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
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
and however it please God to deal in mercy with the poor abused people yet no man can assure himself of receiving the grace of this Sacrament that doth wilfully neglect and refuse to receive it as our Saviour instituted and appointed it But see how he would stop the peoples mouths in the close of this point by telling them that albeit they want the extent of grace which Priests have by receiving in both kinds yet they have sufficient and that they are obliged to have respect not only to their own spiritual profit in the encrease of grace by this Sacrament but also to the reverence due unto it and must be content to want that encrease when it cannot be obtained but by some irreverence offered to this divine Sacrament p. 335. As if our Saviour intending the participation of his blood shed and bidding all to drink thereof could not or did not foresee what inconvenience would or might happen upon the observing of what he appointed and as if the greatest irreverence were not disobedience and obedience to his will the greatest Reverence But the Reverence and honour of the Priest is hereby provided for among them and the people must be content with a mutilate and incompleat Sacrament The next argument is from the Precept Drink ye all of this All commanded to drink of the Cup. p. 341. where he pittifully shuffles running backward and forward to evade the force of it First he would have it no command notwithstanding that the speech is plainly imperative as well as the other Do this in which they place a strict command His instances of like speeches will appear impertinent if compared with this as Jo. 13.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye ought to wash the speech is not imperative but indicative of a duty taught them by that action or example of our Saviours washing their feet viz. the duty of humility not binding them to that very action or expression by washing as this precept of drinking doth and needs must binde all who come to receive and when they come Now that of Mat. 26.26 Take though it doth not absolutely command the Mode or manner of taking it in the hand he aimed in this instance at the Priests putting it into their mouths yet doth it peremptorily command a taking which amounts to a receiving this is the substance or necessary requisite of the Sacrament the other by hand or by mouth immediately is but of the mode or circumstance Again being loath to have it a command The words saith he of themselves cannot import a command but may signify only a bare invitation as when we say to a Guest sit down eat and drink of this or that p. 334. But he should have considered that if they may signify only a bare invitation then the one as well as other and both of them the eating and drinkng may be refused and so the Sacrament left free for every one to receive or not to receive it at all which below he will deny Again though it be but manners among men to leave a Guest at his liberty and therefore such words imply a freedome left them do not impose a necessity or duty as this ordaining of this Sacrament doth where it is our duty by drinking and eating and doing so as at first was done to remember and shew forth our Saviours death and withall it is our great and necessary concernment to receive the benefit there offered And yet you use not the people so kindly as a man that makes a feast doth his guest for dare you thus invite the people and give them the freedom to eat and drink does not the Priest notwithstanding those words of Invitation eat and drink up all himself in the celebration of the Mass the people looking on only Nay is not this Invitation come to a plain Interdict a forbidding of the people to receive the Cup Drink ye all of this saith our Saviour ye shall not drink of this saith the Church of Rome I might adde is not this a mocking of the people nay is it not a mocking of Almighty God when in a prayer of the Canon of the Mass it is said by the Priest according to the ancient practise quotquot sumpserimus implying that others have received with the Priest and in both kinds whereas none do nor are suffered to do At length Mr. Spencer yeilds a command given in those words Drink ye all of this but given to the Apostles only and extendible to Bishops and Priests But why to them and no farther here he seems to refer the meaning and Extent of such Commands given without Limitation to the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church p. 344 345. We deny not but that is a good direction for understanding matters of practice and in this point we affirm and are sure the practice and perpetual Tradition of the Church for above 12. hundred years is against this Romish innovation And we are sure that Antiquity is against them as concerning the Capacity of those persons to whom the Sacrament was first given and who were then bidden all of them to drink which must therefore be extendible not only to Bishops and Priests but to all faithfull Christians who were then represented in those first persons Now as for the other Precept Do this in remembrance of me Do this concerns allpresent he will have a strict command in those words so far as concerns the Priest to bless consecrate offer administer 346. But it s plain the Priest doth not as our Saviour did for he does not administer so oft as he consecrates and when he does administer it is not in both kinds as our Saviour did Again if the Priest be hereby bound to administer is not the people consequently bound to receive He is not willing to grant it yet but shall below here he makes instance in Priesthood and marriage which they are bound to administer when justly required to do it yet is no man bound to receive the one or the other 347. It is still the hap of his Instances to be impertinent for he himself acknowledges a little below the disparity between receiving of priesthood or Marrioge and the receiving of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour under both kinds the disparity I say between them as to this point of freedome for first though no man be bound to receive Priesthood or Marriage yet is neither the one or other ever conferred but when some are to receive them Secondly let these pass for the present as Sacraments yet is it very inconsequent from the liberty in receiving these which concern the particular estates of men to argue for like freedom in receiving that Sacrament which concerns the salvation of all Christians or from the free choice of a particular profession or state to conclude an indifferency in the duty of our general profession or calling as we are Christians the duties of which profession are
qui rursus laetatur hos oret He that is distressed let him fly to these again he that rejoyceth let him pray to these Where we have a double corrupting of the Text St. Basil saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth fly to these the Cardinal saith let him fly to these again the Father saith he doth run to these the Cardinal saith let him pray to these The Father in this oration at the beginning of it gives Reasons why they celebrate the Daies of Martyrs with such panegyricks viz. to praise their vertue and propound them as examples for imitation but saith nothing of Invocating them And concerning these 40 Martyrs he insinuates that at Caesarea they had a Church bearing their name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was help to be had by their joynt prayers there saith he a mother praying for her sons is heard he doth not say praying to Them but there i. e. at their Monument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it follows immediately let our prayers be made or joyned with the Martyrs upon supposal of their continual praying for the Church below 3. By degrees it came to direct and downright Invocating of the Martyr but this not to be imputed to All or to Most but to the Excess of some private men in their devotions and applications to the Martyr It pleased God to work many wonders at the Memories of the Martyrs for the honour and confirmation of that faith for which they dyed and in those daies especially when the Roman Empire was to be subdued to the faith and confirmed in it wherefore it became a custome to frequent those places and to offer up prayers there to God And some in begging relief of God were easily led on to speak directly to the Martyr and desire his intercession such was the rise of Invocation the excess of some particular men in addresses to the Martyr And the frequency of Miracles and Cures done at their Monuments and upon those that applied there to God Almighty easily drew on the Vulgar sort to a downright application to the Martyr and caused some speeches to fall from eminent Fathers as allowing and commending that New Devotion out of their great Affection they bore to the honour of the Martyrs and their great desire of magnifying the glory of Martyrdom or suffering for the Faith And such excess of speech we meet with usually in the close of an homily or oration when the reins are let loose to Rhetorical excursion whereas when they deliver themselves dogmatically to lay down any thing by way of Doctrine they speak more safely and in this very point more conformably to the former Catholick Doctrine of Invocating God alone This is plain in Chrysostome to him that will but look what and how he delivers himself in the body of his Homily upon the Text of Scripture and then how he often lashes out in his Ethicon or Application at the end of it * Lib. 6. Annot. 152. Sixtus Senensis gives us a good caution to this purpose and he gives it with a Sape Monuimus we have often admonished that the words of the Fathers are not alwaies to be taken as they sound for in their declamatory Orations and Sermons they often speak affectuum impetu orationis cursu rapti carried on more violently by the force of affection and the course of their Oration And therefore what fals from them in this kinde we should rather cover or fairly interpret then produce it as the Romanists do in this point to make argument of it for Invocation of Saints and Angels against the former Catholick Doctrine delivered by the foregoing Fathers and therefore also in the preceding General I have endeavoured to shew that some of the Fathers speeches alledged by Romanists for direct Invocation of Saints or Angels do but indeed mean the indirect which makes the address or Prayer to God himself There are three other Testimonies out of the Fathers Chrys in 2 Cor. Hom. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are much urged One of Chrysostome speaking of the Emperour at the Monuments of Martyrs Supplicating them that they would be his Patrons with God and he that wears the Diadem Supplicates the Tent-maker and the Fisherman Paul and Peter as Patrons This the Father Rhetorically sets forth to magnifie the Faith of Christ and to shew that the greatest in this worlds glory do need the benefit of the prayers of Saints and so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to need as well as to supplicate Now whether the Emperour did by direct Invocation supplicate them or beg of God to have benefit by them is not expressed if he did the first it was an excess according to the New Devotion if the second it was tolerable Another Testimony is cited out of St. Ambrose in his Book De Viduis Ambros de viduis Obsecrandi sunt Angeli Obsecrandi Martyres the Angels are to be intreated the Martyrs are to be entreated This may be interpreted to be the obsecration or Intreaty of Deeds rather then Words for there he teaches a widdow pleading she was w ak and without help to make the Apostles her friends and neighbours to procure her help Si ipsis devotion is societate misericordiae muneribus appropinques Virtutis cognatio proximos facit as Peter and Andrew entreated our Saviour to cure Peters wifes mother Now the way to make them so to her was to draw near to them in the fellowship or likeness of piety and doing good for it was not the relation of bloud but the kindred of vertue that makes the Martyrs our friends and neighbours Then a little after the Angels are to be intreated for they are given to us for ministration and Martyrs to be intreated because we are in the body as they have been The ministry of Angels and the remembrance the Martyrs have of what they suffered in the body is a good argument to assure us that Angels are ready to help and Martyrs do pray for all those that draw near to them in vertue but no argument for our Invocating them such a Doctrine is as harsh and streined as his reason which follows that the Martyrs are fit to interceed for our sins that washed their own sins in their own bloud which if not candidly interpreted is directly contrary to Scripture 1 Jo. 1.7 Rev. 1.5 But St. Ambrose is thought to be but a young Christian when he wrote that book * Ambr. de Obitu Theodosii Afterward he could say Thou O Lord only art to be Invocated The last is of Nazienzen Nazien Orat 18. in Laudem Cypriani relating how Justina a virgin calling upon the blessed Virgin in distress was helped Nazienzen was deceived in that Book of Cyprians conversion from whence he had that story for it is false and forged as to the conversion of Cyprian the Martyr But it may be said
implies the mere favour and love of God yet where grace is added as here it is taken in the first respect exclusively to any thing in us more then faith to believe that Grace and favour of God towards man Hear what * Ambr. in Ro. 3. Gratis quia nihil operantes nec vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei Ambrose on the place Freely saith he because working nothing nor making any returns to God they are by faith alone justified through the gift of God also for the word Grace Gratiâ Dei in Christo quia voluntate Dei à Christo redempti sumus ibid. By his grace because we are redeemed by Christ by the will of God that will of God appointing and sending his Son for our redemption as he there explains it and thereby expresseth the favour and good will of God Oecumenius also interprets the word Freely Oecum in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exclusively Freely that is without any good deeds and again to bring nothing with us but faith and afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shewes by the Apostle all have sinned and therefore freely justified * Aug de verbis Apost Serm. 15. prorsus gratis qui nihil invenis unde salves multum invenis unde damnes bringing with them faith only Add St. August of this word gratis God freely gives and freely saves because he findes nothing for which he may save findes much for which he may damn A third Testimony from Scripture the Cardinal pretends Bel. ubi suprà Quo. loco ut exponunt Chrys Ambr. Theoph. Apostolus docet in baptisino purgari homines Sanctificari atque hoc ipsum est justificari is 1 Cor. 6.11 In which place as Chrysost Ambrose Theophylact expound it the Apostle teaches that in Baptism men are purged and Sanctified and that this is to be justified that all this is done in Baptism is plain by the Apostles words but that to be sanctified is to be justified the Apostle saith not nor yet those Fathers But the Cardinal has this Gift often to give us Names when their words will not serve his turn For Chrysostom and Ambrose have nothing to his purpose Theophyl indeed has a succinct expression Theoph in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justifying he Sanctified them if he had said in sanctifying he justifies it had sounded something to the Cardinals purpose but in saying justifieans sanctificavit he speaks that which we often insinuated above the concomitancy of sanctification with and the dependence of it upon Justification The Cardinals next Testimony is from Tit. 3.5 7. where he would conclude Regeneration to be Justification The place is answerable to that above 1 Cor. 6.11 and may be accordingly answered that there is regeneration and justification mentioned and that they go together but that Regeneration is Justification is still the false assertion of the Gardinal inconsequently drawn from this as from other places He adds also Rom. 8.29 1 Cor. 15.49 which do prove especially the second place our being made like to Christ in sanctification inhaerent righteousness but what 's this to Justification by that Image or likeness It was far from the Apostles intent to say any thing in those places of Justification Now whereas the Cardinal makes this Argument as Christ was righteous so shall we but he was not righteous by imputation therefore not we is fallacious It followes affirmatively not negatively He was righteous by inhaerent righteousness therefore we shall be so this is true But he was not righteous by an imputed righteousness therefore not we this followes not for we are to be made righteous not in the same manner every way and reciprocally but so as we are capable of and stand in need of being made righteous But thus much may serve for the Cardinals Testimonies from Scripture which we have found either to be impertinently applyed or to speak against him and therefore no marvel that he could not alledge any Fathers so interpreting them as he misapplies them to Justification by inhaerent grace or righteousness Now let us take a brief View of the Testimonies of Fathers which he brings as Witnesses for him Justification by inhaerent Grace not proved by the Fathers of which we may say as we found in his allegations out of Scripture that they prove there is an inhaerent Grace or righteousness in us not that we are properly justified by it Amongst all the Fathers * Bel. l. 2. de Justif cap. 8. he cites there appears but one Greek and among his Latin Fathers St. Augustin chiefly a good witness indeed if taken as he means To the many places alledged out of him we may give this general answer they either only prove there is inhaerent righteousness or if they speak of Justification by it then is that word used according to the Latine Etymology of making a man just or righteous by a real inhaerent qualification and that St. August is so much inclined to interpret the word Grace used in Scripture of the gift of grace inhaerent in us and sometimes to say a man is justified i. e. made righteous inherently by it came to pass by reason he had so much to do against the Pelagians in asserting that grace given and inherent in us for they denied not the grace of God in the prime sense as it speaks the favour and love of God to Mankinde but made little or nothing of the other The chief and most considerable sentences cited by the Cardinal out of that Father are these Aug. Confess l. 12. c. 15. Quantum distat inter lumen quod illuminat quod illuminatur tantùm distat inter justitiam justificantem justitiam quae ex justificatione facta est As great a difference as there is between the light which doth illuminate and the light which is illuminated so great a difference is there between that righteousness which does justifie which surely is the Divine righteousness and that which ariseth from Justification which is the inhaerent for else to take it as the Cardinal must for a comparison between the inhaerent and actual righteousness there is not such a difference between them So this place proves there is inhaerent grace or righteousness as light communicated unto us doth not prove a justification by it but by the righteousness from whence that inhaerent righteousness proceeds therefore speaks against the Cardinal Another place alledged is this Which Nature Aug. l. 15. de Trinit c. 8. Quae natura cum à suo conditore justificatur à deformi forma formosam transfertur informam when it is justified of the maker is translated from a deformed form to a beautiful form Here the Cardinal thought so much noyse of the word Form would be enough to speak the inhaerent righteousnesse to be the Form of justification whereas this only proves our renewing transforming from the Image of the
Ps 96. By such expressions St. Aug. truly speaks the inhaerent righteousness given us of God and when he cals this Justifying a sinner he uses the word Justifie according to the Latin origination and importance of it for thereby a man is made truly righteous by that grace received righteous I say for its measure and proportion not to exclude Justification by an imputed righteousness through faith which is the primer and more proper meaning of the word Iustifie If therefore we finde St. August acknowledge another Righteousness and Iustification differing from that which he seems to ascribe to Inhaerent Righteousness then have we our intent and purpose and the Cardinal is impertinent in his allegations out of St. Aug. as also in those other which he pretends from other Fathers which we may let passe as speaking but the being of Inhaerent righteousness not proving justification by it Ambr. in Hexam l. 6. c. 8. Justitia unde justificatio derivata est in any proper sense as for example St. Ambrose who is one of those Fathers cited by the Card. speaks of it according to the Grammatical origination of the word Justice saith he from whence Instification is derived Now for St. Aug. his allowing of the imputed righteousness and our Justification by it Aug. Enchir. cap. 41. Ipse ergo peecatum ut nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum See his Enchirid where he thus explains that of the Apost 2 Cor. 5. ult He therefore was made sin that we might be righteousness and that not ours but of God and not in our selves but in him even as he was Sin not his own but ours and not in himself but in us This admits none of their exceptions as that we are made righteous in him because we have our righteousness by his Merit and the righteousness of God because we have it of his gift and by the infusion of his Grace This is all they can say and this though true of our inhaerent righteousness yet comes not home to the purpose of St Augustine who saith plainly As our Sauiour was made Sin not in himself but in us and manifestly acknowledges we are so also made righteousness in him that is righteousness is imputed to us See also how this is asserted by the Greek Fathers Chrys on that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He doth not say he hath made us wise and just and holy but he is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification which is as if he had said He hath given himself unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And upon that of 2 Cor. 5. ult Made him sin for us the same Father thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner And here also he observes as above The Apostle did not say we are made righteous but righteousness and that of God for it is the righteousness of God when it is not of Works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that we are justified by the Grace of God and he gives this as a reason of the need we have of such a righteousness because there must be found no blot or stain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he observes the Apostle said not made him a sinner but sin for he named not the habit as if sin had been inhaerent in him but the bare quality as in the Abstract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum Which shewes that when he said righteousness rather then righteous there is a righteousness made ours beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inhaerent quality With Chrysostom agree Oecumenius and Theophylact upon the places cited So St. Cyril Glaphyr 5. cap. ult Cyril sets out our Saviour under the name of Iosedeck which signifies the righteousness of God because we are justified in him through the mercy of God and unto this he applies that of Ierem. 23.6 The Lord our Righteousness Oecumenius upon Psal Oecum in Phil 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3.9 not having my own righteousness but the righteousness which is of God by faith gives us a distinction of Righteousness not properly or properly taken That is our Righteousness or the righteousness of Works This is the Righteousness which is by Grace and the faith of Christ And needful it is in this Question and the Testimonies of Fathers concerned in it to hold to the Justification properly taken To this imputed righteousness belongs that of the ancient Father Iustin Martyr Justin ad Diogen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What thing else can cover our sins but his righteousness and that which he adds to be justified in him only Which is a stronger expression then to be justifiedby him and then he cries out O sweet and happy exchange wherein that because as the Apostle He made sin for us we righteousness in him or as Iustin subjoyns because one mans righteousness justifies many unrighteous men To this also belongs what Chrysost hath who with reference to Isa 43.26 that thou mayst be justified Chrys homil 3. de poenitenti◠Eximens poenae donat justitiam facit enim peccatorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expresseth himself as to this point Freeing us from punishment he gives righteousness for he makes a sinner to be alike or in the like condition to him that had not sinned which must needs be by not imputing sin and imputing righteousness upon his faith and repentance This imputing of Righteousness to him that believes will also appear by the Fathers using the expression of sola fide by faith only There is scarce any Father but so expresses himself I promised at the beginning to speak something of Faith only and of Works Of Sola Fides in this point of Justification as to that which Antiquity yields unto them in the business of our Justification What this Faith is which justifies was sufficiently debated * Chap. IV. nu 3 4 9. above and also why and in what respect Faith alone is said to justifie The expression is exclusive yet did not as appeared above in the fourth chapter exclude the praeparatory workings of the soul dispositive to Justification did not exclude Repentance and charity but admitted them as conditions to Remission did not exclude inhaerent Righteousness but only from being the formal cause of Justification properly taken else it was admitted as a Concomitant and necessary qualification of the subject or person justified Lastly it did not so exclude good works as if justifying faith could be without them but did infer them as necessary consequents engaging the soul to do them and till so it is not a believing to justification and unless it continue so doing that is still to engage the Soul to well doing or good works the state of