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-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
taken away in the use of them This is easily said and pretended but what boots it when people are taught contrary to the commandment to bow down and worship and to direct and secure them in it do hear a company of distinctions * Vid. supra in introduct ex Bel. they understand not Whatever therefore becomes of the truth of that doctrine now to be examined we may without rash judgement which this Author layes to our charge pa. 72. challenge the Church of Rome for so needlesly exposing her people to the peril of Idolatrie or superstition in this and other points of worship The first Protestant position saith he is That it is unlawful to represent God the Father in any likeness and the Scripture is Deut. 4.15 16. This Scripture he will have mistaken and misapplied to the Church of Rome Of picturing God the Father pa. 75. Before we ask his reason note here how they of the Church of Rome are divided in this point * Bel. de Imagin l. 2. c. 8. Docent imaginem Dei non recte fieri the Cardinal acknowledges some of his Catholicks Abulensis Durand Peresius and others to be of Calvins opinion herein that an Image of God is not rightly and lawfully made And though these be the smaller number in the Church of Rome specially since the Jesuites arose and multiplied yet are they in this more suitable to the ancient Christians who had no Images of God as Minutius Foelix and other ancient writers affirm Now see this Authors reason why that Scripture is mistaken and misapplied by us First because they of the Church of Rome do not represent God by any Image directly that is to signifie he is of a figure or shape like that Image pa. 27. Nor did the understanding Heathens say they did so represent their Gods by their Images Again we represent God saith he only historically as he appeared to the prophets as Dan. 7. the ancient of dayes neither is it forbidden to represent him as he pleased to represent himself pa. 75. But we must put a difference between the representing of a Vision and of an History Difference in picturing of a Vision and History to represent a vision in which God Almighty pleased to shew himself to the eye is tolerable but the Church of Rome takes greater liberty as appears by the decree set down by this Author pa. 72. of figuring * Historias narrationes Sacrae Script Conc. Trid. Sess 24. histories and passages of Scripture in which God did not shew himself to the eye under any kinde of figure thus also in the story of our Saviours baptisme they figure him like an old man looking out of the clouds when as they only heard a voice saw no shape so in the story of Creation they figure him like an old man with a globe in his hand and without reference to history they figure the Trinity God the Father as an old man with the Son on one hand Holy Ghost in shape of a Dove on the other hand His Hieroglyphical figuring of Gods attributes as of providence by an eye and the figurative speeches of Scripture attributing hand wings feet to God Almighty I let pass as altogether unfit to make any argument for representing God by an Image neither is he so confident of them as to make any concluding argument but only some semblance for representations of God for if he will make Images of these Hieroglyphical or Emblematical expressions they will not prove innocent Images which according to his own definition of an Image do represent the things as they are in themselves The second protestant position saith he is That no Image ought to be worshipped The Scriptures are Levit. 26.1 Exod. 20.4 5. Here he makes as they do all in this point a great noise about the words and translations The pretended distinction of Idol and Image to amuse the Reader in examining the thing it self spending thirty pages upon the words Idol graven-image likeness and quarrelling at our Translation as false and partial for saith he no word in the first Text signifies Image and that which we render graven-image out of the Hebrew Pesel every where signifies an Idol and so it is rendred by the Septuagint in the second Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idolum now there is a great difference between Idol and Image for an Image is the representation of a true thing but Idol a representation of what neither is nor can be as he who makes or uses it intends thus he in pa. 78 79 80 81. But he should remember that in the first text the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine sculptile and our Translation then does duly render it graven-image also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Septuagint in the second Text renders the same word Pesel does generally imply Image likeness representation although when taken with connotation of Idolatrous worship given it it signifies an Idol in his sense and seeing the Heathen false Gods were worshipped by Images and representing statues he should not be so offended that we in rendring those texts put in the word Image well let the texts run as rendred in their latine Bible our reasoning and argument against image-Image-worship will stand firm it being but the simple truth which all antiquity for 600. years according to Scripture asserted and after the Cardinal whom this Author follows had laboured so much in his conceited difference between Idol and Image he is forced to admit that which defaces it as this Author we shall see is content to do in acknowledging any Image may be made an Idol by the worship given it That the prohibition of the commandment concerned only Heathen Idols The prohibition of the Commandment was the device of the goodly second Council of Nice after the year 700. which Council to introduce or defend the Image-worship then begun so grosly abused both the words of Scripture and the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers They of the Church of Rome see themselves concerned for the maintaining of their Image-worship to defend that hold and in order to that conceive it necessary to make such a distinction between Idol and Image as may seem to clear their Images and statues from the prohibition of the Commandment and leave only that which they call an Idol under it Upon his long descant upon the words we may note 1. this their acception of the word Idol restrains it to the visible thing representing and such was Pesel the graven images statues pillars forbidden in those texts whereas the things represented or the reputed Deities Baal Jupiter Diana were Idols too and the main ones and they that prayed or offered sacrifice to them without sight or presence of their representations or graven Images were Idolaters by the first commandment And this note is necessary for distinction of the first * Vt infra 〈◊〉 12. and second Commandment
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
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
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-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
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
the first beast or Heathen Rome and I know not wherein one can be like the other more then in erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image-worship and in persecuting the gainsayers that will not receive the mark or worship the beast So that this Author and those of his communion may be concerned in this prophesie more then they are aware of I am sure they can have no advantage from hence for their image-worship I will but adde this one thing had this image-worship been used in Irenaeus his dayes and thought tending to Christs honour then would those Hereticks he speaks of who held our Saviour not to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament that made the world and gave the Law have had a fair plea for how should they think him his Son if allowing and taking it for honour what was so cautioned against and abominated by God in the old Testament and for which the Jews still do abominate Christian Religion viz. the use of images in religious worship It is a great piece of cunning in the Dragon or Devil to induce men to believe that this service of images and creatures so strictly forbidden by Moses Law is authorized by the Gospel allowed by Christ CHAP. IV. Of Justification by Works HAving set down the Trent decree against Justification by works before grace Merit of congruity and against the merit of them he challenges the 13. Article of our Church for charging the School-Authors with the merit of congruity in such works which he denies any of them to have held and is something passionate against the composers of the Articles pa. 138. and 139. But what need such anger here Seeing the Article determines the same truth as to this doctrine that the Trent decree doth it might have so far pacified him as to allow that parenthesis in the Article as the School-Authors say such a candid interpretation as it is capable of for it may refer to their expressing of the doctrine by that phrase of their invention deserve grace of congruity not to their holding of that doctrine for thus the words stand in the Article neither do they works done before grace make men meet to receive grace or as the School-Authors say deserve grace of congruity do but for say put in express or phrase it and you have that sense plainly But suppose the Article had directly said the School-Authors held that doctrine will Mr. Spencer hazard his credit and call it a great untruth and say none can be produced that held it It seems He is acquainted only with Thomists for though their Angelical Doctor did not approve it yet their Seraphical Bonaventure does not account it such an honour no more does Scotus and they were not without their followers Yea since the Council of Trent the two * Trigosius and Fr. Longus à Coriolano Commentators or Epitomizers of Bonaventure acknowledge it may be defended and do answer the objections from the Trent Decrees And as they say it may be defended and do defend it so I think to defend it is as little or less to Gods dishonour then their merit of condignity in works after grace which besides its own untruth is attended in that Church by more corruptions both of Error and Practice then the other is possibly capable of Of the seven Particulars which he draws out of the Trent Definitions pa. State of the question 142 143. he should have told us which he opposes to Protestant doctrine for not any one of them can be framed into a just Controversie Only he tells us that in the last chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works pa. 143. See then what that last particular is and mark what this great noise they make of Justification by works comes to His last particular or collection out of the Trent decrees stands thus Being freely justified we may do good works and by them accepted through Christs merits become more and more just in the sight of God To fix it upon the second Justification is to yeild the Gause Wherein chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works He might have added wherein we yeild up the cause to the Protestants for this is the second Justification as they call it and he knows unless he will grosly mistake that when we say justified by faith and not by works we mean their first Justification which indeed and properly is Justification and from which they themselves exclude works as the words above also do imply Being Justified we may do good works they follow Justification As for that which they make the second justification and is thus described by the Council of Trent Being therefore thus justified and made the friends of God there 's the first or true and proper justification going on from virtue to virtue they are renewed from day to day and using those armes of justice to sanctification you have Mr. Spencers words by the observance of the Commandments of God and the Church their faith co-operating with their good works they increase in the justice they have received and are justified more and more as it is written he who is just let him be justified still Revel 22. Now if this be their second Justification and they intend no more by it then is here expressed in the Trent decree viz. renovation day by day and yeilding up our members as weapons of righteousness to sanctification and increase in righteousness We have no cause to quarrel at the thing but only that they will call that Justification which indeed is Sanctification But if under this their Justification they intend also a meriting of remission by good works or a redeeming of sins done after grace by the merit of good works which neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer mentions but their earnest contending for Justification by works and some arguments their writers use for it too plainly shews they are concerned in it I say if they intend so and would speak it we would think our selves more concerned in the cause Now as Mr. Spencer thought good to premise seven collections he made out of their Council the better as he conceived to shew wherein the Roman doctrine of Justification by works did consist so I shall take leave before I come to examine his confused labour and impertinencies in the defence of that pretended doctrine to set down some particulars the better to shew wherein the true Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith doth consist I. Albeit good works do not justify but follow Justification Preparatory works to justification yet are there many works or workings of the soul required in and to justification what the Council of Trent saith Can. 9. pronouncing Anathema to him that shall say a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he mean there is nothing else required which may co-operate to the obtaining of the grace of Justification nor that it is necessary he be prepared
justified and in grace were concerned to acknowledge If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss who could abide it or stand Psal 130. and to pray Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143.2 that is if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle No flesh can be justified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself No man can be justified not thy servant by his own doings So that still upon the same reason no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God by what he does because the Law convinces him of sin and to the same purpose it is said We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin 1 Io. 1.10 So that if God enter with him into judgment he cannot be justified if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it What he saith to Gal. 2.16 as to the works of the Law is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28 and needs no farther reply But that which is the main exception and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversie is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification which is not by works So then the Protestant position as he calls it of justification by faith only stands good as they intend it by faith only i. e. not by works and this also shews their exception against the word only is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless the word only being but exclusive to works which he and his Council exclude from the first justification Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification Sanctification and increase of grace and righteousness it is not worth our contending about as to proper speech which controversies require for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification to be done in sanctification and to be properly so called viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received and that such increase is made by works or acting Philosophy teaches it is so in ordinary habits much more in these which have also the influence and assistance of Gods spirit for their increase But if he would have said any thing to purpose whereby this Increase of righteousness by works should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification he should have resolved us as I noted above whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fall'n as David and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works so he should have told us plainly whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall which may be called in some sort a second justification can by any works of that person be merited They sometimes pretend to this when they urge Daniels saying to Nebuchadnezzar Redeem break off thy sins by righteousness c. 4.27 Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem yet must they confess this remission of sins to Nebuchadnezzar would have been the first justification and not to be acquired by works in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency when by Luc. 7.47 for she loved much they endeavour to prove that her love was the cause of her forgiveness when this was her first justification But thus do they confound their first and second justification in their proofs of justification by works and being pressed by argument they retire for answer to their second Justification That which they cite out of Revel 22. justificetur adhuc let him be justified still is all the pretence they have for this second justification where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness but it s their mistake to make this which is sanctification to be justification which stands in remission of sins That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 de justific saith by yeilding up our members weapons of righteousness unto sanctification and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather then justification And therefore it is to little purpose that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us they must produce a Text which saith good works of such as are justified already done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify that is augment and increase that righteousness already received and make us more just for we must tell them this is sanctification and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense unless that place of Revel c. 22. be so translated and we need not fear it should be seeing the word there is to signify no more then a continuance in the state of justification or an increase of righteousness which we grant to good works yea we grant them more the increase of the favour of God if they will put that also into their second justification for the more good works a justified person doth the more he is accepted of God But such a person if he fall into sin as David did must come unto remission of sins Justification by Faith by the same way as he did in his first justification viz. by faith and repentance And albeit repentance has its works or workings and charity also in the first justification or remission of sins as Iona 3. ult God saw their works i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies because they are required according to their measure as conditions present but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon and bringing in its hand as it were the meritorious cause for justification and so that only and properly on our part said to justifie To conclude that other mistake which he would fasten on us Justifying Faith in regard of the word faith pa. 153. is needless we must understand saith he a faith vivificated informed animated by charity and other Christian virtues joyned with it The impropriety I may say absurdity of his speech in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other vertues we noted * Nu. 6. above where he said it was vivificated
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
body and into Christs blood which were exislent before So that whereas he infers so bold are Protestants in restraining the omnipotency of God to defend their own groundless phantasies pa. 207. We may more justly say so bold are Romanists in obliging Gods omnipotency without any signification of his will to work miracles to make good their phansies yea such miracles as they can give no examples or instances for nor any indication in the story that he did or would engage his omnipotency to work such a miraculous chang The Instances he brings for like manner of speech His pretended Instances for the word This to denote a thing future wherein the word this speaks the thing not present but about to be come not home to the purpose as This is my commandment that ye love This is a circle when but part of it drawn and this is fire speaking of flax kindled as those words are pronounced p. 208 209. The first instance is of words to be spoken as the subject of this and do to any mans apprehension refer necessarily to the future or that which follows in speech but the case is quite different when there is a visible substance as bread taken and held up while the pronoun demonstrative this is pronounced and must in any mans apprehension point it out The other two instances are of successive Mutations and visible Of which after begun it is intelligible if said this is a Circle For he that hears the words and sees the thing knows what it means but the change or mutation they suppose made and signified by these words this is my body is instantaneous and invisible which is not begun when the words are begun but accomplisht in a moment when they are fully spoken and cannot have truth in proper speech till then nor that truth be understood till the supposed change become visible or be expresly affirmed to be done If they can shew this of their change they contend for by those words then we shall understand and believe it true and then we wall admit the sense he gives of the words pa. 211. This which I am to give you and which ye are presently to eate is my body but till he can shew us express declaration of such a change or evidence of sight for it he must give us leave to think the sense Saint Paul puts upon those words This is my body by saying The bread that is this bread which we break is the Communion of my body far better and sitter to rest on Whereas pa. 213. he commends the ingenuous profession Ingenuity of Protestants in this point and good disposition of the Protestant that acknowledging bread remaining yet believes it to be the body of Christ because he has said this is my body though he cannot comprehend how this may be it is the profession of all true Protestants And there would be no question made of the Presence if the Romanists would be so ingenuous as to rest satisfied in it and not so contend about the Mode their conceit of transubstantiation as I noted at the beginning of this discourse and would have the Reader note diligently that notwithstanding the former objections for the remaining of Bread in substance yet are they not brought to exclude or prove any thing against the true presence but the Romish conceited presence of Christs body The next objection or argument of the Protestants is from Do this in remembrance of me of which I must say Remembrance of Christ made in the Sacrament excludes not a real presence this argument is not to be pressed against the true presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament from the importance of the word remembrance which is of things past not present but first it more directy concludes against their propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass which they pretend to be the very same with that sacrifice on the Cross we say as some Fathers do that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice a shewing a commemoration an application of that facrifice of our Saviours therefore not the same Secondly though by the importance of the word remembrance it conclude not against a true presence as I said yet may it against their manner of presence by Transubstantiation because that takes away the presence of substantial bread that is of the Sacramental Element which is the necessary subject upon which passes what is done in the Sacrament for the shewing of the Lords death and for the commemorating of his body broken his blood shed upon the Cross which the very body and blood of Christ put in the place of the substantial Elements cannot supply therefore he thinks himself concerned pa. 224 to 229. to shew how the same thing may in diverse respects be a remembrance of it self Therefore to omit his Cavilling or trifling pa. 220 221. that what our Saviour did could not then be a Remembrance for that is of things past and Christ himself was present and his passion was to come To which we briefly say and he cannot deny it that our Saviour in his first institution did mean and appoint this Sacrament for a Remembrance of Him and therefore said do this in Remembrance of me and for that first time it was enough to be the shewing or representation of his death and for ever after both representation and remembrance of it but both then and after the exhibition and communication of his body and blood to all purposes of the Sacrament The Paschal Lamb or blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was a remembrance of the Angels passing over and for that called the Passover and for that purpose instituted as appears Exod. 12. Yet primâ vice at that first time it was not in proper force of the Word a Remembrance for it was done before the Angel passed over But we need not spend time about this The same body not a Remembrance or Sacrament of it self see how he endeavours to shew the same thing may be in diverse respects a Remembrance of it self viz. by doing some action bring to remembrance something he had done himself This is true and so our Saviour shall be seen of them that pierced him Zach. and therein shall be a remembrance of what was done to him but this nor any other instance brought can make it good in the Sacrament for here we affirm nothing can be a Sacramental remembrance of it self because that confounds the essential parts of a Sacrament making the same thing the Sign and the thing Sgnified Visible corporeal and invisible incorporeal The Apostle saith plainly So oft as ye eat this bread ye shew the Lords death therefore they are forced to say and use such speeches as this Author doth pa. 211. lin ult the body of Christ made a Sacrament and so the same thing must be a Sacrament of it self which comes in with the former absurdity a sacramental representation and remembrance of it self and yet altogether invisible
manner how it is made so or how that body and blood are present in the sacrament But the Romanists cannot agree what is the subject of the proposition or what is meant by this cannot agree about the words of consecration the more general opinion is the false one which places it in these words This is my body making them operative to their transubstantiation whereas the Ancients placed the Consecration in oratione invocatione not so much in the pronouncing these words as in prayer and Invocation and so our Saviours blessing and giving thanks belongs to the Consecration as well as his saying this is my body And Mr. Spencer however he would have this saying of our Saviours so clear for Transubstantiation knows that some School-men and others of their Doctors have spoken plainly that the Scripture and that saying of our Saviours in particular does not infer Transubstantiation without the definition of their Church and indeed the different opinions in the explaining of it or drawing it to that purpose speaks as much The next thing remarkable is the objection of S. Called bread after Consecration Pauls calling it often bread after Consecration 1 Cor. 11. to which Mr. Spencer returns these pitiful answers 1. He helps himsef of his old instance of the Water made Wine Jo. 2. and called Water after for it is said v. 9. tasted the water that was made wine pag. 251. But the Text speaks also plainly that it was not water but made wine 2. S. Paul saith not it is common or natural bread Nor will the Protestants say so therefore with them when S. Paul calls it Bread before and after Consecration though the name bread be the same yet the signification is not the same So the Catholicks may give saith he the same answer that before Consecration bread in Saint Paul is natural bread after supernatural spiritual divine bread p. 252 253. This is but a slender disguise which any eye that can distinguish substances from qualities may see thorow for as we deny it is common or mere natural bread after consecration so we affirm it is substantial bread bread to be eaten So oft as ye eat this bread 1 Cor. 11. and therefore although the Protestants allow such a change in the bread notwithstanding S. Paul calls it bread before and after Consecration yet will not the change which the Romanists make consist with S. Pauls calling it bread for they take away the whole substance and nature of bread and leave nothing but the species or qualities of Bread to supply the uses of the Sacrament And what if our Saviour termeth himself bread Jo. 6. which at first sight is a figurative speech S. Paul cannot be so answered when he calls that which was truly bread bread still nor they excused who seek to help themselves by figures when the Sacramental bread is called bread viz. what it is indeed and allow no figure when it is called his body viz. what it is in signification and exhibition He concludes It can no more be gathered from its being termed bread by S. Paul that it is natural substantial bread then it can be gathered from the Canon of our Mass that we believe it to be the substance of bread because it is often called Bread in the same Canon after Consecration p. 252. There are many passages in the Canon of your Mass which did not alter with the times and may confute your novelties and reprove your not believing according to that Canon speaking yet the Ancient language and belief It cannot be gathered by the Canon of your Mass so far as is ancient what ye do believe but what ye ought The inforcement of the former objection A farther enforcement of the same If by the word bread often repeated S. Paul should understand flesh he would have warned the people to believe it so though the senses shewed it bread he would not have joyned himself to the report of the senses against the perswasion of faith calling it alwayes bread without any explication He answers here by his former impertinency of the spiritual food of the soul call'd bread and Christs flesh called bread Io. 6. which first was not a joyning with the report of our senses but telling us what we must believe it to be in effect and so understand it was a figurative speech And secondly this that S. Paul calls bread was substantial bread before consecration and his calling it still bread shews it continued so still tells us we must believe it to be so still unless he had admonisht us of the change into flesh His retorting upon the Protestants is vain If S. Paul by this word bread so often repeated should understand a Sacrament or Mystery as it is believed among Christians were he not to be blamed for holding the people in error seeing he knew that sense and reason giveth evidence that it is usual and common bread c. p. 255. and in anger concluds Protestants bring Arguments fitter for Infidels then Christians ibid. But there was no cause for him to be so moved seeing there is a great difference between our argument or Reasoning and his as much as between this is not bread and this is not common bread It is not true that reason as he saith giveth evidence that it is common bread sense may because it cannot discern between holy and common but he that can use his reason as all that know any thing belonging to Sacraments or Religion knows also by what he hears and sees said and done for the consecrating or setting apart the elements for holy use that it is not common bread The Apostle also saies enough to take off that mistake or errour by calling it this bread and this Cup of the Lord and threatning judgment unto the unworthy receiver as guilty of the Lords body and because they discern not the Lords body which is enough to exclude all conceit of it as of common bread though not to infer it is no more bread but the very body as he would have it concluded from those expressions of the Apostle p. 255. Nor does his similitude come home A subject saith he cannot be said to be guilty of the body and blood of the King that receives not his signet with that reverence as becomes a subject ibid. I say this comes not home as any may see that knows what a great difference there is between moral signes or tokens and sacramental for these are not only significant and representative but exhibitive and communications of the thing signified and in them offered they carry it along with them and therefore he is guilty of the body and blood who receives this Sacrament unworthily To omit his needless discourse of the fruit of the Vine mentioned in the Gospel Their impertinent instances they bring to parallel it It is familiar with Romish writers in answer to S. Pauls calling it bread after consecration to use the help of such speeches
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
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
what St. Aug. Aug. de Morib Ecclesiae c. 34. Sâ—pulâ—hrorum picturarum Adoratores Iurbas Imperitorum saith in several places in his Book of the manners or Customs of the Church he notes some to be Worshipers of pictures and sepulchres and puts them among the companies of ignorant and indiscreet men and saith the Church owns not allows not such custome or practise The Cardinal replies Peradventure St. Aug. Bell. de Imag l. 2. cap. 16. Forte speaks of the Idols of the Gentiles Peradventure of those that did superstitiously without all peradventure St. Aug. speaks not of Heathen Idols but of the irregular honour given by some to the Martyrs and without any peradventure they did superstitiously worship and honour them for that necessarily follows upon Religious worship given to a Creature and cannot be declined in the Church of Rome But after two peradventures the Cardinal is resolved to say St. Aug. was then newly converted when he wrote that Book and so * Offensum quibusdam ritibus Ecclesiae offended with some customs of the Church it seems the Cardinal took that practise which St. Aug. blames to have been a Custom or usage of the Church but after being better instructed he could excuse them But where did St August ever excuse such practise or shew himself reconciled to Image-worship We do not finde he recall'd it in his Retractations but we finde * Aug. contra Adimant c. 13. Velle videri se favere simulachris ut vesanae sectae Paganorum concilient benevol him blaming the Manichees in that they would seem to favour Images for gaining the good will of the Pagans to their mad sect Aug. contra Acad. l. 1. c. 1. Nihil omnino colendum esse totâ—â—que abjiciendum quicquid oculis cernitur quiâ—quid ullus sensus attingit Again we finde him in his first book against the Academicks pronouncing in general Nothing is at all to be worshiped but to be cast away what ever is seen with mortal eyes and what ever any sense can reach This Book indeed he wrote when he was newly converted but when he wrote his Retractations Retract l. 1. c. 1. Est enâ—m sensus Mentis he was an aged Christian there he repeats this sentence not retracting it but only explaining the word Sense by saying he meant the senses of the body not of the minde Also we finde the very same Father in his Book of true Religion Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. Non est nobis Religio humanorum operum cultus meliores enim sunt iâ—si Artifices denying it and saying as we saw above Sect 1. Worship of Dead Men or of Angels is no part of our Religion So likewise denies he there that the worship of the works of mens hands is any part of Christian Religion and adds Reason for it because the workmen themselves are better then their works We finde him also upon occasion of the Heathen-worship asking this question Aug. in Ps 113. Quir adorat vel orat intuâ—â— simulaâ—h um qui non sic afficitur â—t ab eo se coeâ—â—â—rt puteâ— Who is he that adores or prayes beholding an Image and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it Where he not only condemns the practice but shews the danger of it in withdrawing the minde from that which is to be adored and prayed to Nor is this so easily to be turn'd off as the Cardinal would do it by saying St. Aug. speaks of Images with supposal of the Heathen error as if he should say Bell l. 2. de Imag. c. 9. Loqui de simulachris supposito errore Gentilium quando quis putet simulachrum esse Deum accedit ut adoret when any thinking the Image to be God as the Heathens did comes to adore and pray As if there were no danger of withdrawing the minde so but in them that think the Image to be God But all Heathens did not think so as we shall see below and St. Aug. puts his question generally of all and subjoyns the example of those that could not think the Image to be the thing it represented but might see them different and distant one from the other at the same time as the Sun it self and the Image of it Aug. ibid. Homines talibus superstitionibus obligati ad ipsum solem plerumque dorsum ponentes preces fundunt statuae They saith he that are engaged to such superstitions do often turn their backs to the Sun it self and pour out their prayers to the statue or Image of it and then St. August tels us the danger of it which is common to Heathen or Christians Contra hunc affectum quo humana infirmitas facile capi potest cantat Scriptura Aug. ibid. that will binde themselves to such superstition Against this affection arising from the use of the Image wherewith humane infirmity may be easily taken the Scripture cryes out telling them often They are the works of mens hands And a little after upon the same Psalm shews the danger that arises Valet in affectibus miserorum similis vivenâ—â— forma Aug. ibid. by reason of the similitude The likeness saith he which the Image hath to One living much prevails upon the affections of silly miserable men And thus much out of St. Aug. against the worship of Images and to shew the danger of using them in holy worship Let us hear what St. Gregory Bishop of Rome saith In his time which was about 600 years after Christ they were gotten into Churches for the historical use that might be made of them but not yet obtained any worship Serenus Bishop of Marscilles had caused some Images to be broken because he saw the people inclined to give them worship Greg. Epist l. 9. Ep 9. Gregory Bishop of Rome writes to him commending him in that he forbad them to be worshiped but not praising him for breaking them Bel. de Imag l. 2. c. 16. Vsum superstitiosum quo Imagines coluntur ut Dii The Cardinal answers with their usual limitation of worship That their Bishop forbad only the superstitious use of worshiping Images as Gods when as its plain to him that reads the Epistle he simply forbids the worship by such sayings Adorare omnibus modis devita by all waies possble avoid the adoring of them and all the use he allows of them is historical as appears by many passages in that Epistle that speak that use the only reason of having and retaining them as for example Aliud est adorare aliud per Picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere Greg ibid. It is one thing saith he to adore another thing to learn by the history of the Picture what is to be adored Again They were not placed in the Church ad adorandum for worship but ad instruendas solummodo only for Instructing of the minds of the simple After this he
never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had
to the worth or dignity of the work This Argument also is inconsequent for admit that the reward is given according to works and in the giving it there is regard had to the dignity of them yet does not this conclude them meritorious as we saw above Nu. 3. Good works indeed may be different in worth and dignity yet all infinitely belwo the eternal reward And in the reward there is the substance and degrees considerable the essential beatitude or eternal life and the degrees of glory All that are saved have eternal life not all the same glory The Penny was given to all Mat. 20.10 To this purpose St. Ambr. l. 7. in Luc. 15. v. 17. aqualem mercedem Vita non gloriae Ambrose Thou hirest in Labourers at the eleventh hour and dost vouchsafe them an equal reward an equal reward of life not of glory The difference of reward upon the difference of good works is in the degrees of glory and if some proportion be observed in this yet nothing of Merit where God does but crown the greater gifts he bestowed here with the greater glory there If they will plead proportion our Saviour tels them Mat. 19.29 an hundred fold is received and that 's no fit proportion to ground Merit on If they plead reward given according to dignity of the works St. Paul tels them Rom. 8.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory excluding all proportion of worth between the sufferings and the glory Thirdly Such places of Scripture as speak works to be the cause or reason of giving eternal life as Mat. 25.35 For ye have fed cloathed Which places saith the Cardinal do witness eternal life so given Bel. l. 5. de Justif cap. 3. ut ipsam rationem cur detur vita aterna in operibus ponant that they put the very Reason wherefore it is given upon the works Those places do give a reason indeed why such and such obtain eternal life but not the very Reason or the chief Reason for there is a greater Reason a Reason wherefore such works are rewarded with eternal life and that destroyes the Merit of such works though not the certainty of their obtaining and that is Gods gracious bounty and liberality appointing such a reward to such small performances and therefore is it said in the 34. verse an Inheritance and Kingdom prepared for them and then dependently on that it is said Inherit the Kingdom for ye have done that which I required of you in order to inheriting the Kingdom ye are such as they for whom the Kingdom is prepared Fourthly Reward in Justice how Such places of Scripture as speak Gods Justice in giving the reward 2 Thess 1.6 2 Tim. 4.8 But this is still inconsequent as to the inferring of Works meritorious unless they can say God renders the reward to good works according to Commutative justice which gives one for one by equal proportion but such Justice is not found between God and Man for man returns nothing to God which he can call his own nothing but what he has received of God As for the destributive or remunerative justice it is true that God may be said in some sense to render the reward in justice yet not for the merit of the works but out of the bounty of his liberality and the faithfulness of his promise God was not bound in justice to prepare appoint or promise such a reward to such works but having appointed promised it it is just with him to render accordingly So the Apostle speaking of the Justifying of a sinner which the Romanists themselves say cannot be merited useth the same word that he might be just i. e. in keeping his promise to all that believe in Jesus So when the Fathers in their high language speak of Man making God his Debtor they mean it only in regard of his own promise whereby he has freely bound himself St. August Aug. in Psa 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se fecit non accipiendo sed promittendo may answer for them all The Lord saith he made himself debtor not by receiving any thing but by promising Lastly Such places of Scripture Worthy of the Reward how as speak us worthy So Luc. 10.7 2 Thess 1.5 Rev. 3.4 This argument as the rest is inconsequent They are worthy therefore their Works are meritorious or therefore they have the reward for the worth of their works whereas this worthiness arises by divine acceptation by which they are accounted worthy Bernard may answer them once for all Bern. de dedic Eccl. ser 5. illius dignatione non nostra dignitate We are worthy saith he by his dignation not by our own dignity See also above Chap. V. nu 8 9. In the Testimonies alledged by them out of the Fathers they give us but words or bare sayings Their Testimonies out of Antiquity examined But we produce the Fathers witnessing for us against Merit and giving reason withall to overthrow it The Greek Fathers have not any word that fully answers the importance of the Latine word Merit but the Romanists usually translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occurs frequently in these Fathers especially Chrysostome and signifies no more then recte facta Deeds rightly done or good works Merita Merits Such merits that is good works we acknowledge the Fathers do allow and the Cardinal acknowledges that St. Aug. Bel. de gra lib. arbitr l. 1. c. 14. Meritum appellat quemlibet actum bonum ratione cujus aliquid aliud accipimus in whose Books the word Merit is most frequently found uses it for every good work in regard of which we receive some other thing Well then we acknowledge holy men full of such Merits or good Deeds and that they shall obtain or be rewarded with eternal life And I dare say there is not any Father that affirms more as we may see by that Collection Bel. l. 5. de Justis c. 4. which the Cardinal has made He begins with the Greek Fathers but produces their sayings only in Latine and there he has as I noted above this gift usually to choose the worst translation so when he makes Ignatius say ut possim promereri Deum whereas the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to obtain or enjoy God although we need not be afraid of the phrase promereri Deum which we shall see St. Cyprian often using in an innocent sense according to the meaning of those ancient Times So the Cardinal makes Justin Martyr to say victuros cum eo suis meritis that they shall live with him God by their merits Justin Apolog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the Greek is to be accounted worthy of his conversation or of being with him In like manner that St. Basil should say speaking of the Forty Martyrs Basil in orat de 40. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have merited promeriti sunt crowns of glory and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits where the same word is used they were accounted worthy or did obtain such Crowns and that which he renders their Merits is in the Greek their worthiness or vertue He cites Chrysostom saying in his hom on Lazarus rendred according to their Merits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek sounds according to their desert and speaks of both wicked and good and is no more then what the Scripture often saith according to their works Dispunctio utriusque meriti Tertul in Apolog c. 18. and what Tertullian cals the discrimination or severing of both merits of the one to punishment and of the other to reward as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32 and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus Luc. 16.25 they were dealt with according to their different lives and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more then once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is according to their works or desert It speaks the difference of desert in the one and the other does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life To this purpose it was spoken * Nu. 3. above upon their alledging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits for according to their Works That which he alledges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers speaks only to this purpose that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients and by us admitted as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit truly so called The Latine Fathers cited by the Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Justific c. 4. albeit they have the word Merit more frequently yet do they indeed speak no more then the former St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase promereri Deum but according to the innocent meaning as I said above of those Times promeneri Deum for obtaining or procuring Gods Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory That which the Cardinal cites out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist and out of Bernard in Cantic contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit put for good Deeds only Greg. implies there that the glory will be proportionably the greater and answerable to the measure of good Deeds which we deny not but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality should be made an argument for condignity of mans merit as the Romanists do and the Cardinal did above nu 3 urging those Scriptures for Merit which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine who was also Bishop of Rome and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit speaks indeed against them So great saith he is the goodness of God towards all men Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei ut nostra velit esse Merita quae sunt ipsius dona pro his quae largitus est aeterna praemia sit donaturus Celest in Ep. that he is pleased they should be our Merits which are his Gifts and that he will give us the eternal rewards for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before which destroyes the very reason of their Merit properly taken That which is cited out of Ambrose de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more then according to their works whether they be good or bad as above in the Testimony drawn out of Chrysostome The sayings of Hierome and Hilary speak but the second thing we acknowledged viz that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more then the former Aug. ep 105. ad Sixtum Sicut merito peccati tanquam stipendium redditur mors ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium vita aeterna As unto the merit of sin death is rendred as the stipend and wages so is life eternal rendred as a stipend to the merit of righteousness Where the stipend or wages is no more then Reward This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom 6. ult A stipend is rendred as due for the labour of the warfare Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est is not freely given therefore the Apostle said The wages of sin is death and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend but grace or the gift of God except it be free is not grace and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it Intelligendum est igitur ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi tur Aug. ibid. Therefore we must understand that the Merits or good Deeds of Man are the gifts of God to which when aeternal life is given what is there else given but grace for grace And by this we may see how St. Aug. meant what he speaks elswhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle St. Aug. saying is this Aug. de Gra. lib. arb c. 9. Cum posset dicere recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere The Apostle might have said and said it truly that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the Gift of God He might have said it in a true sense taking the word stipend as above for a reward or recompence not in an equal or answerable sense to the other the wages or stipend of sin is death for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that which the Apostle did say but the gift of God is life eternal nor with the end and purpose wherefore the Apostle did choose to say the gift rather then the stipend viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity as it follows there in St. Maluit dicere Gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. He chose rather to say The gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our Merits but for his Mercy sake There is scarce any of the Ancients that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally faln upon it but observes the apparent distinction which the
according to grace he repeats the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Debt in the second place and makes St. Basil speak thus rendred not according to the Debt of their works but according to the debt of a bountiful God meaning it is not rendred according to absolute debt or right but according to the debt of Bounty This exception of absolute right or debt is one of their general answers But the Cardinal has this gift as to choose the worst translation so to follow the worst copy for the Paris edition has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the necessary consequence of the words would infer it beside the reserence it had plainly to Rom. 4.4 from whence it was borrowed And the Cardinal might have bethought himself what good sense he could make of his repeating the word debt in the reddition saying the debt of a bountiful God which surely cannot reasonably be said by the Assertors of Merit But to shew he could yet speak more against sense and reason Merita quae sunt homini à se suis viribus Bel. ibid. he adds a second reply that St. Basil excludes only Merits which man may have from himself and his own strength This is their other usual exception to the Testimonies of Fathers denying Merit that is say they only such merits as are pretended to before Grace such as are of our selves and own strength but how impertinently is this replied here to St. Basil who most plainly speaks of their reward and works that have fought a good fight Aug. in Ps 70. con 2. Coronabit dona sua non mâ—rita tua St. Aug. we hear often denying Merit VVhen the reward saith he shall come He will crown his own gifts not thy Merits And above we had him speaking to Rom. 6. ult we are brought to eternal life not for our merits but through his mercy and elsewhere Aug. Tract 3. in Jo. Non pro merito quidem accipies vitam aeternam sed progratia Thou shalt receive eternal life not through thy Merits but the Grace of God! The two former places of Aug. the Cardinal sets down and replies according to their usual exception that he speaks against Merits before or without Grace It is most true that St. Aug. in his Controversie with the Pelagians does very often speak against such Merits and that all those sayings of the Father are misapplied in this Controversie of Merit of good VVorks but it is as true that he often cals good works Merits Merits after grace and of those he denies Merit in a proper sense when he denies not only the first grace to be given for our Merits but eternal life also and saith that when the Lord gives it he crowns not our merits but his own gifts i.e. our good works not upon the account of Merit but of his free gift and bounty That place which the Cardinal brings out of St. Aug. to countenance his impertinent reply affords enough to confute it VVhat hast thou saith that Father there which thou hast not received Aug. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum Quid habes quod non accepisti quapropter O homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam justitiae quidem stipendium est sed tibi gratiae est cui gratiaest ipsa justitia this indeed excludes all Merit before the first receiving of grace but he goes on to the receiving of life eternal wherefore O Man if thou shalt receive eternal life it is the stipend indeed or reward of righteousness because righteousness or holiness of life is appointed as the condition of obtaining it but to thee it is grace or the gift of God to whom also righteousness or power of wel-doing is grace and of the gift of God And a little after he adds Nunc ergò de plenitudine ejus accepimus non solum gratiam quâ justè in laboribus usque ad finem vivimus sed gratiam pro hac gratia ut in requie postea sine fine vivamus ibid. Now therefore we receive of his sulness not only grace by which we live justly in our labours and endeavours to the end but also grace for that grace that we may for ever hereafter live in rest Here is excluded plainly not only Merit before grace but afterward and not only the first grace is here called grace but eternal life alfo is called grace and Merit every where excluded because the righteousness which carries the reward is not of our selves but of grace and Gods free gift as also the reward is of his free bounty and promise In like manner when he saith Aug. Ep. 105. Cum Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronaâ— qudâ—â— muaera sua God crowns his own gifts not our Merits or as he saith in the same Epistle God when he crowns our Merits our good Deeds crowns nothing else but his own gifts in saying so he plainly excludes Merit after grace Merit I say properly taken To the like places out of Prosper de vocat Gent. c. 17. out of Greg. on the seventh penit Psalm above cited and out of Bernard de annunc Serm. 1. all denying Merit the Cardinal has nothing to oppose but his usual impertinency of Merits before or without Grace whereas they all speak of giving not the first grace but the reward of eternal life Our second rank or sort of Testimonies is of such as affirm Testimonies affirming our continual need of mercy and indulgence That the best need mercy and forgiveness and that our righteousness stands chiefly in Gods mercifulness and indulgence and therefore our need of mercy excludes the plea of merit St. Aug. upon Ps 142. Enter not into judgment and answer me in thy Righteousness saith thus Aug. in Psal 142. In tua justitia non in mea ad me enim cum respicio nihil aliud meum quam peccatum invenio In thy righteousness not in mine for when I look back upon my self I finde nothing mine but sin He that begs so cannot plead Merit We had occasion in the former Sect. to alledge what St. Aug. in his 19. Book de Civit. Dei speaks of the imperfection of our own righteousness in this life the same is forcible to exclude our plea of Merit Such saith he there Ang. de Civ Dei l. 19. c 27. ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quam petfectione virtutum is our righteousness in this life that it stands in the remission of sins rather then in the perfection of vertues And in the same chapt he shewes such necessity incumbent on us in this mortal and bodily condition that one thing ut à Dâ—o petatur venia delictoum wherein mans righteousness stands is to beg of God pardon of his offences and failings and this he saith the Lords Prayer witnesseth which teacheth us daily to beg forgive To this purpose that of * Ambr. in Exhort propè finem Vnde mihi tantum meriti cui