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
examination and for reasons following it will appear plainly that the worship as by them allowed and performed to Saints and Angels must be call'd Religious according to his first and stricter sense of Religion and so by his own confession undue to Creatures But before we come to our reasons let us hear how Greg. Val. in Tho. 2. 2ae disp 6. qu. 1. punct 2. de Val. expresses this matter a little more clearly He speaking of the Acts of the vertue of Religion as the School calls it tells us some of them pertain to it remotè imperativè remotely and only as commanded by it this with Mr. Spencer is religious in the larger sense some pertain to it proximè elicitive immediately and more inwardly proceeding from it and declaring a subjection due to God such acts are prayers oblations sacrifices vows c. This is religious in Mr. Spencers first and stricter sense accordingly the Schoolmen treat of those particulars as Acts or immediate exercises of the vertue of religion Now albeit Valentia and Mr. Spencer and all of them affirm that religious worship according to this sense is due only to God which is a great truth and do deny that the worship they give to any creature is to be called religious so or that it pertains to religion in that stricter sense which is also true as to many things they do to Saints and Angels being not so much as remotè and imperativè by way of command from true religion yet as used and exercised by them those acts of their worship are interpretativè acts of religion according to the first sense so to be interpreted and accounted of as to them and their performance as all undue and misapplied worship given to the Creature in way and exercise of religion yea given to a false God is to be accounted of This will appear in the reasons following The first reason shall be that which Azorius one of the same Society gives How the Romish creature-worship must be accounted religious Azor. Instit Mor. part 1. l. 9. c. 10. qu. 2. because the virtue of religion is not of two kindes one which gives God his worship and another which gives worship to Saints their Images and Reliques And they saith he that think religion is not of one kind are moved by the reason of the several kindes of dignities and excellencies in things this was Mr. Spencers reason of his several sorts of worship as above nu 3. and so it is Bellarmines reason but religion saith Azor is not a virtue which generally gives to any one worship for the excellency but which gives Divine worship and honour to God and * Non igitur religio quicquid excellit honorat colit sed â—â—icquid divinum est et quâ ratione divinum est quemadmodum ergò unus Deus est fic una quoque specie religâ—o est Azonâ— ibid. therefore the virtue of religion does not honour and worship whatsoever excels but whatsoever is Divine and as it is Divine wherefore as God is but one so religion is but one in kinde Now this is very true and rational and concludes all religious worship to be Divine and only due to God and that albeit there be an honour due to such excellencies an honour commensurate to them yet not a religious worship But what will Azorius then say to the religious worship given to Saints and their Images in the Church of Rome It is the objection immediately following and he answers not by mincing the matter as most of his fellowes do by saying it is religious in a remote or a large sense such a sense as considering what they do and allow in that Church speaks nothing to the purpose or by saying it is an act of special observance as Greg. de Val. would lessen it to no purpose as see below num 8. or by other frivolous distinctions used by them in this point of worship No. He seemed to consider what is done and allowed in their Church and that all such excuses help not therefore * Sanctos honoramus non solum co cultu quo homines virtute dignitate praestantes sed etiam divino cultu qui est actus religionis Sed divinos cultus honores non damâ—s sanctis propter seâ—psos sed propter deum qui eos sanctos effecit Azor. ibid. qu. 5. he saith down right and saith it often in this chapt that it is Divine which in Mr. Spencers strict sense is religious honour and worship which is given to Saints in erecting Altars Offering making vowes to them invoking of them c. and excuses it from Idolatry by saying it is given them not for themselves but for Gods sake that made them such But there is enough in Greg. de Val. and Bell. and other Romish writers to shew that divine honour given to the creature though with such reference to God cannot be defended which is a great truth so then between these truths the Church of Rome must be in a great strait it gives and allowes according to what Azorius proved a divine and religious worship to creatures and according to the truth that the other deliver it cannot be defended in it Second reason What does religion in Mr. Spencers strict sense sound but that virtue and devotion of the heart which sends out such expressions of subjection and worship in the exercises of religion and what is the Romish worship but the exercise of that devotion or religion which is in the heart of any Romanist so desiring to express it self and how is it expressed and performed but by their addresses to God Saints Angels by the former acts of Religion Prayers Praises Vows Offerings Look into their offices private publick observe what is done at their Altars Shrines Images what prayers offerings vows made there see their incense burned before an Image which is a consumptive oblation and as much as was done to the brazen Serpent and as for Prayer one of the Acts of religion under it * Val. disp 6. qu. 2. de oratione â—unct 10. Valentia puts their dayly recital of the office which contains prayers to Saints and Angels and therefore this worship by prayers vows to Saints in their way of religion must belong to religion in the first sense as immediate exercises thereof Thirdly they do not only use those immediate acts of religion prayers praises vows giving them to Saints in their exercise of religion but in these religious acts joyn the Saints with God Athan Orat 4. contra Arianos which Athanasius makes an Argument of the unity of the Son with the Father else he could not be joyned with him in prayers in praying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn the Son to the Father which he denies to all creatures so when St. Paul prayes 1 Thess 3.11 Now God himself and our Lord Jesus direct c. Now see how in the Church of Rome they joyn the
Saints with God in their vows as at entrance into some religious orders I vow to God and the blessed Virgin in their Praises that Psalm or Hymn venite adoremus Psal 99. is in some of their books thrice broken by Ave Maries inserted Bellar. and Valentia close some of their books thus Laus Deo Beatae Virgini praise to God and the blessed Virgin and as I remember in the Lyons Edition Bellarm. closes his book de cultu Sanctorum thus Laus Deo Virginique Mariae Jesu item Christo praise be to God and to the blessed Virgin Mary also to Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God the like is done by Valentia at the end of some of his books Now what is this but to set her if not in equal rank with God yet surely as high as the Collyridians did And what can this import but religion in the first sense A presumptuous entrenching on what is due to God Fourthly when they divide worship into Latria and Dulia it is not a Division of the word worship at large as when it is divided into religious and civil but it is a division of religious worship given by them with this distinction to God and the creature in the way and exercise of their religion also the word service implied in Dulia being not a civil service with them necessarily implies a religious service such as God forbids to be given to creatures also when they affirm the same worship given to the Image of Christ as to Christ is it not religious in the high sense The defenders of this take ground from their known Church Hymn Hail O Cross our only hope c. as the * Bel. l. de Imag. c. 19. fundamenâ— Cardinal acknowledges and would shift it off by many figures in the speech Lastly when they pray to God which they grant is the exercise of religion in the strict sense they acknowledge they do it by the mediation of Saints and Angels prayed unto for that purpose and what is this else but a performing of the creature-worship out of the virtue of religion and in way of religious offices or devotions in and together with and in order to a worshipping of God at the same time begging of God the gift of mercy and begging the Saints mediation for presenting that prayer or joyning his intercession with it As for his large and lax sense of religious for that which proceeds from and belongs to religion Religious in their large sense not excuse their creature-worship it is so general that it brings in all the duties of the second table as that act of mercy he instanced in out of Ja. 1. ult And here by that and his other instance out of Lev. 7.6 we might expect if he will have this creature-worship any way belong to religion he should have showen it commanded by God as those two particulars were which he brought as instances but it is the profession of this Author in the name of his Church that it is not commanded but commended as good and profitable i. e. as invented and taken up of themselves and pertaining to and proceeding from religion i. e. the religion of the Romish Church far from being Catholick in this point indeed if we speak of a worship due to Saints and Angels that is an acknowledgement and honour we owe them answerable to the worth and excellency in them it is a duty or thing commanded and so religious in that large sense by the fifth commandment yea and tends finally to Gods honour as the Author of all gifts and excellencies in the creature And we are ready to express this inward acknowledgment or honour and do it sufficiently by celebrating their memories by thanksgiving to God for them by proposing their vertuous examples for imitation but as for the worship they perform and plead for whatever inward acknowledgment they pretend to have commensurate to the worth of those glorious creatures yet such are the acts they express it by as do plainly shew it a worship neither commanded nor commended nor consistent with that worship which we finde commanded those acts and acknowledgments of honour and subjection which God requires in his worship Lastly the examples he brings out of Scripture for countenancing his worship who sees not how far they fall short of what he should prove They are of Lots bowing to the Angels that came unto him and of the Shunamite worshipping Elisha and the Captain of fifty Elias p. 25. and this he will have religious worship because of their Authorities derived and acknowledged only from faith and religion Be it so and that they had a motive for that worship more then meerly â—ivil we need not fear if it be call'd religious in so large and remiss a sense viz. such a religious worship or reverence as is given to holy men living But I would ask this Author if it would not be held abominable in the Church of Rome to give unto any holy men living the worship and service they do to Saints departed as to erect Altars Temples to them fall down before their Images burn incense to them make vows and prayers to them at any distance and in the same forms and in the same place and time where and when they do to God Well leaving this for him to think of Mr. Spencers mincing of the matter hear how he concludes this discourse pag. 27. where to the praise of his ingenuity but prejudice of his undertaking he saith If any wilfully deny all kind of religious worship in how large a sense soever to be lawfully exhibited to any save God alone so long as he yields the thing it self that is to exhibit reverence and worship to persons and things in acknowledgment of the supernatural gifts and graces and blessings of God wherewith they are enriched let him call that worship Christian or pious or an extraordinary rank of civil worship I shall not contend about the name when the thing is done This is fair if he deal plainly and do not expect by seeming to be content with the thing we yield such a thing as they make of this worship for we are ready to yield the thing that is due that is a reverence and honour commensurate to their excellency as much or more then was given to holy men living and to do it by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bowing or prostration where it can be done to an Angel if visibly appearing to us as to Lot And as for the Saints departed they are not by reason of their absence capable of that which was given to holy men living but we are willing to express the honour we owe them as we can by commemorating and praising their vertues propounding their examples for imitation And if we must properly speak what the worship is which they exhibit to the Saints departed Superstition it must be call'd superstition which as the notation of the word shews is a
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
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
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
to others besides God The quest is about Religious worship and therefore notes it as a double mistake of the Protestants to infer from this place that worship and service are only due to God pa. 5. c. It seems he was bound to make up his tale or number of mistakes he does so causelesly fasten them upon the Protestants for he knows they do not argue from this place that all kinds of worship or service are to be given to God only but that kind of worship which according to his own expression pag. 8. is performed by an act of Religion i. e. religious worship or as S. Aug. gives us the limitation of that Word Worship and indeed the determination of the question that if we add Religion to that word Aug. de Civ l. 10. c. 1. then it speaks that worship which is due to God only This Author knew well enough that Protestants confine their dispute here to a Religious worship and he speaks it pa. 11. that this place Mat. 4.10 must according to Protestants be understood to forbid only religious worship to any save God and therefore applies himself under his second pretended mistake to the consideration of it endeavouring to finde out such a worship given to Creatures as may be call'd Religious All that he brings we shall see very far short of the purpose altogether insufficient to excuse their practice or answer what we charge them with for their encroachments upon the Worship and Service due to God in the way of Religion The first thing we need take notice of is his premising the distinction of Worship The Acts of Worship inward and outward into Interior Exterior as subservient to his purpose pa. 1.2 telling us pa. 13. The External deportment as prostration may be the very same when we worship God or Saint or Angel Bishop Apostle King Magistrate Father Mother yet they become different kinds of Worship according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to express by those outward deportments of the body It is true that the inward intent makes a difference in the worship given when the outward act is the same though not alwaies so different a kinde of worship as he would have the worship of Saints and Angels to be in regard of the Civil worship and honour as we shall see below But here note for there will be use of it hereafter that in all this discourse of worship he only insists in such outward expressions Some Acts of worship proper to God as properly fall under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as bowing kneeling prostration which are indeed common to the worship of God and Creatures but there are other which both in Scripture and in the nature of the thing appear proper to God and the worship due to him Altars burning incense oblations nuncupation of Vows upon which score we may finde the Church of Rome faulty as in doctrine so much more in practice The * Bel. de Beat. sanctorum l. 1. c 12. Cardinal having said the external acts are common to all worship makes his exception of sacrifices and those †Greg. de Val. in Tho. 2.2 Disp 6. qu. 5. de virt Riligionis puncto 2. things which have relation to them And Greg. de Val. acknowledges it of Prayer Oblations Sacrifices c. that they immediately belong to Religion and do peculiarly contain a certain subjection of the creature to God The second thing we are to take notice of Excellency Dignity how the Reason of Honour and Worship is that to lay some ground-work for raising such a worship on as they give to Saints and Angels he sets himself to shew that besides the Civil and Divine dignities or excellencies there is a third sort neither infinite as the Divine nor humane as the Civil but Spiritual and Supernatural and would make his Readers believe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing there are three worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honoured by an act of worship pag. 14. Whereas we grant such supernatural excellencies in Angels and Men and that there ought to be an acknowledgment and honour in the mind commensurate to such a worth or excellency and that to be expressed by such acts as are fitting and we believe that the Romanists have not such an acknowledgment in their minds when they worship Saint or Angel as they have when they worship God Almighty but whether that acknowledgment they have be commensurate to created Excellencies and no more they know best We cannot but say the expressions they make of it in the several particulars of their Religious Worship do too plainly shew they yield them more devotion of soul then is due to meer Creatures entrenching far upon the religious worship and service due to God The third thing we take notice of is that albeit he said Of the words Religion and Reliigous worship All the difficulty consisted in clearing the third sort of worth or excellency to be acknowledged and honoured yet he knew well enough the difficulty stood not in that but in the acknowledging and honouring them with acts of Religious worship And therefore pa. 20 21. he sets himself to distinguish of the words Religion and Religious that among all the acceptions of those words mentioned in Scripture he might finde some according to which the worship of Saints and Angels may be called Religious Religion saith he pa. 20. may be taken either in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion So when the School Doctors dispute about the nature of infused graces or largely for the whole belief or profession of those that esteem themselves to have the true way of serving God so when we say the Religion of the Christians or of the Jews having thus distinguished he determins pa. 22. It will be sufficient for the defense of the Cathol Roman faith in this point to affirm that when the Doctors say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with religious worship it is religious in the larger sense i. e. vertuous pious Christian as belonging and proper to our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Saviours honour as Author of our faith and religion and pa. 23. instances in Levit. 7.6 where the giving of the brest and shoulder of the sacrifice to the Priest is call'd a perpetual religion in their generations and then in Ia. 1. ult where a work of mercy done to the poor to a Creature is called Religion i. e. proceeding from and belonging to Religion But this together with all the instances be can give of Religion or Religious in such a sense comes not home either to the thing in question Religious worship or to defence of his Catholick Roman Church attributing more to Saints and Angels then he can bring out of Scripture or Fathers either either to parallel or excuse it For upon
understanding power divinity as he expressed it for if by this importance of the word serve the Romanists think to secure their worshiping of Images because they do not give divine worship or homage to them nor esteem them endowed with understanding power and divinity then I say those more understanding Heathens may be excused from serving of Images because they did not give Divine honour to them or esteem them so endued with c. and yet their worshiping was a serving of them So we see there was no need of such an outcry as he makes against our Translation saying worship where it should have said serve we had no advantage by the one nor hath he by the other Besides this of worship for serve he busieth himself to finde three other mistakes in our translating that one verse of the Commandment Other needless exceptions against our translation which in his zeal to Image-worship he brands with the note of fraud and double dealing The one in translating Pesel a graven Image which should be Idol as he would make us believe and all because the Septuagint has it in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine Idolum so he will have us contrary to the Hebrew Greek Latin texts so he p. 91. But what if here the Septuagint rendred it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the parallel place Levit. 26.1 it renders the same Hebrew word Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin Sculptile and who can deny that this signifies a graven Image and if their Latine Sculptile be not contrary to the Hebrew then we are safe enough His second exception is that we translate it any graven Image But his Logick might teach him that the force of Indefinites amounts to an Vniversality that to say there is not a man in the Church is as much as to say there is not any man in the Church so thou shalt not make to thy self a graven Image and thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image Wher 's the difference besides he acknowledges that in our New Translation the word any is put in a different character His third exception is not much unlike the former To make the Text saith he sound yet more against us in the ears of the Vulgar they make it say nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven when as it should be nor any likeness which is in Heaven pa. 92. But what English man would make any difference in these more then that the first is the rounder expression and the zeal Mr. Spencer has for the Images of Saints which are in heaven makes him so suspicious if not uncharitable in judging we had a designe in the translation to make the unlearued think that the likeness of all things in heaven and consequently of our Saviour and of the Saints is here forbidden so he pa. 93. But the words any thing are here also put in a differing character to shew they are added for the rounder English expression and as for the Religious or Romish worshiping of the likeness or Images of our Saviour and Saints we conclude it forbidden not by any consequence of an advantageous translation but by the force and intent of the Commandment Besides Deut. 4.16 will bear printing it out so in the Catechisme for there is Col. after Temounah the likeness of any After this in his zeal to Image-worship he spends 11. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11. pages in noting places of our translations where the word Image as he pretends is unduly and fraudulently put in but because most of them were so in the old Translation and are corrected in the New I will only note two where the word stands still in our present Translation The one is Ro. 11.4 to the Image of Baal But how could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be better rendred whether we supply it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Erasmus did which signifies Image or with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies statue and may well be understood it being the word which the Septuagint useth in that History of Baal 1 Kings 10.27 the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 statuam Baal sic Vul. Lat. Image or statue of Baal Mr. Spencer for fear the word Image should be here supplied would make it refer to a Femal Deity But let him shew that any femal Deities came under the name of Baals or Baalim he acknowledges that in 1 Kings 19.18 to which this place of the Romans relates it is that bowed not the knee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore no femal Idol is here meant but because the falsely supposed Deity was acknowledged and worshiped by bowing the knee to his Image S. Paul more expresly and elegantly put it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other is Act. 19.35 where he quarrels at our Translation for adding the word Image in rendring the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies that which fell from Jupiter But seeing that which was supposed to fall was a statue or Image what harme is there or fraud in adding the word Image and rendring it more clearly the Image that fell And what need this tenderness in Mr. Spencer for the word Image if he would not shew himself zealous for that against which God Almighty has in this Commandment declared himself a jealous God But its time from words to return again to the consideration of the thing worshiping of Images which he begins to do pa. 107. where he undertakes to shew that the very Translations of the Protestants prove nothing against the use of Images Of Graven Images practised in the Romish Church Certainly much may be proved against what is practised there but here we are to consider the Doctrine see then how he makes good what he said He supposes the Protestant must take Graven Image either in his sense above for an Idol and false God or in the sense he put upon the word Image i.e. for a true representation of some holy person the Church of Rome detests Graven Images in the first sense and in the other sense a Graven Image is not forbidden Thus he But he should consider that Protestants can tell him of Graven Images which may and have been made to worship by them not a false god but the true and so forbidden in the Commandment such were those we spoke of above Labans Images Mica's the Golden Calf and note that those Images which were stoln from Laban are called strange Gods Gen. 35.2 not that the false Heathen gods were worshiped in them by Laban or any of Jacobs family but because they used these in the worship of the true God which was to worship God after a strange manner as the Heathens worshiped their gods Again the Protestants can tell him of Graven Images which represent neither the true nor false God yet falling under the prohibition by undue worship given unto them and such was the brazen Serpent and so their Images
brake that he gave but he brake substantial bread therefore he gave it The exception Mr. Spencer used in answer to the former objection viz. He gave the same he took unless it were changed which they affirm it to be before he gave it did not serve him there it will less here for the affirming of such a change of the subject in such contextures of Scripture we found unreasonable unless the story or our senses did evidence the change but here it s more unreasonable to answer â—e gave what he brake the same for substance unless substantially changed for the end of our Saviours breaking it was to give or distribute it to his Disciples if therefore he changed the substantial Bread which he brake he did not give them what he brake for them and brake that which he brake to no purpose it being presently to be changed and annihilated To no purpose I say of Communion and distribution which our Saviour intended in this Sacrament For I acknowledge another purpose of breaking and that mystical to shew the breaking of his body on the Cross which might hold though the substance of the bread had been presently annihilated but the other purpose of distribution must needs be frustrate That this was the end and purpose of our Saviours breaking the Romish Commentators upon the place acknowledge saying our Saviour brake it into so many parts that every Disciple might have one But the Church of Rome does not break now in order to Communion or distributing to the people but in order to a sacrifice the Priest breaks a Wafer into three parts and this onely to himself not for others to take or receive Here they cannot serve themselves of the Species as when they say of the eating and shewing which is a breaking of the Sacrament with the Teeth that the Species of the bread are only broken the body of Christ remaining whole under them which is senseless enough but here in the breaking for distribution more senseless for it supposes only the species remaining to be distributed which cannot answer the purposes of the Sacrament nourishing incorporation of which as inforcing the necessity of substantial bread to remain more below nor can it answer S. Pauls purpose in saying The bread which we break is it not the Communion of c. Nor answer the purpose of the Scripture expressing the Administration of this Sacrament by the breaking of bread as sometimes in the Acts of the Apostles Nor can they of the Church of Rome answer our Saviours command Do this They do not what our Saviour did they do not break bread the bread they use is broken for them by the Baker those little portions of bread or wafers being severed from one another by him or her that makes them before they come to the Priests hands nay before they come into the Oven and are sit for eating If they say they break i. e. distribute that indeed is sometime signified by breaking and is implied consequentially in that phrase or expression breaking of bread and in S. Pauls the bread we break for they did break it as our Saviour also to the end they might distribute it But this will acknowledge the substance of Bread in the distribution i. e. after Consecration and still the Argument from our Saviours breaking bread is good for he brake it to that end to give and distribute it In the next objection p. 200. which is also much of his own framing he speaks something of breaking but uncertainly whether our Saviour brak before those words This is my body or while our Saviour was speaking them or after they were spoken i. e. after Consecration if he will fix on the last as he seems most inclined to do there is enough said against it from that senseless supply they make by the Species and accidents of the bread from that expression of breaking bread from S. 1 Cor. 11. Pauls the bread we break and further from that representation of Christs body broken on the Cross intended in the breaking of the Sacramental element therefore Saint Paul to this my body adds which is broken for you The next objection or Argument of Protestants is upon the word this when our Saviour said this What the word this denotes it must signify what he took and held in his hand and so the proposition must be This bread is my body He answers pa. 206. by demanding whether our Saviour when he turned Water into Wine Joh. 2. could not truly have said This is Wine the water remaining when the word this was pronounced and changed when the whole proposition was spoken But we reply this is to change the Case which enquires de facto of the deed or being to that which enquires de possibili of the possibility The question is whether the words This is Wine or this is my body do of themselves imply such a change there being nothing else evidently shewing us the change done or to be done if they do then is there no certainty in speech as was shewen above no not in Indicative propositions as these are and should be therefore most punctual and determinate in their affirming or denying any thing As for the possibility or power of changing one substance into another we doubt not of but if that change be to be signified by the proposition this is Wine the first substance Water remaining when the word this is pronounced the proposition must have this sense to make it true this water shall be changed into wine so is must be put for shall which the word is cannot of it self import nor be that way intelligible without some declaration of the change done or about to be done So the Argument above from the thing present under the word this though not good against all possibility of change nor is it intended against that yet alwayes good against the intelligibleness or determinate signification of such propositions if intended to import a change without signifying otherwise by some clear evidence it is done or to be done so it was in that change Ioh. 2. but nothing to clear the change they would have signified in This is my body Another Difference between the change of that Water into Wine and the supposed change in the Sacrament and therefore a difference between this is wine spoken of the first and this is my body affirmed of the other because that Wine was made of the Water the same matter remaining which they cannot dare not say of Christs body that it is so made of bread Again another difference I note these because he so oft makes use of this instance as adaequate to the change he supposes in the Sacrament Although the Water was turned into wine yet not into the same wine which the Governour of the feast had or which was existent before but here the bread is by them said to be turned into not only flesh and wine into blood but into Christs flesh or
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
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time
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
mouth of Heathens I neither worship the very Image Aug. in Ps 113. Nec si mulachrum colo Sed per effigiem Ejus rei signum intueor quam Colere debeo nor a Devil but in the Corporal representation I look upon the sign of that thing which I ought to worship Aug. in Ps 96. Non illum Lapidem aâ—t simulachrum colo quod est sine sensu sed adoro quod video servio ei quem non video And in another place I do not worship that stone or that Image which is without sense but I adore what I see and serve him whom I do not see Thus could the Heathens plead and profefs in excuse of their worshiping Images The Romanists had need study and give out some new pretences I will close this point with the consideration of one chief Cause of Image-worship that which made it be so readily intertained and so tenaciously held as among the Heathen so proportionably in the Church of Rome and that is satisfaction of sense or sight So in Arnobius by applying to their Statues Arnob. l. 6. contra Gentes Pâ—asentiam quandam exhiberi they conceited an enjoyment of their Gods as present by praying to their Images they did as it were talk with their Gods And for this they objected to the Christians that * Minutius Felix in Octavio Deum suum nec ostendere possum nec videre they could not shew or see the God they worshiped To this satisfaction of sense in Religion belongs that of Lactantius Lact. l. 2. c. 7. Horum pulchritudo perstringit oculos nec ullam Religionem putant ubicunque haec non fulserint The beauty of these Images dazles the eyes neither do they think there is any Religion where those do not shine and appear Were not these words spoken by so ancient a Father one would think them spoken of the present Church of Rome Our third Evidence is from the Inevidence or weakness of the proof The plea made for Image worship weak and the pleaders unfaithful in their Allegations that can be made by the Adversary for Image-worship For that which they pretend to bring from before the seventh Age or Century is either out of forged writings or if out of true Authors the words are perverted or the argument made from them inconsequent as to the worship of Images This will appear if we examine the Collection which the Cardinal has made or rather some careless Scribe for him but He too blame-worthy that would not better inquire into them or think that others would not First he makes a semblance of proof from St. Bel. l. 2. de Imaginib c. 12. sect primò Hierom in his Epist to Marcella where he invites her to Bethlem saying the Tabernacle was venerable for the Cherubins But no such words in that Epistle Indeed in an Epistle of Paula and Eustochium to invite Marcella to Bethlem there is such a thing but not the words of Bellarmine Venerabantur Judai Sancia Sanctorum quia ibi erant Nonne venerabilius tibi videtur Sepulchrum Domini The Jewes say those Women worshiped or reverenced the Holiest of Holies because there was the Chernbins Ark Aarons rod and doth not the Sepulchre of the Lord seem to thee more venerable So the sentence or words are not Hieroms but the Womens nor are they their words neither as Bellarm. repeats them But let them go as he would have them the argument for Image-worship is altogether inconsequent from that reverence the Jewes gave towards the Temple or the Ark. He subjoyns immediately a Testimony out of St Aug. who in his third Book de Trin. c. 10. Loquens de quibusdam signis quae venerationem tanquâ—m religiosa merentur point pro exemplo serpentem aeneum Bell. ubi supra Speaking of certain signes which deserve veneration as things pertaining to religion puts for example there the brazen Serpent St. Aug. there gives other examples as well as the brazen Serpent as the Stone which Jacobs head lay upon when he had the Vision Gen. 28. but because the brazen Serpent was an Image this must be mentioned as also in the next testimony though falsly there and impertinently here for the brazen Serpent was not an Image of Christ but a Type or Sign as St. Aug. has it haec hâ—â— norem ut Religiosa possunt habere So St. Aug. and upon that score there was an honour due to it as to all other signs of Gods institution but when religious worship was given to it by burning of Incense which is also done in the Romish worship before Images it was broken in pieces To this the Cardi nal there * Bel. nbi suprà Tam de Imaginibus Cherubinorum quà m Serpentis aenei quod honorari debuerint pateâ— ex Regula Augustini signa divinitus instituta esse veneranda quia honor eorum ad prorotypum transit Fuisse autem illas Imagines Cherubin Serpenâ—is adds another place of St. Aug. and thus brings it in As concerning the Images of the Cherub and of the brazen Serpent that they are to be honoured appears by St Aug. in his third Book de doctr Christiana c. 9. where he saith Signs appointed of God are venerable because the honour of them redounds to the Prototype and they were the Images of the Cherubins and of the Serpent having thus repeated St. Aug words as he saw fit he makes his argument from thence If it was lawful to worship the Images of Angels why not of the Saints But first this has a falfe ground viz. that the Jewes worshiped the Cherubins * Chap. III. nu 10. as above shewed that they did not Again from the veneration or reverend respect given to the holy signs instituted of God to infer Romish worship given to Images is inconsequent upon a double account because such veneration is of the weakest sort of honor far short of the worship contended for also because there is great difference twixt holy signs instituted of God and Images of mans invention and so from that looking towards or bowing towards the Temple or Ark used by the Jewes to infer Image-worship is inconsequent and fails upon the former respects and also because a circumstantial determining of worship given to God this way rather then another as towards the Ark or Temple is far different from the objective determining or receiving of the worship as an Image doth But indeed the Cardinal wrongs St. Aug. both in his words and meaning For St. Aug. doth not there deliver a Rule nor saith as the Cardinal sets it down but only by the way saith Aug. de doctr Christiana l. 3. c. 9 Qui veneratur utile signum divinitus Institutum non hoc veneratur sed illud potiâ—s quò talia cuncta referenda He that reverenceth signs appointed of God he means the Jewish Types before Chriâ—â— does not reverence these but that to which
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
place they either restrain it to the literal as it inforces concord and agreement between man and man or take it in the parabolical sense as appliable to our agreement and reconciliation to God for want or neglect of which the prison of Hell and eternal sufferings there will follow St. Chrysostom and some others are content with the first way * Aug. 1. qu. ad Dulcitium and elsewhere St. Aug. and others apply it in the Parabolical sense not to any place or pains of Purgatory but to Hell and the pains never ceasing To this their own Authors consent Maldonat on the place expounds it of Hell and eternal punishment so Jansenius and others Jans concord c. 40. Salmeron seems indifferent first setting down that Interpretation of the eternal punishment and acknowledging Aquinas and others so to take it but thinking it appliable also to Purgatory cites the very same Fathers which we said above were cited by the Cardinal and misapplied as to this belief of Purgatory Now see we what the Fathers hold out concerning the Place of state of Souls The opinion of the Fathers incounstent with Purgatory between the Day of Death and of the Resurrection We shall finde it inconsistent with Romish Purgatory as may appear by the Particulars following I. They held but two stares places or Receptacles of Souls the one of pain and grief the other of rest and bliss There is scarce any Father but concludes this from the Parable or story of Dives and Lazarus Luc. 16. the one going to Hell the other to Abrahams bosom I need not cite the places which are obvious to every one that looks into their Writings II. They did not agree about the particular place of the Souls of Just persons which difference among the Ancients shews plainly that this place of Purgatory was not then known Iren. l. 5. â— 31. St. Irenaeus and many that followed him held they were all kept in a secret Receptacle below or out of Heaven and sight of God till the resurrection which place was also called by them Hades or an Invisible place and sometimes Abrahams bosom This condition of Souls Legem mortuorum servavit Irenaeus cals Legem mortuorum the Law of the Dead and saith as our Saviour observed it not ascending to his Father till after his Resurrection so must all his Disciples and gives this Reason for it Because the disciple is not greater then his Master Of this common Receptacle of Souls till the Resurrection speaks Lactantius in his 7. Book and chap. 21. Tert. l. de Anima c. 7. cap 55. contra Marc. l. 4. c. 34. Also Tertullian in several places only he seems to allow Martyrs this prerogative to enter Heaven upon their death as in his Book dâ— Anima c. 55. and in his Book of the Resurrection c. 43. This was one opinion of the Ancients and held by many But others conceived the Souls of Just persons were admitted into Heavenly bliss and a sight of God whom Irenaeus notes in the first words of the chap. above cited Quidam ex his qui rectè putantur credidisse transgrediuntur ordinem promotionis Justorum Some saith he of those that are thought to believe aright do transgress the order or degrâ—â—s of the promotion of the Just viz. by admitting them as he conceived too haâ—â—ily into Heaven Of this Judgment was Cyprian and generally the Fathers after him as we shall see presently Now as the former opinion that kept Souls out of Heaven till the Resurrection could not stand with the doctrine of Invocation as we noted above in the II. Sect. so this diversity of judgment touching the place of Souls after death could not consist with a belief of Purgatory III. Although the Ancients were not agreed upon the particular place or degree of bliss yet all held the place and condition in which they put the Souls of Just persons to be a place of rest and refreshment and a blessed condition This is manifest because they set it out by the place of Lazarus also because the Prayers which the Church anciently made for the Dead were still pro quiescentibus for them that were at Rest as we shall see below And St. Aug. whom I specially name because he first stumbled on a conceit tending to Purgatory doth often speak of the secret Receptacle of good Souls as at rest sometimes with distinction from that place where they shall be after the resurrection as in his Confessions l. 9. c. 3 and of the City of God l. 12. c. 9. sometimes in opposition to that other receptacle or place of pain and grief as in his Enchirid. c. 107. and in his second quest to Dulcitius But we shall have occasion below to shew that St. Aug. was not at any certainty as to this point of Purgatory Lastly Those ancients which held the Souls of Just persons admitted into Heavenly bliss Souls of the Just go presâ—ntly to bliss did suppose and so expressed it that they went thither presently after Death without any diversion to or detention in any place of pain and torment The Author of the Questions in Justin Martyr thus Quest ad Oâ—thod â—5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After their going out of the body there is presently made a difference between the Souls of the just and the wicked for they are both carried to places worthy of them What are those places The Souls of the Just saith he into Paradise but the wicked into the Regions of Hell St. Cyprian in his Book of Mortality Cypr. l. de mortalitate Possessio Paradisi in Patriam regredi ad Christum ire cum Christo inciperâ— regnare giving comfort against the sickness that swept away many Christians as well as other useth these Reasons Because good Christians by death are put into possession of Paradise they do return into their own Countrey after their peregrination in this life they then go to Christ begin to reign with Christ It is for him to fear death that is not willing to go to Christ and that believes not he shall then begin to reign with Christ de turbinibus mundi extracti And when the servants of God are drawn out of the storms of this world they gain the haven of and eternal mansion and security â—â—tranquillam quietem Justi vocantur ad refrigerium iâ—justi ad supplicium and have an undisturbedrest and at death the Just are calleâ— to a refreshment the unjust to punishment All this to comfort Christians against death by their present removal to a blessed condition And none of these can be said of them that go to Purgatory for that is not to take possession of or enter into Paradise that is not the Countrey which the faithful seek not a reigning with Christ not the Mansion of Rest or Port of eternal security and undisturbed quietness And these several expressions of this Father may assure us that the