worship of the dead exhibited to them by those that overlive them or remain after them or as Lactantius tells us they are call'd * Superstiriosi sunt qui superstitem memoriam defunctorum colunt eorumque Imagines celebrant Instit l. 4. c. 28. superstitious who worship or religiously honour the remaining memory of the dead and celebrate or honour with religious service their Images And now let this Author if he can defend his Catholick Roman Church in her pretended religious worship from this charge of superstition and then consider if she be not also so far chargeable with Idolatrous practice as those applications to Saints and Angels those expressions of worship which they make by vows oblations prayers and adorations shall be found to yield to the creature any thing proper to God To conclude we have seen how the worship which they religiously The honour due to Saints and Angels of what sort iâ— it but unduly give to Saints and Angels stands charged now if for the perfecting of this discourse it be enquired to what sort of worship that honour which we acknowledge due to Saints and Angels the thing which he said we yield may indeed be reduced we have two sorts of worship apparent and unquestionable Divine and Civil the divine is due to God by reason of his supereminent majesty and by reason of his dominion over the whole man and contains all the religious worship and service all the obedience man can give him according to any of his commands all the honour he can return him upon any due occasion The civil is due to man upon that dominion he has over others according to the outward man and affairs of this life and contains the honour subjection and obedience due to Magistrate Masters Parents Between these two the Cardinal whom this Author follows every where fixes the worship or honour due to a finite supernatural excellency such as is in Saints and Angels And it is true that if we give the creature no more then is commensurate or due unto it the honour given will not be a Divine or Religious nor yet a Civil worship properly because given without respect to dominion or subjection But there is a worship or honour due to persons to whom we owe not subjection as they are endowed with qualities and excellencies though not supernatural as Wisdome Learning Justice and other Vertues which worship is not Divine or Civil properly but as some call it the worship or honour of Moral reverence due to all moral vertuous endowments or as others Cultus officiosus officious or out of courtesy So likewise the honour due to gracious and supernatural gifts and qualities may though in a higher degree be call'd the honour of moral reverence making but one kinde of both because the motive or ground of both is a thing of moral perswasion arising from the worth and excellency of gifts and endowments without the reason of dominion Greg. de Val. Val. in Thom. 2.2 disput 6. qu. 11. punct 5. has a phrase for it not much differing telling us the worship due to Saints is not an act of religion immediately but singularis observantiae of a singular observance or respect to saints that it is not religion immediately which procures them that esteem commensurate to excellent Creatures but peculiaris observantia i.e. that special observance reverence w ch such excellencies deserve Now this is to speak what is due to saints not what the Romanists allow them or suffer their people to give them w ch often falls into the way and acts of Religion by their vows prayers raise oblations to Saints That this worship or honour which may be call'd an act of moral reverence or of officiousness or of special observance if they please is of a differing kind from the religious or divine and may be differenced from the civil or humane cannot be denied but if asked to which of the two it is reducible or analogical we say to the civil For gifts and virtues which for their principle and Original are supernatural are for their use civil i. e. for the good of the concives fellow Citizens members of the same society of the Church yea Saints and Angels are concives fellow Citizens with us Eph. 2.19 So that civil worship might be divided into that humane civil according to the Polity of the world and this of moral reverence which is analogically civil according to the Polity of the Church society But they must reduce it to Religious worship which they divided into Latria and Dulia as above ehre its made medius cultus a middle worship between Divine and Civil as the Card inal and they all do Bel. de Beat. Sanctor l 1. c. 12. to bring it nearer to the Divine and then to make it intrench upon the divine or religious worship by such applications and expressions as we heard above As for their usual starting hole to which they commonly retire in this point of worshipping of Saints Angels Images to say they have no such acknowledgment of them as of Gods or infinit excellencies it will not secure them so long as they yeild them some acknowledgment not commensurate to them and express it by such acts and exercises of religious worship as above said We shall find the Heathens made the like excuses for the worship they gave to the inferior Deities and to their Images Nor could the people have such a conceit of Moses's dead body or carcass as of an Infinite and divine excellency which yet God hid from them least they should make an Idol of it as the Cardinal saith * Bel. Apol. pro respons sua ad Reg. Jacob. cap 8. Sect. jam vero that is least they should do to it and give it such acts of worship as the Church of Rome doth to Angels to Saints and to their Reliques Now least there should be made some pretenceâ— of plea from what the Author said of supernatural worship and excellency Of the Authority and Rule that Saints and Angels are said to have over us which he seemed to raise not only upon supernatural gifts and graces but also upon that dignity and authority which is more then humane or Civil and truly by him call'd Ecclesiastical such as was in Prophets and Apostles and withall mentioned several places of Scripture to imply the dignity and authority in the Saints and Angels as 1 Cor. 6.2 that they shall judge the world Rev. 5.19 that they shall reign upon the earth And that the Angels were Promulgators of the Law Act. 7.53 Captains of the Armies of God Jos. 5.14 Controlers of Kingdomes Dan. 10.12 So he pa. 17.18 I say least by this Authority which he seems to ascribe to them he should imply for he does not plainly infer a subjection to them and upon that account a duty of worship therefore to exclude all pretences It may be said 1. That in Prophets and Apostles there was a dignity
AN APPEAL TO Scripture Antiquity In the Questions of 1. The Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels 2. The Worship of Images 3. Justification by and Merit of good Works 4. Purgatory 5. Real presence and Half-Communion Against the ROMANISTS By H. FERNE D.D. late Bishop of CHESTER LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to His most Sacred MAJESTY 1665. THE PREFACE BEing both provoked and invited to make some Answer to Mr. Spencer's Book of Scriptures Mistaken I assayed to do it as briefly as I could and it was needful I should confine my self to the Order he observed and to the places of Scripture he examined as urged by Protestants against the Romish Doctrine and Practise and to those he alledges as witnessing for it But seeing he boasts in his Preface that he will deal with the Protestants and beat them at their own Weapon Scripture and so comes not to the trial of Antiquity which he pretends and with too much confidence presumes to be their own therefore I shall add A Brief Survey of the Ancient Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church as to the points here Controverted that it may appear how they are worsted there what brags soever they make of Antiquity But it may be said There are Bocks enough and too many which do but continue the Controversie and keep the breach open More need there is to endeavour some closing and to make offers of Agreement True if we could conceive any hope of condescention on their parts or perceive any intent of Peace in them whom we still finde lying at the catch and laying hold upon all advantages which may promote their cause with all sorts of people into whose hands they thrust such Books as may render it more plausible and into whose ears they are continually whispering what may represent the Protestant as guilty of Schism and Heresie thereby enforcing us to break silence and to inform our People if we will not have them seduced of the cunning of our Adversaries to discover their Dawbings and vain Pretences such as Mr. Spencer and others sent over to the same purpose do use for deceiving of the Unwary Peace among Christians surely is the most beseeming the most desirable Thing in the world and would be considering how it now stands with the too much divided Catholick Church the greatest blessing and we have been sufficiently taught how to value it by the past and present distractions and differences amongst us But when we talk of Peace to them of Rome they are ready to reproach us with Physician heal thy self make up your own breaches and Divisions before you speak of being received into the Unity of the Catholick Church Let them alone a while with their so much pretended unity our first care certainly is to make peace at home and in the mean time as we see it the care and prudence of all States to guard the Borders against the Forrein and Common Enemy to fortifie those Doctrines wherein the Parties dissenting do agree and are as within common bounds enclosed And blessed be God we have a great expedient for the restoring of our Peace by the return of our gracious Soveraign unto us who is the true Defender of the Faith the great Example of Constancy in Religion and of Clemency in fogiving and forgetting injuries And when we his Subjects being assured of the Truth and Religion which he defends have also learned to obey by His Example and with mutual condescentions and endeavours of peace to entertain and embrace one another then shall our hearts be better prepared with a charitable compliance for the Adversary abroad when soever he shall think it convenient to admit thoughts of Peace and shall seriously consider how we are all bound to profess and believe One not Roman but Christian Catholick Church We cannot but be sensible what hand they that stile themselves Catholicks have had in kindling this fire among us and bringing fuel to it and we would have them being so oft convinced and told of it sensible how unchristian uncatholick a part it is how contrary to the Peace of the Church But could they that are sent over amongst us to blow the coals forget their Instructions and Vow of Obedience and they that send them learn to value the Peace of Christendome yet what hope may some ask could there be of an Accord in Doctrine If we consider what passed in the Germain Colloquies during the Time of the Trent Council and observe what condescention and moderation appeared then notwithstanding the intervention of so many Nuncio's from Rome and the so much boasted pretence of Infallibility in that Church If also we carefully look into their Controversie-Writers and note what concessions they sometimes make in the point what mincings of the Romish doctrine when they are put to it there may appear a possibility in the thing it self if peaceable men had the handling of it But when we consider on the other hand how all those endeavours for Peace became Fruitless and all the offers made at Truth by moderate Men in that Council were silenced and rejected and notwithstanding all their mincings and concessions in those points the Doctrine and Practise of that Church goes as high as ever We may imagine there are some over-ruling points of State-doctrine of the Court rather then Church of Rome which command the Rest and forbid all condescention and moderation such at least as may give us any hope of a tolerable agreement And thus it will be what ever we endeavour till order be taken with him that pretends to the Infallibility and exorbitant Power of whom we may say in this particular as the Apostle doth of that lawless person 2 Thess 2.7 He who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way that is until he be reduced within the bounds of the Canons of the Catholick Church A glorious work for Christian Princes a work of greatest concernment to the Peace of Christendome But till that be done I would commend those considerations following to All that delight or are inclined to be in the Communion of that Church and in subjection to that pretended infallible and all-powerful Head I. Why should they desire to be under a lawless boundless Power under a Head so notoriously perjured If this seem harsh let them seriously consider what they in reason and conscience finde to excuse him from that charge who bindes himself by Oath in the Conclave and then in the Papal Chair holds himself loose from what he sware to observe who also swears to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils yet will not keep within the bounds they have set Him but challenges and exercises an Universal Jurisdiction to the overthrow of that Government which those Canons have fixed in the Way of the Church II. Why they should so much desire to be of the Communion of that Church which while the Court of Rome is suffered to desine all to
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
given to some Creature which is altogether inconsequent unless they can shew some other word in Scripture that imports such a Religious service or whether the Protestants be mistaken in their inference therefore there is no religious service or as he expresses it no worship belonging to Religion save what is due to God So that whereas he provokes any Protestant to shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports any religious service save Divine the Protestant provokes him to shew any word in Scripture that signifies a religious worship or service save that which is divine or due to God and therefore duly infers from scripture that a religious worship or service is due only to God No Roman Catholick teaches saith he that divine service due to God only is to be given to any Creature pa. 33. But seeing the scripture teaches no other religious worship but what is given to God you teaching there is another teach besides the book broach your own invention and consequently give to the Creature something of that which is due to God Whatever you reserve for God this is plain your devoting your selves to such or such Saints doth very much express the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a slave or mancipated servant and the frequency of your performing outward acts of religion and devotion to them in Pilgrimages Vows Oblations c. speaks a plain serving of them and takes up I fear the greater part of your religious service Nor can this Author excuse his Roman Catholicks Insufficient excuse of their worship by saying this word alwayes implyes the serving of the true or a false god but their serving of Saint or Angel is not such a service as is given to God or a false god for they do not think them to be Gods or serve them as Gods and this I suppose was the Authors meaning and designe in adding a false god that he might ly safe as he thought under that covert But this will not serve his turn for if by a false god he means that they which worship must think it to be God or apply the worship and service to it as to a God then it is not true that this word always signifies the serving of a true or false God but this is true that the word when it is as he said referred to worship belonging to religion alwayes signifies a service due to God whether given to him or misapplied to any other thing although that thing be not held a God by him that worships or the worship not given to it as to a God For this obliquity of worship or religious service it is not necessary that the thing worshiped be * Greg. de Val. in Tho. Disp vi qu. punct 3. de Idolatria thought to be a God is acknowledged by their own Authors It is plain in scripture the worship given the Golden Calfe Exod. 32. was Latria misapplied yet that not thought a God nor given to it as to a God but only as to a visible representation to be used in the worship of the true God that brought them out of Egypt Of which more below in the question of Image-worship So the worship given to the brazen Serpent was a misapplied Latria yet given to it not as to a God but as to a holy thing that had been instrument of such saving operations So the Apostle Rom. 1.25 speaks of them that served the Creature the word is Latria there more then or besides the Creator but together with him yet not serving the Creature as God but reserving something more for God as S. Ambr. in locum Quasi aliquid plus sit quod Deo reservetur Ambrose notes their vain excuse And therefore the limitation which the Trent Council gives here that they invocate and worship the Saints not as Gods which this Author made use of pa. 3. and for that as it seems added here a false God is a poor and emptie excuse for the Heathen were not so gross in their worship or the defence of it but that they could plead this and other excuses which the Romanists make for their creature-worship as we shall see * In Survey of antiquity cap. 1. below But he goes on in his bold assertions From this ground saith he proceeds the ordinary distinction of religious worship into Latria and Dulia A distinction this that as the Romanists use it has neither ground in Scripture nor yet in St. August who first used it but to another purpose as we shall see First for Scripture Impertinent distinction of Latria and Dulia in the Romish use as he said of Latria that when it is referred to worship belonging to religion it signifies the serving of God or some false God which he makes the ground of this distinction so we say of Dulia when this word is referred to worship belonging to religion or to religious worship it always imports the service of God that is due to God and given to him or misapplied to other things and so this distinction has not ground in Scripture the places are infinite wherein this word as well as Latria is used in expressing the service and worship of God and of other false Gods take one just parallel to this text of Mat. 4. and that is 1 Sam. 7.3 serve him only where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So is this distinction against St. Augustinu's mind as appears by the * Contra Faust l. 20. 21. de Civi Dei l. 10. c. 1. Qu. in Genesin l. 1. de Trinit c. 6. several places where he uses it For he finding the word serve applied in Scripture to God and man thought the first service might be called Latria and the other Dulia not making it a distinction of religious worship or service into several sorts but a severing of the divine from the civil by these words putting nothing of religious service in the Dulia but placing it in the Latria as wholly due to God and this he confirms often as in opposition to their design in their Dulia so to their whole endeavour of having religious service or worship given to the creature as we shall see by several places of that Father cited below in the tryal of Antiquity Lastly as we see this distinction has no ground in Scripture as to the use of the words Latria and Dulia both being used there indifferently to express the religious service given to God so likewise as to the thing it self intended by the Romanists viz. a sort of religious worship due to the creature besides that which is given to God it is so far from having ground in Scripture that it is against the strain and severity of Scripture which is very strict in securing Gods worship and it serves finely to evacuate the force of the Apostles argument Heb. 1.6 who proving the Deity of our Saviour by that of Psal 97.7 Let all the
Angels worship him might receive this answer it is a religious worship of the inferiour rank such as may be given to the most excellent creatures and doubtless the Arrians would have made use of this distinction had the Church of Rome then taught this doctrine so then either the Apostle was mistaken in his argument or the Church of Rome is in her distinction And if we be mistaken in our argument from this Scripture then was their Gregory the great mistaken who against Image-worship urges the same text Gregâ— ep l. 9. ep 9. quia scriptum est dominum Deum odorabis soli servies because saith he it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve To conclude Peresius a Romish writer moved with what the Scripture and St. Aug. saith against this cultus servitutis this worship of service given to the creature acknowledges as * Bel. de Beat. Sanctorum l. 1. c. 12. the Cardinal relates it and checks him for it that he did not approve the name of Dulia to signifie the worship of Saints for we are not servants of the Saints but fellow-servants Rev. 22.8 9. See thou do it not for I am thy fellow-servant worship God Here as elsewhere he needlesly multiplies mistakes Of worship refused by the Angel and by St. Peter repeating what he had above of Angels receiving worship from Lot and of men receiving worship as Elias and Elisha though Peter refused it from Cornelius Act. 10. and affirms the worship of Elias and Elizaeus to be the very same with the worship which by Roman Catholicks is given to Saints and Angels pa. 35 36. How all this comes short of the purpose both as to the worship which the Church of Rome gives by many moe expressions then prostration or bowing of the body which is all the worship that his places of Scripture and instances concern and also as to the term religious which in his large sense comes not home to the question I say how far all this falls short was abundantly shewen above Now for the Text Revel 22. That which we gather from it against their Angel-worship does not arise from the bare prohibition of worship but rather from the reason of it for I am thy fellow servant and so from St. Peters reason for I am a man which shews some undue worship was given yet not as to a God but too much entrenching upon that which was due to God The Romanists feign two reasons of this prohibiting or refusal of worship first * Bel. Post Christi adventum prohibuisse ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi de Beatit Sanctor cap. 14. that the Angels refused after Christs coming in the flesh to be worshipped of men for the reverence of the humanity of Christ But if they did right in refusing it then must the Romanists think they do ill in giving it to them for we men are bound to have as great a reverence and respect to Christ as the Angels are and note the Cardinal saith not only that they refused the worship but forbad it prohibuisse saith he Secondly because John took the Angel for Christ but we may ask how did the Angel know what St. John thought Besides it was improbable that he took the Angel for our Saviour Christ for this is the second time that he thus worshipped neither do we find that our Saviour in all the visions appeared to him after such a manner But this falling down at the Angels feet shews it was in St. John a transport of joy for the revelation of such things as the Angel brought and thereupon an expression of that more then beseeming reverence to the messenger and it is evident the Angel conceived he gave some undue reverence for which he admonishes him to give none but what befits a fellow servant which ought not to be a religious worship or service entrenching upon any thing due to God the very reason that * Aug. de vera religioone cap. 55. Honoramus Angelos charitate non servitute St. August gives to exclude all such worship by the word service or servitude We honour Angels saith he in charity not service and immediately before insinuated God is communis Dominus our common Lord Lord of Angels and men that is as the Angel said we are fellow-servants So we need not contend so much what the Angel thought as look to what he said whether he thought St. John took him for our Saviour which this Author strives to make probable is uncertain but the reason the Angel gave is clear and enough to exclude their Angel-worship So that which St. Peter refused Acts 10. was not a Divine worship and therefore refused for this Author grants pa. 38. that Cornelius could not suppose him to be a God nor was it a due bounded worship and refused only out of humility as he supposes here for then he would not have given this reason I am a man The Protestants are not bound to say as he thinks they must pa. 37. one of the two either that Cornelius gave him divine worship as to a God or that St. Peter refused it out of humility For though the Protestants acknowledge there was humility in this refusal for humility is seen in refusing not only due but undue honour too yet have they cause to say it is evident that Cornelius gave him some undue worship exceeding his condition and entrenching upon something due to God and therefore St. Peter gives him the reason of his refusing it for I am a man as the Angel for I am thy fellow-servant Col. 2.18 Worshipping of Angels He will have us here mistaken because this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels How far the Romanists agree with those worshippers of Angels whereby they are made equal to Christ or that Christ is depending on them which Roman Catholicks saith he condemn as injurious to Christ pa. 43. His reason is because the Apostle adds not holding the head by which it appears such a worshipping of Angels is forbidden as destroyes the belief of Christs being soveraign head of the Church pa. 44. to which he subjoyns as a proof the Testimonies of several Fathers witnessing that Simon Magus and other ancient Hereticks broached such phansies of the Angels pa. 48. That there were ancient Hereticks that held strange phansies about Angels is very true but that these worshippers of Angels were such as held such a phansie of making them equal or superiour to Christ cannot be proved that they were not such appears rather for the Apostle first tells us this was done in a pretence of voluntary humility now what humility is there in going to God by any equal or superiour to his Son therefore they went to God by Angels as inferiour mediatours and they of the Church of Rome have a pretence not unlike in their applying to God by the mediation of Saints and Angels Secondly the Apostle in this chapter speaks
probable then comparing it with the latter he saith it is more probable then it yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Hereticks Where note that their best way is but probable and the Hereticks must be convinced in this point by that way which is less then probable So uncertain is this Article of their faith so unlikely to convince Hereticks however they perswade their people to it This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of disputing that which their Church cannot agree on Beside all that has been said to it methinks reason should tell them how improbable it is that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thousand suits put up to it at once or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss for those glorified souls to be taken up or avocated by the care of earthly affairs yea such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner as Luk. 15.7 which sometimes is made an argument by them its a matter of joy and answerable to their general votes and intercession for the accomplishing of the Church and consistent with their state of bliss Now come we to the prayers of men living one for another Prayers of men living for others no argument for praying to Saints departed often urged by this and other their Authors who having no permission or appointment from Gods word for making the Saints departed their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven seek pretence from this duty of the living Therefore to a Protestant asking how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate then Christ this Author rejoynds How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them to pray to God for them for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates pa. 61. And of Protestants usually commending themselves to the prayers of others This saith he is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the prayers of the living and their invocating of Saints or Angels also between the prayers or interceding of men living for others and that Mediation or Advocateship they put upon Saints departed First We have warrant for the one and not for the other we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living because we are commanded to pray one for another and diverse reasons there are for it which hold not in the other case The mutual exercise of charity among those that converse together on earth and much need that bond as the Apostle calls it to hold them together Eph. 4.3 Col. 3.14 also the benefit we receive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings Heb. c. 13 3. we our selves being also in the body as the Apostle tells us Lastly in this there is no peril of superstition as there must needs be in their religious addresses to the dead Secondly our praying others to pray for us is not Invocation or a Religious worship as theirs is to the Saints departed they placing a great part of their offices of Religion both publick and private in such Invocations Thirdly As the living when they are desired to pray for us are capable of this charitable duty knowing our necessities which Saints departed do not so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us that is of a middle order between us and God Almighty as they make their Mediatours of intercession but as Comprecatores fellow-suiters of the same rank condition and distance with us from God in the mutual exercise of this charitable duty they praying for us at our intreaty and we for them at theirs St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture Aug. contra Epist Parmen l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum populum sed rogat pro se orent invicem si Paulus mediator esset non ei constaret ratio qua dixerat unus mediator St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people but intreats they should pray one for the other so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediatours nay doing it upon mutual entreaty and intimation are therefore not mediatours If St. Paul should be their Mediatour it would not consist with what he had said there is one Mediatour which proves the former consequence that the mediation they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediatour His other instance is from St. Johns we have an advocate 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediatour and so makes it conclude against Parmenian who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people we shall examine the Cardinals answer by which he would shift this off when we come to tryal of Antiquity But This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediatour and advocate of redemption and salvation but more then one of praying to Almighty God with us and for us by way of charity and society as St. Aug. saith citing contra Faust l. 22.21 I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter but in the l. 20.21 where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society as we honour holy men living which this Author misreports as if said they pray for us which is truth but his adding with us supposes they pray for us when we pray upon knowledge of our particular necessities and requests which is false He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture Their Invocation destitute of Scripture-proof If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture he may please to examine Job 5.1 Gen. 48.16 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs in the first Eliphaz tells Job if he take it thus impatiently he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels whose ministry in those dayes was frequent in the second place Jacob prayes to God for his blessing upon the lads and wishes the ministry of Angels for them as it had pleased God to use it in blessing and delivering him in all his troubles or we may say as Athanasius and other Fathers do that the Angel there was Christ In the third he produces Saul worshipping and invoking Samuel which many wayes fails of proving Invocation of Saints both in the truth of the thing and the consequence Proofs these fitting for such Articles of Faith CHAP. III. Of Images THe Council of Trent as we see by the Decree touching Images Pretended care for the people would seem very careful that the people be taught how they may safely conceive of and worship Images and that all superstition and filthy lucre be
which they would confound 2. Note that he fixes the whole notion of his Idol in the false representation as we saw above whereas the notion and reason of an Idol if we will speak of it as Scripture intends and forbids it stands chiefly in the worship unduly given to it for that makes the representation forbidden else if we set aside the consideration of undue worship all Chimaera's and monstrous phansies of mans brain expressed by the painter would be Idols forbidden in the Commandment 3. Whereas according to that restrained notion of an Idol as he usually expresses it to be a representation made to represent any thing as God which is not so he would vindicate the Images of the blessed Saints from being made Idols because they represent them as they are pa. 83. This is a lame defence For first any representation made to worship the true God by may be nay is an Idol such were Labans Images Gen. 31. and Micha's Teraphin Jud. 17. and such was the golden calfe Exod. 32. and it is apparent that the likeness or representation forbidden Isa 40.18 19. refers to the true God and so by Deut. 4.15 that to make them an image or representation of the true God was a corrupting of themselves so by Exod. 20.22.23 Ye shall not make with me Gods of silver the worshipping of the graven image * Bell. de Imaginib c. 24. Idololatria est non solum cum adoratur idolum relicto Deo sed etiam cum adoratur simul cum Deo ut Exod. 20.22 23. True difference of Image and Idol with God is forbidden Secondly the images of the Saints although representing them as they are yet become idols by undue worship given them this Author is forced to acknowledge pa. 81. and that the same material representation may in divers respects be an image and an idol the image being made an idol by attributing to it any thing proper to God pa. 82 83. so then the distinction of idol and image comes to this first it is an image or representation whether painted or graven then made an idol in the use of it Qui colit ille facit he that worships makes the idol so little does their distinction of idol and image serve the turn As for the word Temounah in Exod. 20. albeit in Scripture-use it signifies any kind of likeness The likeness of any sorbidden in the Commandment natural artificial or spiritual yet here he will have it of no larger extent then the other word Pesel as he restrained it to signifie an idol or representation of any thing as God pa. 84. and concludes pa. 86. line 3. No other representation picture or likeness of any creature is here forbidden but such as are intended to represent them by way of idolatry as Gods and Deities which they neither are nor can be so he But this is not demonstrated as he boasts from the places of Scripture which he brought for these words For though it be true that idols and the gross idols of the Heathen are forbidden Exod. 20. and that in those places he brings the words do import such idols yet can it not be concluded from those instances either that such idols only i.e. the representations of false Gods or of any taken for a God which is not as he usually and cunningly renders the notion of an idol are here forbidden or that the col Temounah any likeness of things in heaven or earth should be restrained to such idolatry for who shall restrain a Cōmandment of God so generally expressed without warrant from the same God to tell us some likeness or images of things in Heaven or earth may be worshipped so they be not counted for Gods or worshipped as Gods Tertul. Tertul de Idol l. 5. Situ eundem Deum observas c. gives a good caution to this purpose If thou observest the same God thou hast his law that thou adore nothing besides God and if thou lookest at the precept that came after touching the Ark imitate thou the prophet and do not adore any images unless God command thee Not that he commanded any where to adore images but did command to make them viz. the Cherubin This slender evasion that only such idols as he has described are here forbidden The worship forbidden will the better be seen through when we have looked upon the words following not bow down nor worship for whether the representation be pesel a graven image or Temounah the likeness of anything it is no idol till the using of it by bowing down and worshipping of it or the like do come Here therefore he makes the like restraint of worship forbidden by the Commandment it must be saith he proportionate to the thing those idols represented a God and so a Divine worship pa. 86. and then he heaps up places of Scripture noting the grossest of Heathen idolatry esteeming the material picture as a God to hear prayers to be able to help and therefore they bowed down to it prayed to it and put hope in it that it may appear how far the Church of Rome in her fubtil and refined worships of creatures is from the idolatry of the Heathen here forbidden But I fear the gross fort of Papists fall down to their stocks and images much like as those gross idolaters did to theirs some honest Romish writers have complaints to that purpose and as for the understanding and learned Heathens they were almost as subtilin their conceits and distinctions of their worship as the more knowing Papists are as will appear below in the Trial of Antiquity But a great complaint he makes of our translation rendering in the Commandment nor worship them Of our translating worship for serve which should be nor serve them by which word he will have a Divine worship only forbidden for the word serve shews an homage done to those Idols as to things capable of such offices and endued with knowledge power and divinity so he pa. 88.89 We answer Though service be more and may perform more then worship to persons endowed with understanding and power to give commands yet in regard of inanimate statues Images and likenesses serving them stands only in acts of worship and therefore the one may in that case be indifferently put for the other and both of them are put as indifferent expressions of the same thing Deut. 4.19 to worship them and serve them so Jos 23.16 serve and bow down as equal expressions Only serving may imply a frequenting of those acts of worship in an order and way of Religion towards those objects of worship and so the Romish worshiping of Images and Saints may be call'd a serving of them And unless he will exempt those Heathens before spoken of from the serving of graven Images which they worshiped it may appear that the importance of that word serve them does not infer such a divine worship or homage given to such as they esteem endued with
of true internal Justification before God does but prove what we allow and what makes against himself who must acknowledge a man is truly justified before God before he does such works Seeing then this is the first Justification which S. James intends and that as both they and we say is not by works this cannot without gross mistake and impertinency be objected as it is by them against us but they and we are both of us concerned to reconcile the seeming contrariety between the two Apostles As for the distinction of Justification before God and before men albeit there may be a several consideration of Justification to that purpose and good works do declare a man Justified and as I may say do justify his faith yet we need not here make use of it but the purpose of S. Iames in writing this Epistle does direct us rather to a several consideration of Faith or believing for when he denies a man to be justified by faith alone he speaks not of a lively working faith to which S. Paul attributes justification but of a bare and seeming faith in profession only and as to good works dead and barren such as they rested in against whom he writes This is plain by S. James his subjoyning v. 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed c. how could the Apostle bring this Scripture the same that S. Paul does for justifying faith Rom. 4.3 in confirmation of what he saith of works but to shew that Abrahams faith which justified him was a working faith Now if the Romanists conceive themselves less concerned for fear of the former truth to labour in the clearing of the contrariety which seems to be between the Apostles Romanists confound their First and Second Justification and think it more popular and for their advantage to cry up S. James his bare words of justification by works we cannot help it but must only note their wilfull mistake and impertinency in so eagerly urging S. Iames who speaks of the first justification Mr. Spencer indeed promises pa. 148. to reconcile the two Apostles but does it so as neither of them will be reconciled to his second justification as we shall see by examining the places of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken but first take notice of what he saith here upon occasion of the former Text of S. Iames. Iustified by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vivificating it as S. James describes them here p. 148. This is not only impertinent but guilty of falshood belying the Apostle for first he said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ja. 2.22 that works wrought with faith but that his faith wrought with his works Secondly Albeit the Apostle saith by works was faith made perfect yet does he not therefore describe works as informing and vivificating it for here is no other perfection meant then what the effect brings to the Agent fruit to the tree operation to the power or virtue from which it is as every thing that is made for use ordained to practice and operation is then said to be made perfect and consummate when it comes to working but this is far from informing or vivificating it he may as well say the breath which proceeds from the life of the body its S. Iames his similitude v. 26. does inform and vivisicate it In like manner good works do not inform or give life to faith but receive from it proceeding from it as effects and fruits the whole chapter Heb. 11. shews it speaking the effects of faith even of Abrahams here mentioned And that which this Author pa. 143. gathers from his Trent Council speaks plainly as we noted above that men are freely justified and then do good works And this shews his impertinency for they require fidem formatam faith informed for the first justification how then by works that follow and his inadvertency in again crossing their own doctrine for they say Faith is informed by charity infused in the first justification how then by works that come after Now for the Places out of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken The first is Rom. 3.28 Without the works of the Law Here and in all such places which exclude the works of the Law he will have Protestants mistaken in the undestanding of the works of the Law Because by the Law is understood that which is written in the books of Moses both Moral and Ceremonial and by works of the Law Saint Paul understands such works as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ is infused into the soul or that it is enlightned and assisted by his grace pa. 149 c. It is true that the Law is often so taken but when the Apostle excluds works of the Law in relation to Abrahams justification it cannot refer to Moses Law after given and written But the speech by faith and not by works comes to this issue no man can be justified by doing or working according to the Law he is under Not Abraham by the works of the Law then Not Jews by the works of the Law then the Law of Moses Not Christians by works or by doing what they are bound to do by the Law and Commandements which they are under But by reason of their many failings in those works and doings they must stand by faith apprehending Christs obedience and satisfaction to bear them out against the sentence of the Law or Gods judgment And it is true also that the Apostle sometimes takes the works of the Law for such as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ c. as when he speaks of such as sought righteousness by the works of the Law without Christ but we cannot think the Apostle excludes works of the Law i. e. such as are done before grace as this Author saith from justifying to admit works done in grace into their stead for justification nor think that as Pharisees sought it by the former works and mist of it Rom. 9.31 so the Romanists may seek it by the latter sort of works and finde it for Rom. 10.3 4 5 6 9. he sets the righteousness of the Law and of faith simply one against the other neither can the righteousness of faith be imagined to be any righteousness of our working Observe farther what this Author saith pa. 150. that Rom. 3. v. 20. is added By the law is the knowledge of sin which is a reason wherefore such works as are done by the knowledge of the Law only cannot justify from whence we likewise infer If by the Law is the knowledge of sin and the Law still convinces those that are under grace of sin they cannot be justified by their works before God David and holy men in his time had the same way of justification as we notwithstanding they were under Moses Law who when they were
justified and in grace were concerned to acknowledge If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss who could abide it or stand Psal 130. and to pray Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143.2 that is if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle No flesh can be justified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself No man can be justified not thy servant by his own doings So that still upon the same reason no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God by what he does because the Law convinces him of sin and to the same purpose it is said We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin 1 Io. 1.10 So that if God enter with him into judgment he cannot be justified if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it What he saith to Gal. 2.16 as to the works of the Law is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28 and needs no farther reply But that which is the main exception and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversie is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification which is not by works So then the Protestant position as he calls it of justification by faith only stands good as they intend it by faith only i. e. not by works and this also shews their exception against the word only is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless the word only being but exclusive to works which he and his Council exclude from the first justification Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification Sanctification and increase of grace and righteousness it is not worth our contending about as to proper speech which controversies require for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification to be done in sanctification and to be properly so called viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received and that such increase is made by works or acting Philosophy teaches it is so in ordinary habits much more in these which have also the influence and assistance of Gods spirit for their increase But if he would have said any thing to purpose whereby this Increase of righteousness by works should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification he should have resolved us as I noted above whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fall'n as David and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works so he should have told us plainly whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall which may be called in some sort a second justification can by any works of that person be merited They sometimes pretend to this when they urge Daniels saying to Nebuchadnezzar Redeem break off thy sins by righteousness c. 4.27 Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem yet must they confess this remission of sins to Nebuchadnezzar would have been the first justification and not to be acquired by works in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency when by Luc. 7.47 for she loved much they endeavour to prove that her love was the cause of her forgiveness when this was her first justification But thus do they confound their first and second justification in their proofs of justification by works and being pressed by argument they retire for answer to their second Justification That which they cite out of Revel 22. justificetur adhuc let him be justified still is all the pretence they have for this second justification where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness but it s their mistake to make this which is sanctification to be justification which stands in remission of sins That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 de justific saith by yeilding up our members weapons of righteousness unto sanctification and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather then justification And therefore it is to little purpose that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us they must produce a Text which saith good works of such as are justified already done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify that is augment and increase that righteousness already received and make us more just for we must tell them this is sanctification and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense unless that place of Revel c. 22. be so translated and we need not fear it should be seeing the word there is to signify no more then a continuance in the state of justification or an increase of righteousness which we grant to good works yea we grant them more the increase of the favour of God if they will put that also into their second justification for the more good works a justified person doth the more he is accepted of God But such a person if he fall into sin as David did must come unto remission of sins Justification by Faith by the same way as he did in his first justification viz. by faith and repentance And albeit repentance has its works or workings and charity also in the first justification or remission of sins as Iona 3. ult God saw their works i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies because they are required according to their measure as conditions present but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon and bringing in its hand as it were the meritorious cause for justification and so that only and properly on our part said to justifie To conclude that other mistake which he would fasten on us Justifying Faith in regard of the word faith pa. 153. is needless we must understand saith he a faith vivificated informed animated by charity and other Christian virtues joyned with it The impropriety I may say absurdity of his speech in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other vertues we noted * Nu. 6. above where he said it was vivificated
free promise and liberality Seeing then the matter stands clean otherwise between God and man as appears by the former concessions of free grace for the performance of free acceptation of it unto reward of free and liberal promise in appointing the reward the service or work cannot be truly meritorious And certainly these considerations did and still do cause diverse in the Church of Rome to decline this truly meritorious Against merit of condignity in goodworks or merit of Condignity as we may gather by the * Bel. l. 5. de justific c. 16. sect quod attinet Cardinal acknowledging it of Tho. Waldens And of P. Brugens who would have them call'd meritorious not ex condigno of condignity but ex gratia Dei tantum only of the grace of God which is the ancient notion of the word meriting as it signifies the obtaining of the reward through the grace and liberal promise of God and speaking of Durand he saith that the same arguments that fight against the Hereticks fought against his judgment in this point Bel. de Just l. 5. c. 17. sect Alâ—j contra Also of Scotus and other Schoolmen and of Viega that they held good works meritorious only ratione pacti in regard of Gods compact and promise not ratione operis for the worthof the work which falls in with the former so that the Cardinal finds only this difference between the Lutheran doctrine and theirs They hold good works verè bona non peccata truly good and not sins which the Lutherans did not That we grant them truly good and not sins was said above But this satisfies not the Cardinal and therefore chap. 18. endeavours to prove them meritorious ex condigno not only ratione promissionis because of the promise assuring the reward but ratione operis because of the worth of the work it self and fears not to affirm that God is made our Debtor Non sola pro missione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficitur Debitor Bel. ibid cap. 18. not only by virtue of his promise but also by reasonof our work This I note to shew how the reason of verè mereri truly to merit does force from the Cardinal who strives to defend it such affirmations and from others who did not see how merit could be properly between God and man such concessions and yeilding up of the Cause For this being agreed according to former Concessions First What is required to make a work truly meritorious and then what man receives of Gods free grace to enable him for working and how man stands indebted to God the controversy is at an end all their proofs fall short as not ad idem to the point all our proofs from Scripture stand good against merit properly taken and the mistakes Mr. Spencer would fasten on us appear frivolous as we shall now see The first place he sets down as alledged by us is Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of t his present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory Nothing here saith he against merit Why so because Goodworks produce eternal life but not ex condigno as a grain of mustard-seed is not to be compared with the great bulk it bears yet it produces it so do sufferings the fair tree of life as Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4.17 This flourish of a similitude in transferring things Physical to Moral neither proves nor answers any thing Controversal Again it comes not home speaking only to the word Compared whereas the force is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not worthy which in comparing things Moral as the work and the reward is mainly considerable so is here a great deal of difference between Physical or Natural productions and Moral For we grant that the small sufferings of this life may produce or work as S. Paul saith there in their way and measure a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory but if this Author will have it any thing to the reason of merit he must affirm that sufferings and good works do produce it veritate insitâ by their own virtue and worth as that seed doth the bulk which comes of it by its own inbred vertue The next place is Luc. 17.10 When ye have done all say Vnprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty The mistake here he imputes to us is because we will have merit excluded here Unprofitable servants in respect of God by this acknowledgment of doing but our duty and being unprofitable Why then saith he deserves a servant his Wages by doing his duty and nothing else pa. 169. Because duty of a servant does not exclude merit or desert for the servant is not bound to that duty antecedently or before his voluntary compact or Covenant with his Master as man stands bound to God Neither does the Master supply the Servant with life health ability these the servant brings with him and therefore may be said to merit or deserve his wages though his service was duty after covenant with his Master It is not so between God and Man For the acknowledgment of being Vnprofitable servants Who saith he can bring profit to God hence is only proved that God is no way beholden to us but we owe to him for all our good works this is good Catholick doctrine but contrary to what his Master the Cardinal saith as * Num. 2. above cited and directly overthrowing the vâ—re mereri the merit of works in any proper sense for if we owe to him for all our good works as we do because he enables us to do them by his grace how can we merit properly by those works at his hands therefore we are all to humble our selves before him and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts and the reward bestowed on them grounded on his free promise and acceptation of them for the merits of Christ so he pa. 169. This is good doctrine again but still contradictory to merit for if his gifts then not our merits if reward upon free promise and divine acceptation then are not our works truly meritorious of such reward Nor will such concessions which Truth and shame forces from you salve the matter whilst your doctrine delivered in Gross teaches to plead merit and to place confidence in it that is to be proud of your own works and to excuse it by saying Thou O Lord hast given me to be confident and think thus well of my doings Thou O Christ hast merited that I should merit That saying Our Merits are his Gifts though it be S. Augustines yet as used by you together with your other sayings do no more witness you humble in this point then the Pharisee was who said God I thank thee c. yet all the while was proud and conceited of what he had done and so returned unjustified nay he did not as we can gather adde the conceit of merit to his doings and therefore more justifiable then a Romanist
holding the doctrin of Works truly meritorious and accordingly trusting in them The next place is Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life Here he will have us mistaken in the word Wages Life eternal the gift of God excluding merit and gift misapplied by us Why so because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred Wages signifies the base stipend of common Souldiers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred gift signifies a donative a more noble reward anciently given to them that had carried themselves more valiantly thus pa. 171. thence he will have the true meaning of the Text to be the base recompense of sin is death but the high and noble reward of God is life eternal pa. 172. But first who taught him to render the true meaning of Scripture by such significations of the word as the Scripture does not own for where can he finde in Scripture the word Charisma to signify such a Donative Charisma free gift but alwayes the free gift of God his own Latine edition renders it gratia Dei the grace i. e. free favour or gift of God Again be it so that the Apostle whose purpose is to shew the different reward of sins service and Gods had some reflexion that way of stipend and Donative among Souldiers it s but verbal an using of like words not affording any plea or answer in this point when we speak of Gods gift or donative For first If Souldiers could pretend any merit for a donative it was for some special service above duty or of custom upon the succession of a new Prince and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift such as that word in Scripture-use signifies and such as Gods gifts and rewards to us are Secondly Souldiers have not from the Emperour that so rewards or gratifies them the strength courage and valour which he so rewards in them but this Donative of Gods gift implies such notions of grace free grace for the performance of the service free grace for the acceptation of the service free grace in the promise of the reward as exclud all merit At length he begins to yeild to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we take the word saith he for a pure free gift we may answer with S. Augustine and the Council of Trent that because the good works and merits themselves are the free gifts of God so also the glory of heaven which is deserved by them is called truly a gift also because the primary title and right which all Gods children have to eternal life is that of inheritance which is the free gift of eternal life may be properly called the gift of God 172. Thus does his answers and concessions which truth forces from him overthrow the doctrine of merit properly taken For if eternal life is called properly the gift of God and our good works be the free gifts of God then cannot they in any proper sense be truly meritorious of eternal life And because he mentioned Saint August take his sense of this Text. * Cum possit dicerectrecle dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. de gratia lib. Arbitrio cap. 9. Whereas the Apostle might say and say it truly the wages of righteousness is life eternal 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 mercies sake Another place is Eph. 2.8 9. Saved by Grace not by works least any should boast He gives here the Answer we had above in the point of justification The Grace of God excludeth merit properly taken That these works are such as are done before Justification of Grace distinguished from the good works of the Regenerate of whom it is said v. 10. Created to good works so he p. 170. True they are to be distinguished but here the opposition stands between Works and Grace not only in regard of Justification but even to the last Salvation and with a denial of merit which is here boasting so Rom. 4.4 to him that worketh c. he directly shews that meriting by works which challenges the reward as of debt is excluded by grace in the way of salvation so that if any man will merit by works he must do them of himself according to the condition of the Legal Covenant but if he must come into the way of grace to stand in need of a Redeemer for forgiveness of sins past for a supply of free grace for performance of good works for divine acceptation of his performances through the merits of that Redeemer he is clean out of the road of meriting or challenging the reward as debt in any proper sense And therefore how vain are their pretty sayings for evasions That our merits are his gifts That they merit through the merits of Christ or that Christ has merited that we should merit and that good works are meritorious through divine acceptation All which speaks contradiction or folly For to say Christ has merited that we should merit is to acknowledge we are indebted to God for giving his Son to die for our sins and for his purchasing or meriting the first grace for us but then that we enabled thereby should begin to make God and our Saviour endebted to us in the reward of eternal life Christ indeed has merited that we should not be bound to merit that is to obtain salvation by our merits or performance of exact obedience by our selves according to the Legal Covenant Again he has merited that we might be under grace and so perform good works created unto good works To say that Christ has merited that we should merit or that God accepts our works as truly meritorious is to alledge that for the merit of works which excludes it To obtain the reward by works because they are done in Grace or of grace is sense but to merit by works because done in or by grace is folly and contradiction He proceeds to prove the Catholick Position as he calls it That the works of the Regenerate are such as can deserve Heaven where it is our turn again to observe his mistakes in the places of Scripture which he brings to prove his Catholick Position The argument from them is altogether inconsequent to prove a deserving of heaven in any proper sense of merit His places are 2 Tim. 4.7 8. God is righteous in rewarding yet works are not meritorious wherein he will have the words righteous or just judge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give or render and a Crown of righteousness to favour his plea for merit as if by these expressions were implied that God
in justice rewards that he renders or restores so he will have the importance of it p. 173. as if due before that the reward is a Crown of justice so he will have it that is saith he a true reward or price gotten by labour Which appears saith he by 1 Cor. 9.24 our running for it and by 2 Cor. 4.17 by afflictions working for us an eternal glory whence he gathers if they work a Crown of glory then are they a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit pa. 173. then to shew they are worthy of eternal life he cites Revel 3.4 for they are worthy adding Heb. 6.9 for God is not unrighteous to forget your work which must imply the same as the righteous judge will render 2 Tim. 4.8 If he will stand strictly on these words according to the reason of true merit he overthrows his former true concessions of free grace promise acceptation which also gives us the true meaning of these words or expressions not such as he would draw out of them For the free grace which he and his Council yeilds is given us for performance of the work that is of that fighting and running and then cannot merit truly what follows on it in the way of reward also that free and liberal promise of the reward in performing of which God is just and righteous to render the reward the Crown of righteousness will not suffer good works either to challenge the reward of Gods justice as due to the worth of the work or to be true causes of eternal life by way of merit they have their work and causality in their way or measure Non causa regnandi sed via Regni They are not the cause of reigning but the way of or to the kingdome saith a Father Conditions of obtaining the promise not true Causes in the way of meriting it we may adde 1 Jo. 1.9 where God is said to be just in forgiving our sins in regard of his promise of it to them that perform the condition of it confessing their sins Lastly that divine acceptation which Mr. Spencer and his Council do yeild is that by which they are accounted worthy Rev. 3.4 And we may note that when the Scripture saith not worthy as Rom. 8. How said to be worthy v. 18. and in other places saith are worthy the Negative must be taken properly as to true value and worth the affirmative must be understood in some respect are worthy as to Gods account and gracious acceptation Also note that the Scripture saith not worthy of our doings or sufferings to shew they are so if examined compared with the reward but saith Worthy of the Persons which argues its divine acceptation that makes them so and then accepts their works also to the rewarding of them though imperfect and unanswerable to it See what this Author acknowledges pa. 175. All their merits are his gifts as S. August saith and rewarded through the free acceptation of them through the merits of Christ To the Protestant argument of the Saints ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness The best acknowledg unworthiness he answers that by this cannot be understood that no just man hath any works truly good and pleasing to God pa. 175. Neither do we understand or prove by unworthiness that they have no good works but no merit in proper sense So to Ps 130.3 If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss who may abide it This proves not saith he that no Saint has any good works or merits for they do many things amiss yet through the grace of Christ may do somethings aright pa. 177. Good works and merits go for the same with this Author which is his perpetual mistake and that which he grants they do some things amiss some things aright shews good works may be where no merit is i. e. where many things are done amiss Merit cannot be where there is still need of pardon where there is still need to beg Lord enter not into judgment with thy servant Psal 143.2 that is that God would not deal with him in extremity of judgment or as he deserves How then can any just person that needs divine acceptation for mercy and pardon of many things amiss in him and again needs divine acceptation for his good works that they may be rewarded notwithstanding they are accompanied with many things done amiss and are in themselves imperfect how can such a person by his works be said truly or in any proper sense to merit the reward of eternal life There is a saying of S. Augustine Multum nobis in hac carne tribueremus si non usque ad ejus depofitionem sub venia viveremus We should attribute too much to our selves in this flesh or time of this life if we did not live under Pardon to the very deposition of it or to the end of our life So then to conclude as S. Augustine said our merits are Gods gifts which excludes merit à parte ante in the original of our works because done by Gods free grace or gift so was it a saying of an ancient Father my merit is the mercy of God which excluds merit à parte post in the end when our works are admitted to the reward because that is done through Gods mercifull acceptation CHAP. VI. Purgatory OF the fower particulars which Mr. Spencer notes out of the Trent Council The unreasonableness of Romish Purgatory three of them speak their own unreasonableness and carry their condemnation in their forehead 1. That just persons after they have as they hold merited heaven at Gods hand by their justice and died acceptable to him should go to a Purgatory to be tormented 2. That the mercifull God after the Remission of their sin after he had forgiven them for the all-sufficient satisfaction of his Son should exact of them such extreme satisfaction or punishment and that only for some remainder of temporal pains not satisfied or born in this life when as that punishment exceedingly goes beyond all that can be suffered in this life though never so long 3. That the Church of Rome forbidding all temporal gain to be made of this doctrine of Purgatory should notwithstanding suffer it daily to be done where the poor must be content with the general suffrages of the Church but the Rich that dy and can pay for it have many particular Masses Indulgences in order to their ease or delivery The places of Scripture here brought in the sense of which he will have us mistaken are such as are intended for comfort against sufferings in this life and against dissolution or death by the bettering of their estate but this doctrine makes all these miserable comforts and his answers miserable not only mistakes but wrestings of Scripture The first place is Revel 14. Blessed are the Dead who dy in the Lord that they may rest from their labours and their works follow them or
follow with them The text saith not they rest presently after death that 's his first exception The present blessedness of them that dy in the Lord. and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3 where the poor in spirit are called Blessed and and yet in their misery but blessed because the kingdome of heaven belonged to them pa 181. It is true that hope in this life makes blessed but the blessedness of the next life stands in fruition according to the measures God has appointed But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed but the reason their dying in the Lord and resting from their Labours for dying in the Lord and sleeping in Christ are all one and that sleeping does necessarily infer that the Rest begins at death as the sleep doth and little comfort would it be if they went not presently to Rest for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life to go to worse again that which enforces this presently is their works following them that they follow them for reward he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but presently if the reason of giving the reward after Labours cease do not evince it the expression here may for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow them which might be at some distance but more then the translation expresses it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow with them that is immediately As Rev. 6.8 Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy and Hades followed with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is immediately as Hades or the invisible state to which the soul goes follows immediately upon death More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death in the next place of Scripture His second exception is like the talking of a man in his dream that we mistake the word Labours which here is not taken saith he for all labours but the labours and persecutions of this life or that they cease from their good works pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours then reason and the comfort intended by this Text would infer that those labours being at an end the service performed the reward should immediately follow the warfare and combate being ended some Prize or Crown should be received and so indeed their works following them or with them does imply but here instead of receiving reward or rest the Combatant that has laboured and conquered is carried to the house of Correction delivered up to certain torments And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after then is the Romish Purgatory excluded which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spoken for their comfort and allows them no more in this Rest then the wicked have when they dy a freedome from the labours of this life leaving them only hope of coming out after some time The next place is 2 Cor. 5.1 For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heaven Here again he tels us we are mistaken for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house The same again proved pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house must imply a present entring into the other or into some part of it also the word uncloathing which is in death must imply a cloathing with that house v. 2. The Apostle desired to be cloathed upon without uncloathing which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age that are taken alive at the last day no Romish Purgatory can be for them but if that cloathing upon were denied to them of the Apostles age as it was so that it came to an uncloathing the Apostle had said little to their comfort in telling them of their house from heaven if he had not implied that upon their uncloathing they should be received into it but that contrarily they should first go to a house below and there suffer in the next region to hell exquisit torments for many years Also the opposition he makes between at home in the body absent from the Lord v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shews the denial of the one inferrs the other if absent from the body then present with the Lord and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdome of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8 that when ye fail there is this dissolving or going out of the body they may receive you into everlasting habitations ther 's the heavenly house a present reception is necessarily implied even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him as soon as he should be turned out of his Lords house The next place is Wisd 3.1 The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them The word Torment here is misunderstood saith he Why so Righteoâ—â— souls aâ—â—â—â— Death 〈◊〉 from Tâ—â—ment because it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a torment that malefactors or suspected to be so are put to to make them confess the truth Now no such torment shall touch the righteous for God has sufficiently tried them and proved them and found them worthy of God v. 5. which is a plain place for merits pa. 184. If he loose one thing by this Text he will catch at another If it make against Purgatory he will have it make for merits Well if it be so plain for merits he must wring them out of the word worthy which being * cap. 5. num 8. objected above in the point of merits was answered too But as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concerns Purgatory let the original use or strict importance of the word be it what it will the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment and what matters it if they that go to Purgatory suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons so that indeed they suffer the like as Malefactors do It would be mockery and not comfort to tell them they shall suffer not under that name but as much And to suffer this now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies against which this is their comfort into the hands of God which the Text puts as the reason why no torment can touch them and thus to be handled there and that after God had proved and found them worthy of himself as this chapter v. 5. hath it how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text which is spoken for their comfort But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Trinity 〈◊〉
Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing †Valen disput 6. in 3. Tho. punct 1. Sect. 19. Christum illa accidentia in Eucharistia vere proprie formaliter inter se uniri Greg. de Val. proves Christ and those Accidents to be truly properly formally united From hence as I said many inconveniences follow for what happens to the species must also to the body and blood of Christ Thirdly if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament we may well put the question how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament as to the outward part of it without the substances of bread and wine or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question and the three last But the disparity is evident for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane by reason of the hypostatical union which joyns the humane nature to the divine But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour to supply all and the Romish writers by that strict union which they suppose to be between his body and the Species make it subject to many inconveniences To the question how can the same body be in several places at once Same body in several places he returns this question as satisfactory how can the Soul or an Angel or God be at the same time in many places But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer Nor is it true which he here must suppose that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other or an Angel in distant places at once therefore they are forced to take in Gods property of being present in many places l 3. c 4. de Enchar quomdo Deus est in Loco Mr. Spencer learnt it of the Cardinal affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is To that of Penetration of parts if our Saviours body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host Penetration of Dimensions he answers by our Saviours body passing through the doors and through his mothers womb both being shut But it s no where said they remained absolutely shut * in 4. sent dist in 44. qu. 6. Durand shews how with more reason it may be said our Saviour came in the doors opening to him unperceived by his Disciples for it is not said saith he that he came in per januas clausas but januis clausis not through the shut doors but the doors being shut And for his passage through his Mothers womb it being shut the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity and much to this purpose Durand shews in the place above cited may be said of our Saviours coming out of the womb citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg. Another objection p. 308. If our Saviours flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament Our Saviours body exposed to indignities then may Catts and Rats eat it This objection is not carefully expressed for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy which binds his body and blood to the species and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them But see how he would answer it by the like as he supposes If the flesh and blood of Christ saith he were really in the Passion then might dogs eat his blood that was shed As if it were alike what was done to his passible body appointed then to suffer and done now to his glorious body All the disgraces and indignities that were done or could happen unto him then were agreeable to the work he came about viz. to redeem us by suffering and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities as they do by uniting it so to the species does not beseem Christians The next objection or question If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament Multiplying of miracles need lessy Why are none of them seen He answers by another question If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour why were none of them seen p. 309. But great disparity here for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working but for our believing it the word doth sufficiently attest it and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw his glory c. Nothing like in the sacrament notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments requires all be done to the sense for confirmation and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence CHAP. VIII Against Communion in one kinde THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome delivered in the Council of Trent and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer carries its Condemnation in the forehead The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point acknowledging that our Saviour instituted and administred in both kinds and that the use of both kinds was frequent might have said Constant in the beginning of Christian Religion might have said for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice and to plead for it an authority in the Church about the Sacraments to make a change Salvâ substantia that is the substance being preserved entire where again it speaks its own condemnation for how can the substance be preserved when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people He calls
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
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
would do we only hate the heathen Idols and decline them but as for the Images of Christ and his Saints we have and worship them No! They and we answers Origen have not the same cause of declining these things Origen contra Celsum l. 7. Non eandem aversandi cau vam esse illis nobis Aliis rationibus moventur quam Christiani Judaei quibus Religio est fic Numen colere Sibi ab his temperant propter illud Legis Deut. 6. Exod. 20. and again Those barbarous Nations are moved to it by other reasons then Christians and the Jewes are to whom it is horrid impiety so to worship the Deity They keep themselves carefully from these because of the Law Deut. 6. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him shalt thou serve and that of Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven Image And because Celsus had said Those Barbarians have not Temples Altars Images by reason that they know not what the Gods and Heroes are Impossibile est ut qui Deum novit supplex fiat statuis Nos ideò non honorare simulachra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in istam Credulitatem therefore Origen subjoyns here It is impossible that he who knowes God should be a worshipper of Statues Again We therefore do not honour Images because we take heed as much as in us lies least by any means we fall into the Credulity of attributing to them any thing of Divinity In like manner Minutius Felix and Arnobius were put to answer the Heathens challenging the Christians for having no Temples Minut. in Octavio Altars Images for which Caecilius reproaches them that they could not shew the God they worship and is answered We believe our God though we see him not Again he reproaches them with their poverty and afflictions as if their God could not help them Cruces nec Colimus nec optamus ibid. The Cross is not to be worshiped by you but born and is answered We neither worship Crosses nor desire them And Man is the Image of God Arnobius answers the like challenge and is so far from acknowledging that Christians had Images Arnob. l. 6. Contra Gentes or did worship their God by Images as he must needs have done if they had Images then that he replies to the Heathen that said we worship the Gods by Images Scire Deum rei alteri supplicare Opem sperare à Numine ad Effigicm nullius sensus depâ—ecarâ— VVhat saith he can be more injurious more reproachful to say they know God and yet worship another thing to professe they hope for help from the Deity and yet turn to and supplicat the Image which has no sense which speaks reason against Image-worship in Heathens or Christians Lactantius amongst many sayings against this folly Lactan. l. 2. c. 18. Perversum est ut simulachrum homi nis à simulachro Dei colatur hath this It 's absurd that the Image of man should be worshiped by the Image of God The Ancient Council of Eliberis in Spain decreed That Pictures ought not to be in the Church Epiphanius was very severe against Images Epiph. Epist ad Johan Hierof Velum depictum habens imeginem quast Christi vel sancti cujusdam as he shewed both by Deed and Doctrine At Anablatha going into a Chappel to pray he finds a Veil hanging there and having in it a picture as of Christ or some other Saint wherefore he cut it in pieces as a thing not to be suffered in the Church against the Authority of Scripture as he relates it himself in his Epist to John Bishop of Jerusalem in whose Diocess that place was The Cardinal not liking the shifts that some of their writers make to avoid the prejudice of this Authority thought good to * Bell. l. 2. de Imagin cap. 9. sect ad quintum cut off that part of the Epistle as supposititious and added to the rest by an after hand but this is sure that St. Hierom who was contemporary to Epiphanius and held correspondency and friendship with him translated the whole Epistle out of Greek into Latin this part of it as well as the rest and accounted this to be Epiphanius his deed and Report And this one thing is of more weight then those many petty pretences of Reasons which the Cardinal holds out for the proof of what he said Now let us hear what Epiphanius saith doctrinally of Images Epiph. de Collyridianis Har. 79. Writing against the Collyridians that worshipped the Virgin Mary calling her the Queen of Heaven he tels us the Original of Images or rather of the honour and worship they got in the world that the Devil brought them in * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under pretence of Just that is of giving famous men their due by honouring them after death creeping into the minds of men and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrating or designing the mortal nature to divine honours he set before mens eyes humane likenesses and Images polished with great art that seeing they that are worshipped were dead and out of sight their Images might appear and receive the honour and adoration So that ancient Father St. Ambrose Ambr. de obitu The odosii Regem adora vit non lignum utique quia hic Gentilis est error vanitas Impiorum hath this passage of Helena mother of Constantine when she had found the very Cross of Christ She worshiped the King Christ not the Wood. The Cardinal replies that St. Ambrose would have the Cross not adored for it self but for Christs sake as if that Age of the the Church knew the new Romish distinctions or limitations of giving worship to Crosses and Images for themselves or for the Exemplars sake but the Cardinal did advisedly in cutting off what follows in that Father for this is a Heathen Error and vanity of the wicked viz. to worship such things religiously yet there he findes something which he thinks may favour the adoration of the Cross Levavit Crucem in capite Regum ut Crux Domini in Regibus adoretur Ambr. ibid. Helena saith Ambrose did wisely in setting the Cross upon the head of Kings for she had commended it to Constantine her son to set it upon his Crown that the Cross of our Lord might be adored in Kings What that material Cross placed on the Diadem of any King be adored So must the Cardinal suppose it or else he must grant that the Intent of Helena and the saying of St. Ambrose upon it was only to shew what esteem she had and all others ought to have of the Passion of Christ Non insolentia haec sed pietas cùm desertur sacrae Redemptioni and therefore it follows in St. Ambrose This was not a strange or unseemly thing but Piety seeing the honour is given to the sacred Redemption Hear now
with the doctrine of Inherent Righteousness and what they bring from Scripture or Fathers to make it seem Catholick Inherent Righteousness they distinguish into Habitual which is by infusion of Grace and Actual which is acquired by Works and here they are not agreed * Bel. l. 2. de Justif c. 15. An sit Habitualis an Actualis an utraque De hac re disputant Catholici Doctores Sed conveniunt in eo omnes ut sit in nobis ver a justitia inhaerens non autem Christi justitia imputata whether a sinner be made formally righteous by the Habitual or by the Actual righteousness or by both together for the Cardinal acknowledges their Doctors dispute it but saith he all agree that it is a true inhaerent righteousness by which we are made righteous formally not the imputed righteousness of Christ How their Catholick Doctors agree in this we shall examine presently But first see how the Cardinal declares He professeth in the same place that his judgement is for the * Solam habitualem esse per quam justi formaliter sâ—mus ibid. Habitual as infused and answers the places of Scripture which are alledged by those that plead for the Actual also where we may note that the places of Scripture here alledged for the Actual righteousness against the solam habitualem the habitual only are the very same which they usually bring for works against solam fidem Faith only and the Answers which the Cardinal returns to them may serve us to exclude works from the true Justification The places and answers briefly are these Rom. Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 16. 2.13 The doers of the Law shall be Justified The Cardinal answers out of S. Aug. They shal be adjudged or declared just in the Divine Judgment St. James c. 2.24 By works a man is justified The Cardinal answers out of the Council of Trent which interprets that place of the second justification in as much as by good and just works the increase of habitual justice is merited Lastly 1 Jo. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous The Card. answers the Apostle doth not speak what makes a man formally just but that whereby a man may be known to be just By this it appears how the Cardinal removes the Actual righteousness of Works from that which they hold to be the first and true and proper Justification much more are they removable from the formality of that which we hold the true and proper Justification according to the doctrine of St. Paul Now let us examine whether they all agree Concessions of Romanists about Imputation as the Cardinal boasted upon the inhaerent righteousness against the imputed First see what Vasquez and Bellarmine two great Defenders of inhaerent Righteousness and the perfection of it are forced to grant about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Vega had said as Vasquez notes and corrects him for it Divine providence ordered it so Vasq in 1.2 Disput 222. cap. 1. that the Fathers used not the word of Imputation lest they should seem to give occasion to the Hereticks of these daies for their Error of false Imputation He was not afraid it seems of the Apostles giving them occasion and warrant for the Doctrine of Imputation But Vasquez acknowledges the Fathers did use that word and other words aequivalent as Communication and Application And he grants Concedimus imputari nobis Merita obedientiam Christi acsi revera essent nostra ibid. that the merits and obedience of Christ are imputed to us as if indeed they were ours and he giveth a good Reason Because the merits of Christ are the Merits of our Head This is fair and enough for our purpose if he did not pull back what he had given out and restrain what he had freely and truly granted Therefore he subjoyns Dissentimus ab Haereticis in eo ad quod merita Christi existimamus nobis imputari Dicimus imputari ratione Effectus quo pacto loquitur Concil Trid. etiam ad aliquem effectum imputari ibid. VVe differ from the Hereticks in that to which or for which the Merits of Christ are imputed How is that VVe say they are imputed saith he by reason of the Effect as the Council of Trent speaks also that they are imputed as to some effect Now if we ask to what effect He tels us in the two next chapters They are imputed unto Justification and unto life eternal This is very true But how unto Justification In regard of the dispositions and in regard of the Form of Justification in as much as by or through the Merits of Christ grace pravenient and adjuvant is given to dispose us to Justification and Inhaerent Righteousness given formally to justifie us Thus he explains himself in the second chapter and as for remission of sins by the satisfaction of Christ imputed no mention of that We must look for it in that purgation of sin which he supposes to be made by Infused Righteousness for they usually consound Remission and Deletion or purgation of sin as above noted nu 1. The Cardinal in his Concessions speaks a little clearer for Remission of our sins by the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ imputed reserving himself still for his inhaerent Righteousness and having nothing to keep him off from the protestant Doctrine which allows the being and necessity of Inhaerent righteousness but only the nicety of a Term Formaliter For * Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 7. Si solâ—m vellent imputari nobis Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo patri offerre pro peccaâ—is nostris quoniâ—m Christus suscrpit onus satisfaciendi pro nobis recta esset corum sententia speaking of Protestants If they would saith he have only Christs merits imputed to us because they are given to us and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins because he undertook the burden of satissying for us their doctrine were right and sound But so to have Christs righteousness imputed to us as if by it we were formally just is repugnant to right reason Well we say the first which he cannot but approve we do not say the other for that formally just or justified is their expression not ours Again Although by inhaerent Righteousness saith he Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Etiamsi per justitiam inhaer tamen per eam non saâ—isfacimus Deo pro peccatis poena aeterna Non absurdum c. we are truly denominated and made righteous yet do we not by that satisfie God for our sins and eternal punishment therefore it is not absurd to say Christs merits and righteousness is imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied so that it be not denied there is besides an inhaerent righteousness in us we do not deny there is but affirm they ascribe too much unto it and may observe how careful the Cardinal is for this
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Now albeit what this Doctor asserted was most false yet does it plainly follow upon the Romish Doctrine of truly meritorious which the Doctor saw plainly must be deserted or this must be maintained he saw plainly that if good works were truly meritorious they would be so whether there were promise made or no for as I noted above The promise makes not for the merit of the work but for the consecution or obtaining of the reward also he saw that if eternal life were by a gracious and free promise it could not be due to the work of Justice Lastly the Cardinal in the same place acknowledges Bel. l. 5. de Just c. 14. sect Tertia Omnes conditione servi Mancipia Dei operibus nostris alioqui debitis We are all by our Creation servants yea bond servants of God and that there cannot be justice between us God unless he had been pleased of himself by a free Convention to appoint a reward to our works which were otherwise due Due antecedently to all promise due from our being and Creation and if all the justice that can be found 'twixt God Almighty and us men be in regard of his promise only as indeed it is it cannot be in regard of any obligation the work it self casts upon God to make him our Debtor as the Cardinal above did not fear to assert Truth and the Conviction of Gods free and bountiful dealing with man extorts such Concessions from them as do sufficiently contradict their bold Assertions and might put end to the Controversie if some unjustifiable ends did not still engage them SECT VI. Of Purgatory THat Purgatory is conceived to be a Place of pain or punishment What Purgatory is that for Souls of just Persons departed out of this life is plain by the * Sess 6. Can. 30. Council of Trent and by the Reason or ground of it according to the Romish conceit because it is for those to whom the sin and the eternal punishment is forgiven but the temporal not fully satisfied by them here and therefore must be payed or born hereafter This appeared above chap. VI. nu 1.5.6 The Cardinal is bold to affirm Bel. li. 1. de Purgat c. 15. that Purgatory is an Article of the Catholick faith and may be proved all the four waies that points of Faith use to be proved by viz. by express Testimony of Scripture with the Declaration of the Church So is the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father proved or by evident deduction from that which is express in Scripture So is the Article of two Wills in Christ proved c. and so is Purgatory proved saith the Cardinal and he boasts that he has so proved it by giving us many places of Scripture mistaken as to that sense and many sayings of Fathers misapplied as to that purpose which will appear upon the Trial following It will appear that this Doctrine of Purgatory is not Catholick but the invention of later Times taking Rise from that which St. Aug. hinted as probable touching pains after death and then having an Advancement by fabulous reports of Visions and deluding apparitions in St. Gregories time and after at last receiving a Definition and establishment in the Church of Rome And for the countenancing of it They force many places of Scripture and whatever they finde in the Fathers concerning prayer for the Dead or touching a purging Fire though spoken to other purpose doing therein as those Hereticks of whom St. Hilary said that they drew Scripture to that ad id quod praesumpserunt credendum which they had of themselves presumed or before conceived to be proposed and held as matter of Belief For better proceeding We will reduce all to these Heads The Place or state of Souls after death The Prayers that were made for the Dead The Remission of sins after death The pains or punishment after death What the Romanists bring from Scripture or Fathers touching any of these we shall meet with As for the Texts of Scripture alledged by them we may say this in General They have no consent of Fathers for such a sense as they would fasten upon the Texts they cite in behalf of Purgatory First for the Place or state of souls departed Of the Place or state of Souls departed Scriptures alledged by the Romanists There are two Scriptures especially which they alledge for such a place of Souls as they phansie Purgatory to be The one is Zach. 9.11 I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the Pit where no water is which text in the first and immediate sense speaks the deliverance of that people out of the Babylonish captivity but is by many of the Ancients applied to our Saviours bringing forth the Souls of the Fathers of the old Testament out of their Receptacle or Limbus And the Cardinal acknowledges Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 3. Non est aqua Conâ— solationis it has been usually taken in that sense but thinks it as proper for Purgatory and the rather because in this there is not the Water of consolation as there was in the other And this is to be noted here because we shall finde the Cardinal below put to devise how prayers for the Dead made by the Ancient Church for those that rested in peace Bel. l. 2. de Purgat c. 4. admixtam cum cruciatibus incredibilem consolationem propter certam spem salutis could concern Souls in purgatory that is in Torment and cannot invent any expedient for it but by referring that rest and peace to the Comfort and satisfaction they have there together with their Torment by reason of their hope and assurance of coming out of those pains into eternal bliss That which the Cardinal for proof of his interpreting that text of Zach. in behalf of Purgatory fastens upon St. August is not that Fathers expression or intention but the Cardinals misapplication St. August in the places cited by the Cardinal Epist 49. ad Euod lib. 12. in Genes c. 33. speaks of our Saviours descending into Hell and delivering some that were there but i. e. in Purgatorio is the Cardinals addition The other Text is Mat. 5.25 where we read of a prison and a payment to be made there but what proof is there more then a strong phansie that this must signifie Purgatory The Cardinal indeed alledges some Fathers using those words of our Saviour as a Commination against Sinners but that they should thereby intend a Romish Purgatory is still the Cardinals misapplication One and the chief of those Fathers cited by him is St. Cyprian in his Epist 52. ad Antonian where He plainly as we shall see below applies that of the prison and the paying of the utmost farthing to the Severity of Ecclesiastick Pennances and Satisfactions under which the Lapsi or those that fell in time of persecution were held Now when the Fathers give any direct interpretation of that
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
avoid the Argument from the manner of the Old Testament Sacramental speeches in the Old Test in calling the signes by the names of the things signified as circumcision call'd the Covenant and such is the name Passover He strangly phansies two Covenants made with Abraham in that one chapter Gen. 17. the first in 2 3 4 5. verses the other verse 9. as if he understood not that in every Covenant there is a mutual stipulation the promise on Gods part the condition to be performed on mans to which he consents and engages That first Covenant which he phansies contained Gods promise to Abraham and that which he required of Abraham was in general expressed in the first verse viz. to walk before God and be perfect Now that which this Author calls the other Covenant was but the imposing of Circumcision as the signe of that Covenant made with Abraham and his posterity and a witness of their engagement to him as it is plain ver 11. where it is called the token or signe of the Covenant And if this were a new Covenant where are the promises of it He confesses as much when he saith The second Covenant was a signe and seal of the first only he abusively calls that the second Covenant which he should have called Circumcision for so S. Paul whom he cites saith he received the sign of Circumcision the seal of righteousness Rom. 4.12 And so his own instance he brings p. 287. makes against him for that promise of favour and Patronizing one of inferiour rank is but part of their agreement and that waiting on him once a year is the other part the condition to be performed as a testification of his service and obligation To the objection of the Lamb called the Passover Exod. 12. he answers 1. The Scripture does not expresly call the Lamb the Passover 2. He saith by Passover is meant the feast of the Passover kept to the Lord as v. 11. of that Chapter pa. 289 290. It is true the Feast was call'd the Passover but so was the Lamb and that more chiefly and immediately as v. 21. ye shall kill the Passover and elsewhere eat the Passover So Mat. 26.17 eat the Passover v. 29. they made ready the Passover Mar. 14.12 killed the Passover in all these the Lamb is the Passover and from the killing and eating that the yearly feast or celebration is also by figure called the Passover And the Lamb called Passover by a figure in reference to the Angels passing over the houses of the Israelites Unto 1 Cor. 10.4 The Rock was Christ he answers the Apostle speaks not of any Rock which was the signe of Christ a visible material rock but of a spiritual rock now Christ was that spiritual rock truly really and so no figure pa. 294. Here to avoid one rock of a figurative speech in those words he falls upon two for first he must hereby acknowledge that all the Israelites did eat really of Christ and drink of him as we under the gospel do if by that spiritual meat and spiritual drink Christ be immediately meant but this the Romanists carefully avoid answering the Israelites did eat the same spiritual meat Manna and drank the same spiritual drink among themselves but not the same with us The second rock he falls on is that by this his interpretation he must contrary to the Apostle grant they did all good and bad worthy and unworthy really and truly partake of Christ who was truly according to Mr. Spencer this spiritual rock and drink Whereas the Apostle means they did all partake of Christ Sacramentally Fathers also and their own Commentators grant it spoken of the material rock but because of the sacramental relation which that rock and the water flowing from it to serve the whole Congregation had to Christ and that which flowed from him it is called a spiritual rock and by a figure called Christ But in producing figurative speeches he binds us to this condition Mr. Spencer Rule for understanding speeches in Scripture figuratively or literally examined that if we will bring any thing against them it must be such a proposition that may possibly be verified in a proper sense and yet must be understood figuratively whereas the Protestants produce propositions that cannot possibly be understood in a real and proper sense as this is my body may pa. 299. But may not Manna or Rock be by the omnipotency of God turned into flesh as well as Bread or the water that came out of the rock into blood as well as wine may For that proposition this is my body is so far from being connaturally to be understood in a proper sense as he boldly affirms there that it cannot possibly be so understood without the engaging of omnipotency to make such a change of the subject bread and therefore they are still fain to fly to Gods omnipotency to make this proper sense of theirs good but why cannot propositions which possibly can be understood in a proper sense be rather figuratively taken Because saith he the words of Scripture and also of other Authors must be understood properly when they can be understood so or when nothing compels to the contrary This reason is good but misapplied to this is my body for it is one thing to say can be so understood another to say can possibly be so understood taking in all the wayes of possibility and omnipotency without which that proposition this is my body cannot be possibly understood in a proper sense for many things yea circumstances may compel us to the contrary and hinder us from taking it in a proper sense beside absolute impossibility else should we multiply miracles in Scripture and be still offending against the rule of reason that forbids us to conclude a possibili ad esse the thing to be so indeed because it is possible to be made so The Scripture saying all flesh is grass saith or might say of every man this is grass and it is as possible for omnipotence to turn it into grass as the bread into Christs body must we therefore so understand it in a real proper sense So when God said of Adam thou art dust so when David said of the water of Bethlem this the blood of these men 2 Sam. 23.17 Romanists that say the wine is turned into Christs blood must say that water could be turned into their blood and therefore possibly verified in a proper sense but those about David understood the figurative sense of it Did nothing else compel us to the contrary that is not to understand these propositions in a proper sense but the engaging of omnipotencie to work so miraculously to make it good it were enough For when he works so he tells us plainly of it or at least gives us the evidence of sense for the change neither of which we have for understanding this is my body in the Romish proper sense Then to impose upon Scripture such a sense when
the speech will bear another more agreeable to the purpose of the place and to impose upon omnipotencie a necessitie of making it good what is it but to tempt God And here we may mind him again of the other proposition this cup is the new Testament in my blood which we found him above loath to speak to but desire him here to examine whether this Scripture can be taken in a literal proper sense He can not say it many things compel to the contrary then is it a figurative speech and that in the words of institution as well as this is my body The last objection is from Jo. 6. the Capernaites conceit of eating our Saviours flesh and his saying the flesh profiteth nothing some indeed will apply this against the Romish doctrine but I will not quarrel with him about the force of it The Protestant doctrine rests not upon this place of Scipture we say the true flesh of Christ profiteth where ever it is really given and received or eaten and let the Romanists consider whether they must not say the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing when they say the wicked really eat the true flesh of Christ It is plain by what our Saviour saith in that Chapter of eating his flesh that albeit the Sacramental eating of his flesh may profit nothing as in them that receive unworthily yet is there no real eating of our Saviours flesh but what profiteth St. Paul might say He that eateth that bread unworthily but could not say he that eateth Christs flesh unworthily taking it not for the bare Sacramental eating but for real participation of his very flesh which the Romanists allow unto the wicked The cause of this and many more and greater incongruities is that gross kind of Real Presence which puts our Saviours body in stead of the substantial bread fixing it under those species or qualities of bread making it unum quid as we noted above one thing with them and so carryed whither soever they are given to whom soever and received by whomsoever they are Having done with these objections which he calls the chief arguments of protestants from Scripture Considerations of Transubstantiation as to natural reason he tells us there are other drawn from Natural Reason fitter for Heathens then Christians p. 306. If we do but speak the horrid inconveniences and indignities that the blessed and glorious body of our Saviour is or may be exposed to by this gross way of presence or binding his body under to the species they presently cry this is fitter to be spoken by Infidels then Christians we may not so much as utter the ill consequences of their belief without note of infidelity So if inquiring a Reason of this their belief and not finding in Scripture any express witness of Gods will nor any example of the like conversion but finding many things that compel to the contrary from the reason of a body and of a Sacrament we profess that we cannot see how it should be and that we have no reason to make it an Article of our belief then are such arguments or questionings of it fitter for Heathens then Christians so unwilling is that Church to have any thing questioned or searched into that it propounds as Article of Faith St. Chrysostome speaking of that questioning of the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15.35 how are the dead raised and with what body do they come saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be asking still how shall this be is the part of one that believes not and it was well said supposing the Article or thing to be believed clearly expressed in Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead Incarnation Birth of our Saviour and the like when God Almighty has expresly declared these then to ask how this shall be sounds unbelief it s more fit for a Heathen then Christian therefore we believing the Sacrament is his body and blood or as S. Paul the communication of his body blood and consequently his body and blood really present in the Sacrament we do not question nor define the Modus how this is done but challenge the boldness of the Church of Rome that has determined the Modus by transubstantiation that is by destroying one essential part of the Sacrament the outward Element Bread and Wine and would impose this upon the world as an Article of Faith These arguments from Reason as he calls them he will undertake to answer and because he deals with such as profess themselves to be Christians he will endeavour it by giving clear instances in some Article of Christian faith which they believe wherein they must solve the like difficulties to those they urge from natural Reason against this mystery p. 306. This is fair and will be satisfactory if he can make it good But still we must remember if he could make it good it evinces but the possibility of the thing which is needless in this point to contend much about and does acknowledge a needless multiplying of miracles and engaging of Gods omnipotency where he has made no express declaration of his will or evidence of the thing The Arguments as he calls them are propounded here by way of question and he answers by other questions which binds him to see to it that there be no disparity between the reason of the one and of the other or that the like difficulty as he undertook above must be solved in that Instance he gives But this is not likely to be done if we observe the doubts proceed upon our Saviours body considered not onely simply in it self or nature of a body but also as concerned in this business in the nature of a Sacrament also if we observe his way of proceeding for he is fain still to serve himself of the capacity of a spirit as Soul Angel God himself to shew the possible conditions a Body may be put under or of the mystery of the hypostatical union to shew the like supply of defects in nature here now this at first sight presents a great disparity between the things The first question enquires how can Accidents the species of bread and wine exist without a subject This question Accidents without a subject although we will not dispute it to the denying of Gods omnipotency in sustaining Accidents without a Subject yet may it be put to the prejudice of Romish Transubstantiation many wayes First because it implies a needless multiplying of miracles in the Sacrament Secondly because it binds the body and blood of Christ to and under those Accidents or Species upon which many inconveniences follow Mr. Spencers answering this question by the humane nature in Christ which subsists without its proper personality and receives it from the divine nature must suppose that Christs body and blood in the Eucharist does supply the defect of the proper subject of those species * Bell. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. Sect. sed haec Bellarm. makes them and Christs body