holy Men living and the rest may be answered by that honour which was done to the Martyrs in frequenting their Memories keeping their Festivals celebrating their Victories Vertues and Praises or by that reverend respect had to their bones or Reliques But secondly we may question the Cardinals honesty in his very first Testimony where he brings in Justin Martyr with this pomp of words Justin speaking in the Name of all Christians Bel. ibid. Loquens nomine omnium Christianorum fidem totius Ecclesiae explicans Illum Filium qui ab ilto venit docuit nos haec bonorum Angelorum exercitum Spiritum prophetiâ—um colimus adoramus and delivering the faith of the whole Church saith VVe worship and adore Him the Father and the Son that came from Him and taught us these things and the host of good Angels also the Spirit of prophesie so that Author usually stiles the Holy Ghost Now what a strange sense little less then blasphemy doth the Cardinal put upon that ancient Father for the Advancing of Angel-worship as if the Host of good Angels were set here as one of the parties to be worshipped and that before the Holy Ghost whereas the * Bel. l. 10. de Christo Cardinal in his first Book de Christo did argue well that the Holy Ghost was not a Creature because coupled with the Father and the Son This indeed was answerable to the usual argument made by the * Sic Basil l. de Spir. Sancto c. 18 19. Fathers for the Deity of the Holy Ghost but here the Cardinal can couple the Host of Angels with the Father and the Son as to be adored with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin in Apolog. 2. and that before the Holy Ghost He that looks into Justin will easily discern that the Host of Angels there is coupled with these things and both relating to the word taught not to worship or adore For he spake immediately before of the wicked Angels or Devils not to be worshipped and as the Son taught us these things so likewise concerning the Host of good Angels Another place he hath out of St. Aug. saying to Heathens that professed to worship Angels Aug. in Ps 96. Vtinam velletis colere Angelos ab ipsis disceretis non illos colere id est adds the Cardinal non ut Deos sed ut Sanctos i.e. their Daemons I wish you would Worship Angels for you would then learn of them not to worship them Here the Cardinal adds his own words in the same character that is not as Gods but as holy But St. Aug. did not intend really to commend Angel-worship to them but wisheth they would instead of their Daemons honour the good Angels and of them they might learn true worship for he had said a little before The good Angels would have God alone to be worshipped Another Testimony he pretends from Eusebius Euseb de praepar Euang. l. 13. c. 11. hath it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. at their monuments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he makes to say We approach their Monuments and make Vows unto them by whose intercession we profess our selves to be much helped Thus the Cardinal wilfully following the corrupt Translation of Trapezuntius whereas Eusebius saith we make vowes and prayers not to Them but there i. e. at their monuments but to God as the custom then was And that which followes by whose intercession we profess is added in stead of we honour their blessed souls for so it follows in Eusebius Lastly out of St. Chrysost he cites Adoremus tumulos Let us adore the Martyrs monuments whereas that Father saith not so but thus * Chrys homil de Juvent Maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us visit or often go thither let us touch their Coffin or Chest Embrace their Reliques This is all the Adoration he speaks of Then a little after he shews the profit of it That from the sight of the Saints Monuments and consideration of their rewards we may gather much treasure Thus hath the Cardinal acquitted himself in the Testimonies from Antiquity To conclude Bel. de beat Sanct. c. 13. In his arrgument which he makes from the objections of Jewes and Heathens we may challenge his want of Candor in concluding that it was the practice of the Ancient Church because their Enemies charged the Christians with such a Worship That which the Heathens observed in the practise or doctrine of Christians was as we have seen above their allowing of and depending on the Ministery of Angels their resort to Martyrs Tombs their offering up prayers there their keeping the daies of the Martyrs sufferings their celebrating of the Martyrs praise Now it was a gross mistake in the Heathens thence to infer the Christian Church did worship them or did set Angels and Martyrs in like place and office as they did their Daemons and Heroes So is it a false inference in the Romanists from the practise of Christians then to conclude a Romish Worship and to make the mistaken allegation of the Heathen a pretence for it when the Fathers in answering their objection so plainly discover the mistake and deny the Worship There were some excesses it is like committed at the Tombs of Martyrs by some inconsiderat Christians but not to be charged upon the Church as appears by St. Aug. his answer above to Maximus the Grammarian A Catholicis Christianis None of the Dead are worshipped by Catholick Christians what ever excesses were used by some Aug. de Civ Dei l. 8. c. 27. Sed non fieri à melioribus Christianis yet none of the Catholick Christians so worshipped also by what he saith of feasting and banqueting used by some at the Tombs of Martyrs These things are not done by the better sort of Christians I will only add what I meet with in the History of the Councel of Trent anno 1549. How the Archbishop of Mentz during the Interim held a Synod by which in the 45 Head of Doctrine it was determined according to St. Augustin That the Saints were to be honoured but with Civil worship or honour of dilection and love no otherwise then Holy Men in this Life SECT II. Of Invocation of Saints or Angels AS for Scripture proof by the Confession of Romanists little is to be expected in this point Pretence of Scripture yet because Scripture is Scripture the written Word of God as I said at * Sect. 1. in Introduct the beginning it must and is pretended to and many places alledged by them There is nothing express saith †Salm. in 1 Tim. c. 2. disp 7. Nihil hac de re expressum habetur Salmeron in the Old Testament or Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles touching this matter but in the Apocalyps where there was occasion of writing the future success of the Church it is expressed The places he
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual
utramque attingimus por fidem and saith we attain to both sorts of Righteousness by faith Then he puts the question Vpon which of these righteousnesses we ought to relye or hold our selves justified before God and accounted righteous He concludes Justitiâ Christi nobis donatâ non autem Sanctitate gratiâ nobis inhaerente ibid. it must be upon the righteousness of Christ given us not upon the Sanctity or Grace inherent in us and adds the Reason Inchoata imperfecta quae tueri nos non potest quin in multis offendamus assidue peccemus because that which is in us is but inchoate and imperfect which cannot keep us from offending often Idcircò in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc Est vera perfecia justitia quaeomnino placet oculis Dei in qua nihil est quod Deum offendit and sinning daily and therefore have daily need to say Forgive us our Debts therefore we cannot be accounted just in the sight of God for this our righteousness but the righteousness of Christ given to us is the only true and perfect righteousness which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God and in which there is nothing that offends him Unto this the same Author applies Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousness but the Righteousness which is through Faith He gives us withall a good lesson It is found by experience saith he that holy men * quantò magis in sanclitate proficiunt tanto minùs sibi placere tanto magìs intelligunt se indigere Christo justitia Christi sibi donata ideóque se relinquunt soli Christo incumbunt Contar. ibid. the more they advance in Sanctity the less are they pleasing to themselves and the more do they understand how they stand in need of Christ and his Righteousness given unto them therefore they forsake themselves and relie upon Christ only He answers also to some places of Scripture objected as that the Psalmist saith often Judge me O Lord according to my righteousness and the Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness for I have kept the waies of the Lord Ps 18.20 21. If David had said and meant this so it à ut putasset se propterea justificatum esse coram Deo as to think himself therefore justified before God he had spoken as arrogantly as the Pharisee Luc. Scd essent mera mendacia 18. Nay he had spoken mere lies All this was spoken in regard of his Enemies especially Saul and Absalom of whom he had deserved well and not in regard of his righteousness before God Also to that place of Deut. 6.25 It shall be our righteousness if we observe all these Commandments he answers * Justitia nostra Legalis est custedire omniâ— sed quia nullus servet omnia praecepta Legis ergò sub maledicto omnes ideoque omnes indigemus Christo Our legal righteousness is to observe all but because there is none that keeps all the precepts of the Law therefore all lye under the curse or condemnation and all stand in need of Christ and his righteousness Thus that Cardinal was convinced of the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine in this point or question between imputed and inhaerent righteousness acknowledging the imperfection of the Inhaerent as to its effect of Justifying and that the imputed was to be relied on We might to these add what the Colen Divines in their Antididagma Antidida gma Tit. Justific or book opposed to the reformation endeavoured by Hermannus the Archbishop do acknowledge speaking of the Causes of Justification Nobis imputatur ad justitiam dum fide apprehenditur That the righteousness of Christ as it is apprehended by Faith is imputed to us for righteousness and more to like purpose Hitherto we have shewen by the foregoing witnesses that this Romish Doctrine of inhaerent Righteousness has not been Catholick within that Church not so generally held among themselves as they pretend It is now time to look higher and briesily examine what they bring from Scripture and Antiquity to make it seem according to Vincentius Rule Catholick Romanists destiture of Scripture in this point And by this trial it will still appear less worthy of that name The Cardinal brings * Bell. l. 2. de Justif c. 3. eight places of Scripture for justification by inhaerent righteousness Which might all be answered with this one exception They may prove that there is an inhaerent righteousness but not that there is Justification by it To instance in the chief of them His first place is Rom. 5.19 Made sinners really inhaerently We grant it true and answerably made righteous by Christ but were we made sinners only so by Adams disobedience were we not also made so by imputation the Cardinal himself acknowledges it Bell. de Aâ— miss gâ—a l. 5. c. 17. sect itaque and then are we not also made righteous by imputation of the second Adams obedience The Cardinal as we saw * Nu. 4. above in three places acknowledges the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits for freeing us from the offence of sin and and the guilt of eternal death and therefore from that condemnation under which we are by the first Adams disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That condemnation the Apostle here vers 18. sets against Justification and so in this Antithesis vers 19. between made sixners and made righteous must first stand good in regard of Condemnation and Justification taken properly then between the inhaerent depravation and the inhaerent Righteousness Take what the Ancient Commentators here say is meant by made sinners Chrys in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost and after him Occumenius and Theophylact to the like purpose expounds it made subject to punishment and condemned to death that 's the first sense of made sinners and unto that is Justification in the first and proper sense opposed The Cardinals second Testimony is Rom. Bel. quo suprá 3.24 Here he would finde all the Causes of Justification and in the word Grace taken for inherent righteousness he fixes the Formal Cause Of Grace and Gratis That it is taken for the gift of Grace inhaerent and not for the favour of God he would prove by the word gratis freely which was enough to set out the favour of God and his love to Mankinde But the Cardinal here also is impertinent and his argument inconsequent For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratis freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not put here to set forth the true Cause of our Justification viz. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods gracious favour so much as to exclude the false Causes viz. any cause desert motive on mans part Freely that is without any price paid by us without any Cause given by us or any worth in us Thus gratis is taken in Scripture and though it consequently
never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had
of authority as well as excellency of grace and holiness and still there is such Authority in the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and that Authority not Civil properly but Ecclesiastical and upon that Authority a subjection due to them Heb. 13.17 in things pertaining to Religion and Conscience and the honour or worship thereupon due to them as it may in his large sense be called Religious which we every where grant without prejudice to our or advantage to his Cause so may it better be call'd the Civil Ecclesiastical worship because as in the world so in the Church there is a policy or government for the Church below as a City and society within it self and does also with that above make up the whole City of God Therefore are we call'd by the Apostle Concives fellow Citizens Eph. 2. But 2ly Albeit Saints and Angels belong to the higher part of this City the triumphant and as to the state they enjoy are of higher dignity and glory then any in the militant or part below yet being not capable of that conduct of souls as the Governours and Pastors in the lower city are they cannot challenge that subjection from us nor the worship that arises upon it Nor can they by reason of their distance receive from us those tenders of worship and honour which are applied to holy men living * Eo cultu dilectionis societatis qu in hâ—c vita Sancti homines contra Faust l. 20. l. 21. S. Aug. determins it thus We honor the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship wherewith Holy men in this life are worshiped Of fellowship with reference to the Apostles fellow-citizens and of holy men living with reference to supernatural gifts and graces and the honour thence arising such as we give to men upon the account of holiness and such graces though they have no authority over us and let the Saints departed have all such honour inward or outward that they are capable of Lastly If this Author will drive those places of Scripture he cited for authority of Saints and Angels so far as to prove the worship due which they give unto them as his Mr. the Cardinal endeavoured by the like places to defend the invoking of them He may take answer from S. Aug. determining what manner of worship is due unto them as above the worship of love and fellowship and * Charitatis non servitutis Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. elswhere the worship of charity not subjection or service or from S. Paul Eph. 2. saying we are fellow-Citizens or from the Angel Rev. I am thy fellow-servant And if they will still make use of such places as this Author alleaged it will be easie to shew how inconsequent the argument is from such places of Scripture how insufficient to prove such a worship as is allowed by the Church of Rome To conclude This Author will not say we are mistaken Recapitul of the premises when we affirm that all worship properly religious and according to his first and stricter sense is due to God and not to be exhibited to any Creature Nor can he say we are mistaken in proving that truth by this Scripture Thou shalt worship the Lord c. unless he will deny this Scripture speaks of worship properly religious It remains then that our mistake if any must be in concluding by this Scripture their creature-worship to be unlawful That we are not herein mistaken appears by what has been said already First by that which is said above to shew the worship they exhibit by Oblations Incense Invocation Vows adoration of Images belongs and must be reduced to that sort of worship which is proper to Religion in the first and stricter sense Not only the effect of Religion but part of it I mean as performed and misapplyed by them and I would it were not the greater part of their Religion Secondly by the insufficiency of what this Author has said to the contrary in putting off the imputation from themselves and fastning the mistake on us As first his pretence from the immediate signification or bare importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text which speaks a bowing or prostration of the body and is common to the religious and the civil worship to the worship of God and the Creature and accordingly all the instances and examples he brought speak no more then that outward reverence and worship shewen in bowing the body Whereas this comes not home to our charge laid upon their worship and cautioned against by this Scripture viz. their worship exhibited to creatures by the above said acts and exercises of religion and devotion Secondly his pretence of religious in his larger sense as sufficient which is as short of the purpose as the former for so all the duties of the second Table as we saw above may be called religious i. e. pertaining to and commanded by Religion but here we speak of the acts of worship proper to religion or exhibited in the way and exercises of Religion and Devotion which in their worship are such as are proper to the worship of God the same by which our religion and devotion to God is exercised as Vows Invocation c. or such as are proper to the Heathen worship in the exercise of their religion and devotion to their greater or lesser deities as adoration of their Images whom they pretend to worship All this will farther appear by the next part of this Scripture and him only shalt thou serve Him only shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10 Here he would fasten a mistake upon us Of Latria or service properly due to God by a misunderstanding of the word Serve pa. 28. why so because having examined all the places of Scripture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated serve he findes it signifies that religious worship which is exhibited to God never used for a religious service done to a Creature as to a Creature pa. 31. Again that word is never used but for the serving either of the true or of a false God when it is referred to worship belonging to religion And he provokes any Protestant to prove the contrary pa. 32. But how did he conceive we understood the word when we affirm the same thing which to find out he bestowed as he saith some days study by examining all the places of scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used we say it is very true that in all the scripture neither that word nor any other is ever used to express religious service done to a creature as to a creature that is as due to it Again we affirm that this word when it is referred to worship belonging to Religion is never used but for serving either the true or a false God and therefore it is easily seen whether the Romanists be mistaken in their Inference therefore there is another religious service which may be
taken away in the use of them This is easily said and pretended but what boots it when people are taught contrary to the commandment to bow down and worship and to direct and secure them in it do hear a company of distinctions * Vid. supra in introduct ex Bel. they understand not Whatever therefore becomes of the truth of that doctrine now to be examined we may without rash judgement which this Author layes to our charge pa. 72. challenge the Church of Rome for so needlesly exposing her people to the peril of Idolatrie or superstition in this and other points of worship The first Protestant position saith he is That it is unlawful to represent God the Father in any likeness and the Scripture is Deut. 4.15 16. This Scripture he will have mistaken and misapplied to the Church of Rome Of picturing God the Father pa. 75. Before we ask his reason note here how they of the Church of Rome are divided in this point * Bel. de Imagin l. 2. c. 8. Docent imaginem Dei non recte fieri the Cardinal acknowledges some of his Catholicks Abulensis Durand Peresius and others to be of Calvins opinion herein that an Image of God is not rightly and lawfully made And though these be the smaller number in the Church of Rome specially since the Jesuites arose and multiplied yet are they in this more suitable to the ancient Christians who had no Images of God as Minutius Foelix and other ancient writers affirm Now see this Authors reason why that Scripture is mistaken and misapplied by us First because they of the Church of Rome do not represent God by any Image directly that is to signifie he is of a figure or shape like that Image pa. 27. Nor did the understanding Heathens say they did so represent their Gods by their Images Again we represent God saith he only historically as he appeared to the prophets as Dan. 7. the ancient of dayes neither is it forbidden to represent him as he pleased to represent himself pa. 75. But we must put a difference between the representing of a Vision and of an History Difference in picturing of a Vision and History to represent a vision in which God Almighty pleased to shew himself to the eye is tolerable but the Church of Rome takes greater liberty as appears by the decree set down by this Author pa. 72. of figuring * Historias narrationes Sacrae Script Conc. Trid. Sess 24. histories and passages of Scripture in which God did not shew himself to the eye under any kinde of figure thus also in the story of our Saviours baptisme they figure him like an old man looking out of the clouds when as they only heard a voice saw no shape so in the story of Creation they figure him like an old man with a globe in his hand and without reference to history they figure the Trinity God the Father as an old man with the Son on one hand Holy Ghost in shape of a Dove on the other hand His Hieroglyphical figuring of Gods attributes as of providence by an eye and the figurative speeches of Scripture attributing hand wings feet to God Almighty I let pass as altogether unfit to make any argument for representing God by an Image neither is he so confident of them as to make any concluding argument but only some semblance for representations of God for if he will make Images of these Hieroglyphical or Emblematical expressions they will not prove innocent Images which according to his own definition of an Image do represent the things as they are in themselves The second protestant position saith he is That no Image ought to be worshipped The Scriptures are Levit. 26.1 Exod. 20.4 5. Here he makes as they do all in this point a great noise about the words and translations The pretended distinction of Idol and Image to amuse the Reader in examining the thing it self spending thirty pages upon the words Idol graven-image likeness and quarrelling at our Translation as false and partial for saith he no word in the first Text signifies Image and that which we render graven-image out of the Hebrew Pesel every where signifies an Idol and so it is rendred by the Septuagint in the second Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idolum now there is a great difference between Idol and Image for an Image is the representation of a true thing but Idol a representation of what neither is nor can be as he who makes or uses it intends thus he in pa. 78 79 80 81. But he should remember that in the first text the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine sculptile and our Translation then does duly render it graven-image also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Septuagint in the second Text renders the same word Pesel does generally imply Image likeness representation although when taken with connotation of Idolatrous worship given it it signifies an Idol in his sense and seeing the Heathen false Gods were worshipped by Images and representing statues he should not be so offended that we in rendring those texts put in the word Image well let the texts run as rendred in their latine Bible our reasoning and argument against Image-worship will stand firm it being but the simple truth which all antiquity for 600. years according to Scripture asserted and after the Cardinal whom this Author follows had laboured so much in his conceited difference between Idol and Image he is forced to admit that which defaces it as this Author we shall see is content to do in acknowledging any Image may be made an Idol by the worship given it That the prohibition of the commandment concerned only Heathen Idols The prohibition of the Commandment was the device of the goodly second Council of Nice after the year 700. which Council to introduce or defend the Image-worship then begun so grosly abused both the words of Scripture and the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers They of the Church of Rome see themselves concerned for the maintaining of their Image-worship to defend that hold and in order to that conceive it necessary to make such a distinction between Idol and Image as may seem to clear their Images and statues from the prohibition of the Commandment and leave only that which they call an Idol under it Upon his long descant upon the words we may note 1. this their acception of the word Idol restrains it to the visible thing representing and such was Pesel the graven images statues pillars forbidden in those texts whereas the things represented or the reputed Deities Baal Jupiter Diana were Idols too and the main ones and they that prayed or offered sacrifice to them without sight or presence of their representations or graven Images were Idolaters by the first commandment And this note is necessary for distinction of the first * Vt infra 〈◊〉 12. and second Commandment
have it nor do they worship him by any graven image for they have no representations or likenesses of things therefore it is fit that our second commandment which forbids such should stand divided from the first And for the last commandment which they break into two and pretend a reason from the several objects Goods and wife yet the unity of it rests upon the desire forbidden in the word covet let the object or thing coveted be what it will therefore the Apostle renders the commandment by that one word non concupisces thou shalt not covet Rom. 7.7 And God himself has so disposed the words of this commandment Exod. 20. that he has put the not coveting of a neighbours wife which they make the ninth commandment into the midst of their tenth commandment putting before and after it the not coveting of his goods which shews them but one commandment But enough of this It is not the division of the Commandments that is so much to be stood upon as the observing and keeping of them did the Romanists hold this way of dividing the Decalogue with the same simplicitie and uprightness that St. Aug. and some others with him did we should not quarrel at it but this we have cause to charge upon them that in dividing they maim the Commandments either by leaving out some material parts as what concerns the graven image likeness bowing down to it and Gods jealousie against it or by restraining the sense of them as we have heard Now he proceeds to give us the double respect The pretended respects upon which worship is given to Imates under which they give reverence and worship to images pa. 124. But it is in vain to shew in what respect they give if the Scripture exclude it First he pretends it is but such a reverence as is given to holy things dedicated or tending to the worship of God and in this respect saith he we give them no more honour or worship then Protestants do to Churches pa. 129. This is too remiss and comes short of their worshipping and serving of images For we worship not holy things used in Gods service but use them reverently with difference from common things also sometimes they determine our worship we give to God circumstantially ad hic nunc for the performing it then and that way not objectively receive it but who can without shame make images holy things dedicated or tending to Gods service when there is such caution in Scripture against that danger Or affix a special presence of God to them For this would be what the grosser sort of Heathens conceited of their images yet does this Author alledge for the worship of their images that reverence which the ground had as made holy by the presence of God Exod. 3.9 where in token and acknowledgement of that presence shoes were to be put off The presence of Patriarch Prophet or Saint made not the ground or place holy where they stood themselves much less can the representation of them in or by an image render that image holy and to require our reverence and worship His second respect is because of their representing the thing to which the worship is conveyed pa. 125. and is not ashamed to argue but he learnt it from his Master the Cardinal from the necessity of the inward image or representation we have in our mind of the thing to be worshipped to prove the conveniency of an outward image to help our imagination and to help us to think of God pa. 126. That outward images and representations may help our imagination in conceiving of the object yea and raise our affections Philosophy tells us but in the act of worshipping God the danger of using images is great least they possess our mindes and carry away what belongs to the thing represented as St. Aug. on Psalm 113. shews how hard it is for him that prayes beholding an image such is the manner in the Church of Rome to keep his mind from thinking the image heareth and helpeth him where also he tells us that the Heathens who would seem to be of a more refined religion Use of in ages * Qui videntur sibi purgationis esse Religionis diâ—unt simulachrum non colo utc Damonium sed per offiâ—iem coâ—poralem ejus rei signum intueor quod colore debeo August in Psalm 113. alledged in excuse of their worship such respects as these of helping and fixing the imagination and conveying the worship to the thing represented We allow not only the historical use of images but in some sort the affective also yet that only as to meditation and preparation not for or in the exercise of prayer or worship much less to be the medium or instrument of coveying the worship hereby images in the Church of Rome become great stumbling blocks to the people that are not capable of the nice distinctions and limitations which their learned ones are fain to use in defence of this image-worship Again he seeks warrant for his holy images as things that put us in mind of God Bowing at name of Jesus no prerence for Image-worship from our bowing at the name of Jesus and is so courteous as to say what reverence a Protestant would judge to be given to that name printed or ingraven let him say the like may be given to any image of our Saviour and no more will be required so he pa. 128. But a Protestant may say first if he bow at the name of Jesus he has a Text will bear him out Phil. 2.10 which cannot be said of doing so to an image Secondly he may say that the adoration done at the name of Jesus in our holy offices is given to Christ only as the object but is circumstantially determined ad nunc by or at the naming of him that is such worship is given to Christ at the hearing of that name or when he is named and if upon sight of that name printed or engraven any man worship Christ then is that name the occasional motive of his worship now as for an image as it may not be the object of worship in which point the Romanists do require more then a Protestant can yield so it may be the occasional motive of worship as should a man upon sight of a Crucifix worship the Lord Christ lifting up his heart putting off hat and bowing and in that we may say the image determines the worship circumstantially as to the nunc the time worship being given upon the sight of it but should not determine it ad hic to do it towards the image for fear of making it any object of the worship or medium in conveying the worship to the thing it representeth and minded us of and in all this there is no more of worship done to the image then there would be to an iron chain which he that was bound with it in his captivity looking upon takes occasion to remember Gods mercy
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
notes are ch 5. 8. ch 6. 10. ch 8. 3. which we shall touch below but hear what he saith in his next disputation * Non fuisse morem in V. Tâ—â—adeundi Sanctos Intercessores Erat etiam olim periculum Idololatriae Salm. disp 8. sect postremo It was not their manner in the Old Testament to use the Saints as intercessors the Reason because they were not then glorified and because of old there was danger of Idolatry Mark the danger of the Romish practises in Religion and Worship But was there not danger under the New Testament he acknowledges it saying it is not express but was left to Tradition secretly to be delivered which he cals * Tacitam Spiritus suggestionem ibid. the silent suggestion of the Spirit but why because †Quia durum erat id Judaeis praecipere Gentib daretur occasio putandi multos sibi deos exhibitos pro it was hard to command such a thing to the Jewes and it was likely to give occasion to the Gentiles of thinking that many Gods were put upon them in stead of the many Gods they had forsaken And might not the same Reasons still be good against Romish Invocation and Image-worship either to keep them out or cast them out of the Church seeing they give such occasion of scandal to Jewes and Infidels throughout the Romish Communion The Cardinal is not so liberal with us Bel. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 19. Non consuetum Nec ordinariè cognoscere preces c. 20 sect sed dices for he would confine it to the Old Testament acknowledging It was not the custom then to say Holy Abraham pray for us and his reasons are because they did not see God and could not ordinarily i. e. without special Revelation know the prayers of the living Neither is the Cardinal so ingenuous with us as was his fellow Salmeron for albeit he gives reasons why prayers were not made to them in the Old Testament which reasons were good against their Invocation till our Saviours ascension yet he brings places out of the Old Testament for a seeming proof of it Some of them indeed concern Invocation of Angels as that Gen. 48.16 Job 5.1 to which we briefly answered †Chap. II. nu 9. above And though the Cardinals reasons which exclude the Saints of the Old Testament do not conclude against the Angels which did see Gods face and as well hear and know what was said and done below on Earth in the time of the Old Testament as after yet Salmerons Reasons might prevail against invocation of them because of danger of Idolatry then and it would have seemed strange and hard to the Jewes And albeit they had Cherubins in the picture yet not Angels in their worship Which is acknowledged by Azor and Vasquez and that out of several Fathers clearing the Jewish Church from Worshipping of Angels or Images and somthing to this purpose was said †Chap. III. nu 10. above Now for the places out of the Revelation Places of Scripture alledged for Invocation which are the only Texts that have any semblance or pretence for Invocating Saints or Angels they are mistaken as applied to that purpose That Text Rev. 5.8 where the four living Creatures and the 24 Elders are set out as falling down before the Lamb having harps and viols full of odours or incense which are the prayers of the Saints Here the Romanists that would have these prayers of the Saints to be meant of the prayers of men living offered up by the Saints in heaven are mistaken for the whole place is a representation of the Church below offering up prayers to God by Christ the Lamb and those Eucharistical or prayers of thanksgiving and praise chiefly for the Victories of the Lamb and Redemption by Christ as the next verse specifies them Thus Viega understands them of the Church below and he follows good Authors in it The next is Rev. 6.10 how long O Lord Here also is a great mistake of Romanists making this a formal prayer of the Martyrs for revenge which stands not with that charity they have in so great a degree and therefore this is but a figurative or emblematical representation of their Souls lying under the Altar and calling for revenge only to shew the certainty of that judgement and vengeance which God would in time bring upon the Heathen Persecutors for their bloud as when Abels bloud is said to cry for vengeance And for the Argument they make If the Souls of Martyrs cry for Vengeance upon their Enemies therefore their charity much more prompts them to pray for Gods servants It fails first in the Antecedent for they do not as we see make any formal prayer for vengeance and then it fails in the Inference for it would only conclude that they do pray for the Church Militant which we grant not that they offer up prayers made to them which is the point in question The third Text Rev. 8.3 where Another Angel is said to stand by the Altar having a golden Censer and much incense was given to him that he might offer it with the prayers of all Saints A great mistake this and impious to make this the office of any created Angel for the very Text seems to imply that this was a special Angel differing from the seven Angels set out in the second verse as ministring Spirits and what one created Angel is sufficient for this to receive and offer up their prayers that are made by all the Saints or just men on Earth Therefore generally it is interpreted of Christ the great Angel of the Counsel of God as Viega and other modern Writers and herein they have Ambrose Haimo Rupertus and the Interlinâ—ary Gloss consenting To whom I may add what Irenaeus saith reflecting upon this place and the other cap. 5.8 where speaking of the Church offering up all by Christ applies to it that of Malachi cap. 1.11 in every place Incense shall be offered then adds Now †Iren. l. 4. c. 33. Incensa autem Joan. in Apocal. Orationes ait esse Sanctorum Tert. advers Marcion l. 4. c. 9. Per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris sacerdotem St. John in the Revel saith that Incense or the sweet odours are the prayers of the Saints And Tertul. upon that of our Saviour to the Leper cleansed shew thy self to the Priest and offer Mat. 8.4 Inferreth we must offer up all our prayers and thanksgivings by Jesus Christ the Catholick or universal Priest of the Father No Created Angel can be such a Catholick Priest to offer up the Prayers of all Saints Thus much for Scripture to shew how destitute they are of any real proof and therefore want the first and main ground of Catholick faith and doctrine Sect. 1. in Introduct according to Vincentius his certain and safe Rule at first mentioned Now let us make a brief Survey of Antiquity and see
honours him whose Image it is he that contemns the Emperours Statue seems to do him injury c. Thus the Cardinal and no more thinking every one would imagine the application of this concerned the Images of Christ and the Saints that the honour or contempt done to the Image would redound to the Prototype but the words before and after plainly shew that the Fathers intent there is to apply it not to material but living Images poor men especially to whom if any do wrong God takes it as done to himself as if do good to them Christ takes it as done to himself as Mat. 25.40 and to stir them up to charity Quot inter Imagines Christi ambulamus Ambr. ibid. how many Images of Christ saith he do we daily walk among and so have opportunity of doing good But it is usual with the Romanists where ever they meet with this Instance of honour redounding to Emperors or Kings when done to their Statues or with that General saying the honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype they lay hold on it as an argument for Image-worship This they learn from their Nicone Council which after the Seventh Age laid the foundation of this Image-worship There besides many misapplications of Scripture and Fathers this is one And Athanasius Basil and Chrysost ancient and learned Fathers pretended who did indeed in proving the Son to be worshiped with the Father because he was his express Image use that Instance of honour done to the Emperors Image and that General saying of honour done to the Image redounding to the Prototype as most plainly appears in St. Basil Bas de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 18. Now what boldness is this to transfer to the worship of material Images that which the Fathers spake of Christ the Image of the Father because to the illustrating of it they took instance from the Civil worship One place more I must take notice of which the Cardinal alledges and truly out of St. Bel. l. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Prostrata ante Crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Hierom concerning Paula That lying prostrate before the Cross as if she had seen the Lord hanging there she adored We must consider Paula is here visiting those very places at Jerusalem where our Saviour suffered and was buried and if she was more then ordinarily affected and made such outward expressions of it as St. Hierom relates of her it is not much to be marvelled at Ingressa sepulchrum osculabatur ore Lambebat Hieronym in vita Paulae Going into the Sepulchre she kissed the stone which the Angel had removed and licked the place where our Saviours body laid So before the Cross she lay prostrate adoring the Lord that hung upon it This may be done without giving the Cross it self any Worship as above noted in the like place out of St. Gregory If Paula transported in affection did exceed she is not therein an example to us St. Hierom doth not say she gave worship to the Cross or that it was her practise thus in her devotions to lie prostrate before the sign but only tels us how she was affected in those very places I will conclude with the dangerous inconveniences of this Image-worship Complaints of the inconveniences of this Romish practise which even their own Authors complain of Images at first brought in for better remembrance of the History and to teach ignorant people what they could not read after once they began to be worshiped became ill Teachers of those rude Scholars who could not well distinguish what and how they worshiped Polydore speaking of it complains thus To such a madness is it come Many of the Ruder and ignorant sort Polyd de Invent. Rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eò insaniae de ventum est Permulti rudiores stultitiâ stultitiam cumulantes Illi qui talem proventum metunt so worship that they trust in them more then in Christ or the Saints represented by them And adding folly to folly they offer gold and silver unto the Images And that they may be the better enticed to do it They that reap the profit by it the cunning Priests hang up some of those Gifts and offerings to be seen * Cassand in Artic. 21. Cassander gives us many other complaints made by Gerson and Gabriel Biel of the poor simple people led on hereby to superstitious if not Idololatrical misconceits and practises But enough of this SECT IV. Of Justification BY that which was said above Chap. IV. Romanists make a confused work of this doctrine It may in some measure appear what a confused work the Romanists make of this doctrine of Justification and with what difference from St. Pauls meaning and from his way of handling it For first to settle the Justification of a Sinner upon inhaerent righteousness they confound Justification and Sanctification Decret c. 7. Non est sola remissio peccaâ—orum sed etiam Sanctificatio The Trent Decree saith It is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification Justification indeed and Sanctification go together yet are they to be distinguished as very different Acts and communications of divine grace the Apostle distinguished them expresly saying * 1 Cor. 6.11 1 Cor. 1.30 but ye are sanctified but ye are justified and who is made unto us Righteousness and Sanctification Secondly Remission delotion of sin They deny not that Remission of Sin is Justification but confound that Remission which according to Scripture and Fathers stands in the forgiveness of the offence and punishment with the actual deletion or expunging of the stain and corruption of sin that is in us which is another thing from Remission and forgiveness And when Scripture expresseth Remission by blotting out or deletion as Isa 43.25 Psal 51.9 it is the blotting our sins out of Gods Book of remembrance not out of the tables of our heart It is as much as God will remember them no more no more impute or lay them to our charge As for the blotting or purging the stain and corruption of Sin out of the Soul though it be not done by Remission but by another act of grace yet we grant it is done with Remission in the justifying of a sinner and inhaerent Righteousness by which that stain of sin is done out and the dominion of sin broken is wrought in the Soul together with the righteousness of Justification Thirdly The first and second Justification Having made a distinction of their Justification into First and Second That by inhaerent habitual Righteousness This by actual or continuance in well-doing they usually confound their first second Justification in the proving or commending their doctrine of Justification by Works And when they are put to it in plain terms to speak what they mean by Justification by works they restrain it to that which they call the second Justification in the explaining whereof the Council of
implies the mere favour and love of God yet where grace is added as here it is taken in the first respect exclusively to any thing in us more then faith to believe that Grace and favour of God towards man Hear what * Ambr. in Ro. 3. Gratis quia nihil operantes nec vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei Ambrose on the place Freely saith he because working nothing nor making any returns to God they are by faith alone justified through the gift of God also for the word Grace Gratiâ Dei in Christo quia voluntate Dei à Christo redempti sumus ibid. By his grace because we are redeemed by Christ by the will of God that will of God appointing and sending his Son for our redemption as he there explains it and thereby expresseth the favour and good will of God Oecumenius also interprets the word Freely Oecum in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exclusively Freely that is without any good deeds and again to bring nothing with us but faith and afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shewes by the Apostle all have sinned and therefore freely justified * Aug de verbis Apost Serm. 15. prorsus gratis qui nihil invenis unde salves multum invenis unde damnes bringing with them faith only Add St. August of this word gratis God freely gives and freely saves because he findes nothing for which he may save findes much for which he may damn A third Testimony from Scripture the Cardinal pretends Bel. ubi suprà Quo. loco ut exponunt Chrys Ambr. Theoph. Apostolus docet in baptisino purgari homines Sanctificari atque hoc ipsum est justificari is 1 Cor. 6.11 In which place as Chrysost Ambrose Theophylact expound it the Apostle teaches that in Baptism men are purged and Sanctified and that this is to be justified that all this is done in Baptism is plain by the Apostles words but that to be sanctified is to be justified the Apostle saith not nor yet those Fathers But the Cardinal has this Gift often to give us Names when their words will not serve his turn For Chrysostom and Ambrose have nothing to his purpose Theophyl indeed has a succinct expression Theoph in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justifying he Sanctified them if he had said in sanctifying he justifies it had sounded something to the Cardinals purpose but in saying justifieans sanctificavit he speaks that which we often insinuated above the concomitancy of sanctification with and the dependence of it upon Justification The Cardinals next Testimony is from Tit. 3.5 7. where he would conclude Regeneration to be Justification The place is answerable to that above 1 Cor. 6.11 and may be accordingly answered that there is regeneration and justification mentioned and that they go together but that Regeneration is Justification is still the false assertion of the Gardinal inconsequently drawn from this as from other places He adds also Rom. 8.29 1 Cor. 15.49 which do prove especially the second place our being made like to Christ in sanctification inhaerent righteousness but what 's this to Justification by that Image or likeness It was far from the Apostles intent to say any thing in those places of Justification Now whereas the Cardinal makes this Argument as Christ was righteous so shall we but he was not righteous by imputation therefore not we is fallacious It followes affirmatively not negatively He was righteous by inhaerent righteousness therefore we shall be so this is true But he was not righteous by an imputed righteousness therefore not we this followes not for we are to be made righteous not in the same manner every way and reciprocally but so as we are capable of and stand in need of being made righteous But thus much may serve for the Cardinals Testimonies from Scripture which we have found either to be impertinently applyed or to speak against him and therefore no marvel that he could not alledge any Fathers so interpreting them as he misapplies them to Justification by inhaerent grace or righteousness Now let us take a brief View of the Testimonies of Fathers which he brings as Witnesses for him Justification by inhaerent Grace not proved by the Fathers of which we may say as we found in his allegations out of Scripture that they prove there is an inhaerent Grace or righteousness in us not that we are properly justified by it Amongst all the Fathers * Bel. l. 2. de Justif cap. 8. he cites there appears but one Greek and among his Latin Fathers St. Augustin chiefly a good witness indeed if taken as he means To the many places alledged out of him we may give this general answer they either only prove there is inhaerent righteousness or if they speak of Justification by it then is that word used according to the Latine Etymology of making a man just or righteous by a real inhaerent qualification and that St. August is so much inclined to interpret the word Grace used in Scripture of the gift of grace inhaerent in us and sometimes to say a man is justified i. e. made righteous inherently by it came to pass by reason he had so much to do against the Pelagians in asserting that grace given and inherent in us for they denied not the grace of God in the prime sense as it speaks the favour and love of God to Mankinde but made little or nothing of the other The chief and most considerable sentences cited by the Cardinal out of that Father are these Aug. Confess l. 12. c. 15. Quantum distat inter lumen quod illuminat quod illuminatur tantùm distat inter justitiam justificantem justitiam quae ex justificatione facta est As great a difference as there is between the light which doth illuminate and the light which is illuminated so great a difference is there between that righteousness which does justifie which surely is the Divine righteousness and that which ariseth from Justification which is the inhaerent for else to take it as the Cardinal must for a comparison between the inhaerent and actual righteousness there is not such a difference between them So this place proves there is inhaerent grace or righteousness as light communicated unto us doth not prove a justification by it but by the righteousness from whence that inhaerent righteousness proceeds therefore speaks against the Cardinal Another place alledged is this Which Nature Aug. l. 15. de Trinit c. 8. Quae natura cum à suo conditore justificatur à deformi forma formosam transfertur informam when it is justified of the maker is translated from a deformed form to a beautiful form Here the Cardinal thought so much noyse of the word Form would be enough to speak the inhaerent righteousnesse to be the Form of justification whereas this only proves our renewing transforming from the Image of the
to the worth or dignity of the work This Argument also is inconsequent for admit that the reward is given according to works and in the giving it there is regard had to the dignity of them yet does not this conclude them meritorious as we saw above Nu. 3. Good works indeed may be different in worth and dignity yet all infinitely belwo the eternal reward And in the reward there is the substance and degrees considerable the essential beatitude or eternal life and the degrees of glory All that are saved have eternal life not all the same glory The Penny was given to all Mat. 20.10 To this purpose St. Ambr. l. 7. in Luc. 15. v. 17. aqualem mercedem Vita non gloriae Ambrose Thou hirest in Labourers at the eleventh hour and dost vouchsafe them an equal reward an equal reward of life not of glory The difference of reward upon the difference of good works is in the degrees of glory and if some proportion be observed in this yet nothing of Merit where God does but crown the greater gifts he bestowed here with the greater glory there If they will plead proportion our Saviour tels them Mat. 19.29 an hundred fold is received and that 's no fit proportion to ground Merit on If they plead reward given according to dignity of the works St. Paul tels them Rom. 8.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory excluding all proportion of worth between the sufferings and the glory Thirdly Such places of Scripture as speak works to be the cause or reason of giving eternal life as Mat. 25.35 For ye have fed cloathed Which places saith the Cardinal do witness eternal life so given Bel. l. 5. de Justif cap. 3. ut ipsam rationem cur detur vita aterna in operibus ponant that they put the very Reason wherefore it is given upon the works Those places do give a reason indeed why such and such obtain eternal life but not the very Reason or the chief Reason for there is a greater Reason a Reason wherefore such works are rewarded with eternal life and that destroyes the Merit of such works though not the certainty of their obtaining and that is Gods gracious bounty and liberality appointing such a reward to such small performances and therefore is it said in the 34. verse an Inheritance and Kingdom prepared for them and then dependently on that it is said Inherit the Kingdom for ye have done that which I required of you in order to inheriting the Kingdom ye are such as they for whom the Kingdom is prepared Fourthly Reward in Justice how Such places of Scripture as speak Gods Justice in giving the reward 2 Thess 1.6 2 Tim. 4.8 But this is still inconsequent as to the inferring of Works meritorious unless they can say God renders the reward to good works according to Commutative justice which gives one for one by equal proportion but such Justice is not found between God and Man for man returns nothing to God which he can call his own nothing but what he has received of God As for the destributive or remunerative justice it is true that God may be said in some sense to render the reward in justice yet not for the merit of the works but out of the bounty of his liberality and the faithfulness of his promise God was not bound in justice to prepare appoint or promise such a reward to such works but having appointed promised it it is just with him to render accordingly So the Apostle speaking of the Justifying of a sinner which the Romanists themselves say cannot be merited useth the same word that he might be just i. e. in keeping his promise to all that believe in Jesus So when the Fathers in their high language speak of Man making God his Debtor they mean it only in regard of his own promise whereby he has freely bound himself St. August Aug. in Psa 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se fecit non accipiendo sed promittendo may answer for them all The Lord saith he made himself debtor not by receiving any thing but by promising Lastly Such places of Scripture Worthy of the Reward how as speak us worthy So Luc. 10.7 2 Thess 1.5 Rev. 3.4 This argument as the rest is inconsequent They are worthy therefore their Works are meritorious or therefore they have the reward for the worth of their works whereas this worthiness arises by divine acceptation by which they are accounted worthy Bernard may answer them once for all Bern. de dedic Eccl. ser 5. illius dignatione non nostra dignitate We are worthy saith he by his dignation not by our own dignity See also above Chap. V. nu 8 9. In the Testimonies alledged by them out of the Fathers they give us but words or bare sayings Their Testimonies out of Antiquity examined But we produce the Fathers witnessing for us against Merit and giving reason withall to overthrow it The Greek Fathers have not any word that fully answers the importance of the Latine word Merit but the Romanists usually translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occurs frequently in these Fathers especially Chrysostome and signifies no more then recte facta Deeds rightly done or good works Merita Merits Such merits that is good works we acknowledge the Fathers do allow and the Cardinal acknowledges that St. Aug. Bel. de gra lib. arbitr l. 1. c. 14. Meritum appellat quemlibet actum bonum ratione cujus aliquid aliud accipimus in whose Books the word Merit is most frequently found uses it for every good work in regard of which we receive some other thing Well then we acknowledge holy men full of such Merits or good Deeds and that they shall obtain or be rewarded with eternal life And I dare say there is not any Father that affirms more as we may see by that Collection Bel. l. 5. de Justis c. 4. which the Cardinal has made He begins with the Greek Fathers but produces their sayings only in Latine and there he has as I noted above this gift usually to choose the worst translation so when he makes Ignatius say ut possim promereri Deum whereas the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to obtain or enjoy God although we need not be afraid of the phrase promereri Deum which we shall see St. Cyprian often using in an innocent sense according to the meaning of those ancient Times So the Cardinal makes Justin Martyr to say victuros cum eo suis meritis that they shall live with him God by their merits Justin Apolog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the Greek is to be accounted worthy of his conversation or of being with him In like manner that St. Basil should say speaking of the Forty Martyrs Basil in orat de 40. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have merited promeriti sunt crowns of glory and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits where the same word is used they were accounted worthy or did obtain such Crowns and that which he renders their Merits is in the Greek their worthiness or vertue He cites Chrysostom saying in his hom on Lazarus rendred according to their Merits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek sounds according to their desert and speaks of both wicked and good and is no more then what the Scripture often saith according to their works Dispunctio utriusque meriti Tertul in Apolog c. 18. and what Tertullian cals the discrimination or severing of both merits of the one to punishment and of the other to reward as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32 and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus Luc. 16.25 they were dealt with according to their different lives and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more then once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is according to their works or desert It speaks the difference of desert in the one and the other does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life To this purpose it was spoken * Nu. 3. above upon their alledging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits for according to their Works That which he alledges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers speaks only to this purpose that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients and by us admitted as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit truly so called The Latine Fathers cited by the Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Justific c. 4. albeit they have the word Merit more frequently yet do they indeed speak no more then the former St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase promereri Deum but according to the innocent meaning as I said above of those Times promeneri Deum for obtaining or procuring Gods Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory That which the Cardinal cites out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist and out of Bernard in Cantic contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit put for good Deeds only Greg. implies there that the glory will be proportionably the greater and answerable to the measure of good Deeds which we deny not but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality should be made an argument for condignity of mans merit as the Romanists do and the Cardinal did above nu 3 urging those Scriptures for Merit which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine who was also Bishop of Rome and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit speaks indeed against them So great saith he is the goodness of God towards all men Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei ut nostra velit esse Merita quae sunt ipsius dona pro his quae largitus est aeterna praemia sit donaturus Celest in Ep. that he is pleased they should be our Merits which are his Gifts and that he will give us the eternal rewards for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before which destroyes the very reason of their Merit properly taken That which is cited out of Ambrose de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more then according to their works whether they be good or bad as above in the Testimony drawn out of Chrysostome The sayings of Hierome and Hilary speak but the second thing we acknowledged viz that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more then the former Aug. ep 105. ad Sixtum Sicut merito peccati tanquam stipendium redditur mors ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium vita aeterna As unto the merit of sin death is rendred as the stipend and wages so is life eternal rendred as a stipend to the merit of righteousness Where the stipend or wages is no more then Reward This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom 6. ult A stipend is rendred as due for the labour of the warfare Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est is not freely given therefore the Apostle said The wages of sin is death and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend but grace or the gift of God except it be free is not grace and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it Intelligendum est igitur ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi tur Aug. ibid. Therefore we must understand that the Merits or good Deeds of Man are the gifts of God to which when aeternal life is given what is there else given but grace for grace And by this we may see how St. Aug. meant what he speaks elswhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle St. Aug. saying is this Aug. de Gra. lib. arb c. 9. Cum posset dicere recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere The Apostle might have said and said it truly that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the Gift of God He might have said it in a true sense taking the word stipend as above for a reward or recompence not in an equal or answerable sense to the other the wages or stipend of sin is death for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that which the Apostle did say but the gift of God is life eternal nor with the end and purpose wherefore the Apostle did choose to say the gift rather then the stipend viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity as it follows there in St. Maluit dicere Gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. He chose rather to say The gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our Merits but for his Mercy sake There is scarce any of the Ancients that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally faln upon it but observes the apparent distinction which the
Messiah and indeed that place of Isa 9.6 where the Messiah is called Pater futuri seculi the father of the Age or world to come to whom a generation shall be accounted Ps 22.30 does accord thereunto Now it was an opinion among the Jewes as they that are acquainted with their Rabbins do tel us that some sins should then be forgiven which could not before and accordingly it was an usual expression by saying such a sin shall not be forgiven no not in the world to come to shew the Atrocity and flagitiousness of such a sin which the grace that the Messiah should bring would not take away and so our Saviour might speak this ad hominem according to their common opinion and saying to express the hainousness of that sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost But take this Phrase according to the tenour of the New Testament which supposes the Messiah come already The world to come every where signifies that which begins at the Resurrection or last day of this world Then is fixed the End of this world Mat. 13.39.40 cap. 28.20 and then begins the world to come Marc. 10.30 Luc. 18.30 Eph. 1.21 And so it must be taken by St. Aug. in that place which the Romanists cite as to their purpose for the forgiveness of sins not forgiven before Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. Neque enim de qui busdam veraciter diceretur non remittetur Otherwise saith he it could not be truly said of some it shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come for if we inquire of him when shall this be factâ resurrectione He tels us there after the Resurrection is done And so also Futurum seculum the world to come is taken both by Greeks and Latins * Concil Flor. Sess 1. de Purgatorio in their debate of this point II. Of the Forgiveness For their inference from our Saviours Negative Not forgiven saith he in the world to come therefore say they there are sins to be forgiven in the world to come The Cardinal acknowledges it does not follow according to the Rules of Logick Indeed such forgiveness as they pretend in relation to Purgatory cannot in any reason follow upon our Saviours speech That there is a forgiveness of sins after death cannot be denied so long as we believe there is a Judgment of God to come for when that comes and passes upon the Souls of men either privately at their death or openly at the Last day there is an absolution of some and a condemnation of others a forgiving and a not forgiving in the world to come whether we begin that Time at the day of Death or of Resurrection but this forgiveness is nothing to Purgatory Again This forgiveness or not forgiveness of sins in the world to come may have regard to the forgiveness or retaining of sins by Man in the Ministry of reconciliation in this life so there is a loosing and binding on Earth and a loosing and binding in Heaven in like manner a declaration of sins forgiven in the Church in this life and a declaration of sins forgiven or not forgiven in the world to come For then it shall appear that many sins forgiven by Man Clave errante through misapplication of the Keyes are not forgiven of God but shall receive sentence of condemnation and many that have been unjustly excommunicated and condemned here shall be owned and absolved there And so in this respect it may be said truly that whoever will continue obstinate and rebel against light as they that here blasphemed against the Holy Ghost must not exspect to have his sin forgiven either in this life by the Church or in the world to come when God shall appear in judgment and so it comes to what St. Marc. saith Hier. in Mat. 5. Huic nullo tempore blasphemia remittetur he hath never forgiveness and what St. Hier. saith upon the place This blasphemy shall never be forgiven him The Sins which the Romanists will have forgiven in the next life Venial Sins are Venial or light sins But why these forgiven in the next world when the great sins are forgiven in this life as they acknowledge unto those justified persons whom they send to Purgatory why should such small sins which do not cut off the state of justification or put the person out of the favour of God be retained and call'd so so severe a reckoning as is that of the Purgatory Prison It is true that sanctified persons after their Justification are subject to the daily subreption of such lighter sins but seeing as St. Aug. saith often we do for them daily confess and say Forgive us our debts why should not the general repentance and confession with which such Persons dye be available to the forgiveness of all such failings and secret sins that cannot be remembred in particular through the merit of Christs perfect obedience apprehended by the faith of such justified persons And as for the stains of sinful corruption The stain or remaining corrupting of Sin yet remaining after forgiveness of the guilt and punishment the doing away of which the Romanists call forgiveness what need is there of a Fire to purge them away for it is not fire but the grace of God likened unto fire that can work that effect upon the soul And why may not final grace as some call it do away the remaining corruption at the parting of soul and body They acknowledge that grace infused does it in the first Justification not only taking away the guilt but the stain and corruption too and why may it not do so in the last infusion or communication They acknowledge also that the stain of original Sin comes upon the Soul in a moment at the conjunction of it with the body and why may not the contracted stains and blots of sin be by the grace of God done away at the separation of soul and body All this is far more reasonable to say then from our Saviours speech not forgiven to infer some shall be then forgiven and from that forgiveness to conclude such a Purgation of Souls as they imagine More reasonable I say though not so prudential it may be considering what is gained by it in the Romish Church For hear what the Cardinal saith of that Inference of the affirmative shall be forgiven from our Saviours Negative shall not be forgiven It doth not follow Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 4. Non secundum Regulas Logicae sed sequi secundum regulam prudentiae alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptissimè locutum saith he according to the Rules of Logick that is of Reason but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence Else should we make our Lord speak inconsiderately in saying neither in this world nor in the world to come For their Prudence in drawing Purgatory out of so many pretended places of Scripture besides the Rules
of Logick or Reason we envy it not but it was neither Prudeut nor seemly for the Cardinal to conclude that unless such Inference were good our Saviour had spoken inconsiderately or as his word sounds foolishly whereas we saw above our Saviour might speak so in many respects without reference to any such Purgatory In respect to the Age of the Messiah according to the opinion of the Jewes In respect to the General judgment of God and the sentence then to be passed In respect to the forgiveness of sins and that loosing made on earth Another respect we may add and say our Saviour might speak so in regard of the punishment of the world to come which is the necessary consequent of not forgiven shall not be forgiven i. e. shall be punished So Ferus on the place and Chrysostom And this will bring us to their Inference from these words which was the third thing they were to make good and it is directly contrary to that of St. Chrysostom III. They infer Purgatory pains from the forgiveness which they suppose to be in the world to come forgiven i. e. punished This is inconsequent and inconsistent First in regard of the Time for the forgiveness of the world to come is that final open absolution or forgiveness at the Last day but their Purgatory forgiveness and punishment is secret and before that last day But here they seem to answer that sins indeed are forgiven at the last day but to them that have first parsed the Purgatory fire and for this an obscure place of St. Aug. is alledged Even as at the resurrection there will not be wanting some Aug. de Civ Dei l. 21. c. 24. Sicut factâ resurrectione non deerunt quibus post poenas quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum impertiatur misericordia ut in ignem non mittantur aeternum Neque enim de quibusdam veraciter directeur to whom after the pains which the souls of the departed do suffer mercy may be imparted so that they shall not be cast into eternal fire For it would not else be truly said of some it shall not be forgiven neither in this nor the world to come What these pains are and when suffered he speaks not and in the application of this Scripture he goes alone Only he is plain for the Time of this forgiveness or imparting of mercy that it is at the resurrection But this will not stand with the Purgatory forgiveness nor with the profit to be raised out of Papal Indulgences by which Souls may be loosed out of Pains every day and sent to heavenly bliss before the resurrection Secondly in regard of the Opposition between Forgiveness and punishment The former Inference which from our Saviours Negative shall not be forgiven concluded some sins shall be forgiven then the Cardinal acknowledged not to follow according to the Rules of Logick but from their supposed forgiveness to infer punishment is still more unreasonable The Scripture sets reconciliation with God against paying the utmost farthing Mat. 5.25 sets the forgiving of the dâ—bt against the paying of the debt Mat. 18. 32. 34. The Greeks after the Council of Florence set out their Apologie concerning Purgatory in reference to what they had discoursed with the Latines there where we finde this to be one point of difference between them * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What agreement say they is there between Remission and such purgation or punishment there is no need of both and a little after they shew that St. Aug. was the first that conceited this middle kinde of punishment after this life in order to forgiveness of some sins and the occasion that brought him into that conceit they also declare which we shall mention under the next Head Our fourth General Head was concerning the Pains and punishment between Death and the Resurrection Of Pains after Death The Text of 1 Cor. 3.13 misapplied to the Purgatory Fire We have already considered them in relation to Forgiveness of â—n now more specially of the Purgatory punishment to which the Romaâ—â—ists apply what they meet with touching the purgation of fire We will first examine that noted place of Scripture so often misapplied by them to their purgatory Fire It is 1 Cor. 3.13 the fire shall try every mans work and vers 15. He shall be saved yet so as by fire The Cardinal acknowledges this to be one of the most difficult places Bel. de purg l. 1. c. 5. Vnum ex difficillimis locum and that so St. Aug. thought of it and consequently he should have acknowledged it no fit place to ground an Article of Faith on as affording no more certainty of a purging fire after death then such as St. non in credibile so sitan ita est non redarguo Aug. does usually express in the several places where he fals upon this Text such a thing is not incredible It may be it is so and if any will take it so I do not reprove him Again the Cardinal giving us the several opinions of the Ancients about the meaning of Hay and Stubble there mentioned he cannot finde any before St. Gregory that understood thereby Venial sins and therefore all the Ancients were far from conceiving any such purgatory couched in this place Also in giving us the several opinions of the Ancients touching this Fire Bel. ibid. Sect. Tertio quia He tels us all the Ancients seem by the day mentioned ver 13. to understand the day of the last judgement and he gives four Reasons to prove it so and after their different opinions of the fire there also mentioned he concludes that cannot be the purgatory fire because the fire in St. Paul touches all Bel. ibid. onmes tangit at Ignis purgatorius non probat opera eorum even those that build gold and silver But the Purgatory fire does not prove their works Apostolum â—olqui de igne severt justi judicii Dei qui non est ignis purgans affligens sed probans examinâ—ns It remains therefore that we say the Apostle speaks of the fire of the severe and just judgment of God which is not a purging and afflicting fire but a proving and a trying fire and for this he gives unanswerable reasons and in asserting this the Cardinal is sound and ingenuous But what will become then of his Purgatory fire and wherefore is this Text urged for it He finds it in the 15. vers shall be saved yet so as by fire This in the Cardinals imagination is the purging fire But what consent of Fathers for this interpretation He acknowledges that some of the Ancients do here also understand the fire of Tribulation some the fire of Conflagration some the eternal fire as St. Chrysost and Theophylact taking the word * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saved catachrestically for an eternal abiding or living in the fire All these therefore are not for the Romish purgatory
what may be brought for or against this Invocation of Saints and Angels allowed in the Roman Church Being forsaken of Scripture they fly to some sayings of the Fathers that seem to allow and commend the practise then set on foot by some in the fourth Century higher they cannot go for the rise of it and so fall short of the second ground of Catholick doctrine requiring it be delivered down from the Apostles time held and believed in all Ages as Vincentius his Rule also tels us For clearing of this We will lay down some Generals which will evince this doctrine and practise though Ancient yet indeed New and not Catholick and so may render what they bring weak and impertinent to prove the contrary First It was the opinion of very many of the Ancients The opinion of some of the Ancients touching the state of the Dead inconsistent with Invocation that the Souls of the faithful are not admitted into Heaven or to the sight of God till the Resurrection being still in the like condition as the Romanists suppose the Fathers of the Old Testament to be in and therefore not in a condition to be invocated or prayed to but were prayed for that God would give them †Lucem refrigerium light and refreshment as we finde in ancient forms of prayer for the Dead Senensis and other Romish Writers acknowledge this to be the opinion of many Ancient Fathers and therefore Invocation of Saints could not then be Catholick belief or Doctrine The †Bell. de Beat. Sanctor c. 1 2 3. Cardinal well saw how this was inconsistent with the ground of Invocation and therefore seeks to make the Contrary appear viz. that the Souls of the faithful do see God But though many Fathers may be brought to the contrary especially after the many Miracles done at the Tombs of Martyrs in the fourth Age yet the general opinion of the more Ancient Fathers being as I said it plainly shews that Invocation of Saints could not be their belief or practice Bellarmine seems to be troubled in shifting off two testimonies especially The one of John the 22. who though of later times yet a Pope and so more cross to their pretended ancient belief of Invocation which sentence of the Pope * Bell. de Beat. Sanct. c. 2. he seeks to elevate it as if the Pope held it doubtfully and recal'd it but elsewhere the †Bel. de Pontifice Romano l. 4. c. 14. cum Liberum esset Cardinal answers roundly to it that Pope John thought so when it was free to think so the Church having determined nothing therein But if Invocation of Saints departed had been a defined and determined doctrine of the Catholick Church then would it not have been free for any to hold them in a place where they could not be Invocated The other Testimony is of Irenaeus Iren. l. 5. c. 31. Legem mortuorum servevit one of the most ancient Fathers most plainly asserting the former opinion and giving Reason for it from our Saviours example who did saith he observe the Law of the dead that he might be the first born from the dead and what Law was that Manifestum est quia discipulorum animae Bell. l. de beatit Sanctorum c. 4. sect tertio Erat animâ beatus animâ sunt in paradiso beati that his soul should stay in the lower parts unto his resurrection or in an invisible place as he cals it in that chapter It is manifest therefore that the Souls of his disciples must stay in the invisible place till the resurrection and then adds for no disciple is above his Master Of all that the Cardinal saith this only carries a shew of Answer That Christ before his resurrection was beatified in Soul so was he before his death by reason of the hypostatical Union In like manner the Saints while they rest as to their bodies in the Sepulchre are blessed in soul and in Paradise That they were in a blessed condition though out of heaven or the beatifical vision of God was not doubted but that Paradise which Bell. in reference to Luc. 23.43 places them in does not reach the highest heaven or sight of God and so he saith nothing as to their capacity of being invocated So also what he saith †Bell. l. 1. de Beat. Sanctor c. 6. fuisse tamen in Fara diso Coelesti formaliter i. e. fuisse Beatam gloriosam afterward That Christs Soul though it did not ascend into that corporeal Heaven before his resurrection yet was it in the coelestial Paradise formally i. e. it was blessed and glorious Which if our Adversaries would yeeld unto the Souls of the Saints we would not be much solicitous for that corporeal Heaven We cannot yeeld nor you neither that the Souls of Saints if not in the highest heaven and that sight of God could be glorified and beatified as the Soul of our Saviour was only that they were blessed in Soul though out of that heaven we yeeld but that will do the Romanists no good as to Invocation And if our Saviours Soul was formally in Paradise before his refurrection because it was gloriosa beata glorious and beatified then was it so in Paradise before his death whilest he conversed on earth or was on the Cross for his Soul by reason of the Hypostatical Union was alwaies in the Vision of God and beatified and so the Cardinal still said nothing to the purpose But this is enough to our purpose that many of the Ancients deny the Saints departed to have sight of God till the resurrection or speak doubtfully of their place and condition which plainly evinces that Invocation could not be a point then of belief or Catholick Doctrine Our second General is This practise of Invocation took beginning but in the 4. Century That this Doctrine or practise cannot be made to appear before the fourth Century and therefore also not Catholick This is proved first because the defenders of it can bring no Testimony for it beyond that Age. That which Coccius cites out of Origen upon Job and the Lamentations is indeed not out of Origen for neither of those Comments are his and what the †Bell. de beat Sanctor l. 1. c. 16. Cardinal makes his first Testimony out of Dionysius his Hierarchy fails two waies for that writing is of a much later date and the place cited concerns the prayers of the Living for the Dead not to the Dead as appears by the purpose of the whole Chapter from whence the words are taken The Cardinals second Testimony is from Irenaeus an ancient Father indeed but what saith he for Invocation He cals the Blessed Virgin Evae Advocatum the Advocate of Eve and Bell. cries Quid clarius what more clear If this imply any Intercession yet can it not prove Invocation for how could Eve invocate the Blessed Virgin But this is a strong and high