himself Aug. Enchir c. 103. do not prove any thing but that God would have some of all kinds of men saved Kings Private men Noble Ignoble High Low Learned Unlearned as Augustin truly expounds it 3. You falsly suppose that perfect personal obedience is the means of salvation If you had spoken of man under a covenant of works you had said truth teaching that as God wills mans salvation so he requires as a necessary means thereunto that man in his own person should perfectly obey Gods Commandments But blessed be God who hath made a New Covenant with us through Jesus Christ who is become The Lord our righteousnes 4. If this perfect obedience be the necessary means of salvation then it s not only possible that some may keep the Commandments but its certain that all that are saved do keep them and then it were not such an hard matter to name such as have and do keep them You that can Canonize Saints can tell who are saved your hope having the Keys of Heaven at his girdle can tell who goes in and consequently who hath kept the Commandments 3. Object Our condition excludes capacity of perfect obedience Answ It s in the power of men to love God so far forth as the capacity of their condition reacheth this is sufficient to denominate and render the subject it is in perfect Reply 1. The former part and indeed the main of your assertion is the same with what Protestants say against you We say and professe it that so far as the capacity of our condition reacheth it s in our power to love God and hence we infer that we cannot keep the Law perfectly because we are in an imperfect condition our knowledg is but in part and our love is no more Adam could have loved God perfectly for the capacity of his condition reached it so shall we do in Heaven Aquin. 12.9.109 when that which is imperfect shall be done away But it s not thus with any man at present regeneration is not perfect there are seeds of corrouption as Aquinas confesseth 2. The later part of your assertion is clearly false That power which is according to the
by faith without the deeds of the Law They must therefore be reconciled which they may by saying that faith only doth properly justifie us before God and Works do justifie our faith to be a true faith for as much as true faith is productive of good works for we abhor those mens conceit who imagine that faith may suffice a man though he live ill and have no good works Or 2. By saying that good works do evidence our justification Aquinas confesseth that works in c. 3. ad Gal. are not the cause that any man is just before God but they are rather manifestations of Righteousnesse and Justification Certainly Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he offered up his son Isaac which is the foundation of Saint James's speech Papists are so much convinced of this that to evade Protestant Doctrine at least seemingly they invent a distinction of a first and second justification from that they exclude all works and attribute it only to faith and the other is not properly personal justification 8. Inst Prayer to Saints The Angel that delivered from all evils blessed the Children Gen. 48. Answ 1. Here is no mention of Saints much lesse of prayer to them not so much as an implicite hint of such a thing for I suppose Jacob was not of the mind of the Grecian Daemon worshippers who said it mattered not whether they called the souls of the defunct angells or gods 2. By Angel is meant Jesus Christ the Angell of the Covenant Mal. 3.1 who is true God and he who delivered Jacob out of all his evils Thus both Jewish and Christian Expositors understand it 3. I think you mistooâ— this for the latter part of the verse which Papists urge to prove invocation of Saints But seeing you doe not urge it I shall not at present answer it 9. Inst Prayer for the dead It is an holy and wholsome cogitation to pray for the dead 2 Maccab 12. A. 1. This book is not Apostolicall nor part of the Canon of Scripture the Hebrews keepers of the book of the Old Testament received it not as is generally confest and though some fathers commend this and other books of this nature to be read yet they commended them onely as profitable Treatises not as Canonicall Scriptures and therefore advise men to reade them with discretion and prudence Christ though he gives testimony to the Prophets and Psalms he gives none to these or in speciall to this besides there are divers things in this render it suspected 1. The Author of this book supposed to be Josephus professeth it to be onely an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene c. 2.23 and the Holy Ghost is not used to Epitomize profane Histories 2. He makes an excuse for himself and such a one as the holy Writers never used nor becomes a Divine History c. 15. 38. Answ 2. The Text you urge may be divers wayes oppugned 1. The words are not rightly translated by you the Greek is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A holy and pious cogitation therefore he made expiation or satisfaction by sacrifice for the dead to free them from sin the words are not to be read without a middle distinction Vatablus who includes these words Piam et sanctam cogitationem in a parenthesis refers them neither to prayer nor sacrifice but to the resurrection of the dead saying it s an holy and pious thought to think that the bodies of them who have deserved well of their Country should rise again and not perish for ever 2. Supposing Sacrificing or Prayer seeing you will have it so for the dead were lawfull yet as to these persons it cannot be allowed For first they were Idolaters slain for their idolatry verse 40. Dying for any thing appears to the contrary in a mortall sin 2. They were not in Purgatory the onely place from whence Prayers bring souls for at this time Purgatory had not so much as an imaginary existence 3. Supposing Prayer for the dead and holy and wholesome cogitation and might be proved so from this place yet how can we be said to maintain a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which the Apostles in plain and formall tearms expressed Though here be expressed the opinion of Judas or Jason of Cyrene yet neither Judas nor Jason were the Apostles of Christ nor yet any of the Prophets of God the last of whom was Malachi It is evident that you want spirituall proofs for your charitable devotion else you would not have urged against us those books you know we account Apocriphal and not bring one syllable of Scripture you must first prove unto us the Divine authority of the books of Maccabees and then prove our contrarietie to Scriptures in dissenting from them till then you beg the question 10. Inst Extream unction Is any body sick amongst you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and pray over him anoynting him with oyl in the name of our Lord. Jam. 5. Answ 1. Here are not the plain and formal tearms of extream unction nor do I think that you read them in any ancient Author the word Extream shews your extram abuse of this ordinance as Lorichius otherwise as much for this supposed Sacrament as any o-any other clearly demonstrates in these words Abusus vocbuli est quod dicitur extrema unctio c. It s an abuse of the word to call it extream unction For it s not a Sacrament of dying men but of those who are sick not relateing to their burial but conducing to their recovery Whence it was that in the primitive Church many when they were anointed did recover health And even at this day many wâ—uld be healed if this Sacrament were rightly used I observe that these Popish Authors who pretend to follow antiquity do avoid this tearm Extream calling this supposed Sacrament either sacramentum unctionis aegrotorum as Lorichius or simply Cass consult Art 22. p. 985. unctio infirmorum as Cassander who also shews that its of use for the sick in order to their recovery of bodily health 2. This text of the Apostle proves not your extream unction It speaks of that miraculous anointing which Saint Mark mentions Mark 6.13 and which Bellarmine saith was a sign used in miraculous healing of the diseased your Rhemists imply that it had a miraculous medicinal vertue to heal diseases which you will hardly say of your extream oyl Cajetan expresly denies that this text of James Cajet in cap. 5. Jac. proves extream unction and proves it by divers reasons 1. Saint James saith not if any man be sick unto death but absolutely if any man be sick 2. The proper effect of Saint James unction is recovery of health If he speaks of remission of sins onely conditionally whereas extream unction is not given but at the point of death and directly tends as its form stands to the remission of sins besides Saint James requires that many Elders be called to one sick person
profession of Doctrine In your next words you call it Apostolical power which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order to Government as well as Doctrine but in the confirmation of your assumption you only though frequently express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good 2. Your felf overthrow the truth of this proposition 1. In saying Apostolicall power and doctrine where Communion is not wanting are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church whereby you declare then your enumeration of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient and may be where the true Church is not viz. where communion is wanting and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church you vehemently opposed it as an error how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter Is it a truth or no truth a Popish truth and a Protestant error 3. These marks or rather this mark may agree to particular Churches and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman Yea they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches as to Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine and to make profession of it and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine Answ 2. To your minor I deny it to be true your proof of I shall mainly examine The second Proposition say you I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther Zuinglius and Calvin and those of such points as Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ in Parturiunt montes c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies For my discovery hereof I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes and how he swerves from his undertaking 1. He undertakes things 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly and to befool the Reader 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christians as appears by those words Christians generally maintained so often repeated in the following instances 3. To produce this company professing c. when any opposition was first made whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages these Authors and Councels did then arise and oppose them 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholicks for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ 2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered 1. As for his instance of such points c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin but behold a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of Here are fifteen instances of which the six first together with the eighth tenth eleaventh and twelfth as he delivers it fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side insteed of our own living child which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers making shew onely of hâ—s own deformed bastard But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove Our disowning of them I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors only first I will advertise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist 't is this when he brings in Fathers or Councels in opposition to some errors he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines not directly contrary to those errors but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works he brings in the Apostles and Austin asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius attributing Justification to a simple act of faith he brings in Irenaeus and Austin affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin he brings in Tertullian Origen and the Trent Councell asserting that God doth no more but permit as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it Having premised this I come to his instances 1. Instance Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works Ans Is this the doctrine of Protestants or do they open Heaven to Faith accompanied with good works Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith and proclaim other Faith dead read concerning the necessitie of works the English Confession Non tamen dicimus c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely as if it were sufficient for a Christian onâ—ly to be dipt and to believe and nothing else expected from him true Faith is living and cannot be idle Read the Articles of the Church of England especially Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severitie of Gods judgement yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith c. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated they walk religiously in good works c. To all this the reverend Assembly of Divines consent saying Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith that believers are created thereto that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end Confess of Faith c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary I answer this was not the error of Simon Magus nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent Session 6. or of her children see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43 2. Inst Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est c.
fancies First prove that Christ hath communicated meritoriousness to mens actions and that this is one of his reall perfections and then we shall conclude that to acknowledge two perfections to Christ is to give more than to acknowledge one onely In the interim this may disswade us from believing you because Christ hath fully merited whatsoever is obtainable by a Christian either here or hereafter He hath purchased eternall redemption for us what need then of our purchasing that which is already fully paid for I will conclude with the speech of learned Rivet Meritum est personalis actio c. i. e. Merit is the personall action of the Son of God incommunicable to any of his members in regard of meriting which consists in the infinite vertue of the person meriting answerable to the excellent weight of glory Whereas therefore no simple creature is capable of this infinite vertue it will follow that Christ alone is the singular solitary and immediate cause of merit who hath therefore fully satisfied and merited whatsoever is necessary to us for salvation Rivet sum contra tract 4. 9. 17. Sect. 6. Object 2. It will be opposed all Actions besides Christs are duties and duties are inconsistent with merit Reply They are so without Covenant and acceptance so is obedience in a childe a servant a subject due to his Father his Master his Prince Nevertheless as a Father a Master a Prince making a compact to gratifie some particular act of his Childe his Servant his Subject innobles the same and intitles it to what was promised even so by the means of Gods Covenant 1 Tim. 4. Rom. 26. Hebr. 6. That he will reward certain actions of men though otherwise due and accept the same as worthy they become meritorious and their reward due upon this account Answ 1. It s Good sport to see what tuging there is amongst Papists about the ground of our actions meritoriousnes or whence it proceeds whether from Free-will as Aquinas Aquin. supr Dionys in Rom. 8.18 or from the Spirit the Fountain of good Actions as Dionysius Carthusiensis or from the habit of Charity as Azorius and Cajetan or from Divine Covenant as Scotus and some ancient Schoolmen or from the work it self as Soto Or lastly from the work it self together with the Divine compact as Bellarmine Bellarm. de Justif c. 5. lib. 17. This Author though first he mentioned Free-will yet he comes off to Covenant or compact Concil Senon decret 16. de fide apud Bennium and seems to lay all upon this and hereby as Vasquez acknowledgeth overthrows merit and condignitie which he hath been pleading for and indeed upon this account one of their Councels doth deny Condignity in these words Facietque tandem omnis misericordia c. At length mercy shall make way for every one according to the merit of their works not by absolute condignitie for the sufferings of this life are not condign to future glory but rather by the free and liberall promise of God c. Now if the promise of God be the foundation of our receiving Heaven and this promise be free then how can it be that because of this promise our works should be meritorious But leaving these boasters of unity to their hot disputes I answer secondly Gods Covenant doth not make our Actions cease to be duties for then it should nullifie the Law of God which doth injoyn acts of obedience as duties But we must not set Gods Covenant and his Law at variance as if contrary one to the other The truth is Gods free Covenant wherein for the sake of Jesus Christ he promiseth to believers salvation is an exciter of us unto obedience causing us to yield more freely and willingly than otherwise we should this is the Tenor of the Gospel Luke 1 68. c. Tit. 2 11. c. Here is first the purchase of Redemption salvation deliverance from the power of Satan and hereby an Obligation to duty A father promiseth a childe that he will make to him such lands freely this promise doth excite the child to do for his father what he commands him and to study in all things to please him whose love to him he is sensible of by the promise This the Apostle shews when he saith We lovâ— him because he loved us first Exod. 20. And indeed the morall Law runs thus I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt therefore thou shalt have none other gods before me Thus God said to Abraham I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect But because it may be thought that obedience is meritorious because God promiseth life upon it I further answer this will not follow For first Obedience such as the Law requires is not attainable by us since the fall and therefore the promise may refer to our obedience in the person of Christ whose obedience becomes ours whilest we apply our selves to him by Faith Or secondly if it refer to our personall obedience it doth respect our obedience onely as a disposition wrought by him in the Subject upon whom he will bestow life not as a proper cause of life As if a father should say If his childe please him be hopefull and take good wayes he will give him the inheritance this promise doth not suppose that the childs pleasing of his father or being hopefull and taking good wayes is the proper cause of his receiving the inheritance but it s his fathers good will that gives it him thus disposed and qualified thus it was with the Israelites God promiseth them Canaan onely requires that they should perform their duty to him as their God and Father Now should any one say that this promise made their obedience meritorious of Canaan the Scripture would contradict him which expresly saith Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thine heart dost thou go to possess their land but for the wickedness of these Nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out before thee and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy Fathers c. Deut. 9.5 Thirdly God doth no where promise to accept of mens works as worthy of heaven or to give them a reward because their works are worthy or condignly meritorious or as your Rhemists speak Fully worthiâ— of everlasting life For if this were so there would be no room for grace for that which is fully worthy of somewhat hath an equality with the thing which is therefore due to it whether there be promise or no. The Texts you urge prove that God will give heaven to men in the way of godliness patient continuance in well doing c. But they cannot prove that godlyness or well doing are the proper cause of our enjoying heaven the reward being hundred fold more than what we do your instances are short of proof for it for if that Act required of a servant or subject be a part of