AN APPEAL TO Scripture & Antiquity, In the Questions of

  • 1. The Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels.
  • 2. The Worship of Images.
  • 3. Justification by and Merit of good Works.
  • 4. Purgatory.
  • 5. Real presence and Half-Com­munion.

Against the ROMANISTS.

By H. FERNE D.D. late Bishop of CHESTER.

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to His most Sacred MAJESTY, 1665.

THE PREFACE.

BEing both provoked and invited to make some Answer to Mr. Spen­cer's Book of Scriptures Mistaken, I assayed to do it as briefly as I could; and it was needful I should confine my self to the Order, he ob­served, and to the places of Scripture, he examined as urged by Protestants against the Romish Doctrine and Pra­ctise, and to those he alledges as wit­nessing for it.

But seeing he boasts in his Preface, that he will deal with the Protestants, and beat them at their own Wea­pon, Scripture: and so comes not to the trial of Antiquity, which he pre­tends, and with too much confidence presumes to be their own: therefore [Page]I shall add A Brief Survey of the Ancient Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church, as to the points here Controverted; that it may ap­pear, how they are worsted there, what brags soever they make of Antiquity.

But it may be said, There are Bocks enough and too many: which do but continue the Controversie, and keep the breach open; More need there is to endeavour some closing, and to make offers of Agreement. True, if we could conceive any hope of condescention on their parts, or perceive any intent of Peace in them, whom we still finde ly­ing at the catch, and laying hold upon all advantages, which may promote their cause with all sorts of people: into whose hands they thrust such Books, as may render it more plausible, and into whose ears they are continually whisper­ing, what may represent the Protestant as guilty of Schism, and Heresie: thereby enforcing us to break silence, and to inform our People (if we will not have them seduced) of the cunning of our Adversaries, to discover their [Page]Dawbings, and vain Pretences, such as Mr. Spencer and others sent over to the same purpose, do use for deceiving of the Unwary.

Peace among Christians, surely is the most beseeming, the most desirable Thing in the world; and would be, considering how it now stands with the too much divided Catholick Church, the greatest blessing; and we have been sufficiently taught how to value it by the past and present distractions and differences amongst us. But when we talk of Peace to them of Rome, they are ready to reproach us with Physi­cian heal thy self, make up your own breaches and Divisions, before you speak of being received into the Unity of the Catholick Church. Let them alone a while with their so much pretended unity: our first care certainly is to make peace at home, and in the mean time (as we see it the care and prudence of all States to guard the Borders against the Forrein and Common Enemy) to for­tifie those Doctrines wherein the Par­ties dissenting do agree, and are [Page]as within common bounds enclosed.

And blessed be God, we have a great expedient for the restoring of our Peace by the return of our gracious Soveraign unto us; who is the true Defender of the Faith, the great Example of Con­stancy in Religion, and of Clemency in fogiving and forgetting injuries. And when we his Subjects, being assured of the Truth and Religion which he de­fends, have also learned to obey by His Example, and with mutual condescen­tions and endeavours of peace, to enter­tain and embrace one another: then shall our hearts be better prepared with a charitable compliance for the Ad­versary abroad, when soever he shall think it convenient to admit thoughts of Peace, and shall seriously consider how we are all bound to profess and believe One (not Roman, but Christian) Ca­tholick Church.

We cannot but be sensible, what hand they that stile themselves Catholicks, have had in kindling this fire among us, and bringing fuel to it: and we would have them (being so oft convinced and [Page]told of it) sensible, how unchristian, uncatholick a part it is; how contrary to the Peace of the Church.

But could they that are sent over amongst us to blow the coals, forget their Instructions, and Vow of Obedience: and they that send them learn to value the Peace of Christendome: yet what hope (may some ask) could there be of an Accord in Doctrine? If we consider what passed in the Germain Colloquies, during the Time of the Trent Coun­cil, and observe what condescention and moderation appeared then, notwith­standing the intervention of so many Nuncio's from Rome, and the so much boasted pretence of Infallibility in that Church: If also we carefully look into their Controversie-Writers, and note what concessions they sometimes make in the point, what mincings of the Romish doctrine, when they are put to it: there may appear a possibi­lity in the thing it self, if peaceable men had the handling of it. But when we consider on the other hand, how all those endeavours for Peace became Fruit­less: [Page]and all the offers made at Truth by moderate Men in that Council were silenced and rejected; and notwithstan­ding all their mincings and concessi­ons in those points, the Doctrine and Practise of that Church goes as high as ever: We may imagine there are some over-ruling points of State-doctrine, (of the Court rather then Church of Rome) which command the Rest and forbid all condescention and modera­tion: such at least, as may give us any hope of a tolerable agreement.

And thus it will be, what ever we endeavour, till order be taken with him, that pretends to the Infallibility and exorbitant Power: of whom we may say in this particular, as the Apostle doth of that lawless person, 2 Thess. 2.7. He who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way: that is, until he be reduced within the bounds of the Canons of the Catholick Church. A glorious work for Christian Princes: a work of greatest concernment to the Peace of Christendome.

But till that be done, I would com­mend [Page]those considerations following, to All, that delight, or are inclined to be in the Communion of that Church, and in subjection to that pretended infallible and all-powerful Head.

I. Why should they desire to be un­der a lawless boundless Power? under a Head so notoriously perjured? If this seem harsh; let them seriously con­sider, what they in reason and con­science finde to excuse him from that charge, who bindes himself by Oath in the Conclave, and then in the Papal Chair holds himself loose from what he sware to observe; who also swears to ob­serve the Canons of the Ancient Gene­ral Councils, yet will not keep within the bounds, they have set Him; but challenges and exercises an Universal Jurisdiction, to the overthrow of that Government, which those Canons have fixed in the Way of the Church.

II. Why they should so much desire to be of the Communion of that Church, wch (while the Court of Rome is suffered [Page]to desine all, to over-rule all) is in so dangerous a condition. This will ap­pear, if they consider:

First, that through the pretended in­fallibility of their Head, they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief; but are in a way to lose all true Faith. For let the Cardinal make the Proposition: If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick, then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Ver­tue, Error for Truth. (This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice, and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain.) Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption: But the Pope may turn Heretick; what can the Conclu­sion speak, but the hazard of that Church, which will be under such a pretended in­fallible Head?

Secondly, That by being of that Com­munion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick: and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians, and [Page]to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors, to be ancient Catholick Do­ctrine. We do not envie them, the Ti­tle of Catholicks, that they should en­joy it together withall other Chrictians, who are baptized into the Catholick Faith, and do profess it without any destructive Heresie; but the appropria­ting of that Title to themselves, (and that in regard of those special superad­ded Articles of Faith, proper to that Church) implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks, and ex­cludes all conditions of Peace, unless they will come in, as the Israelites to Naash, with their right eyes put out, 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm, it will ap­pear, that no Church of known and an­cient denomination, as Greek, Asian, African, British, doth less deserve to be called Catholick, or has more for­feited that Name: because none so much falsified her trust; whether we consider the Errors entertained, or the Imposing them as Catholick, and Chri­stian Faith.

The three great concernments of Re­ligion, and so of the Church are, the Faith professed, the Worship practi­sed, the Sacraments administred: all which are dangerously violated in that Church. For first, How have they kept the Faith undefiled, (which the Atha­nasian Creed so severely enjoyns) that have mixed it with such New superad­ded Articles, and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain per­swasion of a pretended Infallibility?

Secondly, The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue; for without un­derstanding the people cannot say A­men; The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools, not a reasonable service. Again, Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service; as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book.

Lastly, Sacraments violated, by ad­dition of New ones, and those properly so called. A great invasion it is upon Gods property, if any man or Church [Page]hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace, which God who is the only Author of Grace, has not appointed to be so.

Again, upon that which our Savi­our did undoubtedly institute, a great invasion is made, by first taking away the substance from the outward Ele­ments, and then taking away from the people half of that, which remains. Our Saviour said, Drink ye all of it, Mat. 26.27. The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it: Nay, None of you shall, but the Priest only.

Add to this, the Impossibility they put themselves upon (as I said) to prove all their New Articles of belief (for which they will be the only Ca [...]ho­licks) to be the Ancient Faith, and Ca­tholick Doctrine of the Church. They will hardly be brought to say, The Church may make New Articles of Faith: but rather, The Church may declare, what was before but implicitly believed. This is true if duly explai­ned: yet will it not excuse the boldness [Page]of that Church. For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith, which was not expresly taught before, it is such a Truth, as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed, and by immediate conse­quence clearly thence deduceable; as the Consubstantiality of the Son, de­clared against the Arrians: the two Wills in Christ, against the Mono­thelites: the continuance of the Hu­manity in its own nature and substance, against the Eutychians: This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Coun­cils, but that, what before was sim­ply believed, might afterward be more diligently and explicitly be­lieved— And to shew that the Ar­ticles of faith do not increase in Num­ber, but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge, He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body, which are as many in a childe as in a grown man; no addition made of new parts; for that [Page]would render the body monstrous; but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees. To this purpose he, in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by im­mediate and necessary consequence de­duceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed, into which we are baptized: then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith, & this uncharitable Pride in boa­sting themselves the only Catholicks.

III. May they consider, how their Masters being engaged in such neces­sity of making good the pretended Ca­tholick Doctrine of that Church, are of­ten forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold.

Their Masters acknowledg, and so does their Trent Council, that the worship of Saints and Angels, Invocation of them, Adoration of Images, is not commanded, but commended as pro­fitable. Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary? why are they retained as profitable, when [Page]Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks? what offence to so many Christians as protest against them? what a stumbling block to their own people, exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry?

They acknowlege, that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and admini­stred it in both kindes; and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church, yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the peo­ple so to receive it. And in their de­fence of this half Communion, they ac­knowledge, if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments, yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia, saving their substance, Concil. Trid. ses. 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding, they can take away the whole substance of the Ele­ments, and defraud the people of the half of what is left: and notwithstan­ding our Saviours Institution, and the Custom of the whole Church for so ma­ny ages: This custom must be held for a Law, which none may contra­ry: as that Council decrees in the same chap.

They acknowledge, it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass, i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses, and they wish it were so, and yet decree the contrary, cap. 6. de Missa. So they acknowledge the Mass conteins (magnam populi eruditionem) great edification and instruction for the peo­ple; yet decree it not expedient to have it (or the Liturgy) in the popu­lar or vulgar tongue, cap. 8. But if the Court of Rome had seen it equally to their advantage, they could have held the people to that which they ought, viz. the Communion, as well as keep all their Priests from that, which they ought not, viz. Marriage.

They acknowledge that Justification precedes good Works. Sos. 6. c. 8. yet deliver this doctrine (Justified by Works) grosly to the People; They know, how it is to their advantage. And in the 16. chap. of that Session, They acknowledge the grace of God for performance of the work, and his gra­cious promise of the reward: yet de­cree, [Page]that good Works do truly Me­rit.

Add to this, their mincing of points of doctrine, when they are put to it. As when the enquiry is driven home, what worship is due to Saints and An­gels. What Invocation to be used. VVhat worship or adoration to be gi­ven to Images. We see how they lessen it, and seem to be contented with very little, as we observe in Mr. Spencers concessions upon those points: yet do they keep up the practise, in the height and full extent, suffering (if not en­couraging) the people to perform it grosly and superstitiously: as they must needs do, being uncapable of such nice distinctions, as are used to excuse that worship.

So when they are put to it in the points of Satisfactions, Purgatory, Indulgences, to shew what is satisfied for, what is remitted, and consequently what is granted in the Indulgence, and to what sort of Persons; they are for­ced to bring it to such an uncertainty, and to so small a scantling, that the [Page]people, if they knew it, would consider well what they laid out that way, before they parted with it; but these points are so in gross propounded to the people, that they have cause to think (as generally they do) they are by these satisfactions and indulgences freed from any sin, and do escape thereby Hell fire it self.

This which has been said, speaks concessions and yieldings on their part, and shewes a possibility of agreement, and that some fair way might be found for some tolerable accord: did not fil­thy lucre, gotten by those points, and the exorbitant greatness of Papal power ob­struct it: the Court of Rome (as we see in all the offers made for reformation) being alwaies more sollicitous of uphol­ding it self, then of reforming the Church: of advancing its own great­ness, then of promoting the peace of Christendom.

To conclude. The peace of Chri­stians, the agreement of the Roman and other Churches is possible, if [...]e possible for the Pope to do his duty, or Christian Princes, theirs: that is, if [Page]he would do the duty of a Bishop of Rome, or prime Patriarch, the duty he is bound to, sworn to, in taking oath to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils, which prescribe the bounds of the Roman, and other Pa­triarchal Jurisdictions. But if he make light of this and all other bonds of duty, why should it not be possible for Christian Princes to do their duty in reducing him within those known and confessed bounds, fixed by the An­cient Church?

In the mean time, let them cease to reproach us with Schism, till he return to his station, where he may receive the obedience due to him by those Ancient Canons: let them rather consider, whom they follow, in all his transgressions and extravagances, thereby engaging them­selves in his Schism against the whole Catholick Church. And let them not please themselves with the specious Name of Catholicks, for holding such points of Difference from other Christians, as will upon trial appear to be far from the Truth and soundness of Catholick [Page]Doctrine. And to make this appear by the undeniable Rules of Christian ve­rity, Scripture, and Catholick Tra­dition, (as they are solidly set down by Vincentius) is the scope and purpose of this ensuing Treatise. If any of their Masters shall think fit to make any Re­ply, let him do it, not as one carping at small things, and catching at seeming advantages: but as one really inten­ding the Manifestations of Truth, and the Expedients of Peace: the re­storing of which, throughout the Catho­lick Church, is the Prayer of

H. Ferne.

The Points of Doctrine here Examined.

  • I. OF the worship of Saints and Angels.
  • II. Of the Invocation of Saints and Angels.
  • III. Of the worship of Images.
  • IV. Of Justification by Works.
  • V. Of the Merit of Good Works.
  • VI. Of Purgatory.
  • VII. Of Real Presence.
  • VIII. Of Communion under one kinde.

An Answer to Mr. Spencers Book INTITULED, SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN By the Protestants.

CHAP. I. The first Point. Of the Worship of Saints and Angels.

THis Author first tells us, Introducti­on. what the Council of Trent deli­vers touching the Worship and invocation of Saints and Angels, not as Gods or Saviours, but as Creatures dependent on God and Christ — and that it is not com­manded as necessary, but commended as profitable — and this, to disabuse vulgar Protestants, who think the Roman Church teaches, it is as necessary to salvation, to invoke and worship the Saints, as to invoke and worship Christ himself — Pag. 3.4. [Page 2]The Council indeed touches this point warily, and in general: which circum­spection and cunning we finde used in most of the decrees; they best know wherefore. But Vulgar Protestants are not abused, when they are told, that accor­ding to the practice of that Church (if we look into the applications made to Saints and their shrines, both for the forms and the frequency) there appears not much of that dependency on Christ, but very much of an opinion (connived at, if not rather cherished) among the Vulgar Pa­pists, that it is as necessary and profitable, if not more, to invoke and worship them, then Christ himself. But if they will com­mend this as profitable, why did not the Council for the disabusing their own peo­ple, condemn those unprofitable, poiso­nous forms of invocation yet extant in their books, and used in their Churches? why has it not yet anathematiz'd that blasphemous Lady Psalter, and that hor­rid doctrine, broached by Aquinas, and still maintained by most of this Authors so [...]iety, that the Image is to be worshipped Greg. de Val. in Th [...] ­disput. vi. Qu. xi. punc [...]o. 6. Azor. Instit. Mor. To. 1. li. 9. c. 6. qu. 5.with the same worship, with which he is whose Image it is? So that if it be the Image of Christ it is to be worshiped with divine worship. The Bel. de Imaginib. l. 2. c. 22, Cardinal acknow­ledges, they which speak so, are forced to [Page 3]use distinctions, which they themselves scarce understand, much less the people: So that Mr. Spencer had need look home, to disabuse his own people.

The first place of Scripture. Matth. 4.10. Thou shalt worship, the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Numb. I Here he needlesly spends time in shew­ing, that worship and service may be gi­ven 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 [Page 4]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.

II 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 [Page 5]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.

III 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, [Page 6]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.

IV 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 [Page 8]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 examination, and for reasons following, it will appear plainly, that the worship as by them al­lowed and performed to Saints and An­gels, must be call'd Religious, according to his first and stricter sense of Religion, and so by his own confession undue to Creatures.

But before we come to our reasons let us hear how Greg. Val. in Tho. 2. 2ae. disp. 6. qu. 1. punct. 2.de Val. expresses this matter a little more clearly. He speaking of the Acts of the vertue of Religion (as the School calls it) tells us some of them [Page 9]pertain to it remotè & imperativè, re­motely and only as commanded by it; (this with Mr. Spencer is religious in the larger sense:) some pertain to it proximè & elicitive, immediately, and more in­wardly proceeding from it, and declaring a subjection due to God; such acts are prayers, oblations, sacrifices, vows, &c. This is religious in Mr. Spencers first and stricter sense: accordingly the Schoolmen treat of those particulars, as Acts or im­mediate exercises of the vertue of religion. Now albeit Valentia, and Mr. Spencer and all of them affirm, that religious worship according to this sense, is due only to God: which is a great truth; and do deny, that the worship they give to any creature is to be called religious so: or that it pertains to religion in that stri­cter sense; which is also true, as to many things they do to Saints and Angels, (be­ing not so much as remotè and imperativè, by way of command from true religion) yet as used and exercised by them, those acts of their worship are interpretativè, acts of religion according to the first sense: so to be interpreted and accounted of as to them, and their performance: as all undue and misapplied worship, given to the Creature in way and exercise of reli­gion, yea given to a false God, is to be [Page 10]accounted of. This will appear in the rea­sons following.

V The first reason shall be that which A­zorius (one of the same Society) gives; How the Romish creature-worship must be ac­counted religious. Azor. In­stit. Mor. part. 1. l. 9. c. 10. qu. 2. because, the virtue of religion is not of two kindes, one which gives God his wor­ship, and another which gives worship to Saints, their Images and Reliques. And they (saith he) that think religion is not of one kind, are moved by the reason of the several kindes of dignities and excellen­cies in things; (this was Mr. Spencers reason of his several sorts of worship, as above nu. 3. and so it is Bellarmines rea­son) but religion (saith Azor) is not a virtue which generally gives to any one worship for the excellency, but which gives Divine worship and honour to God: and Non igitur religio, quic­quid excel­lit, honorat & colit, sed [...]icquid di­vinum est, et quâ ratione divinum est: quemadmo­dum ergò u­nus Deus est, fic una quoque specie relig [...]o est. Azon [...] ibid. therefore the virtue of religion does not honour and worship whatsoever excels, but whatsoever is Divine, and as it is Di­vine: wherefore as God is but one, so re­ligion is but one in kinde. Now this is ve­ry true and rational, and concludes all religious worship to be Divine, and only due to God: and that albeit there be an honour due to such excellencies, (an ho­nour commensurate to them) yet not a reli­gious worship.

But what will Azorius then say to the religious worship given to Saints and their [Page 11]Images in the Church of Rome? It is the objection immediately following, and he answers not by mincing the matter, as most of his fellowes do, by saying it is religious in a remote or a large sense, such a sense as (considering what they do, and allow in that Church) speaks nothing to the purpose; or by saying it is an act of special observance, as Greg. de Val. would lessen it to no purpose, as see below, num. 8. or by other frivolous distinctions used by them in this point of worship: No. He seemed to consider what is done and allowed in their Church, and that all such excuses help not: therefore Sanctos honoramus non solum co cultu quo ho­mines virtu­te & digni­tate praestan­tes, sed etiam divino cultu, qui est actus religionis — Sed divinos cultus & ho­nores non da­m [...]s sanctis propter se [...]p­sos sed prop­ter deum, qui eos san­ctos effecit. Azor. ibid. qu. 5. he saith down right, (and saith it often in this chapt.) that it is Divine (which in Mr. Spencers strict sense is religious) honour and worship which is given to Saints, in erecting Altars, Offering, making vowes to them, invoking of them, &c. and ex­cuses it from Idolatry by saying it is given them, not for themselves, but for Gods sake, that made them such. But there is enough in Greg. de Val. and Bell. and o­ther Romish writers to shew, that divine honour given to the creature, though with such reference to God cannot be de­fended: which is a great truth; so then between these truths the Church of Rome must be in a great strait; it gives and al­lowes [Page 12]according to what Azorius proved, a divine and religious worship to crea­tures, and according to the truth that the other deliver, it cannot be defended in it.

Second reason. What does religion in Mr. Spencers strict sense sound, but that virtue and devotion of the heart which sends out such expressions of subjection and worship in the exercises of religion! and what is the Romish worship but the exercise of that devotion or religion which is in the heart of any Romanist so desiring to express it self? and how is it expressed and performed but by their addresses to God, Saints, Angels by the former acts of Religion, Prayers, Praises, Vows, Offerings? Look into their offices private, publick: observe what is done at their Altars, Shrines, Images: what prayers, offerings, vows made there! see their in­cense burned before an Image, which is a consumptive oblation, and as much as was done to the brazen Serpent: and as for Prayer, (one of the Acts of religion) un­der it Val. disp. 6. qu. 2. de o­ratione [...]unct. 10. Valentia puts their dayly recital of the office, which contains prayers to Saints and Angels; and therefore this worship by prayers, vows, to Saints in their way of religion must belong to reli­gion in the first sense, as immediate ex­ercises thereof.

Thirdly, they do not only use those immediate acts of religion, prayers, prai­ses, vows: giving them to Saints in their exercise of religion: but in these religi­ous acts joyn the Saints with God: Athan O­rat. 4. contra Arianos. which Athanasius makes an Argument of the unity of the Son with the Father, else he could not be joyned with him in prayers; — in praying [...], to joyn the Son to the Father, which he denies to all creatures — so when St. Paul prayes — 1 Thess. 3.11. Now God himself and our Lord Jesus direct, &c. Now see how in the Church of Rome they joyn the Saints with God: in their vows, as at entrance into some religious orders; I vow to God and the blessed Virgin; in their Praises that Psalm or Hymn venite adoremus, Psal. 99. is in some of their books thrice broken, by Ave Maries inserted: Bellar. and Valentia close some of their books thus, Laus Deo & Beatae Virgini, praise to God and the blessed Virgin; and as I remember in the Lyons Edition Bellarm. closes his book de cultu Sanctorum, thus, Laus Deo, Virgini (que) 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 [Page 14]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. fundamen­ [...]. Car­dinal acknowledges, and would shift it off by many figures in the speech.

Lastly, when they pray to God, which they grant is the exercise of religion in the strict sense, they acknowledge they do it by the mediation of Saints and Angels prayed unto for that purpose: and what is this else but a performing of the crea­ture-worship out of the virtue of religion, [Page 15]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?

VI 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 [Page 16]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 [Page 17]for that worship more then meerly [...]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?

VII 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 [Page 18]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 worship of the dead exhibited to them by those that overlive them, or remain after them; or as Lactantius tells us, they are call'd Supersti­riosi sunt, qui supersti­tem memori­am defuncto­rum colunt, eorumque I­magines ce­lebrant. In­stit. l. 4. c. 28. superstitious, who worship or religiously honour the remaining memory of the dead, and celebrate (or ho­nour with religious service) their Images. And now let this Author if he can, defend his Catholick Roman Church in her pre­tended [Page 19] religious worship, from this charge of superstition: and then consider if she be not also so far chargeable with Idolatrous practice, as those applications to Saints and Angels, those expressions of worship which they make by vows, oblations, pray­ers and adorations, shall be found to yield to the creature any thing proper to God.

VIII To conclude, we have seen how the worship, which they religiously, The honour due to Saints and Angels of what sort i [...] it? but un­duly give to Saints and Angels stands charged: now if for the perfecting of this discourse, it be enquired to what sort of worship, that honour, which we acknow­ledge due to Saints and Angels (the thing, which he said, we yield) may indeed be reduced: we have two sorts of worship apparent and unquestionable, Divine and Civil: the divine is due to God by reason of his supereminent majesty, and by rea­son of his dominion over the whole man, and contains all the religious worship and service, all the obedience man can give him according to any of his commands, all the honour he can return him upon any due occasion. The civil, is due to man upon that dominion he has over o­thers according to the outward man and affairs of this life, and contains the ho­nour, subjection, and obedience due to Magistrate, Masters, Parents, Between [Page 20]these two, the Cardinal (whom this Au­thor follows every where) fixes the wor­ship or honour due to a finite supernatu­ral excellency, such as is in Saints and An­gels: And it is true, that if we give the creature no more then is commensurate or due unto it, the honour given will not be a Divine or Religious, nor yet a Civil worship properly, because given without respect to dominion or subjection. But there is a worship or honour due to per­sons (to whom we owe not subjection) as they are endowed with qualities and excellencies, though not supernatural, as Wisdome, Learning, Justice, and other Vertues: which worship is not Divine, or Civil properly, but as some call it, the worship or honour of Moral reve­rence due to all moral vertuous endow­ments; or as others Cultus officiosus, officious, or out of courtesy. So likewise the honour due to gracious and superna­tural gifts and qualities, may though in a higher degree be call'd the honour of moral reverence, making but one kinde of both, because the motive or ground of both is a thing of moral perswasion, arising from the worth and excellency of gifts and endowments without the reason of dominion.

Greg. de Val. Val. in Thom. 2.2. disput. 6. qu. 11. punct. 5. has a phrase for it not much differing; telling us, the worship due to Saints, is not an act of religion immedi­ately, but singularis observantiae, of a singu­lar observance, or respect to saints; & that it is not religion immediately, which pro­cures them that esteem, commensurate to excellent Creatures; but peculiaris obser­vantia, i.e. that special observance & reve­rence wch. such excellencies deserve. Now this is to speak what is due to saints, not what the Romanists allow them, or suffer their people to give them: wch. often falls into the way and acts of Religion, by their vows, prayers, raise, oblations to Saints.

That this worship or honour (which may be call'd an act of moral reverence or of officiousness, or of special observance, if they please) is of a differing kind, from the religious or divine, and may be differenced from the civil or humane, cannot be denied; but if asked, to which of the two it is reducible, or ana­logical, we say to the civil. For gifts and virtues which for their principle and Original are supernatural, are for their use, civil, i. e. for the good of the con­cives, fellow Citizens, members of the same society of the Church; yea Saints and Angels are concives fellow Citizens with us, Eph. 2.19. So that civil wor­ship [Page 22]might be divided, into that humane civil according to the Polity of the world; and this of moral reverence, which is ana­logically civil according to the Polity of the Church society. But they must re­duce it to Religious worship which they divided into Latria and Dulia, as above; ehre its made medius cultus, a middle worship between Divine and Civil, as the Card inal and they all do, Bel. de Beat. Sanctor. l 1. c. 12. to bring it nearer to the Divine; and then to make it intrench upon the divine or reli­gious worship by such applications and expressions as we heard above. As for their usual starting hole (to which they commonly retire in this point of worship­ping of Saints, Angels, Images,) to say they have no such acknowledgment of them, as of Gods, or infinit excellencies, it will not secure them; so long as they yeild them some acknowledgment not commensurate to them, and express it by such acts and exercises of religious worship as above said. We shall find the Heathens made the like excuses for the worship, they gave to the inferior De­ities, and to their Images. Nor could the people have such a conceit of Moses's dead body or carcass, as of an Infinite and divine excellency, which yet God hid from them, least they should make an [Page 23]Idol of it, as the Cardinal saith Bel. Apol. pro respons. sua ad Reg. Jacob. cap 8. Sect. jam. vero.; that is, least they should do to it, and give it such acts of worship, as the Church of Rome doth to Angels, to Saints, and to their Reliques.

IX Now least there should be made some pretence [...] of plea from what the Author said of supernatural worship and excel­lency, Of the Au­thority and Rule, that Saints and Angels are said to have over us. which he seemed to raise not only upon supernatural gifts and graces, but also upon that dignity and authority which is more then humane or Civil, and truly by him call'd Ecclesiastical, such as was in Prophets and Apostles: and withall mentioned several places of Scripture, to imply the dignity and authority in the Saints and Angels, as 1 Cor. 6.2. that they shall judge the world—Rev. 5.19. that they shall reign upon the earth. And that the Angels were Promulgators of the Law, Act. 7.53. Captains of the Armies of God, Jos. 5.14. Controlers of King­domes, Dan. 10.12. So he pa. 17.18. I say, least by this Authority which he seems to ascribe to them, he should im­ply (for he does not plainly infer) a sub­jection to them, and upon that account, a duty of worship: therefore to exclude all pretences; It may be said 1. That in Prophets and Apostles there was a dignity of authority as well as excellency of grace [Page 24]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 [Page 25]which are applied to holy men li­ving. Eo cultu dilectionis & societatis qu in h [...]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 [Page 26]places of Scripture, how insufficient to prove such a worship as is allowed by the Church of Rome.

X 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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28]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.

XI 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, [Page 29]that this word, when it is referred to wor­ship belonging to Religion is never used, but for serving either the true, or a false God: and therefore it is easily seen whe­ther the Romanists be mistaken in their Inference; therefore there is another reli­gious service, which may be given to some Creature: which is altogether inconse­quent, unless they can shew some other word in Scripture, that imports such a Religious service: or whether the Pro­testants be mistaken in their inference: therefore there is no religious service, (or as he expresses it, no worship belonging to Religion) save what is due to God. So that, whereas he provokes any Prote­stant to shew that the word ( [...]) imports any religious service save Divine: the Protestant provokes him to shew any word in Scripture that signifies a religi­ous worship or service, save that which is divine or due to God: and therefore duly infers from scripture, that a re­ligious worship or service is due only to God. No Roman Catholick teaches (saith he) that divine service due to God only, is to be given to any Creature. pa. 33. But seeing the scripture teaches no other religious worship, but what is given to God: you teaching there is another, teach besides the book, broach your own [Page 30]invention, and consequently give to the Creature something of that which is due to God. Whatever you reserve for God, this is plain, your devoting your selves to such or such Saints, doth very much express the notion of the word [...], which is from [...], a slave or manci­pated servant; and the frequency of your performing outward acts of religion and devotion to them, in Pilgrimages, Vows, Oblations, &c. speaks a plain serving of them, and takes up (I fear) the greater part of your religious service.

XII Nor can this Author excuse his Roman Catholicks, Insufficient excuse of their wor­ship. by saying this word alwayes implyes the serving of the true, or a false god, but their serving of Saint or Angel, is not such a service as is given to God, or a false god: for they do not think them to be Gods or serve them as Gods; and this I suppose was the Authors meaning and designe, in adding a false god, that he might ly safe, as he thought, under that covert. But this will not serve his turn, for if by a false god, he means, that they which worship, must think it to be God, or apply the worship and service to it as to a God: then it is not true, that this word always signifies the serving of a true, or false God: but this is true, that the word, when it is (as he said) referred to [Page 31]worship belonging to religion, alwayes sig­nifies a service due to God, whether gi­ven to him, or misapplied to any other thing, although that thing be not held a God by him that worships, or the worship not given to it as to a God: For this obliquity of worship or religious service; it is not necessary, that the thing worshiped be Greg. de Val. in Tho. Disp. vi. qu. punct. 3. de Idolatria.thought to be a God, is acknowledged by their own Au­thors: It is plain in scripture, the wor­ship given the Golden Calfe Exod. 32. was Latria misapplied, yet that not thought a God, nor given to it as to a God, but only as to a visible representation, to be used in the worship of the true God that brought them out of Egypt. Of which more below, in the question of Image­worship. So the worship given to the brazen Serpent, was a misapplied Latria, yet given to it not as to a God, but as to a holy thing, that had been instrument of such saving operations. So the Apo­stle Rom. 1.25. speaks of them, that ser­ved the Creature, (the word is Latria there) more then (or besides) the Creator: but together with him, yet not serving the Creature as God, but reserving some­thing more for God, as S. Ambr. in lo­cum Quasi aliquid plus sit, quod Deo reservetur. Ambrose notes their vain excuse. And therefore the limitation which the Trent Council [Page 32]gives here, that they invocate and wor­ship the Saints not as Gods, (which this Author made use of pa. 3. and for that as it seems added here a false God) is a poor and emptie excuse; for the Heathen were not so gross in their worship or the de­fence of it, but that they could plead this and other excuses, which the Romanists make for their creature-worship, as we shall see In Survey of antiqui­ty cap. 1. below.

XIII But he goes on in his bold assertions. From this ground, saith he, proceeds the ordinary distinction of religious worship into Latria and Dulia. A distinction this, that (as the Romanists use it) has nei­ther ground in Scripture nor yet in St. Au­gust. who first used it, but to another purpose: as we shall see.

First for Scripture, Imperti­nent distin­ction of La­tria and Du­lia in the Romish use. as he said of Latria, that when it is referred to worship belonging to religion, it signifies the serving of God, or some false God, (which he makes the ground of this distinction) so we say of Dulia, when this word is referred to wor­ship belonging to religion, or to religious worship it always imports the service of God, that is due to God, and given to him or misapplied to other things; and so this distinction has not ground in Scrip­ture: the places are infinite, wherein this word as well as Latria is used in ex­pressing [Page 33]the service and worship of God, and of other false Gods: take one just pa­rallel to this text of Mat. 4. and that is, 1 Sam. 7.3. serve him only — where it is [...]. So is this distinction against St. Augustinu's mind, as appears by the Contra Faust. l. 20. 21. de Civi. Dei l. 10. c. 1. Qu. in Genesin. l. 1. de Trinit. c. 6. several places where he uses it. For he finding the word serve applied in Scrip­ture to God and man, thought the first service might be called Latria, and the other Dulia, not making it a distinction of religious worship or service into several sorts, but a severing of the divine from the civil by these words, putting nothing of religious service in the Dulia, but pla­cing it in the Latria as wholly due to God; and this he confirms often, as in opposition to their design in their Dulia, so to their whole endeavour of having re­ligious service or worship given to the creature, as we shall see by several places of that Father, cited below in the tryal of Antiquity. Lastly, as we see this distin­ction has no ground in Scripture; as to the use of the words Latria and Dulia, both being used there indifferently to ex­press the religious service given to God: so likewise as to the thing it self intended by the Romanists, (viz. a sort of religi­ous worship due to the creature besides that which is given to God) it is so far [Page 34]from having ground in Scripture, that it is against the strain and severity of Scrip­ture, which is very strict in securing Gods worship; and it serves finely to evacuate the force of the Apostles argu­ment, Heb. 1.6. who proving the Deity of our Saviour by that of Psal. 97.7. Let all the Angels worship him; might receive this answer, it is a religious worship of the inferiour rank, such as may be given to the most excellent creatures; and doubtless the Arrians would have made use of this distinction, had the Church of Rome then taught this doctrine: so then, either the Apostle was mistaken in his ar­gument, or the Church of Rome is in her distinction. And if we be mistaken in our argument from this Scripture, then was their Gregory the great mistaken, who a­gainst Image-worship urges the same text, Greg [...] ep. l. 9. ep. 9. quia scriptum est dominum Deum odo­rabis, & so­li servies. because saith he, it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

To conclude, Peresius a Romish writer moved with what the Scripture and St. Aug. saith against this cultus servitutis, this worship of service given to the creature acknowledges (as Bel. de Beat. San­ctorum l. 1. c. 12. the Cardinal relates it, and checks him for it) that he did not approve the name of Dulia to signifie the worship of Saints, for we are not servants of the Saints, but fellow-servants.

Rev. 22.8, 9. See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant, worship God.

XIIII Here as elsewhere he needlesly multi­plies mistakes, Of worship refused by the Angel and by St. Peter. repeating what he had a­bove of Angels receiving worship from Lot; and of men receiving worship, as Elias and Elisha, though Peter refused it from Cornelius, Act. 10. and affirms, the worship of Elias and Elizaeus to be the very same with the worship which by Roman Catholicks is given to Saints and Angels, pa. 35, 36. How all this comes short of the purpose, both as to the worship which the Church of Rome gives by many moe expressions, then prostration or bowing of the body, which is all the worship that his places of Scripture and instances con­cern; and also as to the term religious, which in his large sense comes not home to the question; I say how far all this falls short: was abundantly shewen above. Now for the Text Revel. 22. That which we gather from it against their Angel­worship, does not arise from the bare prohibition of worship, but rather from the reason of it, for I am thy fellow ser­vant: and so from St. Peters reason, for I am a man, which shews some undue worship was given, yet not as to a God, but too much entrenching upon that which was due to God. The Romanists [Page 36]feign two reasons of this prohibiting or refusal of worship: first, Bel. Post Christi ad­ventum pro­hibuisse ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi, de Beatit. San­ctor. cap. 14. that the An­gels refused, after Christs coming in the flesh, to be worshipped of men, for the re­verence of the humanity of Christ: But if they did right in refusing it, then must the Romanists think they do ill in giving it to them; for we men are bound to have as great a reverence and respect to Christ as the Angels are, and note the Cardinal saith, not only that they refused the worship, but forbad it, prohibuisse saith he. Secondly, because John took the Angel for Christ: but we may ask, how did the Angel know what St. John thought? Besides, it was improbable that he took the Angel for our Saviour Christ, for this is the second time, that he thus worshipped: neither do we find that our Saviour in all the visions appear­ed to him after such a manner. But this falling down at the Angels feet, shews it was in St. John a transport of joy, for the revelation of such things as the Angel brought, and thereupon an expression of that (more then beseeming) reverence to the messenger: and it is evident the Angel conceived he gave some undue re­verence, for which he admonishes him to give none, but what befits a fellow ser­vant, which ought not to be a religious [Page 37]worship or service entrenching upon any thing due to God: the very reason that Aug. de vera religio­one cap. 55. Honoramus Angelos cha­ritate non servitute. St. August. gives to exclude all such worship by the word service or servitude. We honour Angels (saith he) in charity, not service; and immediately before in­sinuated, God is communis Dominus, our common Lord, Lord of Angels and men; that is, as the Angel said, we are fellow­servants. So we need not contend so much, what the Angel thought, as look to what he said; whether he thought St. John took him for our Saviour (which this Author strives to make probable) is uncertain, but the reason the Angel gave is clear, and enough to exclude their An­gel-worship.

XV So that which St. Peter refused, Acts 10. was not a Divine worship, and there­fore refused; for this Author grants pa. 38. that Cornelius could not suppose him to be a God: nor was it a due bounded worship, and refused only out of humili­ty, as he supposes here: for then he would not have given this reason, I am a man. The Protestants are not bound to say (as he thinks they must, pa. 37.) one of the two, either that Cornelius gave him di­vine worship as to a God, or that St. Pe­ter refused it out of humility. For though the Protestants acknowledge there was [Page 38]humility in this refusal, (for humility is seen in refusing not only due, but undue honour too) yet have they cause to say, it is evident that Cornelius gave him some undue worship, exceeding his condition; and entrenching upon something due to God, and therefore St. Peter gives him the reason of his refusing it, for I am a man, as the Angel, for I am thy fellow-servant.

Col. 2.18. Worshipping of Angels.

XVI He will have us here mistaken, because this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels, How far the Romanists agree with those wor­shippers of Angels.whereby they are made equal to Christ, or that Christ is depending on them, which Roman Catholicks (saith he) condemn as injurious to Christ, pa. 43. His reason is, because the Apostle adds not holding the head, by which it appears such a worship­ping of Angels is forbidden, as destroyes the belief of Christs being soveraign head of the Church, pa. 44. to which he subjoyns as a proof, the Testimonies of several Fa­thers witnessing that Simon Magus, and other ancient Hereticks broached such phansies of the Angels, pa. 48. That there were ancient Hereticks, that held strange phansies about Angels is very true: but that these worshippers of Angels were such as held such a phansie of making them equal or superiour to Christ, can­not [Page 39]be proved: that they were not such, appears rather; for the Apostle first tells us this was done in a pretence of voluntary humility; now what humility is there in going to God by any equal or superiour to his Son? therefore they went to God by Angels as inferiour mediatours: and they of the Church of Rome have a pre­tence not unlike, in their applying to God by the mediation of Saints and An­gels. Secondly, the Apostle in this chap­ter speaks against those that joyned the observation of legal ordinances with the profession of Christ, and therefore it is very probable he condemns such worship­ers of Angels, as did it upon that account, because the law was given by the dispositi­on of Angels.In Colos. c. 2.Theodoret, who is shuffed in among the rest of the Fathers cited by this Author, speaks directly to this pur­pose, that these worshippers of Angels were such Christians as joyned the obser­vation of the law with the Gospel, and therefore used them as mediatours, be­cause the law was given by their ministry. The other Fathers cited by him speak of strange phansies of some Hereticks about Angels, but without such reference to this place of the Apostle, as Theodoret doth, who comments upon the Text, and cites the canon of the Synod of Lao­dicea, [Page 40](a place not far from Coloss) for­bidding any to pray to Angels: Oecume­nius also upon the text agrees with Theo­doret touching these Angel-worshippers, and out of Chrysostome (for he borrows it from him) shews the pretence they made of humility in this their going to God by Angels, saying, [...]. Chryst. & Oecum. in locum. It was more then belonged to us, to go to God by Christ: which excludes Mr. Spencers pretence a­bove that these were such as made Angels equal or superiour to Christ; when its plain they in humility applyed to them as of inferiour rank.

XVII As for his reason from the Apostles ad­ding, not holding the head; that proves not, that they placed the Angels in Christs stead, or destroyed his soveraign headship directly, as the phansie of those Hereticks, he would have here to be meant, did; for he may be said not to hold the head, that holds it not in that manner he ought, or because this worshipping of Angels was the way to let go the head; as in the Church of Rome, their worshipping of Angels and Saints, and their Images draws off the people much from Christ.

And albeit the Church of Rome does not retain the observation of the law, as these did: and so has not the same cause of their worshipping Angels as they had: [Page 41]yet let the cause or motive be what it will, (for the same deslexion from truth and duty has not alwayes the same motive) they of the Church of Rome have the same pretence of humility in their coming to God by the mediation of Angels, and do place the Angels where they should not, intruding into things they have not seen, and not holding the head (the one media­tour between God and man) as they ought.

XVIII Again he will have us mistaken, [...] Religion of Angels. in ren­dring the word ( [...]) a worship­ping, when it should be translated a reli­gion of Angels, and thereupon declaims against Protestants, as having a design in it, pa. 45.46. But this is needless, for the word religion had been more advan­tageous to us, in as much as we yield a worship to creatures, but when religion is added to it, we mean it a worship due to God, as St. Aug. also said above. Indeed if we look into the Church of Rome, and well consider their exercises of devotion, how they are directed, how frequented, there will appear a very religion of Saints and Angels. And as in this point the Ro­manists are too like these half Christians, whom the Apostle blames for their wor­ship or religion of Angels; so will they appear not much unlike to the Heathen [Page 42] Platonicks, in their worship or religion of their Daemons and Hero's, whom they placed and worshipped as celestial messen­gers, and mediatours between men and the supream God. Of which below * in the consent of Antiquity.

But to make up his number of mistakes: he must needs repeat here also pa. 49. how worship was given to Angels by Lot and Joshua, and that it may be call'd religious by Ja. 1.26, 27. not remembring how much he is mistaken, in giving us still, for the worship we blame in them, examples only of the worship we allow, the bowing of the body to Angels when they appear­ed: whereas we charge them with the worship, which the Laodic. Synod for­bad, which the Apostle here blames, the praying to them, and making them media­tors; nor will he remember how he is mi­staken in telling us still St. James calls a work of mercy, religion, as if this were any thing to the religious worship they give to Saints and Angels; which is the exercise or performance of their religion and devotion, as religion belongs to the first table in a stricter sense; whereas that work of mercy as all duties of the second table because commanded, and proceed­ing from religion, may in that general sense be call'd religious works, not religi­ous [Page 43]worship. But indeed this Romish wor­ship cannot truly be call'd religion in the larger sense, or in any sense: for it is not commanded, it proceeds not from religion, not dictated by that devotion and religi­on we owe to God; it pertains not there­fore to religion, unless it be to the Romish. Of all this more largely above.

CHAP. II. Of Prayer and Invocation.

I NOw we are come to a special act of worship given to Saints and Angels; the places of Scripture here examined are, Come unto me, Mat. 11.28. Ask the Fa­ther in my name, Jo. 16.21. When ye pray, say, Our Father — One mediatour — 1 Tim. 2.5. We have an advocate — 1 Jo. 2.1. The Protestants inference (therefore we must come to God by no other Name, Mediatour, Advocate) he will have in­consequent: Indeed such arguments from the affirming of one to the denying all others, are not for the most part conclu­ding and valid, yet in the point of Gods worship they are of good force, if we [Page 44]allow the truth of the rule which S. Aug. de con­sensu Evang. l. 1. c. 18. Aug. saith, that Socrates allowed; God is so to be worshiped as he has commanded himself to be worshiped. A general Rule for worship. So that it must be a bold presumption in man, when the Lord has in so many places prescribed the way, to add thereunto, by admitting and using other Mediators, though inferiour to Christ.

II What he saith to the Lords Prayer, comes to this: The form of the Lords prayer. that Protestants by like argument might prove, We are only to pray to God the Father— and that one Christian living may not pray for another, pa. 57. But this is not alike, for we have command and direction to come and pray unto the other persons of the Trinity: and also for one another living: And we may call any of the Persons Father, for all the works of the Trinity ad extra, to­wards the Creature (as giving life and being, nourishing and preserving, Fa­therly acts toward us) are as the School saith, undivided, common to all the per­sons: but because we can also call God the Father our Father upon special relation by and through his only Son; therefore this forme implies we ought to come in prayer to God the Father only by his me­diation, by and in whom we can call him Father; and for his other part of reply, [Page 45] then one Christian living may not pray for another: who sees not the disparity be­tween praying for, and praying to, or invo­cating, and that at such distance, as they do Saints and Angels; but of this of the living to pray for one another, more conve­niently Nu. 6. below.

III In the other places 1 Tim. 2.5. 1 Jo. 2. 1. He will have the protestant mistaken, The office of Mediator and Advo­cate. in excluding thereby all Mediators or Ad­vocates of Intercession: the Text speaking only of a Mediator of Redemption, be­cause it follows in one place, who gave himself a ransom—and in the other, He is the propitiation for our sins. Secondly, that the Text speaks of such a Mediator or Advocate that deserves to be heard for his own worth and merits, pa. 69. That we may better discover this usual but un­grounded evasion; Note First, others besides Christ may be said to Intercede for us, Intercession of Saints. as the blessed Saints no question do: but that makes them not Mediators or Advocates of Intercession; for they do it without our Invocating of or applica­tion by prayer to them, out of that cha­rity and propension which all the mem­bers of Christ have to one another; also they do it in general, in such desires as make for the accomplishment of that bo­dy, of which they are members. Out [Page 46]of which propensity we pray also for them, i.e. for their consummation and glorious resurrection, &c. yet this ren­ders us not their mediators. Secondly, Note, that to state them in the condition of Mediators and Advocates: they must be enabled to receive our particular re­quests and prayers, and so to present them unto God: yea as the word Advo­cate significantly implies they must be ad­mitted in that Court to plead their cause for whom they appear. This being made manifest that they are no way enabled thereunto: it will easily be seen whether the Protestants are mistaken, in excluding them from this office, or the Romanists in admitting them to it, without, or ra­ther against scripture.

For this Author was wont in his impu­ted mistakes to shew the word or thing in which he placed the mistake, other­wise taken, and applied to others in scri­pture: and its but reason, that he who will enlarge to others, what the scripture seems to restrain, should be bound to make it appear by scripture, and not do it by limitations, and distinctions of his own invention; as it fares with all Romanists, in this point and that of Image-worship. That which this Author makes the pre­tence [Page 47]of his distinction, or limiting to Christ only such a kind of mediation (viz. of redemption) from the words following, viz. ransom and propitiation, overthrows his distinction, and shews the whole of­fice belongs to Christ only: for it shews that his mediation of Intercession, or Ad­vocateship, and his fitness thereunto, is grounded on his bloodshed or ransom, or making God thereby propitious; which the Apostle through the Epistle to the He­brews speaks most evidently: shewing our high priest is entred to appear for us, Heb. 9.24. i. e. to be our Advocate, or Mediator of Intercession; and that he en­tred with blood.

IV This also shews the distinction is not good, Distinction of Mediator of Redem­ption and Intercessi­on. for one member of it is grounded upon the other; in the Intercession of our Mediator and Advocate upon his redem­ption; for that tells us none can come under one member of it, to interceed as an Advocate with God to whom the o­ther belongs not too. So for his other exception or limitation; That Christ is the only Mediator or Advocate, that can intercede by his own worth and merits, comes to the same purpose, for he that can do so, must be a Redeemer too; It is a great Truth: but that it should not ex­clude (as they pretend) the Saints and [Page 48]Angels from being Mediators in and by the merits of Christ, is only a saying of their own, without all proof or war­rant of scripture, and a bold saying it is; For when scripture saith, there is one Mediator and tells us of no other; points us out our Advocate, and tells us of no other: directs us by whom, and in whose name we must come to God, and shews us no other, how can we without great presumption take upon us to appoint o­thers, though in order to him that is ap­pointed? For our coming to or praying to God, is a worship of God, an imme­diate serving of him, and therefore binds us to go the way he prescribes, as the rule Nu. 1. above directs us, and reason also perswades it, for else there would be no thing fixed and certain in religion and worship; For if in this point we may in­vent new wayes and new distinctions that have no ground in Gods word, then that One God in the same verse would be obnoxious to mans conceit (in framing other gods of lower rank) as that one Me­diator is to this distinction of the Roma­nists.

V Again, Here especially in a point of Gods worship, Reasons a­gainst their Invocation. that of the Apostle takes place, What is not of Faith is Sin, Rom. 14. ult. For how can it be of faith to [Page 49]come unto God by Mediators, whom they cannot believe to be appointed of God to stand between himself and us, or between our Mediator Christ and us; whom they cannot believe to hear or know our requests and desires: having no warrant from God to assure their people, that he will reveal or make known their desires to the Saints they invocate. Fur­thermore, it may be another reason a­gainst this presumption; because it is God himself that prepares the heart to pray and inspires it; what boldnesse then is it for any Creature as Mediator to pre­sent our prayers? or, as the Apostle Rom. 8.26. In our prayers according to Gods will the spirit makes intercession, there­fore prayers to Saints, are not of the spirit, not according to Gods will, or else the spirit then maketh intercession by the Saints. Lastly it is a senseless perverting of the order God has set us: for our prayers (at least mental) must as the Ro­manists acknowledge, Saints how said to know mens pray­ers. be known to the Saints by revelation from God: so our prayers must first come to God, then by him to the Saints, so by them to Christ to be presented to God. The best account which the Bel. l. de Beat. San­ctor. c. 20. Cardinal can give us of their knowing prayers made to them is this, First he rejects wholly that way [Page 50]which some have conceited, that the Saints know prayers of the living by the re­port of Angels. Of the two other wayes, that they know by seeing in God (as in a glass) from the beginning of their beatitude, those things that do any way belong to them: or that they know by revelation, from God, when the prayers are made. Of the former of these, he saith it is probable, then com­paring it with the latter, he saith it is more probable then it, yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Hereticks. Where note, that their best way is but probable, and the Hereticks must be con­vinced in this point, by that way which is less then probable. So uncertain is this Article of their faith, so unlikely to con­vince Hereticks, however they perswade their people to it.

This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers; he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of di­sputing that which their Church cannot agree on. Beside all that has been said to it, methinks reason should tell them, how improbable it is, that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thou­sand suits put up to it at once; or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss, for those glorified souls to be ta­ken up or avocated, by the care of earthly [Page 51]affairs; yea, such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature. If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner, (as Luk. 15.7. which sometimes is made an argu­ment by them) its a matter of joy, and answerable to their general votes and in­tercession, for the accomplishing of the Church, and consistent with their state of bliss.

VI Now come we to the prayers of men living, one for another, Prayers of men living for others, no argu­ment for praying to Saints de­parted. often urged by this and other their Authors: who ha­ving no permission or appointment from Gods word, for making the Saints depar­ted, their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven, seek pretence from this duty of the living. Therefore to a Protestant asking, how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate then Christ? this Author rejoynds: How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them, to pray to God for them? for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates? pa. 61. And of Protestants usually com­mending themselves to the prayers of others: This (saith he) is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels. pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it; But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the pray­ers of the living and their invocating of [Page 52]Saints or Angels: also between the pray­ers or interceding of men living for o­thers, and that Mediation or Advocate­ship they put upon Saints departed. First, We have warrant for the one and not for the other; we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living, because we are commanded to pray one for another: and diverse reasons there are for it, which hold not in the other case. The mutual exercise of charity among those that con­verse together on earth, and much need that bond (as the Apostle calls it) to hold them together; Eph. 4.3. Col. 3.14. also, the benefit we re­ceive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings: Heb. c. 13 3. we our selves being also in the body, as the Apostle tells us. Lastly, in this there is no peril of super­stition, as there must needs be in their re­ligious addresses to the dead. Secondly, our praying others to pray for us, is not Invocation or a Religious worship, as theirs is to the Saints departed; they pla­cing a great part of their offices of Religi­on both publick and private in such Invo­cations. Thirdly, As the living when they are desired to pray for us, are capa­ble of this charitable duty, knowing our necessities, which Saints departed do not: so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us: [Page 53]that is, of a middle order between us and God Almighty, (as they make their Me­diatours of intercession; but as Compre­catores fellow-suiters, of the same rank, condition, and distance with us from God: in the mutual exercise of this cha­ritable duty, they praying for us at our intreaty, and we for them at theirs.

VII St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture: Aug. contra Epist. Par­men. l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum & populum, sed rogat, pro se orent invicem, si Paulus me­diator esset, non ei con­staret ratio, qua dixerat, unus media­tor. St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people, but intreats they should pray one for the other (so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediatours; nay doing it, upon mutual entreaty and intimation, are therefore not mediatours) If St. Paul should be their Mediatour, it would not consist with what he had said: there is one Mediatour, (which proves the former consequence, that the media­tion they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediatour. His other instance is from St. Johns, we have an advocate, 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediatour: and so makes it conclude against Parmenian, who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people: we shall examine the Cardinals answer, by which he would shift this off, when we come to tryal of Anti­quity. But

VIII This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediatour and advocate of redemption and salvation: but more then one of praying to Almighty God with us, and for us by way of charity and society, as St. Aug. saith, citing, contra Faust. l. 22.21. I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter, but in the l. 20.21. where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society, as we honour holy men living, which this Author misreports, as if said they pray for us, which is truth; but his adding with us, supposes they pray for us, when we pray, upon knowledge of our particular neces­sities and requests; which is false.

IX He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture: Their In­vocation destitute of Scripture-proof. If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture, he may please to exa­mine, Job 5.1. Gen. 48.16. 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs; in the first, Eliphaz tells Job, if he take it thus impatiently, he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels, whose ministry in those dayes was frequent; in the second place, Jacob prayes to God for his blessing upon the lads, and wishes the ministry of An­gels for them, as it had pleased God to use it, in blessing and delivering him in [Page 55]all his troubles; or we may say as Athana­sius and other Fathers do, that the Angel there was Christ. In the third he pro­duces Saul worshipping and invoking Sa­muel; which many wayes fails of proving Invocation of Saints, both in the truth of the thing and the consequence; Proofs these, fitting for such Articles of Faith.

CHAP. III. Of Images.

I THe Council of Trent, as we see by the Decree touching Images, Pretended care for the people. would seem very careful that the people be taught, how they may safely conceive of, and worship Images: and that all super­stition and filthy lucre be 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 [Page 56](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.

II 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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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.

II 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, graven­image, 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 graven­image (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 [Page 59] 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 graven­image; 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 Image­worship 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.

III 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 Ʋt infra, [...] 12. and second Commandment, [Page 61]which they would confound. 2. Note, that he fixes the whole notion of his Idol in the false representation as we saw a­bove; whereas the notion and reason of an Idol, if we will speak of it as Scripture intends and forbids it, stands chiefly in the worship unduly given to it, for that makes the representation forbidden; else if we set aside the consideration of undue worship, all Chimaera's and monstrous phansies of mans brain, expressed by the painter, would be Idols forbidden in the Commandment. 3. Whereas according to that restrained notion of an Idol (as he usually expresses it, to be a representa­tion made to represent any thing as God which is not so) he would vindicate the Images of the blessed Saints from being made Idols, because they represent them as they are, pa. 83. This is a lame defence. For first, any representation made to wor­ship the true God by, may be, nay is an Idol; such were Labans Images, Gen. 31. and Micha's Teraphin, Jud. 17. and such was the golden calfe, Exod. 32. and it is apparent that the likeness or representati­on forbidden, Isa. 40.18, 19. refers to the true God; and so by Deut. 4.15. that to make them an image or represen­tation of the true God, was a corrupting of themselves; so by Exod. 20.22.23. [Page 62] Ye shall not make with me Gods of silver — the worshipping of the graven image Bell. de Imaginib. c. 24. Idolo­latria est non solum cum adoratur ido­lum relicto Deo, sed eti­am cum ado­ratur simul cum Deo, ut Exod. 20.22, 23. True diffe­rence of Image and Idol. with God is forbidden. Secondly, the images of the Saints, although represent­ing them as they are, yet become idols by undue worship given them: this Author is forced to acknowledge, pa. 81. and that the same material representation may in di­vers respects be an image and an idol; the image being made an idol, by attributing to it any thing proper to God, pa. 82, 83. so then the distinction of idol and image comes to this: first it is an image or re­presentation, whether painted or graven, then made an idol in the use of it, Qui colit ille facit, he that worships makes the idol: so little does their distinction of idol and image serve the turn.

IIII As for the word Temounah in Exod. 20. albeit in Scripture-use it signifies any kind of likeness, The like­ness of any — sorbid­den in the Command­ment. natural, artificial, or spiritu­al, yet here he will have it of no larger extent then the other word Pesel as he re­strained it to signifie an idol or represen­tation of any thing as God, pa. 84. and concludes pa. 86. line 3. No other repre­sentation, picture or likeness of any creature is here forbidden, but such as are intended to represent them, by way of idolatry as Gods and Deities, which they neither are, nor can be; so he. But this is not de­monstrated [Page 63](as he boasts) from the places of Scripture, which he brought for these words. For though it be true, that idols and the gross idols of the Heathen are for­bidden, Exod. 20. and that in those places he brings, the words do import such idols; yet can it not be concluded from those instances, either that such idols only (i.e. the representations of false Gods, or of any taken for a God which is not, as he usually and cunningly renders the notion of an idol) are here forbidden; or that the col Temounah, any likeness of things in hea­ven or earth should be restrained to such idolatry; for who shall restrain a Cōmand­ment of God so generally expressed, with­out warrant from the same God, to tell us some likeness or images of things in Heaven or earth may be worshipped, so they be not counted for Gods, or wor­shipped as Gods? Tertul. Tertul de Idol. l. 5. Si­tu eundem Deum obser­vas, &c. gives a good caution to this purpose: If thou observest the same God, thou hast his law, that thou adore nothing besides God: and if thou look­est at the precept that came after: (touch­ing the Ark) imitate thou the prophet, and do not adore any images, unless God com­mand thee. Not that he commanded any where to adore images, but did com­mand to make them, viz. the Cheru­bin.

V This slender evasion, that only such idols as he has described are here forbid­den: The wor­ship forbid­den. will the better be seen through when we have looked upon the words following, not bow down, nor worship; for whether the representation be pesel a graven image, or Temounah, the likeness of anything, it is no idol till the using of it, by bowing down, and worshipping of it or the like, do come. Here therefore he makes the like restraint of worship forbid­den by the Commandment; it must be saith he, proportionate to the thing those idols represented, a God, and so a Divine worship, pa. 86. and then he heaps up places of Scripture, noting the grossest of Heathen idolatry: esteeming the material picture, as a God, to hear prayers, to be able to help; and therefore they bowed down to it, prayed to it, and put hope in it: that it may appear how far the Church of Rome in her fubtil and refined wor­ships of creatures, is from the idolatry of the Heathen here forbidden. But I fear the gross fort of Papists fall down to their stocks and images, much like as those gross idolaters did to theirs; (some honest Romish writers have complaints to that purpose) and as for the understanding and learned Heathens, they were almost as subtilin their conceits and distinctions of [Page 65]their worship, as the more knowing Pa­pists are: as will appear below in the Tri­al of Antiquity.

VI But a great complaint he makes of our translation rendering in the Command­ment, nor worship them, Of our tran­slating wor­ship for serve. which should be, nor serve them, by which word he will have a Divine worship only forbid­den: for the word serve shews an ho­mage done to those Idols, as to things ca­pable of such offices, and endued with knowledge, power, and divinity; so he pa. 88.89. We answer, Though service be more and may perform more (then worship) to persons endowed with under­standing, and power to give commands: yet in regard of inanimate statues, Ima­ges, and likenesses, serving them, stands only in acts of worship, and therefore the one may in that case be indifferently put for the other: and both of them are put as indifferent expressions of the same thing Deut. 4.19. to worship them and serve them: so Jos. 23.16. serve and bow down as equal expressions: Only serving may imply a frequenting of those acts of worship, in an order and way of Reli­gion towards those objects of worship; and so the Romish worshiping of Images and Saints may be call'd a serving of them. And unless he will exempt those Heathens [Page 66](before spoken of) from the serving of graven Images which they worshiped: it may appear, that the importance of that word, serve them, does not infer such a divine worship, or homage given to such as they esteem endued with 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.

VII 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 [Page 67]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 Ʋniversality: 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 [Page 68]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—

VIII 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 [Page 69]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, [Page 70]if he would not shew himself zealous for that, against which God Almighty has in this Commandment declared himself a jealous God.

IX 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, [Page 71]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 as used in the Romish Church, may by undue wor­ship become prohibited.

X But see his argument. If all kind of worship of Images were forbidden by the Commandment Exod. 20. Worship towards the Ark no proof for Image-wor­ship. then David contradicted Gods command in bidding them, worship his footstool, Ps. 99.5. so he pa. 108. By better warrant may we say, the Church of Rome contradicts the Commandment of God: He saith, Thou shalt not bow down and worship: she saith, bow down and worship, and commends the practice as religious and profitable. But seeing he alledges Scripture, to prove his Position: let it be our turn now to shew his many mistakes, in urging that of Psal. 99.5. for worshiping of Images. He begins with a complaint of our Transla­tion, [Page 72]for rendring it worship at his foot­stool, when it should be, worship his foot­stool, the Ark and Cherubins upon it. First, we might quit him with a more just complaint of their rendring Heb. 11.21. Jacob worshiped the top of his staff, which the original [...], will not bear. But the Original in Ps. 99. will admit ours, at or towards his footstoole, the same word and phrase being used in the last verse: worship his holy Mount; or at or in his holy Mount: Pagnin and Montanus rendring both places alike (to shew the indifferency of the phrase) Incurvate Sca­bello, and incurvate Monti: so that by Mr. Spencers argument, they were com­manded to worship the Mount as well as the Ark or Cherubins; and if the latter be capable of this sense, worship at or in his holy Mount (as the Septuagint turns it [...]) then may the former place be also rendred, worship at or toward his foot stool; so the Chalde Paraphrase renders both alike, Adorate in Domo Sanctuarij, worship in or at the house of his Sanctuary that's his footstool, or place of presence on earth: and so the last verse, Adorate in Monte Sanctuarii, worship in the Mount of his Sanctuary: the place where his Temple stood. Now as the same phrase in the last verse directs [Page 73]the rendring of the fifth verse, worship at his footstool, so does reason also perswade it; for the people could not see the Che­rubins which were in the holiest place, how then commanded to worship them, and that as Images and representations? But the intent of the Psalm is to bid them frequent that place of worship where his foot-stool was; and in worshipping to look that way, not for the Cherubins sake, but for Gods presence sake of which the Ark was a signe and witness; so the Ark or place where it stood did but circumstan­tially determine the worship, (i.e. that way) it did not objectively receive the worship. Secondly, he will have (which also he repeats pa. 127. and 133.) The Che­rubin there no proof for Image­worship. images commanded to be made and set in holy places for worship, because these Cheru­bins were so; but how many mistakes and inconsequencies are here? First, in draw­ing warrant from Gods action to their in­ventions; Secondly, in supposing them the images or representations of Angels, which being set out for worship, must according to his own definition of an image represent the thing or person as they are — but let him say, what indivi­dual Angels these did represent? Or what Angel is like, or did ever appear like to those Cherubins? Therefore images ac­cording [Page 74]cording to his own notion of image are not here commanded. Thirdly, the truth is, those Cherubs were symbolical or em­blematical representations of the ministry of Angels, which God as it pleaseth him useth in and about his Church: and therefore is said to sit on the Cherubins, and to ride upon them: and this pair of Cherubs over the Ark is call'd the charet of the Cherubins, 1 Chro. 28.18. Lastly, his mistake in supposing them set there for worship, which is a great falshood, and injurious to Almighty God that set them there, and I fear a wilful mistake; for he cannot be ignorant how it is acknowledg­ed, that the Jews did not worship Angels themselves, much less their images; that the Jews had not those images of the Cheru­bins and Brazen Serpent, Azor. par. 1. Instit. mor. l. 9. c. 6 qu. 7. Vasq. de Adorat. l. 2. disp. 4.nor any images for worship, this is asserted by several [...]a­thers, acknowledged by some of this Authors Society.

XI He excuses (pa. 112.) their leaving out these words; Their maiming of the Com­mandment in their Ca­techismes. thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, nor the likeness, &c. in their shorter Catechisms; Did we (saith he) deliver the Commandments as Prote­stants do, with the Preface: The same which God spake — we were obliged to put them word for word, or else the Com­mandments would not be answerable to the [Page 75]Title, pa. 114. But though you set not that preface before them, yet prefixing the Title of Gods Commandments, and pretending to deliver in your Catechisms the ten Commandments, you are obliged to deliver all the fubstantial parts or things commanded or forbidden; other­wise you make them unanswerable to the title, and to your pretence.

XII Upon this occasion he makes his defence of their division of the Commandments, The divisi­on of the Decalogue. which reckons but three in the first Table, by crowding the second commandment into the first; and making seven Com­mandments in the second table, by break­ing the last into two. The division of the Decalogue, if it were a point of great mo­ment, might be cleared on the Protestants side, as more agreeable to the greater part of Antiquity, and more rational in it self. For though Aug. de decem chor­dis, & qu. [...]1. in Ex­od. St. August. with some few others liked the former division, into three and seven: conceiting three in the first table (which prescribes the worship of God) suitable to the three persons in Trinity: yet Romanists have another and more dangerous reason, because they see it more suitable to their image-worship, to make the first and second Command­ment but one, and forbidding only an Idol or false God, and to be rendred in [Page 76]brief, Thou shalt make to thy self no idol. Therefore this Author, pa. 119. and 121. where he gives the summe of the Com­mandment, would have the strange God in our first Commandment, and the gra­ven image in our second, to be all one. But if we consider the Heathen Deities or strange Gods were idols, and their pray­ing or sacrificing to them Ʋt supra, Nu. 3. without an image, was idolatry, according to the first Commandment; so also the wor­shipping of their images, yea, the wor­shipping of the true God by an image, is another sort of idolatry by our second Commandment forbidding the graven image. The worship also which the Turks give their Mahomet (I hope our Romanists will say) is forbidden by Gods Law here: yet do they not worship him as a God, but at his Tomb, (and there­fore the thing forbidden must not be re­strained to a false God as he would have it;) nor do they worship him by any gra­ven image, for they have no representa­tions or likenesses of things: therefore it is fit that our second commandment, which forbids such should stand divided from the first. And for the last com­mandment which they break into two, and pretend a reason from the several ob­jects, Goods and wife: yet the unity of it [Page 77]rests upon the desire forbidden (in the word covet) let the object or thing cove­ted be what it will; therefore the Apostle renders the commandment by that one word, non concupisces, thou shalt not co­vet, Rom. 7.7. And God himself has so disposed the words of this command­ment, Exod. 20. that he has put the not coveting of a neighbours wife (which they make the ninth commandment) into the midst of their tenth commandment; put­ting before and after it the not coveting of his goods, which shews them but one commandment.

But enough of this. It is not the divisi­on of the Commandments that is so much to be stood upon, as the observing and keeping of them; did the Romanists hold this way of dividing the Decalogue, with the same simplicitie and uprightness that St. Aug. and some others with him did, we should not quarrel at it; but this we have cause to charge upon them, that in dividing they maim the Commandments, either by leaving out some material parts, as what concerns the graven image, like­ness, bowing down to it, and Gods jealousie against it, or by restraining the sense of them, as we have heard.

XIII Now he proceeds to give us the double respect, The pre­tended re­spects upon which wor­ship is gi­ven to Ima­tes. under which they give reverence and worship to images, pa. 124. But it is in vain to shew in what respect they give, if the Scripture exclude it. First he pre­tends it is but such a reverence as is given to holy things dedicated or tending to the worship of God: and in this respect (saith he) we give them no more ho­nour or worship then Protestants do to Churches, pa. 129. This is too remiss and comes short of their worshipping and ser­ving of images. For we worship not holy things used in Gods service, but use them reverently with difference from common things; also sometimes they determine our worship (we give to God) circum­stantially, ad hic & nunc, for the perform­ing it then and that way: not objectively receive it; but who can without shame make images, holy things dedicated, or tending to Gods service, when there is such caution in Scripture against that dan­ger? Or affix a special presence of God to them? For this would be what the grosser sort of Heathens conceited of their images: yet does this Author alledge for the worship of their images, that reve­rence which the ground had as made ho­ly by the presence of God, Exod. 3.9. where in token and acknowledgement of [Page 79]that presence, shoes were to be put off. The presence of Patriarch, Prophet, or Saint made not the ground or place holy where they stood themselves: much less can the representation of them in or by an image, render that image holy, and to require our reverence and worship.

XIV His second respect is, because of their representing the thing to which the wor­ship is conveyed, pa. 125. and is not a­shamed to argue (but he learnt it from his Master the Cardinal) from the necessi­ty of the inward image or representation we have in our mind of the thing to be worshipped, to prove the conveniency of an outward image to help our imagina­tion — and to help us to think of God, pa. 126. That outward images and represen­tations may help our imagination in con­ceiving of the object, yea, and raise our affections, Philosophy tells us: but in the act of worshipping God, the danger of using images is great, least they possess our mindes and carry away what belongs to the thing represented; as St. Aug. on Psalm 113. shews how hard it is for him that prayes, beholding an image (such is the manner in the Church of Rome) to keep his mind from thinking, the image heareth and helpeth him; where also he tells us that the Heathens who would [Page 80]seem to be of a more refined religion, Use of in ages. Qui vi­dentur sibi purgationis esse Religio­nis: di [...]unt, simulachrum non colo utc Damonium: sed per offi­ [...]iem co [...]po­ralem, ejus rei signum intueor quod colore debeo. August. in Psalm 113. al­ledged in excuse of their worship such respects as these, of helping and fixing the imagination, and conveying the worship to the thing represented. We allow not only the historical use of images, but in some sort the affective also: yet that on­ly as to meditation and preparation; not for or in the exercise of prayer or wor­ship: much less to be the medium or in­strument of coveying the worship; here­by images in the Church of Rome become great stumbling blocks to the people that are not capable of the nice distinctions and limitations, which their learned ones are fain to use in defence of this image­worship.

XV Again he seeks warrant for his holy images as things that put us in mind of God, Bowing at name of Je­sus no pre­rence for Image­worship. from our bowing at the name of Jesus: and is so courteous as to say; what reverence a Protestant would judge to be given to that name printed or ingraven: let him say the like may be given to any image of our Sa­viour, and no more will be required, so he pa. 128. But a Protestant may say; first, if he bow at the name of Jesus, he has a Text will bear him out, Phil. 2.10. which cannot be said of doing so to an image: Secondly, he may say, that the adoration done at the name of Jesus in [Page 81]our holy offices, is given to Christ only as the object, but is circumstantially deter­mined ad nunc, by or at the naming of him, that is, such worship is given to Christ at the hearing of that name, or when he is named: and if upon sight of that name printed or engraven, any man worship Christ, then is that name the oc­casional motive of his worship; now as for an image as it may not be the object of worship (in which point the Romanists do require more then a Protestant can yield) so it may be the occasional motive of wor­ship, as should a man upon sight of a Cru­cifix worship the Lord Christ, lifting up his heart, putting off hat, and bowing; and in that we may say the image deter­mines the worship circumstantially as to the nunc, the time (worship being given upon the sight of it) but should not de­termine it ad hic, to do it towards the image, for fear of making it any object of the worship, or medium in conveying the worship to the thing it representeth, and minded us of; and in all this there is no more of worship done to the image, then there would be to an iron chain, which he, that was bound with it in his captivity, looking upon, takes occasion to remem­ber Gods mercy in his deliverance, and so worships God uncovering his head and bowing.

XVI Again, he seeks pretence for his holy Image-worship, Kneeling at Communi­on no pre­tence for it. from our kneeling at the Communion: that if we say we afford any reverence to the sacred signes, it must be religious, and then (saith he) I have my intent, pa. 130, 131. This seems to be fairly spoken; but here's the cunning: to go very low in their doctrinal conces­sions, but still hold up the practice, for there they may easily exceed and extend it as occasion requires. But first, reve­rence speaks less then adoration or worship; far less then that adoration, which is al­lowed in the Church of Rome to images.

Secondly, we do not make our kneeling at the Communion a signe or profession of that reverence we have towards the holy signes: there being other reasons of it. But we express our reverence towards them, by handling them duly as be­comes such holy things, using them only in that holy administration: taking or­der with the remainder, that no unde­cent usage happen unto them; all wor­ship and adoration that is performed in the use of them, is given to God: and not belongs any way to them but only cir­cumstantially, in as much as it is done towards them; because that which they represent and convey unto us, is the great motive of our worship and adoration [Page 83]But thirdly, what boldness is this, by the reverence due to the sacred sacramental signes instituted of God, to challenge like reverence to images invented by man, Images not capable of the reve­rence due to holy things. and not capable of that holy use? They have a kind of relation to the thing represented, such as arises from representation, which is the weakest relation: not such as arises from dedication to holy use, of which, as I said, images are not capable; being such things as God will not accept of, if dedi­cated to worship: and therefore not ca­pable of that reverence which belongs to holy things piously dedicated by man: much less of that which holy things insti­tuted by God may expect; and yet much less capable of that honour and adoration, which is allowed in the Church of Rome. And what if this Author saith, he has his in­tent, as satisfied with so slender a reve­rence to be given to his holy images? It behoves them to speak and write warily of such points in English: but which of their Latine controversie-writers would or could say, he had his intent, if no more were yielded then this Author pretends to be satisfied with? There being two re­spects upon which (as the Romish writers dispute it) worship is held due to images: either propterse for their own sakes, as a reverence is due to holy things, or propter [Page 84]exemplar for the things sake which they represent: Bel. lib. de Enagin. c. the Cardinal disputes honour and worship is due to them in both res­pects, and so could not have his intent, if only a reverence were given to them, such as is to holy things dedicated: though in­deed they are not capable of so much; as was said before; nor would Azorius (though disagreeing with the Cardinal) have his intent: who casting off the first respect (as deserving little or no honour) holds only to the second. [...] part. 1. Instit. mo. l. 9. c. 6. qu. 9. Dupli­ [...]i honore non coli [...]ur Ima­ [...]— The image (saith he) is not worshipped with a double, but one single honour, and that for the ex­emplars sake— and that honour is the wor­ship of Latria, if to the image of Christ; of Hyperdulia, if to the image of the blessed Virgine; and of Dulia if to the images of the Saints. This is down-right, and scarcely can be excused from idolatry, even in the opinion of the Cardinal, Bel. l. de [...]mag. c. 24. pas­sing his judgement upon that doctrine, which yields Latriam to the Image for the exemplars sake.

Let us now hear what St. Instrumenta in usum ad­ministran­dorum sacra­memorum. Aug. saith to the Allegation (such as Mr. Spencer made) of things dedicated to holy use, as about the Sacrament. He shews a difference between them and images, as to this point of reverence. For albeit, (saith he) they be made of the same mettal, and are [Page 85] work of mens hands, as images are, —quo ipso ministerio consecrata— in ejus hono­re, cui pro sa­lute nostra inde servi­tur. yet by that ministry those vessels are consecra­ted, and call'd holy, in his honour, to whom for our salvation we do service by them. And it is not said of them as of images, they have eyes and see not, mouths and speak not — this he adds to shew the danger of images (by reason of their representation) when used in holy duties: for as he saith there, — Valet in affectibus miserorum, &c. Aug. in Psalm 113. the form of the image, like to one having life, much prevails upon the affections of silly men; and more to this purpose this Father hath there; which see added below in trial of Antiquity, Chap. of Images.

XVII One plea more he has, and it is fetched from, Rev. 13.15, 16. Image of the beast made an ar­gument for Image-wor­ship. which speaks of worshipping the image of the beast: where­upon he argues to this purpose. If wor­ship of the image tend to his honour, that is represented by it, (as is evident by that place;) and it be lawful to do all that tends to the honour of our Saviour, then the worship of his image and so of all the Saints is lawful, pa. 133. As if he should reason thus; if the Devil or Antichrist or that accursed thing (as he calls it) will have, and takes it for an honour to have his image worshipped; then is it so with Christ or God; who saith notwithstand­ing I am a jealous God — And albeit the [Page 86]reverence done to the Emperours image tends to his honour, because this is but civil respect, of conveying which the image is capable; yet is it far otherwise in this religious worship; for there the representation of God or Christ or Saint by images for worship, is like the stamp­ing of the Kings image upon adulterate money without his leave: which is so far from passing currant among his subjects, or that he takes it for his honour, that he will command it, notwithstanding his image on it, to be defaced and cut in pie­ces. Again it is too unreasonable for him, either to take image in that place of Rev. 13. for such a material representation we speak of; or to draw the argument from that image of the beast, to such material representations; (much like the argu­ments their Nicen Council makes for wor­shipping these material images, from what some Fathers had spoken of worship­ping Christ as the image of the Father:) In that place of the Revel. is meant one power, state and government, which for likeness may be call'd the image of the former: and it is probable, that image speaks some state among Christians, that shall imitate or be like the first beast or Heathen Rome: and I know not wherein one can be like the other, more then in [Page 87]erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image­worship, 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.

XVIII 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.

I 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 [Page 89]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.

II 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 [Page 90]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, [Page 91]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 [Page 92]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.

III 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 and disposed by the motion of his will. It implies that which I said, and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justifica­tion by faith alone, for it condemns him that saith, a wicked man to be justified by faith alone, so that he means, there is none of these required.

II. These works or workings of the soul, are preparatory and dispositive to Justification, for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before, desire, fear, love, sorrow, purposes, (which may be call'd Initials) upon the ministry of the word, the threatnings and the promises: as before child-bearing many throws, so in the travail of the soul, for the second birth: Faith it self rises by degrees of persuasions (for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith) till it come to that last act, (that believing with the whole heart) immediately requisite to Justificati­on. Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence, for it gives beginning to them; for by the per­suasions that faith has (of those threats and promises in the Gospel, Preemi­nence of faith in them. and of all the truths of Christs performances and me­rits) arise desires and fears, sorrow, love, the motions of the heart or will, and these Initials advance, and gather strength, ac­cording to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and perswasions; for this the Trent Council, acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of mans salva­tion, the foundation and root of Justifica­tion. Chap. 8. this is well said, in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works, had they but gi­ven [Page 94]to it, its due in the act of Justificati­on, that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the appre­hending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification, Christ and his righteousness. Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing: as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will, dispose himself to justifica­tion; the Trent Council condemns such doctrine, Can. 3.

III III. There are other acts and works also besides faith, Conditions and qualifi­cations, in Justificati­on. which according to their measure are required in Justificati­on, as conditions of receiving remission of sins; so repentance, and the act of charity in forgiving others. But Faith here also has the preeminence, no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause: and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul, as those of Repen­tance and Charity according to their mea­sure, be required as conditions of recei­ving the benefit, Preemi­nence of faith. which is remission of sins, or as qualifications of the subject that receives it; yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritori­ous cause of justification and remission, as faith is: for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith.

IV IIII. As for that infused inherent Righteousness, Inherent Righteous­ness. which the Church of Rome laies so much upon in the point of our Justification, seeing it is the Work of God, as they acknowledge, it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works: and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification, when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification, as a necessary qualifi­cation of the person Justified: A needless dispute it is, what should be the formal cause of our Justification, seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides.

But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other then Christs righteous­ness as imputed, Formal Cause. and by faith apprehen­ded, and made ours; for that phrase of the Apostle, he is made unto us righteous­ness, 1 Cor. 1.30. and we made the righteousness of God in him, sounds some­thing to a formal cause, not inherent, but by way of imputation and account: not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it, but that for his righte­ousness performed for us, he not only for­gives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith, but accounts of them, receives them as righteous. Therefore instead of asking after the formal cause in us, more [Page 96]proper it is to enquire according to the Apostles expression (Ro. 4.13. it was counted to him for righteousnes & v. 23. it shall be imputed to us.) what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness, i. e. upon which being performed on our part, God receives accounts of us as righteous? We finde by the Apostle it is our believing, for it was so with Abraham, He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness: not the Tò Credere the very act of believing, but more concretely considered with that which it appre­hends, the receiving of what is offered in the promise, Christ and his righteous­ness.

V. Lastly, as for those that are com­monly call'd good works, which being done in the state of grace are more per­fect then the former (such as were prepa­ratory, and dispositive to justification, or according to their measure required in Justification, as Conditional to the remis­sion of sins given in it.) Those good works I say, are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works; yet is not the first justification by these works, for they follow it; Our Adver­saries when put to it, do grant it, and draw the whole dispute (as we see by this Author) to that which they call the second [Page 97]Justification of which if they will make no more then (as I hinted above) their Coun­cil makes of it: we might here sit down, having the cause yeilded up to us; but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people, Justified by works, and in their disputes for it, to confound the first and second Justification, using places of Scri­pture, which treat of the first, or true and proper Justification, as we shall see in ex­amining of them.

This Author begins with S. James. 2.24. which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position, that Faith only does not Justify: where it is our turn now to ob­serve his mistakes. Should we therefore demand, what justification is this that S. James treats of, first or second? he must confess his impertinency: for the Apostle here treats of the first, the true and proper Justification, and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free, and not by works; now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justi­fication which S. James and S. Paul treats of, and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3. Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness; But it is plain that S. Paul [Page 98]every where treats of the first and proper Justification; The other example also that S. James makes use of, (viz. of Rahab) plainly speaks the first Justification. And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men; to prove that S. James speaks of true inter­nal Justification before God, does but prove what we allow, and what makes a­gainst himself, who must acknowledge a man is truly justified before God before he does such works.

Seeing then this is the first Justification which S. James intends, and that as both they and we say, is not by works: this cannot without gross mistake and imper­tinency be objected (as it is by them) a­gainst us; but they and we are both of us concerned to reconcile the seeming contrariety between the two Apostles. As for the distinction of Justification be­fore God, and before men (albeit there may be a several consideration of Justifi­cation to that purpose, and good works do declare a man Justified, and (as I may say) do justify his faith, yet) we need not here make use of it; but the purpose of S. Iames in writing this Epistle does direct us rather to a several consideration of Faith or believing: for when he de­nies [Page 99]a man to be justified by faith alone: he speaks not of a lively working faith, (to which S. Paul attributes justification) but of a bare and seeming faith, in pro­fession only, and (as to good works) dead and barren, such as they rested in against whom he writes. This is plain by S. James his subjoyning v. 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abra­ham believed &c. how could the Apostle bring this Scripture (the same that S. Paul does for justifying faith Rom. 4.3.) in confirmation of what he saith of works, but to shew, that Abrahams faith which justified him, was a working faith?

VI Now if the Romanists conceive them­selves less concerned (for fear of the for­mer truth) to labour in the clearing of the contrariety which seems to be be­tween the Apostles; Romanists confound their First and Second Justificati­on. and think it more popular, and for their advantage, to cry up S. James his bare words of justification by works: we cannot help it; but must only note their wilfull mistake and imper­tinency, in so eagerly urging S. Iames, who speaks of the first justification. Mr. Spencer indeed promises pa. 148. to reconcile the two Apostles: but does it so, as neither of them will be reconciled to his second justification; as we shall see by examining the places of S. Paul, [Page 100]which he insists on, to shew the Prote­stants mistaken: but first take notice of what he saith here upon occasion of the former Text of S. Iames. Iustified by good works, working with faith, and per­fecting it, informing and vivificating it, as S. James describes them here, p. 148. This is not only impertinent but guilty of falshood, belying the Apostle; for first he said not, [...] Ja. 2.22. that works wrought with faith, but that his faith wrought with his works. Secondly, Albeit the Apostle saith, by works was faith made perfect, yet does he not therefore describe works as informing and vivificating it; for here is no other per­fection meant, then what the effect brings to the Agent, fruit to the tree, operation to the power or virtue from which it is; as every thing that is made for use, or­dained to practice and operation, is then said to be made perfect and consummate, when it comes to working; but this is far from informing or vivificating it; he may as well say the breath which proceeds from the life of the body (its S. Iames his similitude v. 26.) does inform and vivisi­cate it; In like manner good works do not inform, or give life to faith, but re­ceive from it: proceeding from it as ef­fects, and fruits: the whole chapter Heb. 11. shews it, speaking the effects of faith, [Page 101]even of Abrahams here mentioned. And that which this Author pa. 143. gathers from his Trent Council, speaks plainly (as we noted above) that men are freely justified, and then do good works: And this shews his impertinency, for they re­quire (fidem formatam) faith informed, for the first justification, how then by works that follow? and his inadvertency in again crossing their own doctrine, for they say, Faith is informed by charity infu­sed in the first justification: how then by works that come after?

Now for the Places out of S. Paul, which he insists on to shew the Prote­stants mistaken. The first is,

Rom. 3.28.

Without the works of the Law.

Here, and in all such places which ex­clude the works of the Law: he will have Protestants mistaken in the undestanding of the works of the Law: Because by the Law is understood, that which is written in the books of Moses both Moral and Ce­remonial, and by works of the Law, Saint Paul understands such works as are done by force and knowledge of the Law, before the faith of Christ is infused into the soul, or that it is enlightned, and assisted by his [Page 102]grace, pa. 149, &c. It is true that the Law is often so taken: but when the Apostle excluds works of the Law in relation to Abrahams justification, it cannot refer to Moses Law after given and written. But the speech by faith and not by works, comes to this issue: no man can be justified by do­ing or working according to the Law he is under: Not Abraham by the works of the Law then; Not Jews by the works, of the Law then, the Law of Moses: Not Christians by works, or by doing what they are bound to do, by the Law and Commandements which they are un­der; But by reason of their many failings in those works and doings, they must stand by faith apprehending Christs obe­dience and satisfaction, to bear them out against the sentence of the Law, or Gods judgment.

And it is true also, that the Apostle sometimes takes the works of the Law for such as are done by force and knowledge of the Law, before the faith of Christ, &c. as when he speaks of such as sought righte­ousness by the works of the Law without Christ; but we cannot think the Apo­stle excludes works of the Law, i. e. such as are done before grace (as this Author saith) from justifying, to admit works done in grace into their stead for justifi­cation: [Page 103]nor think, that as Pharisees sought it by the former works and mist of it, Rom. 9.31. so the Romanists may seek it by the latter sort of works, and finde it; for Rom. 10.3, 4, 5, 6, 9. he sets the righteousness of the Law and of faith simply one against the other: neither can the righteousness of faith be imagined to be any righteousness of our working. Observe farther what this Author saith pa. 150. that Rom. 3. v. 20. is added By the law is the knowledge of sin, which is a reason wherefore such works as are done by the knowledge of the Law only, cannot justify; from whence we likewise infer; If by the Law is the knowledge of sin, and the Law still convinces those that are un­der grace, of sin: they cannot be justified by their works before God: David and holy men in his time had the same way of justification as we (notwithstanding they were under Moses Law) who when they were justified and in grace, were concer­ned to acknowledge. If God would be ex­treme to mark what is done amiss, who could abide it, or stand? Psal. 130. and to pray, Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified: Psal. 143.2. that is, if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does. The latter part of the [Page 104]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 [Page 105]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.

VIII 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; [Page 106]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 [Page 107]them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteous­ness, but its 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 [Page 108]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.

IX 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 [Page 109]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 by good works, which was some­what more absurd: for charity receives life from faith, arising and advancing ac­cording to the apprehensions that faith has of the goodness and mercy of God, and his several manifestations of it: and therefore S. Paul saith it worketh by cha­rity, Gal. and note, that all his proof for this informing or vivificating of saith by charity, is S. Iames his saying, that Abrahams faith was made perfect by works; wherein (as I noted Ibid. above) ap­pear both the falshood of his interpreta­tion, and the impertinency of his argu­ment, for works belong to his second justification, but that informing of faith by charity is supposed to be done in the first. A working faith it is that S. Iames requires, and so do we, to justification, a believing with the whole heart, as Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.37. a faith that engages the whole heart in receiving Christ, not only for the be­nefits of his merits and participation of his righteousness, but also for obedience to his command, and performance of [Page 110]every Christian duty. Such was Abrahams faith or believing (to which his justificati­on is ascribed) the acts of it were pure acts of faith: though virtually including works, because a readiness to do works of every kinde, or obey any of Gods commands. Lastly, Albeit such a faith justifies; as gaining at present remission of sins past, and giving a right to the heavenly in­heritance, yet no man shall gain finall justification, and absolution if he con­tinue not in doing good works, i. e. if his faith continue not to work, as A­brahams did. And this is that S. Iames intended by propounding Abrahams ex­ample for works, not denying his justi­fication by faith, but urging it was such a faith or believing, that continu­ed working, by fuitable obedience to every command of God.

CHAP. V. Of the Merit of good works.

I THe Council of Trent has defined, The notion and reason of merit. that good works do (verè mereri) tru­ly merit increase of grace, and eternal life, but neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer, tells us wherein the reason of merit stands, that we might know what it is they con­tend for, when they speak of a work truly meritorious. Many fair acknowledge­ments their Council makes, as of the free grace, mercy, promise of God, merits of Christ: Sess. 6. c. 16. which Mr. Spen­cer calls the grounds of merits pa. 162. But if they stand to this, we have the cause yeilded to us; and nothing left but a verbal controversy: for those former particulars are so far from being grounds of our meriting truly and properly, that they directly overthrow it. One would have thought that the verè mereri our tru­ly meriting, should imply all the condi­tions requisite to merit truly and proper­ly taken; and that the doctrine of con­dignity, or merit upon worth of the work, (which the men of Mr. Spencers society [Page 112]generally contend for) should be the sense of the Councils definition: but that Council was wiser then to speak too plain in this point, in which there is so great difference amongst them, and therefore may seem to content both par­ties: the one with this verè mereri [...] truly merit, and the other dissenting party with the former acknowledgments of free grace, mercy, promise, Christs merits, as grounds of merit; And Mr. Spencer may remember of what society he is, and how most of his Fellows speak out, and say, The righteous merit eternal life by their good works, even as the wicked do eternal death by their evil works; this is plain and home to a (verè mereri) truly meriting: however he minces it at the beginning, with professions of free grace, divine acceptation, and promise, as pa. 164, 165. Well notwithstanding all the fair proressions they make (when put to it) such indeed as overthrow merit truly taken, yet will they hold the name and thing of mans meriting eternal life, and so propound it grosly to the peo­ple. They know best how it concerns them.

II By reason of such general concessions of their Council, Goodworks acceptable to God. he will have some words in our 22. Article, to favour merit of good [Page 113]works: because it saith, they are pleasing and acceptable unto God in Christ. From whence he infers. 1. Then are they no way sinfull but truly and absolutely good and just, for no sin can be pleasing to God in Christ, pa. 167. But this is too carlessly spoken, for if absolutely good (say we) then had there been no need to have ad­ded, in Christ: such works would been pleasing and acceptable of themselves. We say also, good works are truly good and just, but not absolutely so: they are not sins, but something sinfull may stick to them in the performance: some im­perfections, and defects, some mixture of by-respects and glances at self-interest; yet because they are good, both for sub­stance, and for manner of performance, as to the chief respects, and motives, up­on which they are done: they are truly good, though not absolutely; for which the Article saith, they cannot endure the severity of Gods judgment; Not that God accepts those sinfull imperfections or ac­crescencies (as he would infer upon us) but pardoning and over-looking them in Christ, he accepts the good works. And what else is the cause that they acknow­ledge it so hard for a man to know he has merits, (upon which Tutissimum est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei miseri­cordia repo­nere. De justific. l. 5. c. 7. Bellar. concludes it most safe to put our whole confidence in [Page 114]Gods mercy only) what but defects and im­perfections which are less perceptible, when the works themselves are notorious enough? 2. He infers, seeing such good works have the promises annexed to them, and shall be rewarded in Christ: they are truly meritorious in Christ, ha­ving such a supernatural goodness in them, The confor­mity of good works to the Re­ward. conformable to that heavenly re­ward: and this is all which is taught by the Church of Rome in this point. So he pa. 168. This is the most he speaks to the reason of merit, or why works are meri­torious: viz. Reward and Conformity; but the first, Reward upon the free pro­mise (as he affirms it to be) takes away more from the reason of merit, then the latter (which is Conformity) can adde un­to it: for that conformity (if our works or sufferings be weighed or examined with the weight of glory) falls short by infinite degrees, 2 Cor. 4.17. Rom. 8.17. A conformity we grant between good works and the reward, as between grace and glory, the way or means and the end; but it must be equality in worth and value that makes merit; And that Conformity or Equality, (were it to be had) is but one of the things requisite to make truly meritorious; there are other conditions; as that the service be of our [Page 115]own, not his enabling us, of whom we are said to merit, also that the service be not of antecedent duty to the Compact, also that the reward be (though by com­pact, yet) not out of free promise and li­berality. Seeing then the matter stands clean otherwise between God and man, as appears by the former concessions of free grace for the performance, of free acceptation of it unto reward, of free and liberal promise in appointing the reward: the service or work cannot be truly meri­torious.

III And certainly these considerations did and still do cause diverse in the Church of Rome, to decline this truly meritorious, Against me­rit of con­dignity in goodworks. or merit of Condignity, as we may gather by the Bel. l. 5. de justific. c. 16. sect. quod attinet. Cardinal acknowledging it of Tho. Waldens. And of P. Brugens, who would have them call'd meritorious, not ex condigno of condignity, but ex gratia Dei tantum, only of the grace of God, which is the ancient notion of the word meriting, as it signifies the obtain­ing of the reward, through the grace and liberal promise of God; and speaking of Durand, he saith, that the same argu­ments that fight against the Hereticks, fought against his judgment in this point; Bel. de Just. l. 5. c. 17. sect. Al [...]j contra. Also of Scotus and other Schoolmen, and of Viega, that they held good works [Page 116] meritorious only ratione pacti, in regard of Gods compact and promise, not rati­one operis, for the worthof the work, which falls in with the former: so that the Cardinal finds only this difference be­tween the Lutheran doctrine, and theirs: They hold good works verè bona & non peccata, truly good and not sins, which the Lutherans did not: That we grant them truly good and not sins was said above. But this satisfies not the Cardi­nal, and therefore chap. 18. endeavours to prove them meritorious ex condigno, not only ratione promissionis, because of the promise assuring the reward, but ra­tione operis, because of the worth of the work it self: and fears not to affirm, that God is made our Debtor, Non sola pro missione, sed etiam ex o­pere nostro, Deus effici­tur Debitor. Bel. ibid cap. 18.not only by virtue of his promise, but also by reasonof our work. This I note, to shew, how the reason of verè mereri, truly to merit, does force from the Cardinal, (who strives to defend it) such affirmations, and from others (who did not see how merit could be properly between God and man) such concessions and yeilding up of the Cause. For this being agreed according to former Concessions, First, What is required to make a work truly meritori­ous, and then what man receives of Gods free grace to enable him for working, [Page 117]and how man stands indebted to God, the controversy is at an end; all their proofs fall short, as not (ad idem) to the point: all our proofs from Scripture stand good, against merit properly ta­ken, and the mistakes Mr. Spencer would fasten on us, appear frivolous, as we shall now see.

The first place he sets down, as alledged by us is. Rom. 8.18. The sufferings of t his present time, are not worthy to be compared with the glory.

IV Nothing here (saith he) against merit. Why so? because, Goodworks produce e­ternal life but not, ex condigno. as a grain of mustard-seed, is not to be compared with the great bulk it bears, yet it produces it: so do suf­ferings—the fair tree of life—as Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4.17. This flourish of a si­militude in transferring things Physical to Moral, neither proves nor answers any thing Controversal: Again, it comes not home, speaking only to the word Compared, whereas the force is in the ( [...]) not worthy, which in com­paring things Moral, as the work and the reward, is mainly considerable; so is here a great deal of difference between Physical or Natural productions, and [Page 118] Moral. For we grant that the small suf­ferings of this life, may produce or work (as S. Paul saith there) in their way and measure, a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory: but if this Author will have it any thing to the reason of merit, he must affirm, that sufferings and good works do produce it veritate insitâ, by their own virtue and worth, as that seed doth the bulk (which comes of it) by its own inbred vertue.

The next place is Luc. 17.10. When ye have done all— say, Ʋnprofi­table servants, we have done that which was our duty.

V The mistake here he imputes to us, is, because we will have merit excluded here, Unprofita­ble servants in respect of God. by this acknowledgment of doing but our duty, and being unprofitable. Why then (saith he) deserves a servant his Wages, by doing his duty and nothing else? pa. 169. Because duty of a servant does not ex­clude merit or desert, for the servant is not bound to that duty antecedently, or before his voluntary compact or Cove­nant with his Master, as man stands bound to God. Neither does the Ma­ster supply the Servant with life, health, ability: these the servant brings with [Page 119]him, and therefore may be said to merit or deserve his wages, though his service was duty after covenant with his Master. It is not so between God and Man. For the acknowledgment of being Ʋnprofita­ble servants; Who (saith he) can bring profit to God? hence is only proved that God is no way beholden to us, but we owe to him for all our good works, (this is good Catholick doctrine, but contrary to what his Master the Cardinal saith, as Num. 2. above cited, and directly overthrowing the v [...]re mereri, the merit of works in any proper sense, for if we owe to him for all our good works, as we do, because he ena­bles us to do them by his grace, how can we merit properly by those works at his hands?) therefore we are all to humble our selves before him, and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts, and the reward bestowed on them, grounded on his free promise, and acceptation of them, for the merits of Christ, so he pa. 169. This is good doctrine again, but still contradi­ctory to merit: for if his gifts, then not our merits; if reward upon free pro­mise, and divine acceptation, then are not our works truly meritorious of such reward. Nor will such concessions which Truth and shame forces from you, salve the matter, whilst your doctrine delivered [Page 120]in Gross, teaches to plead merit, and to place confidence in it; that is, to be proud of your own works, and to excuse it by saying, Thou O Lord hast given me to be confident, and think thus well of my doings; Thou O Christ hast me­rited that I should merit. That saying, Our Merits are his Gifts, though it be S. Augustines: yet as used by you, toge­ther with your other sayings, do no more witness you humble in this point, then the Pharisee was, who said, God I thank thee, &c. yet all the while was proud and conceited of what he had done, and so returned unjustified; nay he did not, as we can gather, adde the conceit of merit to his doings, and therefore more justifi­able then a Romanist, holding the doctrin of Works truly meritorious, and accor­dingly trusting in them.

The next place is, Rom. 6.23. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

VI Here he will have us mistaken in the word Wages, Life eternal the gift of God exclu­ding merit. and gift misapplied by us: Why so? because [...] which is rendred Wages, signifies the base stipend of common Souldiers, but [...] which is rendred gift, signifies a donative, a more noble [Page 121]reward anciently given to them that had carried themselves more valiantly, thus pa. 171. thence he will have the true meaning of the Text to be, the base re­compense of sin is death, but the high and noble reward of God is life eternal, pa. 172. But first, who taught him to render the true meaning of Scripture, by such signi­fications of the word, as the Scripture does not own, for where can he finde in Scripture the word Charisma to signify such a Donative, Charisma free gift. but alwayes the free gift of God? his own Latine edition renders it gratia Dei, the grace i. e. free favour or gift of God. Again, be it so, that the Apostle (whose purpose is to shew the different reward of sins service, and Gods) had some reflexion that way of stipend and Donative among Souldiers, its but verbal, an using of like words, not affording any plea or answer in this point: when we speak of Gods gift or donative.

For first, If Souldiers could pretend any merit for a donative, it was for some special service above duty; or of custom upon the succession of a new Prince: and then it was [...], a gift, rather then, [...] a free gift, such as that word in Scripture-use signifies, and such as Gods gifts and rewards to us are.

Secondly, Souldiers have not from the Emperour (that so rewards or gratifies them) the strength, courage, and valour which he so rewards in them; but this Donative of Gods gift implies such noti­ons of grace (free grace, for the perfor­mance of the service, free grace for the acceptation of the service, free grace in the promise of the reward) as exclud all merit.

At length he begins to yeild to the true signification of the word [...], If we take the word (saith he) for a pure free gift, we may answer with S. Augustine and the Council of Trent, that because the good works and merits themselves are the free gifts of God: so also the glory of hea­ven, which is deserved by them, is called truly a gift; also because the primary ti­tle and right which all Gods children have to eternal life, is that of inheritance, which is the free gift of eternal life, may be pro­perly called the gift of God. 172. Thus does his answers and concessions which truth forces from him, overthrow the doctrine of merit properly taken. For if eternal life is called properly the gift of God, and our good works be the free gifts of God, then cannot they in any proper sense be truly meritorious of eter­nal life. And because he mentioned Saint August. take his sense of this Text. [Page 123] Cum possit dicerectrecle dicere, sti­pendium ju­stitiae vita aeterna, ma­luit dicere, gratia Dei vita aeterna, ut intelligeremus, non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam, sed pro sua miseratione perducere. Aug. de gratia & lib. Arbitrio cap. 9. Whereas the Apostle might say, and say it truly, the wages of righteousness is life eternal, he chose rather to say, the gift of God is life eternal, that we might understand, how God brings us to eternal life, not for our merits, but for his mercies sake.

Another place is Eph. 2.8, 9. Saved by Grace not by works, least any should boast.

VII He gives here the Answer we had above in the point of justification, The Grace of God ex­cludeth me­rit properly taken. That these works are such as are done before Justifi­cation of Grace, distinguished from the good works of the Regenerate, of whom it is said v. 10. Created to good works: so he p. 170. True they are to be distinguish­ed: but here the opposition stands be­tween Works and Grace, not only in re­gard of Justification, but even to the last, Salvation, and with a denial of merit, which is here boasting; so Rom. 4.4. to him that worketh, &c. he directly shews that meriting by works (which challenges the reward as of debt,) is ex­cluded by grace in the way of salvation; so that if any man will merit by works, [Page 124]he must do them of himself: according to the condition of the Legal Covenant; but if he must come into the way of grace, to stand in need of a Redeemer, for for­giveness of sins past, for a supply of free grace for performance of good works for divine acceptation of his performances through the merits of that Redeemer, he is clean out of the road of meriting, or challenging the reward as debt, in any proper sense.

And therefore how vain are their pret­ty sayings for evasions, That our merits are his gifts; That they merit through the merits of Christ, or that Christ has meri­ted that we should merit: and that good works are meritorious through divine ac­ceptation: All which speaks contradiction or folly. For to say Christ has merited that we should merit, is to acknowledge we are indebted to God, for giving his Son to die for our sins, and for his pur­chasing or meriting the first grace for us; but then that we enabled thereby, should begin to make God and our Saviour en­debted to us, in the reward of eternal life. Christ indeed has merited that we should not be bound to merit, that is, to obtain salvation by our merits, or per­formance of exact obedience by our selves, according to the Legal Covenant. [Page 125]Again, he has merited that we might be under grace, and so perform good works, created unto good works. To say that Christ has merited that we should merit, or that God accepts our works as truly merito­rious, is to alledge that for the merit of works, which excludes it: To obtain the reward by works, because they are done in Grace, or of grace, is sense; but to merit by works, because done in or by grace is folly and contradiction.

VIII He proceeds to prove the Catholick Po­sition, as he calls it. That the works of the Regenerate are such, as can deserve Heaven: where it is our turn again to observe his mistakes in the places of Scripture, which he brings to prove his Catholick Position. The argument from them is altogether inconsequent to prove a deserving of heaven in any proper sense of merit.

His places are, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. God is righteous in rewarding, yet works are not me­ritorious. where­in he will have the words, righteous or just judge, and [...], give or ren­der, and a Crown of righteousness to fa­vour his plea for merit; as if by these ex­pressions were implied, that God in ju­stice rewards, that he renders or restores, so he will have the importance of it p. 173. as if due before: that the reward is a Crown of justice, so he will have it, that is, [Page 126]saith he a true reward or price gotten by la­bour — Which appears saith he, by 1 Cor. 9.24. our running for it; and by 2 Cor. 4.17. by afflictions working for us an eternal glory— whence he gathers, if they work a Crown of glory, then are they a true cause of it, which cannot be but by merit, pa. 173. then to shew they are worthy of eternal life, he cites Revel. 3.4. for they are wor­thy: adding, Heb. 6.9. for God is not un­righteous to forget your work, which must imply the same as, the righteous judge will render, 2 Tim. 4.8.

If he will stand strictly on these words according to the reason of true merit, he overthrows his former true concessions of free grace, promise, acceptation: which also gives us the true meaning of these words or expressions, not such as he would draw out of them. For the free grace, which he and his Council yeilds, is given us for performance of the work, that is, of that fighting and running, and then cannot merit truly, what follows on it in the way of reward: also that free and liberal promise of the reward, in per­forming of which God is just and righte­ous to render the reward, the Crown of righteousness, will not suffer good works either to challenge the reward of Gods justice as due to the worth of the work, [Page 127]or to be true causes of eternal life by way of merit: they have their work and cau­sality, in their way or measure: Non causa regnandi sed via Regni. They are not the cause of reigning, but the way of or to the kingdome, saith a Father: Con­ditions of obtaining the promise, not true Causes, in the way of meriting it; we may adde, 1 Jo. 1.9. where God is said, to be just in forgiving our sins, in regard of his promise of it to them that perform the condition of it, confessing their sins. Lastly, that divine acceptation which Mr. Spencer and his Council do yeild, is that by which they are accounted worthy, Rev. 3.4. And we may note, that when the Scripture saith, not worthy, as Rom. 8. How said to be worthy. v. 18. and in other places saith, are wor­thy; the Negative must be taken proper­ly as to true value and worth; the affir­mative must be understood in some re­spect, are worthy as to Gods account and gracious acceptation. Also note that the Scripture saith, not worthy of our doings or sufferings, to shew they are so if ex­amined, compared with the reward; but saith, Worthy of the Persons, which argues its divine acceptation that makes them so, and then accepts their works also to the rewarding of them, though imperfect and unanswerable to it. See [Page 128]what this Author acknowledges pa. 175. All their merits are his gifts as S. August. saith, and rewarded, through the free acceptation of them through the merits of Christ.

IX To the Protestant argument of the Saints ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness, The best acknow­ledg unworthiness. he answers, that by this cannot be understood, that no just man hath any works truly good and pleasing to God, pa. 175. Neither do we understand or prove by unworthiness that they have no good works, but no merit in proper sense — So to Ps. 130.3. If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, who may abide it? This proves not, saith he, that no Saint has any good works or merits: for they do many things amiss, yet through the grace of Christ may do somethings aright, pa. 177. Good works and merits go for the same with this Au­thor, which is his perpetual mistake: and that which he grants, they do some things amiss, some things aright, shews good works may be where no merit is, i. e. where many things are done amiss: Me­rit cannot be where there is still need of pardon, where there is still need to beg, Lord enter not into judgment with thy servant, Psal. 143.2. that is, that God [Page 129]would not deal with him in extremity of judgment, or as he deserves: How then can any just person that needs divine acceptation for mercy and pardon of many things amiss in him, and again needs divine acceptation for his good works that they may be rewarded, not­withstanding they are accompanied with many things done amiss, and are in them­selves imperfect, — how can such a per­son by his works be said truly or in any proper sense to merit the reward of eter­nal life? There is a saying of S. Augustine, Multum no­bis in hac carne tribue­remus, si non us (que) ad ejus depofitionem sub venia viveremus.We should attribute too much to our selves in this flesh (or time of this life) if we did not live under Pardon to the very depositi­on of it, or to the end of our life. So then to conclude, as S. Augustine said, our merits are Gods gifts, which excludes merit à parte ante in the original of our works, because done by Gods free grace or gift, so was it a saying of an ancient Father, my merit is the mercy of God: which excluds merit à parte post, in the end when our works are admitted to the re­ward, because that is done through Gods mercifull acceptation.

CHAP. VI. Purgatory.

I OF the fower particulars which Mr. Spencer notes out of the Trent Council, The unrea­sonableness of Romish Purgatory. three of them speak their own unreasonableness, and carry their con­demnation in their forehead. 1. That just persons after they have (as they hold) merited heaven at Gods hand by their justice: and died acceptable to him, should go to a Purgatory to be tormen­ted. 2. That the mercifull God, after the Remission of their sin, after he had forgiven them for the all-sufficient satis­faction of his Son, should exact of them such extreme satisfaction or punishment, and that only for some remainder of tem­poral pains, not satisfied or born in this life: when as that punishment exceed­ingly goes beyond all that can be suffered in this life though never so long. 3. That the Church of Rome forbidding all tem­poral gain to be made of this doctrine of Purgatory, should notwithstanding suffer it daily to be done, where the poor must be [Page 131]content with the general suffrages of the Church, but the Rich that dy (and can pay for it) have many particular Masses, Indulgences in order to their ease or de­livery.

The places of Scripture here brought, in the sense of which he will have us mi­staken, are such as are intended for com­fort against sufferings in this life, and a­gainst dissolution or death, by the better­ing of their estate: but this doctrine makes all these miserable comforts, and his answers miserable (not only mistakes, but) wrestings of Scripture.

The first place is Revel. 14. Blessed are the Dead, who dy in the Lord— that they may rest from their labours, and their works follow them, or follow with them.

II The text saith not, they rest presently after death; that's his first exception: The pre­sent bles­sedness of them, that dy in the Lord. and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3. where the poor in spirit are called Blessed, and and yet in their misery: but blessed, be­cause the kingdome of heaven belonged to them, pa: 181. It is true, that hope in this life makes blessed: but the blessed­ness of the next life stands in fruition, ac­cording to the measures God has appoin­ted: [Page 132]But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed, but the reason, their dying in the Lord, and rest­ing from their Labours; for dying in the Lord, and sleeping in Christ are all one, and that sleeping does necessarily infer, that the Rest begins at death, as the sleep doth; and little comfort would it be, if they went not presently to Rest: for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life, to go to worse? again, that which enforces this presently is their works following them, that they follow them for reward, he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but present­ly, if the reason of giving the reward af­ter Labours cease, do not evince it, the expression here may, for it is not [...], follow them, which might be at some distance, but more then the translation expresses, it is [...] follow with them, that is immedi­ately: As Rev. 6.8. Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy, and Hades followed with him, [...], that is, immediately, as Hades, or the invisible state to which the soul goes, follows immediately upon death. More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death, in the next place of Scripture. His second [Page 133]exception is like the talking of a man in his dream; that we mistake the word Labours, which here is not taken saith he, for all labours, but the labours and persecutions of this life; or that they cease from their good works, pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours, then reason, and the comfort intended by this Text would in­fer, that those labours being at an end, the service performed, the reward should immediately follow; the warfare and combate being ended, some Prize or Crown should be received, and so indeed their works following them, or with them, does imply; but here instead of receiving reward, or rest, the Combatant that has laboured, and conquered, is carried to the house of Correction, delivered up to certain torments. And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must, and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after; then is the Romish Pur­gatory excluded, which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spo­ken for their comfort: and allows them no more in this Rest, then the wicked have when they dy, a freedome from the labours of this life, leaving them only hope of coming out after some time.

The next place is, 2 Cor. 5.1. For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven.

III Here again he tels us, we are mistaken, for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house, The same again pro­ved. pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house, must imply a present entring into the other or into some part of it: also the word uncloathing (which is in death) must imply a cloathing with that house, v. 2. The Apostle desired to be cloathed upon, without uncloathing, (which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age, that are taken alive at the last day; no Romish Purgatory can be for them,) but if that cloathing upon were de­nied to them of the Apostles age as it was, so that it came to an uncloathing: the A­postle had said little to their comfort, in telling them of their house from heaven, if he had not implied, that upon their un­cloathing they should be received into it; but that contrarily they should first go to a house below, and there suffer, in the next region to hell, exquisit torments for [Page 135]many years. Also the opposition he makes between, at home in the body, & absent from the Lord, v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shews the denial of the one, inferrs the other: if absent from the body, then present with the Lord; and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdome of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8. that when ye fail, (there is this dissolving, or going out of the body) they may receive you into everlasting habitations: ther's the heaven­ly house: a present reception is necessarily implied, even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him, as soon as he should be turned out of his Lords house.

The next place is Wisd. 3.1. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them.

IV The word Torment here is misunder­stood, saith he. Why so! Righteo [...] souls a [...] Death, [...] from T [...] ­ment. because it is in the Greek, [...], a torment, that male­factors, or suspected to be so, are put to, to make them confess the truth: Now no such torment shall touch the righteous, for God has sufficiently tried them, and pro­ved them, and found them worthy of God, v. 5. which is a plain place for merits, pa. 184. If he loose one thing by this Text, [Page 136]he will catch at another. If it make a­gainst Purgatory, he will have it make for merits. Well if it be so plain for merits, he must wring them out of the word worthy: which being cap. 5. num. 8. objected above in the point of merits, was answe­red too. But as for the word [...], which concerns Purgatory: let the ori­ginal use or strict importance of the word be it what it will: the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment, and what matters it, if they that go to Purgatory, suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons; so that indeed they suffer the like, as Malefactors do? It would be mockery and not comfort, to tell them they shall suffer not under that name, but as much. And to suffer this, now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies (against which this is their comfort) into the hands of God, (which the Text puts as the reason, why no torment can touch them,) and thus to be handled there? and that after God had proved, and found them worthy of himself, as this chapter v. 5. hath it; how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text, which is spoken for their comfort?

V But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Tri­nity, [...], Consubstantial, pa. 185. His Argu­ment for Purgatory punishment This is great boldness, whether we look at the comparison of the things, or the difficulty of the undertaking: but he learnt this from his Master the Bel. l. 1. de Purgat. c. 15. Cardinal who was not ashamed to say it, and Mr. Spencer is not afraid to follow him, let him say and undertake what he will. His pretended Demonstration proceeds thus, Purgatory is the place where tempo­ral punishments are suffered by just persons after death, which they deserved in their life, now if any justified soul be liable to suffer such after death, then there is a place where they must suffer them. To prove them liable to such punishments, he en­deavours to shew, that justified persons yet living after remission of their sins, and consequently of eternal Torment are liable to some temporal punishment, pa. 185, 186. This proposition is too infirm to make a demonstration or proof of Purgatory: for we may ask if upon remission of sin consequently there be a remission of eter­nal, why not consequently of temporal punishment? he dare not say that tempo­ral punishment is not remitted when sin is forgiven, and therefore saith, liable to some temporal punishments; and pa. 187. [Page 138]he saith, God retains part of the punish­ment, he means, to be satisfied or payed by us; which will be found true, only when it pleases God to reserve some, and inflict it, yet not as satisfactory punish­ment, but for other purposes, as we shall see. Again we may ask, though it be true that remission of sin be consequently the re­mission of eternal punishment, and that so me living are after remission of their sin temporally afflicted with respect to that sin: yet how will this consequently fall up­on just persons dead?

VI To make good the proposition, that just men living are liable to some temporal punishment, he brings the example of Da­vid punished with the death of his child 2 Sam. 12.13, 14. Of punish. ment reser­ved and in­flicted after forgiveness of sin., and of Adam who after his sin forgiven, was notwithstanding liable to death, as all just persons are for the same reason, pa. 186. His alledging the example of Adams sin punishmed by death— is altogether impertinent to the question, and Mr. Spen­cer surely knew it well enough; for his question is not concerned in the punish­ments immediately upon Original sin, which cleaves universally to our nature, and from which no just persons whatsoe­ver, though they have fully satisfied (as they suppose) for temporal punishments, are free: but the question is concerned [Page 139]only in the temporal punishment due to actual sins committed after baptisme; for to these only belongs the doctrine of sa­tisfaction, as he knows their Trent Coun­cil has defined; for mortality and bodily infirmities following the natural state, are not matter for satisfactions, or indulgen­ces to work on, as the Romanists will grant. Let us therefore examine his other example of David whether it will prove his Proposition. We say, just per­sons after the remission of their sins are not liable to temporal punishment Ordi­narie, ordinarily and of course, that is, God does not alwayes reserve some tem­poral punishment or part of the tempo­ral punishment due to their sin, and to be inflicted, or satisfied for by them­selves; but does reserve such punishments to be inflicted, when and as he thinks fit. Again when he does reserve and inflict them it is not in ordine justitiae, in order to his justice requiring punishment as sa­tisfactory to it, which he must suppose when he saith, if not suffered here, it must be else where; But Almighty God inflicts such punishments for other reasons and purposes: as for correction and amend­ment of persons so fuffering, or at least for admonition to others, as when the person suffering dyes, or is taken away [Page 140]by the punishment; So that such punish­ments after sin forgiven are not properly satisfactory (as the Romanists must and do suppose) but Castigatory, at least ad­monitory to others.

VII We grant such punishments are inflict­ed, Other rea­sons of pu­nishment besides sa­tisfaction. and that with relation to and by oc­casion of sin, as Davids was, not out of vindicative justice requiring satisfaction, as they must suppose, but for other rea­sons of Correction, or admonition, as was said, and as appears by the reason the Lord gives of Davids punishment, Howbeit (that is, notwithstanding that thy sin is taken away, and the punishment due unto it) because thou hast by this deed (or sin) given great occasion to the ene­mies of the lord to blaspheme— which also gives us another reason of Gods some time punishing such persons, that he may shew he does not approve sin in his chil­dren, but that it is displeasing to him, as is said 2 Sam. 11. ult. but the thing that David had done, displeased the Lord: Now that God Almighty does not ordinarily and alwayes reserve such punishment after forgiveness: appears, 1. Because he has no where declared, that such punish­ments are reserved or do remain after forgiveness, to be satisfied for by us: but every where has declared, he is well sa­tisfied [Page 141]with the fruits of repentance: that is, if the person to whom he forgives sin, carefully avoids the like sin, and performs the contrary duties. 2. because he has set out his forgiveness as perfect and full, a pardoning of the whole debt, of which the temporal punishment due to sin, is part; and in this point of forgiving he would have us imitate him, Be mercifull as he is merciful, Luc. 3. Another rea­son of our denying satisfactory punish­ment inflicted after forgiveness of the sin, is because that forgiveness is imparted for the satisfaction of Christ, which was full and all-sufficient, payed by him for the whole debt or punishment due to sin: for he bore our griefs, and our chastisement (Isa. 53.4, 5.) even all that sin made us liable to, whether eternal or temporal. And yet is the Cardinal so bold as by di­stinguishing of satisfaction for sin, to give us part with and under Christ in the work: saying, that our Saviour satisfied immediately, (i. e. Bel. l. 4. de poenit. c. 15. porro. Immediatè pro culpa & reatu mortis aeternae, me­dia [...]e pro poena etiam temporali, quatenus gratiam praebet, per quamipsi nos Domino satisfacimus. by himself) for the fault, and for the guilt of eternal death, and mediately for the temporal punishment also, in as much as he affords us grace, whereby we our selves satisfy the Lord. [Page 142]Had he said, our Saviour satisfied for the Temporal punishment also: so that it is either wholly remitted to the Righteous: or if any be inflicted, grace is given to bear it, and the affliction sanctified to their advantage, even death it self, with all other corporal infirmities and afflicti­ons whatsoever: Had he spoke to this purpose, it had been wholsome do­ctrine.

VIII Thus for his Antecedent or Propositi­on, That Reser­vation of punishment whether it can hold af­ter death. as concerning just persons living liable to some Temporal punishment after forgiveness; which how far, and in what sense, true, we have seen; Now let us see how supposing it true in the Romish sense (as indeed it is not) he can transfer it from the living to the dead, that it may be a ground and proof of Purgatory after death, as they suppose it is of satisfacti­ons in this life: for if ask, supposing such persons in this life liable to some tempo­rall punishment, why should they be so in the next? it rests upon that false asser­tion of his Council, that such punishment must be satisfied or paied either in this world or the world to come; for there is a third way, which Vid Alens. summ. l. 4. qu. 15. mem. 3. artic. 3. some have allowed: and that is, a removal of all the stains of sin and guilt of punishment by the final grace, and in the passage of the soul from [Page 143]the body: And how bold is this Author to make God a respecter of persons, if he should not punish in the other world one that had sinned as David, and not payed for it in this, pa. 187. for then he should not (saith this Author) reward every man according to his works? God no re­specter of persons, if he forgive all Tempo­ral punish. ment with. out our sa­tisfaction. But this is, First, a bold inference upon the former falls supposal, of such punishments retain­ed and inflicted in the Course of vindica­tive justice, if not satisfied for by us: whereas we saw three reasons against it, and other purposes which God has in so retaining and inflicting punishment when he sees fit, for chastisement, amendment, admonition to others, and to shew how he is displeased with sin in his children; yea it is very profitable for us that he should retain and inflict it after forgiveness, as, and when he sees fit: But none of these purposes can hold in the punishments of Purgatory. Secondly, that Rewarding every man according to his works, is mis­applied to sins of just persons forgiven: for the reward of punishment which God without respect of persons renders to works, is to works not reckoned for, i. e. not repented of, not forgiven: And whereas they will not allow that God ei­ther in mercy or justice, can remit the remainder of Temporal punishment, [Page 144]without being a Respecter of persons: why do they contend for the power of Indul­gence to be in the Pope? and allow him to be a Respecter of persons, as the Rich finde him to be? And whereas they hold Christ to entreat and intercede for souls in Purgatory, yet none come out upon his Intercession, but upon the Popes In­dulgence.

IX All they can pretend to here is, that by such Indulgencies the application of Christs merit and satisfaction is made. Papal In­dulgences. But why should they allow the Pope to be a respecter of persons in applying the me­rits of Christ with respect (as he does) to friends, or those that can pay well, when they will not allow God Almighty to dispense his own mercy or justice to them that have not satisfied here, unless they do it in Purgatory? or why do they al­low the Pope to extend that power of loosing to souls in Purgatory (that is, un­der the earth) which was given to the Church, for loosing only things Mat 16.19. Mat. 18.18.upon earth? Indeed God has appointed many wayes and means in his Church of applying Christs satisfaction, such as his Word, both Sacraments, and Absolution: but as for the many new invented wayes of the Church of Rome, they are unwarrantable, and ineffectual to the purpose: deceiving [Page 145]the people not only of their money, but of their souls, by staying on things that must be payed for, yet profit not, false applications of (what they pretend) the merits and satisfaction of our Saviour Christ.

X Unto this debate of Purgatory, it will not be amiss to adde something concer­ning satisfactions. Of satis­factions and of do­ing the things sig­nified by that name. We do not here con­demn, or deter people from doing the things, which in the language of the Church of Rome, come under the name of satisfaction, viz. those Penals, self-affli­ctives, acts of self-denial, or such spiritu­al exercises, or bodily austerities reaso­nably used that way: But we commend them as profitable, and to good purpose, if rightly undertaken and directed; only we cannot allow the grounds upon which that Church has established her satisfa­ctions, nor the purposes that Church seems to have in the commending or in­joyning them.

The grounds we saw in the discourse of Purgatory, That God does retain part of the temporal punishment, which may by works of penance be remitted here in this world, or payed in the world to come, as this Author expresses it, pa. 187. of this sufficiently above. Nor can we allow the purposes (or at least practises) of the Ro­mish [Page 146]Church, in commending those Pe­nals as meritorious and satisfactory to Gods justice, that I may say nothing of the no small gain that is made thereby. But we allow and commend the doing of the things, these self-afflictives, First, in or­der to the obtaining of remission of sin and punishment, so the Sackeloth, Ashes, Ly­ing on the ground; as in the Ninivites, Ion. 3. this they do, not as having any merit, or satisfaction for punishment due by Gods justice unto sin, nor yet as the prime conditions of forgiveness, but as expressions of that inward Repentance and humiliation, of which they are ef­fects, and which they conduce to en­crease, by a reaction or working back again upon the soule. Secondly, After forgiveness they are profitable when done, either in respect to sin past, by way of wholsome discipline to make more wary of such sins, more careful to avoid them hereafter, and more diligent in do­ing the contrary duties; or when done, in order to the averting some Temporal judgment, wherewith God might strike us justly for some failing, remisness, or want of due carefulness, as is requisite for that avoiding of sin, and performance of duty: For these are the fruits of Re­pentance, which God accepts as the great [Page 147]and only satisfaction on our parts, as for those Penals and bodily afflictives, they are pleasing unto him so far as conduce to inforce care and strength of the spirit against sin, and as they are expressions and effects of that humiliation and Re­pentance, which is the Condition of for­giveness.

And these Afflictives or exercises of self-denial, may be either voluntary under­taken of our selves, or by advise of the Priest, that has the ministery of reconcili­ation, and the power of loosing committed unto him: and the less that God does in­flict on us, i. e. the greater prosperity, health, ease, quietness, that any man en­joys in the world: the more is he con­cerned to impose on himself such acts of self-denial, and keep the soul exercised by sometimes afflicting the body, or else the flesh will gather strength against the spi­rit, and bring in the world too fast into the soul.

Upon the aforesaid Respects, we com­mend and allow the things, and leave it to the Church of Rome to draw Gods exam­ple, (his sometime inflicting punishment after forgiveness) to their own advantage, and make a General Rule of it for them­selves to practise by.

CHAP. VII. Of the Real Presence.

I THis Controversy about the Sacra­ment of the holy Eucharist the Ro­manists we finde, State of the Controver­sy. had rather dispute un­der the Title of Real presence, then of Transubstantiation: Whereas, First I do not observe, that the Ancients expressed the being of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist, by the word presence, but rather by affirming it to be his body, blood.— And in the time of Bertram's, Pascasius, and so down to Berengarius, the question was, how it is his body, and this more consonant to Scripture expre­stion, This is my body, this is my blood. Secondly, Seeing we admit the old saying praesentiam credimus, modum nescimus, We believe the presence, know not the mode or manner: it is needless for them to di­spute about the presence, unless they adde the mode which they have defined, Transubstantiation. For the Arguments that make against Transubstantiation conclude also (though not against all real [Page 149]presence yet) against theirs. Their Coun­cil also having defined in the first Canon, that the body and blood of Christ, are re­ally and substantially contained in the Eu­charist, which speaks a presence, does in the next Canon define that which con­cerns the mode: the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord.

Durand proves the remaining of the substances of Bread and Wine, In 4. sent. dist. 11. qu. 1. together with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be possible: and albeit he adheres to the way of Transubstantiati­on, yet he grants that other way to be pressed with fewer difficulties. It is in­deed most evident, that he who denies Transubstantiation, does not therefore deny a Real presence: nor does the re­maining of Bread and Wine in the Sacra­ment exclude the real presence or com­munication of the body and blood of Christ, but cleares it of many Difficul­ties, and needless miracles, (which must accompany the way of Transubstantiati­on) and makes a fairer interpretation of the words, This is my body, This is my blood: According to S. Pauls explicati­on: The bread which we break is commu­nion of, &c. 1 Cor. 10. to let us under­stand, where there is a due participation [Page 150]of this Bread broken, and this Cup blessed, there is a real participation of the body and blood of our Saviour. Let the Ro­manists take away their mode of Transub­stantiation (which as we shall see by the following discourse is pressed with so ma­ny difficulties, infers so many inconveni­encies) and we will not quarrel with them about a Real presence or participation of Christs Body and Blood; believing such a one is afforded as is fitting and necessary to all the ends and purposes of the Sacra­ment.

Now for the Arguments of Protestants, which equally serve against Transubstan­tiation, and against their Real presence: Mr. Spencer sets them down in this order, with his answers to them.

II The first is from the contexture of the words, That the substance of Fread re­mains. as we have them in three Evan­gelists, and in S. Paul. 1 Cor. 11. that Je­sus took bread blessed it, brake, and gave to his Disciples; which shews plainly, he brake and gave what he took and blessed; true bread, not the species only. His Answer is a denial that our Saviour gave what he took and blessed, the same sub­stance of bread; and for a pretence of this denial, he complains of our transla­tion or addition of the word, it to blessed, brake and gave, which is not in the Ori­ginal [Page 151]Greek, nor the Latine: and upon this silly exception makes an invective against the cunning which Protestants use in their Translations, pa. 194, 195. But he that knows any thing in those langua­ges Greek and Latine, finds they are not forced to repeat the pronoun it, as our English is; in which there would be else, but an imperfect sense; and when it is not expressed in the other Languages, it must be implied to give a subject to those transitive verbs, blessed, brake, gave. And if to make the sense perfect, we ask what did he bless, break, and give? the subject first mentioned still must be meant, unless the change be expressed in the story, or made evident to the sense: this rule he must grant, or else nothing can be certain in such contextures of Scripture-language. It is said 2 Sam. 23.16. They drew water and took, and brought to David. So the Greek, Latine, and Hebrew; the English renders, took it, and brought it; Will he say, this is a fraud and falsification, as he complains here? But that he may see and acknow­ledge, how answerable the manner of speech in the one is to the other: It fol­lows, David said (of it, or of that Water) is not this the blood of these men? answe­rable to these sacramental speeches of [Page 152]the Text in hand, but of this manner of speech more hereafter.

III The second part of his answer, is by denying the Consequence: A Rule to be observed in change of substan­ [...]s. therefore he gave the same in substance which he took; the bread which he took being changed (as he will have it) into his body which he gave: as when in Gallilee, the Water was turned into Wine, it could not be thence proved, that as the servants filled the Vessels with natural Water, so they drew, and carried, and the Master of the feast drank natural water. But this is answe­red by the Rule above, The subject first mentioned must still be meant, unless the change be expressed in the story, or made evident to sense: Now we have it not ei­ther in the story of the institution of this Sacrament, or elsehwere expressed, that our Saviour would or did change the very bread into his very body, neither doth the effect or change sensibly appear, there­fore it must follow, that what he took and blessed, the same also for substance he gave. As for those words, this is my body, they do not expresly speak a sub­stantial change, but more sutable to the purpose of the Sacrament, admit another meaning, like as Davids speech (above mentioned) did, and many other such figurative speeches in Scripture do. And [Page 153]for his instance of the Water turned into Wine, Joh. 2. the story expresly speaks, and the senses evidently shewed then there was a change; and therefore though it follows not (as to that story) they fil­led water, therefore they drew and car­ried, and drank water, yet here it does follow, that as he took bread, and blessed it, so he brake bread and gave it, when neither the story nor the sense shewed such a change of the subject.

IV The Second objection which he pre­tends Protestants do make, Of break­ing the bread which proves sub­stance re­maining. is of his own framing, and so may easily be answered by him. But thus I may object what he cannot answer. What our Saviour 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 its more unreasonable to answer, [...]e gave what he brake, the same for sub­stance, unless substantially changed: for [Page 154]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 [Page 155]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 [Page 156]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.

V 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 [Page 158]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 [Page 159]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.

VI 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, [Page 160]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 [Page 161]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.

VII 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.

VIII 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 [Page 162]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, [Page 163]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.

IX 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 [Page 164]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. But it may be said the Actions in the Sacrament are visible. True; yet this will not salve the matter, notwithstanding the explication he makes pa. 227. which is but a hand­some disguise. Hence, saith he, appears, that the very same body which was given, and that very blood that was shed for us, re­maining in its own proper substance (but after an invisible manner) by reason of the visible actions — puts us in remem­brance of the same body blood and person so many years agoe, given, shed, crucified; [Page 165]nay but those visible actions seen in the Sacrament, (seeing they pass not upon the body which they fix under the species in place of the substantiall bread, for that body of Christ they grant is impassible,) do tell us the body cannot be by reason of them a remembrance of it selfe; seeing also that body is invisible, & those actions cannot appear to be terminated upon it, therefore it cannot be made a Sacrament, or sacramental remembrance; for what is so must by the senses instruct and minde us of the thing represented and not seen; so that according to this Romish phansy, the species and nothing else must be the sacrament, and sacramental remem­brance, and in them must all those sacra­mental actions be terminated; which ab­surdity shews the necessity of substantial Bread remaining, even upon this account also, of sacramental representation and remembrance; not excluding as I said a true presence of Christs body and blood, but the Romish mode of presence by tran­substantiation, which takes away the substantial element of the sacrament.

X The next objection he sets down thus; The Cup called the New Testa­ment. The Cup is called by our Saviour the New Testament, for that it was a holy signe of the New Testament, pa. 230. This is carelesly set down, but let us see what he [Page 166]saith to it; instead of giving a direct an­swer he first challenges any Protestant to produce any clear text of Scripture, where that reason mentioned in the objection is alledged; but if he had fully set down the objection, the force of it (as we shall see presently) would have extorted this to be the reason why it is called the New Testa­ment; which must needs be a figurative speech; and therefore implying it to be the signe, Sacrament, or seal of the New Testament; confirmed in his blood; se­condly, in stead of a direct answer, he gives us a needless discourse of the signifi­cation of the New Testament, and then answers, I deny that by New Testament is understood a signe of the New Testament, but truly and really the New Testament it self, 233. this is a careless mistake, for New Testament in the objection is taken for that which is truly the New Testament it self: nor does it imply, that by New Testament is understood the signe of the New Testament; but that the verb is which couples this and the new Testament together, is put for significat, signifies, or is the signe. Thirdly, from Exod. 24.8. where the Testament of God with the Israelites was confirmed with blood, and the like saying used, This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath made [Page 167]with you, it must be real blood, not a signe or figure of it, which is here called the blood of the Testament, for such a solemn Testament required no less, but rather more, then that in Exodus, to be confirmed with true blood, pa. 235, 236. This is true, but here's his failing, first that the true blood by which our Saviours Testament was confirmed, and to which that in Exodus, and all other sprinklings of blood under the Law referred, was the blood shed on the Cross, as the Apostle plainly shews in the Epistle to the Hebr. whereas this Author refers it to the blood in the Sacrament, which is not the con­firmation of the Testament, but by refe­rence to the blood on the Cross. Se­condly, he gives us no direct sense of the proposition, this Cup is the new Testa­ment in my blood: to exempt it from that figurative manner of speech, which we contend our Saviour used throughout this Sacrament. He acknowledges it to be in the Canon of the Masse, and they say it dayly in saying the Masse: and could not but know, that the necessity of a figurative speech to be admitted in that proposition, was the intent and force of the former objection, yet gives us no ac­count of it; knowing that if a figure be admitted here, why not in this is my body? [Page 168]And if the words were operative there for turning the bread into his body, why not here for transubstantiating the Cup or that which was in it, into the New Testa­ment? If it be replied, that S [...]. [...]ke and St. Pauls words must be interpreted by St. Matthews, this is my blood of the new Testament: first, it is more probable those other were the words our Saviour spake, because of the agreement of Saint Luke and St. Paul, and because St. Paul saith, he delivered what he received of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.23. The Canon of the Masse also retains the same words. Se­condly, they cannot be reduced to Saint Matthews words without a figure, for they must then sound thus, this Cup is my blood of the new Testament: but saith Mr. Spencer, our Saviour never said, this cup is my blood, no more then he said this bread is my body, pa. 238. And this in abhorrence of the figurative speech, that must be admitted in saying this bread is my body, and answerably in saying, this Cup is my blood: yet in the same place he ac­knowledges our Saviour said, this Cup is the New Testament, and is willing to overlook the most apparent figurative speech in it, notwithstanding that the force of the objection rested chiefly upon it, and provoked him to a direct answer.

XI The next objects to them their disa­greement about the word this, Disagree­ment of Ro­manists a­bout the words of consecrati­on; This is my body. in our Sa­viours saying this is my body 24.1. where note briefly, that declining, the explica­tion of this is for this shall become, or shall be transubstantiated; for then saith he, by this must be understood bread, yet pag. 243. being to answer for one of their opi­nions that saith by the word this, is signi­fied nothing present: he grants, by this is signified nothing present precisely in that moment, when the word this was pro­nounced: but present after consecration; what is this but to put the word is upon the future, after Consecration? And what is that but shall be? And who ever heard that the word is properly taken (as they will have it here) should not precisely signifie the present time or existence? Or who ever heard that the pronoun this should not be demonstrative? Or signifie nothing in that moment present when our Saviour held up bread, and said this? Nor is this disagreement about the mode, as among the Protestants: for they agree about the subject and predicate of this Proposition, that by this is meant bread, by body, the true body of Christ, only differ about the manner, how it is made so, or how that body and blood are pre­sent in the sacrament. But the Romanists [Page 170]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.

XII 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. [Page 171]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 [Page 172] 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.

XIII 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 [Page 173]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 [Page 174]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 [Page 175]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.

XIV 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, Dust thou art, because made of Dust; and the serpent call'd a Rod, because made of Aarons Rod, and the wine call'd water, Jo. 2.9. because made of water: so the body of our Lord by S. Paul call'd bread, because made of it: yet dare not stand to it, when we reply: The former things are call'd so, because of the same matter remaining in the thing made, which was in that, of which it is made; but not so in this making of Christs body, which was but once made, and that of the seed or blood of the blessed Virgin: Mr. Spen­cer being put to speak to this point, goes backward and forward: he acknowledg­es p. 266. by reason of the subject which remains common to both (in philosophy call'd Materia prima, the first matter) Adam was called Dust, and the Serpent a Rod; and acknowledges p. 269. that our Saviours body cannot be said to be so [Page 176]made of bread; and therefore must acknowledge those former usual instan­ces to be impertinent. This is back­ward.

Now see how he strives forward to maintain the speech, made of bread. The body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same Accidents, and so issues from it as the day issues from the night, as from the terme from which it be­gins to be, as one may say ex nocte fit Dies, the day is made of the night, so ex pane fit corpus Christi, Christs body is made of bread, as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament, and therefore might be called bread after consecration, p. 269. There­fore it might be called— Wherefore? because, forsooth, it is made of it, as the day of the night; but he should have said as the day is called night, because it suc­ceeds end comes in place of it, as the bo­dy of Christ, (according to their Tenet) doth instead or place of the bread: and he might have bethought himself whe­ther ever any man call'd Day Night? or whether this be not translocation or suc­cession rather then Transubstantiation? and whether for such a supposed translo­cation the body of Christ can be called bread, as we see S. Paul often asserting bread after Consecration: He has some [Page 177]streins of invention in the pages follow­ing: as this. That the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread— he means by way of nourishment from the bread our Saviour did eat: but not knowing how to make use of this im­pertinency in this question, he lets it fall.

XV But the compleat reason of Catholicks (saith he) why S Paul calls the Sacrament bread after the consecration, Their pre­tended Reason why S. Paul calls it Bread so oft.is because the flesh of Christ into which the bread is chan­ged, is put under the species of bread, which gives occasion of giving it the same deno­mination it had before, p. 272. What had before that denomination of bread? the species or the flesh of Christ? neither sure­ly: such careless expressions he every where takes hold of, when they fall from his Adversary: and can spend whole pages against them. But this compleat reason was no reason to S. Paul, neither did it give him any occasion of giving it still the same denomination of bread, for then he had joyned with the report of sense a­gainst faith; and had deceived them, in bidding them eat that bread, if nothing but species of bread remained. For albe­it things set out to sight only may bear the names of the things they are like: yet not when proposed for use, which re­quires [Page 178]the substance of the things, as eat­ing does; you may say of things painted, this is bread, these are grapes: but if you say of them, take, and eat, this is bread, these are grapes, you mock those that you invite to eat. Which shews also the impertinency of Bellarmines instance (of the brazen serpent, bearing the deno­mination of serpent from the outward likeness) to enforce this compleat reason, for that serpent was only for sight, to be looked on, not for stinging.

But this is all the reason the Romanists can give; and these poor species the form, colour, smell, appearance of bread, must help them at every turn; they must stand for substance when there is occasion, must be the visible part or signe of the Sacra­ment, must be broken, eaten nourish; what not?

XVI As for those sayings, I am the Vine, I am the Door, I need not follow him in ex­amining the differences he seeks out be­tween them, and this is my body: but thus far they be appliable to our purpose: that they were figurative speeches, yet was our Saviour truly so, that is, what a Door or Vine is in their kinde, and uses, such was our Saviour spiritually indeed and in truth. So what the bread and wine is to the corporal effects being eaten [Page 179]and drunk, that the body and blood of our Saviour taken by faith, is spiritually, Omnem esse­ctum quem materialis cibus & po­tus quoad vi. tam agunt corporalem, hoc idem quoad vitam spiritualem, & hoc Sa­cramentum operatur. Concil. Floren. and to the spiritual effect, (it is the very expression of their Council of Flerence,) and as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are really offered and given, so is the bo­dy and blood of our Saviour in the Sacra­ment really and to all the purposes of the Sacrament, given and communicated to them that have faith to receive it: for this the Sacramental bread after consecra­tion is called (and made to us) the body of Christ, or (as St. Paul expresses it) is the communication of his body. Upon occasi­on of shewing difference between Christs saying, my flesh is bread, and his saying, this is my body: he has something which may seem in part to make reply to that which was presently delivered. Bread (saith he of the first saying) cannot signi­fie true and material bread: bu in the o­ther, by my body is signified the real natu­ral body of Christ, 281. What does he in­fer? That by bread in the Protestant do­ctrine is signified real, material bread, which cannot be his body, p. 282. We grant, that when our Saviour said, this is my body, he meant his true natural body, which was broken and given for us, but why cannot it be said truly of real and material bread after consecration this [Page 180]bread is my body? It cannot indeed be properly said so, but may after the use of Sacramental speeches, as when said that rock was Christ: by rock is meant the real and natural rock out of which the water flowed, and by partaking thereof they were really made partakers of the spiritual drink: much more in the Sacra­ment of the New Testament, the Bread may be truly called the body of Christ, because in the due partaking thereof we are made partakers not only of the spiri­tual effects of Christs death, but also of his very body and blood bringing along with it those spiritual effects and graces: which is that St. Paul saith the bread is the communion or communication of the body of Christ; the manner we know not (as we said above of the presence) but believe the communication of it to all the purpo­ses of the Sacrament.

XVII But hear a great subtilty; that bread should be a Sacrament of his body cannot (saith he) stand with the Protestant do­ctrine:Bread how Sacrament of his body.which in the little Catechisme de­fines a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual grace; but our Saviours body in the first institution was as visible as the bread: and though after As­cention his body became invisible by reason of the distance, yet that makes it not an in­ward [Page 181]spiritual grace—his conclusion is, therefore bread could not be the Sacrament of his body, 283. Mr. Spencer surely thought he was dealing with children that had newly learnt their Catechisme: for see him presently afraid this should be re­turned upon themselves, He knows first, that albeit our Saviours body was in the first institution visible, and so it is still vi­sible in it self; and knows also that no men make more use of his invisibilitie in the Sacrament, then the Romanists do, His body is broken, eaten, blood shed, drunk in the Sacrament, invisibly, — yea, all this really done (but invisibly) when he was visible himself to the Apostles in the first institution, and before his body was indeed broken, or his blood shed on the Cross. Thus can they make all good by the virtue of this word invisible, yet will not allow Protestants to make Christs body and blood the inward spiritual part of the Sacrament, because he was visible. Nay but though he be now invisible, yet is not his body the inward spiritual grace: this is Mr. Spencers subtiltie: but he that makes the blood go along with the body, that who receives the one, has the other too, might allow us here a concomitancy of Christs body and the spiritual grace, which as I said, goes alwayes along with it: so [Page 182]that as in the general definition of a Sa­crament it is said, signe of an inward spi­ritual grace, so in respect of this particu­lar Sacrament it may be said signe of Christs body and blood, which is here by the outward visible part of the Sacrament represented, conveyed with all the spiri­tual effects and graces.

XVIII Well, we are to thank him for venting that subtiltie, Mr. Spen­cers several confessions of truth in this point of the Sa­crament. for it brings him presently to plain confession of truth; he did see that by his former precious argument against the Protestants, any man might think (if he were in earnest) it would follow, there is no Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: and therefore he subjoyns, pa. 283. line ult. yet we are not constrained to acknowledge there is not a Sa­crament: why? For i [...] signifies that hea­venly and divine grace, which by vertue of it is given to nourish our souls, which is truly inward and spiritual, this is well; but if the spiritual grace be given by ver­tue of it, i. e. the Sacrament; does not the Sacrament give that grace by vertue of Christs body given in it? Yea, we hear him presently acknowledging also that our Saviours body invisibly existent in this Sa­crament and nourishing our souls, may be truly called a spiritual grace, and inward too, when it is Sacramentally received: [Page 183]very good all this. But is there no sign of this body? Hear him also saying, that which sensibly appears and is called Sacra­mentum tantum, the Sacrament only, is a Sacramental sign of our Saviours body, p. 284. All this acknowledged to the de­fiance of his former subtiltie, and what could a Protestant desire more? Only when he said nourishing our souls, he adds and our bodies, which I take to be a slip; for it is not the doctrine of his Church to say, Christs body nourishes our bodies. And now in the name of God why should he not acknowledge the advantage of truth to be on the Protestants side, for thus far we agree that there is divine grace by vertue of the Sacrament given to nou­rish our souls; that, that which ap­pears in the Sacrament is the Sarramental signe of our Saviours body: that our Sa­viours body is truly existent, or given in the Sacrament; that our Saviours body nourishes our souls.

XIX Now in the difference between us, see which has the advantage. 1. Transub­stantiation a wrong to the Sacra­ment seve­ral wayes. That which sensibly appears (saith he) and is called Sacramentum tantum: is the Sacramen­tal signe of our Saviours body; but what is that which appears, he tells you pre­sently, those shews and species, under which he will have Christs body to exist; [Page 184]but are these fit to bear the name of a Sa­crament? Of the Sacramental signe of a body? (What advantage would this have given to Marcion in his conceit of our Sa­viours body, as phantastical, and in shew and appearance only?) Can these shews and appearances of bread serve to the uses of the Sacrament, the corporal breaking, the eating, the nourishing? Whereas Pro­testants retaining the substance of the Sa­cramental element, Bread, preserve the outward part of the Sacrament, and all the uses of it: without which the Sacra­ment is mairned, if not destroyed: pre­serve I say the outward part, without prejudice to the inward, which is Christs body and blood, for we hold of it as a­bove, existent, really given, and nou­rishing the soul; which is the full purpose of the Sacrament as to the inward spiritu­al part. But 2. they prejudice the inward spiritual part, by making it existent under those shews or species, (as he saith here) for how would this have confirmed Eu­tychians if it had been really the doctrine of the Church then, who upon the mi­stake of the Churches doctrine, as Theo­doret in his Dialogues shews, made sem­blance for their heresie, saying the huma­nity of Christ is swallowed up into the di­vinity, shape and figure remaining as the [Page 185] Bread is in the Sacrament, shape only and appearance remaining. Again, they binde our Saviours body so to these shews and species of bread, that Christs body and they make unum quid, but one thing, so that Christs body goes along with them wheresoever they go, or are cast; into the mouthes and stomacks of wicked men, and stayes wheresoever the species are, till putrefaction of the species (if they with­out the body of Bread be capable of it) drive the body of Christ away. This and hundred prejudices and inconveniences follow upon this unnecessary phansie of putting Christs body under the species, in the place of substantial bread: we, as was said, preserve the Sacrament intire, acknowledging the very body and blood really given in the Sacrament to every one that comes duly to receive; given I say to all the purposes of the Sacra­ment.

What he sayes p. 285. The words of Institution This is my body, are properly and literally to be understood, when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary: might pass for a truth, if he did not sup­pose there is nothing constrains. All the former inconveniences, inconsistencies, with many more tending to contradicti­on, do constrain to the contrary.

XX To avoid the Argument from the man­ner of the Old Testament, Sacramen­tal speeches in the Old Test. in calling the signes by the names of the things signified: as circumcision call'd the Covenant; and such is the name Passover: He strangly phansies two Covenants made with Abra­ham in that one chapter Gen. 17. the first in 2, 3, 4, 5. verses, the other verse 9. as if he understood not that in every Cove­nant, there is a mutual stipulation, the promise on Gods part, the condition to be performed on mans, to which he con­sents and engages. That first Covenant (which he phansies) contained Gods pro­mise to Abraham, and that which he re­quired of Abraham, was in general ex­pressed in the first verse, viz. to walk be­fore God and be perfect: Now that which this Author calls the other Covenant, was but the imposing of Circumcision, as the signe of that Covenant, made with Abra­ham and his posterity, and a witness of their engagement to him: as it is plain ver. 11. where it is called the token or signe of the Covenant. And if this were a new Covenant, where are the promises of it? He confesses as much, when he saith, The second Covenant was a signe and seal of the first, only he abusively calls that the second Covenant, which he should have called Circumcision: for so [Page 187]S. Paul, whom he cites, saith, he received the sign of Circumcision, the seal of righte­ousness, Rom. 4.12. And so his own in­stance he brings p. 287. makes against him: for that promise of favour and Pa­tronizing one of inferiour rank, is but part of their agreement; and that waiting on him once a year, is the other part, the condition to be performed, as a testifica­tion of his service and obligation.

To the objection of the Lamb called the Passover, Exod. 12. he answers: 1. The Scripture does not expresly call the Lamb, the Passover. 2. He saith by Passover is meant the feast of the Passover kept to the Lord, as v. 11. of that Chap­ter, pa. 289, 290. It is true the Feast was call'd the Passover, but so was the Lamb, and that more chiefly and immediately: as v. 21. ye shall kill the Passover, and else­where eat the Passover. So Mat. 26.17. eat the Passover, v. 29. they made ready the Passover, Mar. 14.12. killed the Passover: in all these the Lamb is the Passover, and from the killing and eating that, the yearly feast or celebration, is also by figure, called the Passover. And the Lamb called Passover, by a figure, in reference to the Angels passing over the houses of the Israelites.

Unto 1 Cor. 10.4. The Rock was [Page 188]Christ, he answers, the Apostle speaks not of any Rock which was the signe of Christ, a visible material rock, but of a spiritual rock: now Christ was that spi­ritual rock, truly, really, and so no figure, pa. 294. Here to avoid one rock of a fi­gurative speech in those words, he falls up­on two: for first, he must hereby acknow­ledge that all the Israelites did eat really of Christ, and drink of him, as we under the gospel do, if by that spiritual meat, and spiritual drink Christ be immediately meant; but this the Romanists carefully avoid, answering the Israelites did eat the same spiritual meat (Manna) and drank the same spiritual drink among themselves, but not the same with us. The second rock he falls on is, that by this his interpretation, he must contrary to the Apostle grant, they did all (good and bad, worthy and unworthy) really and truly partake of Christ, who was truly according to Mr. Spencer, this spi­ritual rock and drink. Whereas the Apo­stle means they did all partake of Christ Sacramentally: Fathers also and their own Commentators grant it spoken of the material rock; but because of the sacra­mental relation, which that rock, and the water flowing from it to serve the whole Congregation, had to Christ, and that [Page 189]which flowed from him, it is called a spi­ritual rock, and by a figure called Christ.

XXI But in producing figurative speeches, he binds us to this condition: Mr. Spencer Rule for understan­ding spee­ches in Scripture, figuratively or literally examined. that if we will bring any thing against them, it must be such a proposition, that may possibly be verified in a proper sense, and yet must be understood figuratively; whereas the Protestants produce propositions that cannot possibly be understood in a real and proper sense, as this is my body may, pa. 299. But may not Manna or Rock be by the omnipotency of God turned into flesh as well as Bread? or the water that came out of the rock into blood, as well as wine may? For that proposition; this is my body is so far from being connaturally to be understood in a proper sense as he bold­ly affirms there, that it cannot possibly be so understood without the engaging of omnipotency to make such a change of the subject bread, and therefore they are still fain to fly to Gods omnipotency to make this proper sense of theirs good: but why cannot propositions, which pos­sibly can be understood in a proper sense be rather figuratively taken? Because (saith he) the words of Scripture and also of other Authors, must be understood pro­perly when they can be understood so: or when nothing compels to the contrary. This [Page 190]reason is good, but misapplied to this is my body: for it is one thing to say can be so understood, another to say can possibly be so understood; taking in all the wayes of possibility and omnipotency, without which that proposition, this is my body, cannot be possibly understood in a proper sense; for many things, yea circumstan­ces may compel us to the contrary, and hin­der us from taking it in a proper sense, be­side absolute impossibility: else should we multiply miracles in Scripture, and be still offending against the rule of reason, that forbids us to conclude a possibili ad esse, the thing to be so indeed, because it is possible to be made so. The Scripture saying all flesh is grass, saith or might say, of every man, this is grass: and it is as possible for omnipotence to turn it into grass, as the bread into Christs body, must we therefore so understand it in a real proper sense? So when God said of Adam thou art dust — so when David said of the water of Bethlem, this the blood of these men, 2 Sam. 23.17. Romanists that say the wine is turned into Christs blood, must say that water could be turned into their blood, and therefore possibly veri­fied in a proper sense; but those about David understood the figurative sense of it.

Did nothing else compel us to the contra­ry, (that is, not to understand these pro­positions in a proper sense) but the enga­ging of omnipotencie to work so miracu­lously to make it good, it were enough. For when he works so, he tells us plainly of it, or at least gives us the evidence of sense for the change; neither of which we have for understanding this is my body in the Romish proper sense. Then to im­pose upon Scripture such a sense when the speech will bear another more agreeable to the purpose of the place, and to im­pose upon omnipotencie a necessitie of making it good, what is it but to tempt God? And here we may mind him again of the other proposition, this cup is the new Testament in my blood, which we found him above loath to speak to, but desire him here to examine whether this Scripture can be taken in a literal pro­per sense? He can not say it, many things compel to the contrary: then is it a figu­rative speech, and that in the words of institution, as well as this is my body.

The last objection is from Jo. 6. the Capernaites conceit of eating our Saviours flesh, and his saying, the flesh profiteth nothing: some indeed will apply this a­gainst the Romish doctrine: but I will not quarrel with him about the force of it. [Page 192]The Protestant doctrine rests not upon this place of Scipture, we say the true flesh of Christ profiteth where ever it is really given and received, or eaten; and let the Romanists consider whether they must not say, the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing, when they say the wicked really eat the true flesh of Christ. It is plain by what our Saviour saith in that Chapter of eating his flesh, that albeit the Sacramen­tal eating of his flesh may profit nothing, as in them that receive unworthily; yet is there no real eating of our Saviours flesh, but what profiteth. St. Paul might say, He that eateth that bread unworthily, but could not say, he that eateth Christs flesh unworthily: taking it not for the bare Sacramental eating, but for real partici­pation of his very flesh; which the Ro­manists allow unto the wicked. The cause of this and many more and greater incon­gruities, is that gross kind of Real Pre­sence, which puts our Saviours body in stead of the substantial bread, fixing it under those species or qualities of bread, making it unum quid (as we noted above) one thing with them; and so carryed whi­ther soever they are, given to whom soe­ver, and received by whomsoever they are.

XII Having done with these objections, which he calls the chief arguments of pro­testants from Scripture; Considera­tions of Transub­stantiation, as to natu­ral reason. he tells us there are other drawn from Natural Reason, fitter for Heathens then Christians, p. 306. If we do but speak the horrid inconveni­ences, and indignities that the blessed and glorious body of our Saviour is, or may be exposed to by this gross way of pre­sence or binding his body under & to the species: they presently cry this is fitter to be spoken by Infidels then Christians: we may not so much as utter the ill conse­quences of their belief without note of in­fidelity. So if inquiring a Reason of this their belief: (and not finding in Scrip­ture any express witness of Gods will, nor any example of the like conversion, but finding many things, that compel to the contrary, from the reason of a body and of a Sacrament:) we profess that we can­not see how it should be, and that we have no reason to make it an Article of our belief: then are such arguments or questionings of it fitter for Heathens then Christians; so unwilling is that Church to have any thing questioned or searched in­to, that it propounds as Article of Faith. St. Chrysostome, speaking of that questio­ning of the Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15.35. how are the dead raised, and with what [Page 194]body do they come; saith, [...]: To be asking still how shall this be, is the part of one that believes not; and it was well said, supposing the Arti­cle or thing to be believed, clearly ex­pressed in Scripture, as the Resurrection of the dead, Incarnation, Birth of our Saviour and the like: when God Al­mighty has expresly declared these, then to ask how this shall be, sounds unbelief, its more fit for a Heathen then Christian: & therefore we believing the Sacrament is his body and blood, or as S. Paul, the com­munication of his body & blood, and conse­quently his body and blood really present in the Sacrament, we do not question nor de­fine the Modus, how this is done; but challenge the boldness of the Church of Rome, that has determined the Modus, by transubstantiation (that is, by destroy­ing one essential part of the Sacrament, the outward Element, Bread and Wine) and would impose this upon the world, as an Article of Faith.

These arguments from Reason (as he calls them) he will undertake to answer, and because he deals with such as profess themselves to be Christians, he will en­deavour it, by giving clear instances in some Article of Christian faith, which they believe wherein they must solve the like dif­ficulties, [Page 195]to those they urge from natural Reason against this mystery, p. 306. This is fair, and will be satisfactory, if he can make it good. But still we must remem­ber, if he could make it good, it evinces but the possibility of the thing, which is needless in this point to contend much about, and does acknowledge a needless multiplying of miracles and engaging of Gods omnipotency, where he has made no express declaration of his will or evi­dence of the thing. The Arguments, as he calls them, are propounded here by way of question, and he answers by other questions; which binds him to see to it, that there be no disparity between the reason of the one and of the other; or that the like difficulty (as he undertook above) must be solved in that Instance he gives. But this is not likely to be done, if we observe the doubts proceed upon our Saviours body considered not onely simply in it self, or nature of a body, but also as concerned in this business, in the nature of a Sacrament; also if we observe his way of proceeding, for he is fain still to serve himself of the capacity of a spirit, as Soul, Angel, God himself, to shew the possible conditions a Body may be put un­der: or of the mystery of the hypostati­cal union, to shew the like supply of de­fects [Page 196]in nature here; now this at first sight presents a great disparity between the things.

The first question enquires, how can Accidents (the species of bread and wine) exist without a subject.

XXIII This question, Accidents without a subject. although we will not dispute it to the denying of Gods omni­potency in sustaining Accidents without a Subject; yet may it be put to the preju­dice of Romish Transubstantiation many wayes. First, because it implies a need­less multiplying of miracles in the Sacra­ment; Secondly, because it binds the body and blood of Christ to and under those Accidents or Species, upon which many inconveniences follow; Mr. Spen­cers answering this question by the hu­mane nature in Christ, which subsists without its proper personality, and re­ceives it from the divine nature, must suppose that Christs body and blood in the Eucharist does supply the defect of the proper subject of those species: Bell. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. Sect. sed haec. Bellarm. makes them and Christs body Ʋnum 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 [Page 197]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 [Page 198]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.

XXIIII 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.

XXV 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 its no where said they remained absolutely [Page 199]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.

XXVI Another objection p. 308. If our Sa­viours flesh and blood be really in the Sa­crament,Our Savi­ours body exposed to indignitiesthen 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, [Page 200]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.

XXVII The next objection or question: If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament, Multiply­ing of mira­cles need. lessyWhy 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 [Page 201]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.

I 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 [Page 202]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 this (half Communion) the sequel of the former Article, of Real presence: and acknowledges, that without the esta­blishing of the one the other cannot be defended, so p. 322, 323. We see then what goodly fruit the Romish Real Pre­sence has brought forth, to the great and just offence of Christian people, in deny­ing them the Cup: besides other goodly sequels of it, as Adoration, and Circum­gestation. It is not Real Presence truly granted (no not such as the Romanists will acknowledge to be true) that gives a ground for half Communion, or makes it defensible; for they grant as we see here p. 123. the Lutherans convinced of this mystery, i. e. to believe a true Real Presence; but cannot say they are con­vinced of this sequel, or that it follows, then may the Communion be delivered in one kind, there being other Reasons from the Institution of this Sacrament, and our [Page 203]Saviours purpose therein, which forbid it; as we shall see by what follows.

II To the first Argument from the Insti­tution, which is carefully to be observed, Halse Com­munion a­gainst the Institution. he answers: I. that the accidentary cir­cumstances of the first institution are to be distinguished from the substance and es­sence of the Sacrament; This is alwayes to be held, not the former, p. 324. This we admit; only note, he reckons the gi­ving it then to Priests only, among the accidentary circumstances of the first in­stitution; II. he answers: that the en­tire substance of the Sacrament is under each kinde; he means both body and blood are under each kinde; we shall see asterward how farr that is true. But be it so, that both body and blood are un­der each; yet is not that the whole sub­stance of the Sacrament, which stands in the outward part (Bread and Wine) as well as the inward or spiritual part, the body and blood; nor is the Institution held to, if the body and blood be given but in one kinde. And notwithstanding that he reckoned, the giving it at first to Priests only, among the Accidentary cir­cumstances of the Institution, here he tells us: All that can be gathered from the bare words of Institution is, that it is to be consecrated and received by Priests, [Page 204](Mr. Spencer may say what he will; and yet adde a greater untruth) such as were the Apostles, who were then made Priests, p. 325. If then made Priests, let him shew us what words, what imposition of hands or other Ceremonies were there for that purpose? Was our Saviour then conferring orders, or instituting the Eu­charist? or could he with the same words, actions, and ceremonies, institute and administer two several Sacraments? Do this, he said, and that is all they can pre­tend to: but if by this the Disciples were made Priests, then they doing what our Saviour did, must also ordain others so oft as they administer the Eucharist: Now the whole importance of that precept (Do this) concerns the whole company, Priest and people; as is plain by 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. And it is generally held by the An­cients, that the Disciples then represen­ted the whole Church, or company of faithfull: and that they received orders, or Priesthood after his resurrection, Jo. 20.22. Lastly, the Church of Rome gives not the Sacrament in both kinds to Priests, when they are not Conficientes, consecrators or administers of it, as the Disciples then were not; but leaving this senseless assertion and novel device (of our Saviours making them Priests when [Page 205]he said, do this) let us come to the main, viz. the whole substance of the Sacrament under each kind.

III He that receives under one kinde (saith Mr. Spencer) receives a true Sacrament, Whether the whole substance of the Sacra­ment be in one kinde. p. 326. He that receives (may we say) according to the Romish Church in one kinde, he does not receive a true Sacra­ment, or not the true Sacrament, because not the outward part truly and wholly as it was purposed and appointed at the In­stitution; so that definition which he gives here, may pass for a compleat defi­nition of a Sacrament in general, but is not compleatly used, when applied only to one of the kinds or outward parts of this Sacrament; For there is (as he noted p. 324.) something particular in this Sa­crament, (not the particular he there notes, that the whole substance may be received in each kinde, but) that it stands in two kinds, or signs or outward Ele­ments; both which together make the compleat sign of the spiritual grace, signi­fied and exhibited in this Sacrament; each signe apart cannot represent and exhi­bit the whole spiritual grace, of this Sacrament.

He acknowledges a different grace con­ferred here, A different grace con­ferred in each kinde. one of spiritual meat, the other of spiritual drink: only he will have both in each kinde p. 327. Which is as much as to say; the effect of drink is shewen and exhibited by the meat we eat: and the effect of meat, by the drink we take: so with equal absurdity to say, that the blood shed is shewen by the blood in the Veins of unshed (for so its given with the body under one kinde) and that the blood is drunk when we eat the flesh. For though it be true, that he who receives Christ by faith, receives whole Christ, and by that mouth of faith eats his flesh and drinks his blood, is really made par­taker of his body given, and his blood shed for him: thus without the Sacra­ment; and when we come to receive him in the Sacrament, the same act of faith receiving him in one kinde (as under the bread) can and doth at the same time re­ceive also his blood; Totum Chri­stum, not Totum Chri­sti. or whole Christ: yet does he not receive his blood sacra­mentally, as blood shed, and so not all of Christ, or Christ wholly. Thus by rea­son of the act of faith, he that receives but in one kinde out of necessity, may be assured that he is not defrauded of the participation of Christs blood shed; but he cannot be so assured, that wilfully re­ceives [Page 207]but in one kinde: because though there is a concomitancy of flesh and blood in Christs body, as to the natural condition of it, yet not a concomitancy of his flesh and bloodshed, as to the Sacra­mental consideration of them, which therefore are set out in the Sacrament apart by two several elements; Also be­cause such a one being a Transgressor of our Saviours Institution, and enemy to his own comfort, falls short of the benefit thereof. Therefore the Church of Eng­land had cause to say (though not to the purpose he would have it, p. 326.) in the distribution of the bread. The body of our Lord— preserve thy— and then adding the Cup, to say there also, preservethy— and this conformably, as to our Saviours In­stitution, so to his saying, Except ye eat— and drink— Jo, 6.53. and to the Apostle, in what he received from the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.28.

IIII This Author is forced to confess that if by a compleat sign be meant a full and ex­press representation of the two particulars,The Romish Sacrifice wrong to Christ Sa. crament.(the spiritual meat and spiritual drink, which he granted to be a different grace) then under one kinde there is not a compleat signe of both. But it must be proved (saith he) that the substance of this sacrisice, re­quires they should be alwayes so fully repre­sented [Page 208]in each particular communion of the people: why needs it such proof if we look into the institution of this Sacra­ment? his reason is, because the full re­presentation under both kinds is exhibited unto Lay Christians, by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread­ful sacrifice of the Mass, p. 327. But what have we to do here with their sacri­fice of Mass? or to enquire what is requi­red to such a Sacrifice? We are treating of the Communion or Sacrament, which our Saviour instituted for all Christians and to such purposes; and that cannot be compleat except administred in both: no more then their sacrifice can be com­pleat, unless consecrated in both. For it is senseless to think the sacrifice must be mu­tilate, unless the Priest consecrate and re­ceive it in both, and yet the Sacrament not mutilate, though the people receive it but in one kinde; and senseless to hold or call it (as he doth) a Communion, when the Priest receives it alone. But having turned the Sacrament into such a Sacrifice, they take off the people from seeking the benefit of Christs blood shed in the Sacrament to seek it, and be content to have it applied to them in their pretended sacrifice: where they are only spectators. This however more profita­ble [Page 209]to the Priests, I am sure it is little to the Peoples advantage.

But when this sacrifice, which they pre­tend to be real and properly propitiatory, comes to be driven home, it interfeirs so injuriously and unhandsomely with that true and onely propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross, that they are fain to take up, with making it the application of that sa­crifice on the Cross: which we say is the work and purpose of a Sacrament, viz. to apply a sacrifice and make men from time to time partakers of that which was made or offered but once; And such is the in­tent & purpose of this Sacrament to apply that sacrifice of the Cross unto us and for this respect also it is alwayes requisite that in this Sacrament or Communion, there should be a full representation and exhi­bition made in both kinds, not only of his body broken, but of his blood shed also.

V His Instance of thrice dipping in baptism for a full expression of the Trinity, His imper­tinent in­stance in Baptisme. where­as Protestants acknowledge once dipping sufficient, is far from concluding one kinde in this Sacrament to be a full ex­pression of what is signified, or a sufficient exhibition of what is to be received there: That Ceremony of thrice dipping, or that purpose of representing thereby the [Page 210]mystery of the Trinity, was not of our Saviours institution, but a practice ta­ken up in the Church, and not univer­sal.

But he goes on, or rather urges again what he had said. If our Saviour insti­tuted each species or kinde apart, to con­fer saving grace, then he which receives either kinde devoutly, receives that grace for which he instituted it, p. 329. But this is cunning through ambiguous expressi­ons. For our Saviour instituted each apart, that is, several or one after the other, but not that one therefore should be received without the other. Or if this apart, belongs to confer, it is true that our Saviour did institute each to con­fer (and he that receives devoutly does in each receive) the grace for which he in­stituted that kind or part: but does not receive the whole grace for which he in­stituted the Sacrament. Also he that re­ceives the one kind or part, devoutly in order and with respect to the other, he receives the grace for which it was insti­tuted: but he cannot assure himself of receiving that grace who receives the one exclusively to the other; for how shall he be partaker of Christs bloodshed in the Sacrament, or as it is represented, held out and exhibited in the Sacrament, that [Page 211]will only receive that kinde or part, which gives him the body to eat, not that bloodshed to drink it?

VI I have been the longer upon his first Assay; because what is already said will meet with most of his sophistical Replyes. As when to the next objection p. 330. that the Priest is obliged to receive the Cup notwithstanding, that according to the Ro­mish Tenet, he had received a true Sa­crament in the Host: He answers by their being Priests, and by the reason of a sa­crifice; upon which double account, he will have the Priest obliged to both, not Lay people. This appears vain by what was said above Num. II. & IIII.

So to the following objection, A compleat refection intended in the Sacra­ment. taken from the compleat Refection by meat and drink: He answers as he said above, that both the graces of spiritual meat and spi­ritual drink, or grace sufficient to salva­tion, is conferred in each kinde: and All that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Saviour in the first Instituti­on gave a most plentifull and abundant banquet, whereof each part was sufficient to confer life, p. 332, 333. Now albeit in a plentifull feast many dishes might be ta­ken away; yet none can say it is either a plentiful or sufficient feast and Refection: if drink be wholly denied. And conside­ring [Page 212]what our Saviour purposed by this Sacrament (which he made sanguinis ef­fusi, of his blood shed, and that of his New Testament) it must needs be his in­tention that both should alwayes be re­ceived: nor finally does one confer that saving grace (as was said above) if the other be wilfully neglected. His pretence from Joh. 6.57. He that eateth me shall live by me, to prove the sufficiency of re­ceiving in one kinde, is inconsequent: for the verses before, 53, 54, 56. shew one as needful as the other; As when it is said, He that repents and believes shall be saved: both are set down as necessary: and we may not conclude, because we meet sometimes with one only mentio­ned, as Jo. 6. v. 47. He that believeth hath everlasting life: therefore this with­out the other is sufficient. Faith (as a­bove said) by the same act of believing, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, extra Sacramentum, out of the Sacrament; but if we come to do this in the Sacrament (that is, by faith there to partake of his body and blood) the eating and drinking must be distinct acts, according to the Sa­cramental way of participation: for so his blood shed is not drunk in the eating of his flesh.

And therefore the people are deceived, while they are borne in hand, that by re­ceiving in one kinde, they are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation. (as he p. 334.) For that Church as much as in it lies, does deprive them of the benefit of Christs blood shed in this Sacrament; 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 [Page 214]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.

VII 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 [Page 215]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 [Page 216]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 [Page 217]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.

VIII 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 its 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 [Page 218]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 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 [Page 219]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 [Page 220]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 [Page 221]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— thats 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 [Page 222]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, [Page 224]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 [Page 225]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 [Page 226]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, [Page 230]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.

I 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, [Page 232] 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.

II 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 conclude all Religious worship or ser­vice due to God. The name of Religion (saith Lactan. l. 4. Inst. c. 28. —quòd ho­minem sibi Deus rele­gaverit. Lactantius) is deduced from the bond of piety; because God has bound man to himself; S. Aug. is copious to this pur­pose; who in one place deduces Religion from another word but to the same effect: from religendo choosing God again, whom we had lost, and serving him only, (Hunc eligentes vel potius religentes, nam amise­ramus negligentes &c. Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 4. Aug: de vera Relig. c. 55. Non est nobis Re­ligio, &c. Elsewhere, Our Religion stands not in the worship of the Dead (or Saints departed) They are to be honoured for imi­tation, not to be adored for Religions sake, and so having denied the worship of other creatures, even Angels too, he concluds, according to the force of the Word Reli­gion given above by Lactantius, Religet ergò Religio uni omnipo­tenti Deo.Let therefore Religion bind us to Almighty God alone. And speaking of worship; Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 10. c. 1.Cultus (saith he) the word worship if we say no more, agrees to many things; but if we [Page 233]adde to it the name of Religion, it di­stinguishes it from all other, and speaks that worship which is due to God.

III Our second evidence, is from the Ar­gument which the Fathers made for the Godhead of our Saviour: The Fathers argument against the Arrians. and of his con­substantiality with the Father against the Arrian Heresy: proving the Deity of the Son, by worship to be given unto him: according to the Apostles argument, Heb. 1.6. worship him all the Angels: and challenging the Arrians for allowing him to be worshiped and invocated, yet denying him to be God; which might have been evaded by the Arrians if the Romish answer and distinction had been known doctrine then; for they might ac­cording to that have said, they allowed him to be religiously worshiped, not as God, but as the most excellent Creature, and in high favour with God. Here Athanasius, Athan. 2. orat. contr. Arr. [...]. charging the Arrian Here­sie with this absurdity consequential to it, Now that the worship of the Creature was done away, (viz. the Heathen worship taken away by Constantine) again to wor­ship and serve a Creature, and that which was made: so they accounted Christ to be. Also in the same oration, he argues against that saying of the Arrians, that our Saviour began then to be worshiped, [Page 234]when he was exalted of God; but more fully against this in his next oration: ci­ting that of the Apostle Heb. 1.6. Let all the Angels worship him, for a disproving of that Arrian tenet, and a proof of our Saviours Deity, and he goes on there to take away as it seems, the Arrian limita­tion of worship, (something like the a­foresaid evasion of the Romanists) That he was worshiped by the Angels as higher then they in glory, Athan. 3. orat. contr. Arrian. [...]. exalted above them: This the Father denies: and adds; If he was adored as higher in glory, then ought every inferior worship him that is so; but so it ought not to be; for (saith he) A crea­ture doth not worship a creature: citing S. Peter and the Angel who refused wor­ship, Act. 10. and Rev. 19. then con­cludes, Therefore it belongs only to God to be worshiped. And this, saith he, the An­gels know, [...]. who albeit excelling one ano­ther in glory, yet being all of them Crea­tures, they are not in the number or rank of those that are to be worshiped, but of those that do worship: The like argu­ment from adoration he Athan. in libr. de Tri­nitate, & ad Serapionem. elsewhere uses, and so does Hilary in his books of the Trinity more then once; so does S. Aug. use it to prove the Deity of the holy Ghost, in his first book of the Trinity [Page 335]and sixt chapter. So Nazianzen. Nazen. orat. 37. de spi­ritu sancto. [...]—If the Holy Ghost is not to be worshiped, how doth he deify or sanctify us in baptisme? but if he must be adored, then worshiped: if worshiped, how then is he not God? for the one cleaves to or follows the other, as a Golden Chain. Thus the Fathers gene­rally proved the Deity of the Son and holy Ghost: because to be worship­ed.

IV Our next evidence, that the ancient Church knew no such Religious worship, The Fathers answer (to the Hea­thens) de­nying such worship. is taken from the answers given to Hea­thens, who observing, that Christians did acknowledge the ministery of Angels, and resort to the memories of the Mar­tyrs, objected to the Christians, that they held and worshiped Angels and Martyrs, like as they themselves did their Daemons and Heroes, that is, as me­diators between men and the Supreme God.

Origen had to do with Celsus upon this argument, Orig. l. 5. contrà Cel­sum. omnia Vota interpellati­ones, &c. and acknowledges Angels to be ministring spirits, but all our Vowes, Interpellations— put up to God the Lord of all—by our high Priest—then shews that our applying to Angels, without our bet­ter knowing of them (that is, their nature and offices) is not agreeable to reason: wherein he seems to relate to the Apo­stles [Page 236] [...] Col. 2.18. an intruding or searching into those things a man has not seen or known: as those worshipers of Angels did, who could not see or know, that the Angels had any such place or office appointed to them. But more be­low out of this place of Origen, when we come to the point of Invocation. Else­where Celsus objecting that the worship or honour given to those, Orig. l. 8. contr. Cel sum.that the supreme God would have honoured, was a thing ac­ceptable to him, so is their worshiping of Daemons and Hero's; for an honouring of his subjects cannot offend him; and that this was apparent in Kings and their subjects and officers: and that it was se­ditious to say otherwayes. This discourse of Celsus is not much unlike what the Ro­manists plead for their worshiping and honouring of Saints and Angels. But Origen by way of answer, Nostra ratio potior est, adducens nos ad servi­endum uni Deo per fi­lium— Quisquis habet Deum propitium— insinuates it is not so with God, as amongst men: and that our reason is more forcible, inducing us to serve God only, by his Son—and a little after saith he, God alone is to be wor­shiped, and prayed to by his Son—and who­soever has God propitious by his Son the Angel of the great Counsel, let him be con­tent; he cannot want the protection of An­gels; and more to this purpose. So may we say, Our Reason is more forcible, which [Page 237]induceth us Protestants to refuse their way of worship, and to serve God only by his son, our only high Priest and mediatour.

Now hear what St. Aug. saith of this matter: he tells us from Apulcius and other Platonicks what they held their Daemons to be, Aug. de Civ. dei l 8. c. 22. —Medios inter Deos & homines tanquam in­terpretes & internuncios qui— Ideo (que) cul­tum eorum à supernorum Deorum re­ligione, non separant. and what respect and wor­ship they had for them. They held them spiritual or airie substances, but denyed them to be Gods: set in a middle condition or place between Gods and men; as interpre­ters and messengers that may carry from hence our petitions or prayers, and bring back from thence the helps and supplies of the Gods: and therefore they do not separate the worship of these from the religion of the supream Gods; let the Romanists consider well what they finde like to this in their Angel-worship; how they do not separate the worship of Saints and Angels from the religion and service of God, Mald. in Mat. 5.34. Impitus er­ror Luthe­ran: nullum nisi Deo re­ligionis ho­norem trib. is shewen a­bove, cap. 1. num. 5. and Maldonat could conclude it is a silly error of the Lu­therans and Calvinists, yielding no honour of religion but to God only: It may (saith he) to the creature in reference to God; and proves it by that which our Saviour there reproves; their swearing by Hea­ven.

St. Aug. in the same book above cited: speaks of their resorting to the memories [Page 238]of Martyrs, Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 27. Martyres de functos non habemus Deos. and of that which was done there; and this in answer to the worship of Martyrs objected by the Heathen. We hold not the dead Martyrs for our Gods; no more do we, say the Romanists hold the Saints and Angels, when we worship them: and no more did the heathen Platonicks hold their Dae­mons and Heroes to be Gods, as above said. So then the Romanists say nothing when they so excuse their worship; and S. Augustine had said nothing if he had said no more to the objection then this: we hold them not to be as Gods: therefore he goes on to shew, what honour they afford the Martyrs, and what the hea­thens falsly charged them with, as by them given to the Martyrs, because done at their Tombs or memories. — But saith he, Sed eorum Deum Coli­mus, & eo­rum memori­as honora­mus. —ad Dei ho­norem cul­tumque. —apud eo­rum memori. as offeratur Deo—ad imi­tationem—ex eorum memo­riae renovati­one— we worship their God and honour their memories: then for what they did there; that the Altar, over the body of the buried Martyr, was erected there for Gods honour and worship: that the prayers and sacrifi­ces there, were offered to God: that they gave praise there to God for the victories of the Martyrs, and by making a remem­brance still of them, exhorted one another to imitation of the Martyrs, God being prayed to for help and assistance.

To Faustus objecting, they had but made a change from many heathen dei­ties to their Martyrs. Aug. cont. Faust. l. 20. cap. 21. Non coli si­milib. votis. He first de­nies, that they are worshipped with like vows and applications: then how they worship or honour the Saints departed; we worship and honour Martyrs, Eo cultu dilectionis et societatis quo in hac vita coluntur san­cti homines.with that sort of worship, as we do holy men li­ving, which he there calls, the worship of good will and fellowship: and conform­able to what he said above, he adds here; what is offered there, is offered to God, but therefore offered at the memories of Mar­tyrs, that Ex ipso­runt locorum admonition [...]. by the admonition or remem­brance, which the very places may give us, a stronger affection may arise to inflame our charity, both towards those, whom we may imitate (that is the martyrs) and towards him, by whose assistance we may be inabled to do it. Memorias Martyrum religiosa so­lennitate con­celebr at. ibid. But there is something here that the Romanists take hold of, for he saith in the same place; Christian people by such religious solennity, celebrate or honour the memories of Martyrs — That religious solennity is all the Bel. de Beat. San­ctor. c. 12. Cardinal could oppose out of S. Aug. against the many places of the same Father denying religious worship to the Saints. Whereas he might have seen, that S. Aug. calls it religious solem­nity, not for worship given to the Martyr, but for the religious acts there [Page 240]performed to God. But it follows in the Father, Et ad ex­citandam Imitationem, et ut meritis eorum con­societur, & orationibus adjuvetur, Aug. ut su­pra. both to the exciting of Imitation of the Martyrs, and that the Christian people might come to a fellowship of their merits, and be helped by their prayers— the meaning of which is, that by imita­ting the Martyrs, they may come to ob­tain what they have obtained, (which is the usual acception of merit with the An­cients) or that by their merits, that is, by that favour they have with God, and by their intercessions (which we acknow­ledge the Saints make, and the Church below has benefit by) there might be help found, and received from God. No more then this can be wrung out of this saying of S. August. considering what he saith so often against such worship, and in­vocation; as we see in this sect. and shall below sect. II.

And unto Maximus the Grammarian, Aug. ep. 43. & 44. Bust a Mar­tyrum stulte frequen­tant — Scias à Ca­tholicis Chri­stianis nul­lum coli mortuorum. objecting that the Christians did foolishly frequent the tombs of their Martyrs, neg­lecting the Ghosts of their Ancestors— He Answers as he did in his book, of true Re­ligion above cited; know thou that none of the dead are worshiped by Catholick Christians. And elsewhere speaking a­gainst Heathen worship— that they wor­shiped Devils— They saith he, Aug in ex pos. Ps. 69. seek di­vine honour to be given them, but all good [Page 241]Angels will that God alone be worshiped. So in his book of true Religion chap. 55. after he had said Our Religion stands not in the Worshipping of the Dead, he adds, Quid st pie vixerunt non quaerunt —Sed illum à nobis coli volunt. For if they lived holily, they seek not such honors, but would we should worship him— So in the same place, having said, our Religion stands not in the Worship of An­gels, he affirms of them; Hoc ipsos velle, ut u­num cum ip­sis colamus Deum. Euseb. Hist. l. 4 c. 15. This they would have, that we with them worship one God.

When the Jewes reproached the Chri­stians, that they would leave their Christ and worship Polycarp, because of the great affection they shewed to that Mar­tyr; their Answer was as Eusebius re­lates it; that they [...]. would worship none else but Christ; As for his Disciples and Imitaters, they [...]. Loved them worthily; which was the Cultus dilectionis, as St. Augustine stiled it above.

Unto Julian reproaching the Christi­ans, that they worshipped miserable Men, Cyr. l. 6. contra Juli­anum, [...]. (so he called the Martyrs) St. Cyril an­swers, We do not worship them with any divine or Religious Worship: but with that of affection, observance and honour, or as the word ( [...]) implies an honour convenient and proper for them. And by his following discourse it appears wherein that honour stood; viz. in a [Page 242]Reverend respect they had to their, [...], Repositories, where their bones, or remainder of their bodies was laid; and celebrating their praise and Vertues; We [...] — ibid. [...]. ibid.crown them, saith he, with the greatest honours, as those that have fought vali­antly, and obtained the victory: he adds the example of the Grecians, who every year celebrated the fame of those that valiantly fought against the Persians. So this perpetual memory of the martyrs is afforded them as a reward due to their for­titude.

Add to these what Epiphanius saith, be­ing put to express himself in this point, Epiph. Haer. 74. [...]. upon the He­resie of the Collyridians, The Blessed Virgin (saith he) is to be Honoured, but she is not given to us for worship: Amb. in Ro. 1. ver. 21. & 25. Relicto Domino con­servos adorant— quasi plus sit, quod Deo reservetur. and afterward, Let Mary be had in ho­nour, but let the Lord be worshipped. Also it is observable what St. Ambrose saith upon the Pretence of the Heathen Worship, which he cals Mi­seram excusationem, a miserable excuse. Leaving the Lord, they adore their fellow-servants: and then their pretence, or ex­cuse is; that they reserve more (or an higher sort of worship) for God himself: [Page 243]wherein we may read the Romish excuse. And what St. Honorem Dei Crea­turae defer­re. ibid. Aug. l. 10. c. 4. Multa de cultu Divino usurpata ho­noribus deferri humanis, sive humilitate nimiâ, sive perniciosa adulatione, ità ta­men ut i [...]s quibus deferun­runtur, homines habeantur: qui dicuntur colendi, & ve­nerandi, si an [...]em multum i [...]s additur, & adorandi. Ambrose saith there of their yeelding the honour of God to the Creature: St. August more larely unfolds the mat­ter in his Book of the Ci­ty of God: where speaking of worship, and several sorts of it. Many things used in and belonging to Divine worship, are yeelded up to the honou­ring of men: whether out of too much humility, or per­nicious flattery: yet so, as they to whom such honours are yeelded, are still held to be men; (as Romanists say, they acknowledge them as Creatures, do not worship them as Gods) who are said to be honoured, reverenced, and, when much is yeelded to them, adored.

Lastly, St. Hierom being put to it by Vigilantius, Hier. ad Riparium; Nos non dico Reliquias Martyrum— sed nec Angelos, Archange­los— colimus & adora­mu [...]— Honoramus Reli­quias Martyrum, ut cum cujus sunt Martyres adore­mus. Honoramus servos, ut honor servorum redundet ad Dominum. who found fault with the honor given to the Reliques of Martyrs, & spoke contemptuously of them: answers thus, We do not wor­ship or adore the Reliques of Martyrs; no nor Angels, or Archangels: we honour their Reliques, that we may adore him whose Martyrs they are: We honour the servants, that the honour of [Page 244]servants may redound to their Lord. Now it will not serve to say here, which is the usual evasion of the Romanists; that St. Hierom denies them Divine honour; for Vigilantius could not think such was given to them by the ancient Chri­stians.

V As these Testimonies conclude against Religious Worship given to a Crea­ture, What man­ner of ho­nour al­lowed to the Saints. and exclude the pretences and limi­tations used by the Romanists: so do they afford us true and allowable distin­ctions and limitations of Worship or Honour: as of the Blessed Virgin, she is to be honoured not adored, or to have religious worship. So Epiph. above; So St. August. above, of the Martyrs: They are to be honoured not adored,; and that honouring of them to be for imitations sake, not for Religion: and again, an honour of charity, not service or subje­ction. Lastly, the worship or honour of love and fellowship, wherewith we worship also holy men living, and that the honour of the Martyrs stands in Ce­lebrating their Victories, and praise, in giving God thanks for them, and in pro­pounding their examples for Imitati­on: These out of the Fathers above ci­ted especially out of St. Augustine.

To these we may add St. Greg. Nys­sen. [Page 245]in his praise of the Martyr Theodo­rus: speaking to the Mar­tyr, he saith, Nyss. Orat. de Theod. Martyre. — [...]— We hold this assembly for thee: but how, or to what purpose? to a­dore our Common Lord, and make full commemoration of thy victorious combates. Bas Orat, in 40 Mar [...]. [...]. So his brother St. Basil in that very Oration of the 40 Martyrs (wherein the Ro­manists think they have a fit testimony for Invocation: we shall examine it in the next Section) gives such reasons, why they celebrate the memory of Mar­tyrs. 1. Because the honour given to the best of our fellow servants, is the sign and demonstration of our good will and respect towards our Common Lord. Where we have two words, fellow servants, and Common Lord, that excludes the Romish religious worship given to Saints and Angels, as we saw it, by those words ex­cluded in the Testimonies of St. Aug. [...]. ibid. above cited: 2 because that by remem­bring the vertue of the Martyr, we stir up to imitation (does not say we stir up to invoke or worship them) Again to the Martyrs praise and our imitation he saith, [...]. ibid. Think and call the Martyr blessed, (where the Latine Translation hath Venerare [Page 246]Martyrem, which though it may be al­lowed in a good sense, yet was it to be translated otherwise) and mark the end of such celebrating of the Martyrs praise and vertue: That thou mayst so become a Martyr, in resolution and preparation of mind, fitted, as it were, for it by often thinking and speaking him happy.

VI Now let us examine the Testimonies, which the Bel. l. 1. de beat. Sanct. c. 13. Cardinal brings out of An­tiquity for Religious worship of Saints and Angels. In these, as also in those, which he alledges for the next point of Invocation, Romanists unfaithful in their al­legations out of An­tiquity. there is great cause to chal­lenge his honesty or his diligence. For first, these Testimonies for the most part are too general; They speak an honour given to Saints and Angels, but short of that which the Church of Rome allows and defends. Some of them speak honour done to 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 [Page 247]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 propheti [...]um colimus & adoramus.and delivering the faith of the whole Church, saith, VVe worship and adore Him (the Father) and the Son that came from Him, and taught us these things, and the host of good Angels, also the Spirit of prophesie: so that Author usually stiles the Holy Ghost. Now what a strange sense (little less then blasphemy) doth the Cardinal put upon that ancient Father for the Advancing of Angel-wor­ship! as if the Host of good Angels were set here as one of the parties to be wor­shipped, and that before the Holy Ghost; whereas the Bel. l. 10. de Christo. Cardinal in his first Book (de Christo) did argue well, that the Ho­ly Ghost was not a Creature, because cou­pled with the Father and the Son. This indeed was answerable to the usual argu­ment made by the Sic Basil l. de Spir. Sancto, c. 18, & 19. Fathers for the Dei­ty of the Holy Ghost; but here the Car­dinal can couple the Host of Angels with the Father and the Son as to be adored with them, — [...]. Justin, in Apolog. 2. and that before the Holy Ghost. He that looks into Justin, will easily discern, that the Host of Angels there is coupled with these things, and both relating to the word taught not to worship or adore; For he spake imme­diately [Page 248]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. Ʋtinam 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 [Page 249]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 [Page 250]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. [Page 251]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.

I 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 notes are ch. 5. 8. ch. 6. 10. ch. 8. 3. which we shall touch below; but hear what he saith in his next disputation: Non fuisse morem in V. T [...]adeundi Sanctos In­tercesso­res,— E­rat etiam olim pericu­lum Idolola­triae. Salm. disp. 8. sect. postremo.It was not their manner in the Old Testament to use the Saints as intercessors; the Reason; because they were not then glorified, and because of old there was danger of Idola­try: Mark the danger of the Romish pra­ctises in Religion and Worship. But was there not danger under the New Testa­ment? [Page 253]he acknowledges it, saying, it is not express but was left to Tradition, se­cretly to be delivered, which he cals Tacitam Spiritus sug­gestionem. ibid. the silent suggestion of the Spirit: but why! because Quia du­rum erat id Judaeis prae­cipere, & Gentib. da­retur occa­sio putandi multos sibi deos exhibi­tos, pro—it was hard to command such a thing to the Jewes: and it was like­ly to give occasion to the Gentiles of think­ing that many Gods were put upon them, in stead of the many Gods they had forsaken. And might not the same Reasons still be good against Romish Invocation, and Image-worship, either to keep them out, or cast them out of the Church; seeing they give such occasion of scandal to Jewes and Infidels throughout the Ro­mish Communion?

The Cardinal is not so liberal with us, Bel. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 19. Non consuetum — Nec ordina­riè cogno­scere pre­ces— &c. 20 sect. sed dices. for he would confine it to the Old Testa­ment, acknowledging: It was not the custom then to say Holy Abraham pray for us— and his reasons are, because they did not see God, and could not ordinarily (i. e. without special Revelation) know the prayers of the living. Neither is the Cardinal so ingenuous with us as was his fellow Salmeron, for albeit he gives rea­sons why prayers were not made to them in the Old Testament: (which reasons were good against their Invocation till our Saviours ascension) yet he brings places out of the Old Testament for a [Page 254]seeming proof of it. Some of them in­deed concern Invocation of Angels, as that Gen. 48.16. & Job 5.1. to which we briefly answered Chap. II. nu. 9. above; And though the Cardinals reasons which ex­clude the Saints of the Old Testament, do not conclude against the Angels which did see Gods face, and as well hear and know what was said and done below on Earth, in the time of the Old Testament, as after; yet Salmerons Reasons might prevail against invocation of them, be­cause of danger of Idolatry then,— and it would have seemed strange and hard to the Jewes— And albeit they had Cheru­bins in the picture, yet not Angels in their worship— Which is acknowledged by Azor: and Vasquez, and that out of se­veral Fathers clearing the Jewish Church from Worshipping of Angels or Images; and somthing to this purpose was said Chap. III. nu. 10. above.

II Now for the places out of the Revela­tion, Places of Scripture alledged for Invoca­tion. which are the only Texts that have any semblance or pretence for Invoca­ting Saints or Angels: they are mistaken as applied to that purpose.

That Text, Rev. 5.8. where the four living Creatures, and the 24 Elders are set out as falling down before the Lamb, having harps and viols full of odours (or [Page 255]incense) which are the prayers of the Saints. Here the Romanists that would have these prayers of the Saints, to be meant of the prayers of men living, offer­ed up by the Saints in heaven, are mista­ken: for the whole place is a representa­tion of the Church below offering up prayers to God by Christ (the Lamb) and those Eucharistical or prayers of thanksgiving and praise chiefly, for the Victories of the Lamb, and Redemption by Christ, as the next verse specifies them. Thus Viega understands them of the Church below, and he follows good Au­thors in it.

The next is Rev. 6.10. how long O Lord— Here also is a great mistake of Romanists making this a formal prayer of the Martyrs for revenge: which stands not with that charity they have in so great a degree; and therefore this is but a figurative or emblematical representa­tion of their Souls lying under the Altar and calling for revenge, only to shew the certainty of that judgement and venge­ance, which God would in time bring up­on the Heathen Persecutors for their bloud: as when Abels bloud is said to cry for vengeance. And for the Argument they make, If the Souls of Martyrs cry for Vengeance upon their Enemies, therefore [Page 256]their charity much more prompts them to pray for Gods servants: It fails first in the Antecedent; for they do not as we see make any formal prayer for venge­ance: and then it fails in the Inference, for it would only conclude that they do pray for the Church Militant, which we grant; not that they offer up prayers made to them, which is the point in que­stion.

The third Text, Rev. 8.3. where Ano­ther Angel is said to stand by the Altar, ha­ving a golden Censer, and much incense was given to him, that he might offer it with the prayers of all Saints. A great mistake this and impious to make this the office of any created Angel, for the very Text seems to imply that this was a special Angel differing from the seven Angels, set out in the second verse as ministring Spi­rits; and what one created Angel is suf­ficient for this, to receive and offer up their prayers that are made by all the Saints or just men on Earth? Therefore generally it is interpreted of Christ the great Angel of the Counsel of God; as Viega, and other modern Writers, and herein they have Ambrose, Haimo, Ru­pertus, and the Interlin [...]ary Gloss con­senting: To whom I may add what Ire­naeus saith, reflecting upon this place, and [Page 257]the other, cap. 5.8. where speaking of the Church offering up all by Christ, ap­plies to it that of Malachi cap. 1.11. in every place Incense shall be offered— then adds, Now Iren. l. 4. c. 33. In­censa autem Joan. in Apocal. O­rationes ait esse Sancto­rum. Tert. ad­vers. Mar­cion. l. 4. c. 9. Per Jesum Chri­stum Catho­licum Patris sacerdotem. St. John in the Revel. saith, that Incense or the sweet odours are the prayers of the Saints. And Tertul. upon that of our Saviour to the Leper clean­sed: shew thy self to the Priest, and offer, Mat. 8.4. Inferreth, we must offer up all our prayers and thanksgivings by Je­sus Christ, the Catholick or universal Priest of the Father. No Created An­gel can be such a Catholick Priest, to of­fer up the Prayers of all Saints.

Thus much for Scripture, to shew how destitute they are of any real proof, and therefore want the first and main ground of Catholick faith and doctrine, Sect. 1. in Introduct. accor­ding to Vincentius his certain and safe Rule, at first mentioned. Now let us make a brief Survey of Antiquity, and see what may be brought for or against this Invocation of Saints and Angels allowed in the Roman Church.

Being forsaken of Scripture, they fly to some sayings of the Fathers, that seem to allow and commend, the practise, then set on foot by some in the fourth Centu­ry; higher they cannot go for the rise of it: and so fall short of the second ground [Page 258]of Catholick doctrine, requiring it be delivered down from the Apostles time, held and believed in all Ages, as Vincen­tius his Rule also tels us. For clearing of this, We will lay down some Generals, which will evince this doctrine and pra­ctise (though Ancient, yet indeed) New and not Catholick: and so may render what they bring, weak and impertinent to prove the contrary.

III First, It was the opinion of very ma­ny of the Ancients, The opini­on of some of the An­cients tou­ching the state of the Dead in­consistent with Invo­cation. that the Souls of the faithful, are not admitted into Heaven, or to the sight of God till the Resurrection; being still in the like condition, as the Romanists suppose the Fathers of the Old Testament to be in; and therefore not in a condition to be invocated, or prayed to: but were prayed for, that God would give them Lucem & refrigerium.light and refreshment, as we finde in ancient forms of prayer for the Dead. Senensis, and other Romish Wri­ters acknowledge this to be the opinion of many Ancient Fathers: and therefore Invocation of Saints could not then be Catholick belief or Doctrine; The Bell. de Beat. San­ctor. c. 1, 2, 3. Car­dinal well saw, how this was inconsistent with the ground of Invocation, and there­fore seeks to make the Contrary appear, viz. that the Souls of the faithful do see God: But though many Fathers may be [Page 259]brought to the contrary, especially after the many Miracles done at the Tombs of Martyrs in the fourth Age, yet the gene­ral opinion of the more Ancient Fathers being as I said, it plainly shews that In­vocation of Saints could not be their be­lief or practice— Bellarmine seems to be troubled in shifting off two testimonies especially. The one of John the 22. who though of later times yet a Pope, and so more cross to their pretended ancient be­lief of Invocation; which sentence of the Pope Bell. de Beat. Sanct. c. 2. he seeks to elevate it as if the Pope held it doubtfully and recal'd it, but elsewhere the Bel. de Pontifice Romano, l. 4. c. 14. —cum Libe­rum esset— Cardinal answers roundly to it, that Pope John thought so, when it was free to think so, the Church having determined nothing therein: But if Invocation of Saints departed had been a defined and determined doctrine of the Catholick Church, then would it not have been free for any to hold them in a place, where they could not be In­vocated.

The other Testimony is of Irenaeus, Iren. l. 5. c. 31. Le­gem mortuo­rum serve­vit— one of the most ancient Fathers, most plainly asserting the former opinion, and giving Reason for it, from our Saviours example, who did, saith he, observe the Law of the dead, that he might be the first born from the dead; and what Law was [Page 260]that? Manifestum est, quia & discipulorum animae— Bell. l. de beatit. San­ctorum c. 4. sect. tertio —Erat ani­mâ beatus. —animâ sunt in paradiso beati. that his soul should stay in the lower parts, unto his resurrection; or in an invi­sible place, as he cals it in that chapter: It is manifest therefore that the Souls of his disciples must stay in the invisible place till the resurrection, and then adds, for no disciple is above his Master: Of all that the Cardinal saith, this only carries a shew of Answer, That Christ before his resurrection was beatified in Soul (so was he before his death by reason of the hy­postatical Union) In like manner the Saints, while they rest, as to their bodies, in the Sepulchre, are blessed in soul and in Paradise. That they were in a blessed condition, though out of heaven or the beatifical vision of God was not doubted, but that Paradise which Bell. in reference to Luc. 23.43. places them in, does not reach the highest heaven or sight of God, and so he saith nothing, as to their capaci­ty of being invocated. So also, what he saith Bell. l. 1. de Beat. Sanctor. c. 6. —fuisse tamen in Fara diso Coelesti for­maliter, i. e. fuisse Bea­tam & glo­riosam— afterward: That Christs Soul, though it did not ascend into that corporeal Heaven, before his resurrection, yet was it in the coelestial Paradise formally, i. e. it was blessed and glorious; Which if our Adversaries would yeeld unto the Souls of the Saints, we would not be much solicitous for that corporeal Heaven. We cannot yeeld, nor you neither, that the Souls of [Page 261]Saints, if not in the highest heaven and that sight of God, could be glorified and beatified as the Soul of our Saviour was, only that they were blessed in Soul though out of that heaven we yeeld; but that will do the Romanists no good as to Invocati­on. And if our Saviours Soul was formally in Paradise before his refurrection, because it was gloriosa & beata, glorious and bea­tified, then was it so in Paradise before his death, whilest he conversed on earth, or was on the Cross; for his Soul by rea­son of the Hypostatical Union, was al­waies in the Vision of God and beatified: and so the Cardinal still said nothing to the purpose. But this is enough to our pur­pose, that many of the Ancients deny the Saints departed, to have sight of God till the resurrection, or speak doubtfully of their place and condition: which plain­ly evinces that Invocation could not be a point then of belief or Catholick Doctrine.

IV Our second General is, This pra­ctise of In­vocation took be­ginning but in the 4. Century. That this Do­ctrine or practise cannot be made to ap­pear before the fourth Century: and therefore also not Catholick. This is proved first, because the defenders of it can bring no Testimony for it beyond that Age. That which Coccius cites out of Origen upon Job, and the Lamenta­tions, [Page 262]is indeed not out of Origen; for nei­ther of those Comments are his; and what the Bell. de beat. San­ctor. l. 1. c. 16. Cardinal makes his first Te­stimony out of Dionysius his Hierarchy, fails two waies; for that writing is of a much later date; and the place cited con­cerns the prayers of the Living for the Dead, not to the Dead; as appears by the purpose of the whole Chapter from whence the words are taken. The Car­dinals second Testimony is from Irenaeus, an ancient Father indeed: but what saith he for Invocation? He cals the Bles­sed Virgin Evae Advocatum, the Advo­cate of Eve: and Bell. cries, Quid cla­rius? what more clear? If this imply any Intercession, yet can it not prove Invoca­tion: for how could Eve invocate the Blessed Virgin? But this is a strong and high expression importing, not the Ad­vocation of Words or pleading, but of Deeds and acting: The Father sets the one Woman against the other; the great Good that came by one, against the great Evil that was caused by the other; Gen. 3. as the Scripture sets the Womans Seed against the Effect of the Womans transgression: the meaning of Irenaeus in calling the Blessed Virgin Eves Advocat, is, that she was an Instrument or Means in [Page 263]bringing forth the Saviour of Mankinde, the Only Mediator between God & Man. St. Ambr. de Obitu Theo­dosii. Foeminam visitavit Christus in Maria. Visitata est Maria, ut Evam libe­raret. Ambrose may explain that speech of Irenaeus, by what he saith to like purpose but more clearly; Christ, saith he, visited the Woman in Mary: Mary was visited, that she might free Eve.

What they have out of the True Ori­gen, speaks only that the Saints do or may pray for us, which cannot be denied; But as for Invocation, we shall presenly see he declared against it. The Inter­cession of Saints de­parted for the living, how far extendi­ble. Such Testimo­nies as imply the Saints interceeding or entreating for us, are frequent among the Ancient Fathers, and not only in General, but in Particular for those they knew here: both for their particular Persons, & for their particular Necessities or Infir­mities, known to them, before they went from hence; for as they lose not their me­mory, so they encrease their charity by go­ing to God. Thus Ignat. Ep. ad Tral­lens. Salutat vos spiritus mons non modo nunc [...]. Igna­tius, My spirit salutes you, not only now, but will al­so when I obtain (or enjoy) God: So between Cornelius and Cyprian, it was agreed, that which of them went first to God should remember [Page 264]the other. Cypr. epist. 57. Perseveret apud Domi­num nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororibus no­stris apud misericor­diam patris non cesset Oratio. Let our love continue, when either of us shall be with the Lord, and let not our prayer cease to sollicit the mercy of the Father for our brothers and sisters, left behinde. So Chrysost. in his Oration ad Illuminandos, to those that were to be baptized: Remember me (saith he) when that Kingdom receives you.

Such sayings as these, that avouch the Saints praying for them they knew, and in general for all the Church, are often shuf­fled in by the Romanists, as good proofs of Invocation, and sufficient to take the unwary, that discern not the Paralogism or inconsequent Reasoning: From such intercession of the Saints departed, to infer, they were (or ought to be) invoca­ted by the Living.

That which they bring out of Athana­sius as a Testimony of primer Antiquity for invocating of the blessed Virgin, is taken out of the book De Sanctiss. Dei­para, Of the most holy Mother of God: Not written by that holy Father, but by a much later and unlearned Author, and so rejected of Baronius with scorn; But see the other Bell. de Script Ec­cles. tit. A­thanasius. Cardinals honesty or diligence, who having censured this ve­ry Book as Suppositious and written af­ter the sixt General Council, (300 years [Page 265]after Athanasius his Time) yet can cite it as his.

V Hitherto the first proof of our second General; Testimo­nies of An­tiq. against Invocation. because the Defenders of Invo­cation can bring no witness for it beyond the middle of the fourth Age: Our se­cond proof is from Testimonies exclu­ding or denying such Invocation. Ire­naeus in his first Book speaks of Hereticks that had strange Phansies concerning Angels, attributing much unto them; in relation to which he denies, Iren. l. 2. c. 25. Nec invocationibus Angelicis fa­ciat aliquid, nec incantatio­nibus, sed purè & mani­feste orationes dirigens ad Dominum qui fecit omnia, & nomen Domini Jesu Christi invocans— that the Church did do any thing (he speaks of miraculous Cures done then) by Invocation of Angels, nor by incantations, but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord that made all, and invoca­ting the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Fevardentius his Gloss here will not help, saying the Father means Invocation of such evil spirits as the former Hereticks used: for if the Church had used, to the working of those cures, the Invocation of good Angels, the same Father could not have condemned their invocations, and so absolutely de­nied (without any mention or limitation of such use in the Church) all Angelical Invocations; could not have bound up [Page 266]the prayers of the Church (as we see here) to God the father through the Name of his Son. So afterward when Cures were so frequently don at the Mo­numents of Martyrs, the first and regu­lar way was, as here, to direct their pray­ers to God through Christ; not using In­vocations of the Martyr; which was the abuse creeping in by degrees, as we shall see below. Our next Testimony is from Origen, out of whom we cited some pas­sages Sect. 1. Num. 4. Orig. contra Celsum l. 5. Omnia Vota deprecationes, & gra­tiarum actiones destinandae ad Deum— per summum Pontificem— above against An­gel-worship; so is he very express against their Invo­cation. Angelos invocare absque ipsorum cognitione— Notwithstanding that the Angels are Mini­string Spirits as he acknow­ledges, yet all our vowes, prayers, thanksgivings are to be directed unto God the Lord of all, by our High Priest, greater then all Angels. And he gives severall reasons against In­vocation of Angels; Because (saith he) to invoke Angels without knowing them (better then we do, as to their nature, condition, offices) is little agreeable to reason. But, saith he, if we had sufficient knowledge of them and their condition, yet Hoc cohibebit ne quis preces [...]udeat offerre nisi soli Domino Deo, qui omnibus abunde suffi [...]it, per servato­rem nostrum Dei fil um. An­gelos habet satis Propi [...]ios— this will withhold any from daring to offer up [Page 267]prayers to any save God alone, who abun­dantly is sufficient for all through our Lord Jesus Christ; and because this will render the Angels sufficiently propitious to us, and willing to do all things for us: if we (so far as humane nature permits) be well affected, as they are to Gods ser­vice. Something like it is, that S. Aug. saith of every good Angel Aug de vera Relig­cap. 55. In illo me exaudit, in illo me adjuvat. He hears me in him (i.e. in God when I pray to God) in him he helps me.

To the like purpose doth Origen reply again to Celsus, Origen. l 8. contrae Celsum pro­pè initium.that prayers are to be of­fered up to God alone by his only begotten Son and this exclusive to Angels, because opposed to Celsus pleading for their go­ing to God by their Daemons: For our Saviour Christ, saith Origen, Qui ut pontifex ea [...] deferat ad Deum.as high Priest presents our prayers to God the Fa­ther. Again, Quisquis habet Deum pro­pitium propter magni con­silii Angelum— —quae mul­titudo (Angelorum) cum videt homines suam erga Deum pietatem imitantes, adjutat e [...]s contendentes ad s [...]lutem, & Deum invocan­tes. Whosoever, saith he, hath God propitious by the Angel of the great Counsel, Jesus Christ, he may be content with that, and shall not want protection: for the multitude (of An­gels) seeing men imitating their piety towards God, helps them, whilest they contend to salvation, calling upon God. This was the wholesome doctrine [Page 268]of those times. And to the same tenor sounds that which above was cited out of Tertul. saying we must offer up all by our Catholick, or universal High Priest Jesus Christ, call'd so to the exclusion of all others.

V Our third General is, After the Pra­ctise began in some manner towards the end of the fourth Age, Invocation of God a­lone asser­ted in that Age. yet do we finde the former doctrine, of God alone to be Invocated by Jesus Christ, asserted often in the Fathers; A mbr. de obitu The­od. Tu ta­men Domine solus es in­vocandus. St. Ambrose speaking with relation to the two young Sons of Theodosius, yet thou O Lord art only to be invocated, that is, for a blessing and protection upon them. And in Rom. 1.21. (if those commentaries be his, or if of a later writer, it is so much more to the prejudice of Invocation) He an­swers the Heathens excuse for their com­ing to the Creator by the Creature, Ambr. in Rom. 1.21. Per Commites perven [...]t [...]ur ad Regem quia [...]o [...]no est, & nescit— that they did it, as to Kings we come per Comites & Tribunos by their great offi­cers at Court: (the Romanists use the like reason or excuse,) We come (saith the Fa­ther) by such officers to the King, because he is a man, and knowes not all—. But God knows all mens conditions and merits, and we need not use such an Intercessor to Him, but only a devout mind. Chrys. 4. hom. de Paenit. In Deo nihil [...]ale.Chrysost often to the like purpose denying the way of our [Page 269]coming to God, to be like the manner of Kings Courts; In God, saith he, there is no such thing: Elsewhere he forbids us to bring in Angels, when we would have any thing prosper, but with reference to the Apostles precept, Col. 3.17. Chrys Hom. 9. in 3. Co­los. [...]. do all in the name of the Lord Jesus; he bids, set that name before, and all things will be happy and prosperous: and do not bring in Angels; and the marginal note in the Paris Edition is; Angeli non adjun­gendi ad invocationem Trinitatis: Angels are not to be joyned, when we invocate God: Indeed it is Athanasius his argument for the Deity of our Saviour; because the Apostle joyns him in prayer with the Fa­ther, 1 Thes. 3.11. as above cited; Chap. 1. nu. 5. and this makes Athansius interpret the An­gel, which Jacob seemed to joyn with God in Invocation (Gen. 48.16. Athan. in 4. contra Arrianos. to be Christ; — and by many examples he shews, none to be Invocated but God: and speaking of David, He never invoca­ted any save God himself: [...], ibid. Now to an­swer here as Romanists would do, that the Saints were then out of sight of God; or that none was to be invocated as God, but God himself: would be first imper­tinent, because the Angels whom Atha­nasius expresly excludes from being In­voked, did see the face of God then, as [Page 270]well as now, also because such answer if it were proper by that limitation (as God) would render the Fathers Ar­gument invalid and impertinent, when he so often proves the Deity of our Sa­viour by Invocation, and so doth other Fathers after him.

St. Hier. l. ad­versus Vi­gilant. Hierom lived in the fourth age, af­ter that practise began, but if it had been the practise or doctrine of the Church, he would not have spared Vi­gilantius in that point, as he doth not in any, wherein he could have advantage against him. Seeing therefore he only de­fends the Saints praying for us, which was the Doctrine of the Church, hath no­thing in defence of our Invocating them, it is evident this was no doctrine, nor to be accounted of as the practise of the Church: yet is St. Hier. often cited as a witness for Invocation; because upon other points he wrote against Vigilantius, who found fault with that beginning pra­ctise of Invocation.

St. Aug. de Ci­vit. Dei l. 22. c. 10. Nominari à Sacerdote, non invo­cari. Aug. saith expresly, of the Mantyrs, they are named in the daily Sacrifice, they are not invocated. Indeed it was later by much ere Invocation of Saints came into the publick office; But St. August. be­ing by the objections of Enemies often put to it, punctually to set down what [Page 271]was done at the Monuments of Mar­tyrs, (as we saw Sect. 1. nu 4. above) no where men­tions Invocating of Them but of God.

But the Bell. I de Beat. Sanct. c. 17. sect. Quariò Sanctum Augustinum, doeere Sanctos Invocandos non ut Deos, sed ut qui à Deo impetrent, quod volunt. Cardinal bold­ly, though untruly, tels his Reader, that St. Aug. teach­eth, the Saints are not to be Invocated as Gods, but as those that can obtain of God, what they will: and the places he notes are, De Civit. Dei. l. 8. c. ult. & l. 22. c. 10. whereas St. Aug. in the first place speaks of no Invocation but of God, and for the Martyrs he speaks only of our Imitating them. In the second place he expresly denies they are Invocated, as we cited it hard above. Again the Bell. l. de Beat. Sanct. c. 19 sect. ult. —docere, quò [...] in Sacrificio ipso memoria srat Martyrum, & invocentur, ut pro nobis orent. Cardinal saith, St. Au­gust. teacheth, that in the Sacrifice it self, there is a remembrance made of the Martyrs, and that they are invocated, that they would pray for us. The places he cites, are Tract. 84. in Jo. and Serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli. Now its strange that St. Aug. should so for­get himself, as in one place to say, they are named or remembred in the sacrifice, not invocated: and in another to say (as the Cardinal imposes upon Him and the Reader) they are invocated; In the first [Page 272]place St. Aug. saith, We do not remember Martyrs there, as we do others that rest in peace, —Non— ut pro iis ore­mus, sed ma­gis ut ipsi pro nobis orent, ut eorum vestigiis ad­haereamus.to pray for them, but rather that they pray for us, that we may follow their steps. In the second place, thus; The Martyrs are recited at the Altar, not that we should pray for them, For its an Injury to pray for a Martyr, Cujus nos orationibus debemus commendare.to whose prayers we ought to commend our selves. This is the most that fell from St. Aug. yet this comes short of what Bell. will have him say, that they are then Invocated at the Altar; for he had said expresly, they are not invocated, and that we invocate God there, to inable us to imitate them, as above in the two places out of his book de Civit. Dei. What then is this commen­ding our selves to their prayers? it can­not be direct Invocation, for that he de­nies: but an invocating of God or beg­ging of him, the benefit of their prayers; as we shall see more below.

We have found the Cardinal very un­faithful hitherto in his Testimonies of Antiquity: we will add two more; He cites Chrys. 5. Hom. in Matt. which is plainly of the prayers of the living Saints. It speaks of the woman of Canaan com­ing of her self to Christ without suing to any of the Disciples to entreat for her; [...]. Chrys. And this (saith he) I speak, not that we [Page 273]ought not to entreat or sue to the Saints— The other place is that which we noted above, how corruptly it was cited by the Cardinal, for the Worship of Saints; afterward it is again alledged by him for Vowes made to Saints: it is out of Euseb. de praepar. Evang. l. 13. c. 11. where as we noted above, in stead of making vowes and prayers at the Monuments of Martyrs, the Interpreter has rendred it, making Vowes to them, that is, to the Martyrs; and this (in three times alledging this Testi­mony) the Cardinal would not see.

VI Our fourth General. That practise of Invocation which began in the fourth Century was not such as the Romish is, The Invo­cation be­gun in the fourth Age was not such as the Romish is. ei­ther for the manner or the use: that is, it was not formal and direct Invocation, nor used in sacred offices till long after.

1. They were Wishes not formal In­vocation: as Nyssen upon our Saviours, Nyssen. de Oratione Dominica, orat. 2. when ye pray, Luc. 11.2. distinguisheth between [...], vowing, and [...] praying by direct address and peti­tion to God: so we in this discourse of Invocation, must distinguish between [...] a vow or wish, and [...] a praying to, or religious address to any by petition: So when they cryed out in the Council of Chalcedon, Oret pro nobis [Page 274]Flavianus, Let Flavianus pray for us: it was a speaking of their judgment of Flavianus his being in bliss, and a wishing of the benefit of his intercession. Thus we finde in Theodorets History of the Lives of many Fathers, such closures of most of them; I wish and desire, that by their intercession I may obtain the divine help. Some think there are additions and insertions made in this work; Theod. in Sanct. Pa­trum hist. Rogo & quaeso ut ipsorum in­tercessione divinum consequer Auxilium. but whether these be Theodorets words, or any others, they do speak the wish of ha­ving the benefit and effect of the Saints prayers put up for the Church below. But this is not Invocation.

2. In that practise, we meet with for the most part only Indirect Invocation; that is, a praying to God himself direct­ly, that he would vouchsafe the effect of the Saints Intercession, or prayers they made in behalf of the Members of the Church below, and give the benefit there­of unto them as he saw fit. This still is not the Invocating of Saints, which we contend about; no more then Moses can be said to have Invocated Abraham, Aug. l. 20. [...].21. con­tra Fau­stum.Isaac, and Jacob, when he prayed to the Lord to remember them, in behalf of that peo­ple, Exod. 32.13. To this sense speaks that passage of St. Aug. cited somtimes by Romanists for Invocation and explai­ned [Page 275]above Sect. 1. nu. 4. Speaking of Christian people frequenting the Tombs of Martyrs with a Religious solennity, that they may be stirred up to imitation of the Martyrs, come to a fellowship of their merits, and be helped by their prayers; and this not by invocating or praying to them; but by imitating of them, and pray­ing to God there, —quo adju­vante possu­mu [...] imitari. ibid. for his aid to inable us to imitate them, and for his favour in af­fording us the benfit of their prayers, this is not Invocation of the Saints, but of God: and if St. Aug. had asserted a di­rect Invocation of the Martyrs them­selves, he had yielded up the Cause to Faustus; To the like sense is that which we noted Hac Sect. nu. 5. above of St. Aug. his saying Com­mendare nos orationi— we ought to com­mend our selves to the prayers of the Mar­tyrs: not by direct Invocating of them, but of God, as before, And to this purpose also that of Aug. elsewhere, Aug. de cu­ra pro mort. c. 4. which at first hearing sounds harsh: Where en­quiring what benefit accrews to a mans friends to have their bodies laid near the Monuments of Martyrs; —i [...]sdem Sanctis illos tarquam Pa­tronis susce­pt [...]s, apud D [...]minum adju [...]andos [...]rand [...] com­mendent. He saith he sees none unless this, that when they look upon the place where their dear friends lye buried, they may be moved to commend them to those Saints as Patrons, to finde help with God, yea but he saith, commend [Page 276]them by praying; true, but to God not to the Saints or Martyrs themselves. To this purpose of indirect invocation speaks that of Cyril in his Catech. cited also by the Cardinal. When we offer the sacrifice we make mention of the Saints (does not say we Invocate them) that God by their Intercession may receive our prayers. Thus far it prevailed so as to have approba­tion; and the practise of this Indirect In­vocation (or praying to God at Martyrs Tombs, and begging for their sakes) got strength by a common opinion of many, that when God was so invocated or pray­ed to, then the Martyr was present, as some thought, or did joyn his prayers with them, as most thought. This St. Aug. leaves as uncertain in his Book, de Cura pro mortuis: c. 16. and something of doubt in his Book, de vera Relig. c. 55. But there he concludes for certain of the good Angel in illo me exaudit, adjuvat, he hears me in God, and helps me in God, that is, when I pray, or by my praying to God, I have the Angels help; we may indeed say it with comfort, as Origen did above in answering to Celsus. He that piously and faithfully invocates God, is sure to have the Angels propitious, and the benefit of their ministry; So is he sure to have the benefit of the Prayers, which [Page 277]the Saints put up in behalf of the Church Militant.

I may add here that place of Basil of­ten alledged by the Romanists, Basil. in O­rat. de 40. Martyr. prope fi­nem. but see how abused by the Cardinal: who thus alledges it, (Qui aliqua premitur angu­stia ad hos confugiat; 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 [Page 278]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, [Page 279]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 [Page 280]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 [Page 282]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, whether the book be forged or no, and the story of Justina true or false: yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise. [...]. We answer that he tels us; she betook her self to God for help, and to Christ: that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna, Da­niel, &c. then follows, having considered these things, she also supplicated the Virgin Mary, that she would help a Virgin now in danger: and so he leaves the story, nei­ther commendig this practise, nor repro­ving it.

We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers, and how faithfully it is done, especially by [Page 283]the Cardinal. One Argument remains, which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs, whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise. But this is a fallacious Argument, à non Causa: making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hea­ring and granting success. It is certain in History, that many were heard, who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there; yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession, which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church be­low; but if some were heard, that did directly invocate, or pray to the Martyr, (of which Examples cannot certainly be given) we may say, God overlooked the Excess, or the voluntaries of their mouth, as St. August. Aug. Con­fess. l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei. call'd his Excesses or brea­kings out in his praying for his mother, whom he believed to be in bliss: hoping that God would pardon the extrava­gance. And as the same Father insinuates, God overlooked and pardoned the infir­mities of the Midwives not speaking al­together according to truth, Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. —non po­tuit ad lau­dem, sed ad Veniam per­tinere. and rewar­ded their good will, Exod. 1.20. Their untruth could not deserve praise, might ob­tain pardon. So when the Romanists urge [Page 284]the miracles (which Augustine sent hi­ther by Greg. the first, is said to work) as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Do­ctrines he brought from Rome; we say those Miracles (supposing them to be wrought) were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached, and planted here; not to all that he taught: God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities, when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ. But this may suffice for the former Argu­ment. If therefore we be asked, why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church, it may be answered; Because we see what the more Ancient Church held, and practised: and we find by St. Aug. con­Faust. l. 20. c. 21. A­lind est quod docemus, a­liud quod sustinemus­Et donec e­mendemus to lerare compellimur. Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs, but not by the bet­ter sort of Christians, as we noted above, Sect. 1. nu. 6. and that in his answer to Faustus; about the worship or honour given to Martyrs, he concludes thus: It is one thing that we teach, another thing which we bear with— and we are compelled to tolerate it, till we can amend it. There­fore, because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity, when we had opportunity and power to amend it (the thing St. Aug. de­sired) [Page 285]we did it, and with good Reason: allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine; such we count the [...], the wish of having benefit by those prayers, which the Saints above make for the members of the Church mi­litant and labouring below; yea such we may account the indirect Invocation, which begs of God that benefit, or effect of those Prayers; but we cannot account the [...], or direct Invocation, to consist with Catholick Doctrine, when it is made to Saints, and that by way of Religious address, as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices, which practise none of the Ancients knew.

SECT. III. Of Image-worship.

I HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them, Romanists altogether forsaken here, of Scripture and Anti­quity. we saw above, Chap. III. and there was an­swered what they bring from Ps. 99.5. to worship his footstool, and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark; This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture: yet so weak and un­grounded, that their own Authors give it over as impertinent, and raised upon a false supposal, that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship: as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu. 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity, which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them.

Our first evidence against this Image­worship. The first Evidence. Had there been any such thing amongst Christians, those Ancient Apo­logists and Defenders of Christian Religi­on against Heathens (Justin, Clemens, Ter­tullian, Minutius, Lactantius, Arnobius, [Page 287]Eusebius) would have mentioned it, when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies; Nay they could not have declined it, when they set them­selves to refute the Heathen Image-wor­ship. And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igi­tur si statuas & imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum si­millimas non adoramus, quas milvi & araneae intelligunt, nonne lau­dem— in his Apo­logetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images. If therefore (saith he) we do not worship Statues and cold Images, like indeed to the Dead whom they represent: and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough, it deserves praise rather then punishment. See how he not only denies the worship, but vilifies them as unfit for worship, cold, and like the Dead, and that the Birds understand them, and therefore fear not to dung upon them. Minutius Faelix answering Ceci­lius a Heathen, that objected against the Christians their having no Temples, no Images, gives reasons wherefore they had not, or not used them in worship. Cle­mens Alexandr. as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship: saying Clem. strom. 5. [...], Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped; so is he very severe against Images among Christians, insomuch that he scarce al­lowes the Art of painting or of making Images: as we may see in his Protreptic. Origen had to do with Celsus about [Page 288] worship and Invocation, and to answer, why the Christians gave it not to Angels (whom they acknowledged to be mini­string Spirits sent of God) as they (the Heathen) gave it to their Daemons: of which in the two former Sections; But he was also put to satisfie Celsus, why the Christians did not use Images: and for which he compares them to Scythians & Barbarians, that had no Temples and Images, because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were. How does Ori­gen answer? by saying as a Romanist would do, we only hate the heathen Idols and decline them, but as for the Images of Christ and his Saints, we have and worship them? No! They and we (answers Origen) have not the same cause of declining these things; Origen contra Celsum l. 7. Non eandem aversandi cau vam esse illis & nobis.— Aliis rationibus moventur quam Christiani & Judaei, quibus Religio est, fic Nu­men colere — Sibi ab his temperant propter illud Le­gis, Deut. 6. Exod. 20. and again, Those barbarous Na­tions are moved to it by other reasons then Christians and the Jewes are, to whom it is horrid impiety, so to wor­ship the Deity. They keep themselves carefully from these, because of the Law. Deut. 6. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him shalt thou serve, and that of Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven Image: And because [Page 289] Celsus had said, Those Barbarians have not Temples, Altars, Images, by reason that they know not what the Gods and Heroes are: Impossibile est ut qui Deum novit supplex fiat statuis. — Nos ideò non honorare simulachra, quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in istam Credulitatem— therefore Ori­gen subjoyns here; It is im­possible that he who knowes God should be a worshipper of Statues. Again, We there­fore do not honour Images, because we take heed, as much as in us lies, least by any means we fall into the Credulity of attributing to them, any thing of Divinity. In like man­ner Minutius Felix and Arnobius were put to answer the Heathens, challenging the Christians for having no Temples, Minut. in Octavio.Al­tars, Images; for which Caecilius re­proaches them, that they could not shew the God, they worship, and is answered, We believe our God, though we see him not. Again he reproaches them with their po­verty and afflictions, as if their God could not help them, Cruces nec Colimus nec optamus. ibid. The Cross is not to be worshiped by you, but born: and is answered, We neither worship Crosses, nor desire them. And Man is the Image of God— Arnobius answers the like chal­lenge— and is so far from acknowledging that Christians had Images, Arnob. l. 6. Contra Gen­tes. or did wor­ship their God by Images, (as he must needs have done, if they had Images [Page 290]then) that he replies to the Heathen, that said, we worship the Gods by Images; — Scire Deum & rei alteri supplicare. Opem sperare à Numine, & ad Effigicm nullius sensus dep [...]ecar [...]. VVhat, saith he, can be more injurious, more reproachful to say they know God, and yet worship ano­ther thing, to professe they hope for help from the Deity, and yet turn to and supplicat the Image which has no sense? which speaks reason against Image­worship in Heathens or Christians.

Lactantius amongst many sayings against this folly, Lactan. l. 2. c. 18. Per­versum est ut simula­chrum homi nis à simu­lachro Dei colatur. hath this: It's absurd, that the Image of man should be worshiped by the Image of God. The Ancient Coun­cil of Eliberis in Spain decreed, That Pi­ctures ought not to be in the Church.

Epiphanius was very severe against Images; Epiph. Epist. ad Johan. Hierof. Velum depictum, habens imeginem quast Chri­sti vel sancti cujusdam. as he shewed both by Deed and Doctrine. At Anablatha, going into a Chappel to pray, he finds a Veil hanging there, and having in it a picture, as of Christ, or some other Saint; wherefore he cut it in pieces as a thing not to be suffered in the Church against the Authority of Scripture, as he relates it himself in his Epist. to John Bishop of Jerusalem, in whose Diocess that place was. The Cardinal not liking the shifts that some of their writers make to avoid [Page 291]the prejudice of this Authority: thought good to Bell. l. 2. de Imagin. cap. 9. sect. ad quin­tum. cut off that part of the Epistle as supposititious, and added to the rest by an after hand; but this is sure, that St. Hierom, who was contemporary to Epiphanius, and held correspondency and friendship with him, translated the whole Epistle out of Greek into Latin: this part of it as well as the rest, and accounted this to be Epiphanius his deed and Report; And this one thing is of more weight then those many petty pretences of Rea­sons, which the Cardinal holds out for the proof of what he said. Now let us hear what Epiphanius saith doctrinally of Images. Epiph. de Collyridia­nis Har. 79. Writing against the Collyridi­ans, that worshipped the Virgin Mary calling her the Queen of Heaven: he tels us the Original of Images, or rather of the honour and worship they got in the world, that the Devil brought them in [...].under pretence of Just, (that is, of gi­ving famous men their due, by honou­ring them after death) creeping into the minds of men, and [...].consecrating or de­signing the mortal nature to divine honours, he set before mens eyes humane likenesses and Images polished with great art: that seeing they that are worshipped, were dead (and out of sight) their Images might ap­pear, [Page 292]and receive the honour and adoration. So that ancient Father.

St. Ambrose, Ambr. de obitu The odosii Re­gem adora vit, non lignum uti­que, quia hic Gentilis est error, & vanitas Im­piorum. hath this passage of He­lena mother of Constantine when she had found the very Cross of Christ. She wor­shiped the King (Christ) not the Wood. The Cardinal replies, that St. Ambrose would have the Cross, not adored for it self, but for Christs sake: as if that Age of the the Church knew the new Romish di­stinctions, or limitations, of giving wor­ship to Crosses and Images, for them­selves, or for the Exemplars sake; but the Cardinal did advisedly in cutting off what follows in that Father, for this is a Hea­then Error and vanity of the wicked, viz. to worship such things religiously; yet there he findes something, which he thinks may favour the adoration of the Cross. —Levavit Crucem in capite Re­gum ut Crux Domini in Regibus a­doretur, Ambr. ibid. Helena (saith Ambrose) did wise­ly in setting the Cross upon the head of Kings, (for she had commended it to Constantine her son to set it upon his Crown) that the Cross of our Lord might be adored in Kings. What? that ma­terial Cross, placed on the Diadem of any King, be adored? So must the Cardi­nal suppose it: or else he must grant that the Intent of Helena and the saying of St. Ambrose upon it, was only to shew, [Page 293]what esteem she had, and all others ought to have of the Passion of Christ; Non insolen­tia haec, sed pietas cùm desertur sa­crae Redem­ptioni. and therefore it follows in St. Ambrose, This was not a strange or unseemly thing, but Piety: seeing the honour is given to the sa­cred Redemption.

Hear now what St. Aug. Aug. de Morib. Eccle­siae, c. 34. S [...]pul [...]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 [Page 294]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, tot [...]que abjici­endum quicquid oculis cer­nitur, qui [...]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 en [...]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 i [...]si Artifi­ces. denying it and saying (as we saw above [Page 295]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 intu [...] simu­la [...]h um, qui non sic affici­tur [...]t ab eo se coe [...]rt pu­te [...]? 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 [Page 296]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 viven­ [...] 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 [Page 297]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. —Ʋsum 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 advises Serenus to call his people together, and teach them, [Page 298] that nothing made with hands is to be adored, because it is written Luc. 4. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Omne M [...]nufactum non li­cet adorari, quia scriptum est, &c.and him only shalt thou serve; and then to tell them; Because thou didst see Pi­ctures (which are for instru­ction of Ignorant people that they may learn the history) to gain worship, Quia Picturas quae ad aedi­ficationem — ut histori [...]m discerent, transisse in adora tionem videras— Si ad hanc instructionem ad quam factae sant, habere vultis— Greg. ibid. therefore thou didst break them: but now if ye will have them for instruction, for which they have been an­ciently made and used, ye may. Thus he, and what more plain that the use of Ima­ges was only historical, not for worship?

That which the Cardinal brings (in the place above cited) as a proof of his An­swer, comes short still of the point in hand; He alledges out of Gregories Epist. to Secundinus, Greg. Ep. l. 7. Ep. 53. Scio quod Imaginem salva­toris non ideo petis, ut quast Deum colas, sed ob recor­dationem filii Dei— that desired of him the Image of our Sa­viour; I know thou desirest the Image, not that thou maiest worship it, as God: but for remembrance of the Son of God. Now that limitation (as God) is added, not as now its used in the Church of Rome, to imply a Religious worship of inferi­our rank is to be given to the Image: [Page 299]but because anciently they knew no dif­ference between worshipping a Creature, and worshiping it as God, that is, giving to it what belonged to God. That which follows there in St. Nos quidem non quasi an­te Divinita­tem ante il­lam proster­nimur. Sed illum adora­mus quem per imagi­nem — [...]e­cordamur. Gregory sounds a lit­tle harsher at first hearing, and speaks a declination then beginning. And we tru­ly (saith he) lye prostrate before the Image of our Saviour, not as before a Divinity, but we adore him, whom by that Image we remember as born, or suffering, or sitting in his throne: Supposing this sen­tence to be Gregori [...]s, and not inserted (for there are some interpolations and additions in these Epistles, as it is concei­ved) it speaks no worship given to the Image, but that the use of it is only re­cordation, as in the former sentence too: for to worship before or toward such a thing, as towards the Ark, Temple, Al­tar, does not infer that thing is wor­shiped, or that it determines the wor­ship objectively, but only circumstan­tially; as Chap. III. nu. 15. above; but when this is done before or towards an Image, though it may possibly be done without giving any worship to the Image, yet scarcely without scandal to others, hardly with­out danger to himself that doth it, as ap­pears by what is said above, especially out of St. August. And truly if this prostra­tion [Page 300]was a custome in St. Gregories time (though without fixing any worship on the Image, as we see by what he said of the only use of Images for history and recordation) we see in it a beginning of declination towards this Image worship, which began to be asserted in the follow­ing Age.

II Our second evidence, is from the pre­tences wherewith the Heathens excused their worshipping of Images, Excuses made by the Hea. thens in de­fence of their Ima­ges from which our second E­vidence. which we finde recited and rejected by the Ancient Apologists and Writers for the Christian faith: and thereby the sinews of Ro­mish worship proportionably upheld by such pretences, cut in sunder. It is the usual answer of Romanists, that they worship them not as Gods, or as having any divinity in them, as the Council of Trent hath it: and the Bel. l. 2 de Imag. c. 13. Cardinal thinks himself much concerned, to shew the Heathens did think them to be, and wor­ship them as Gods. All that he saith from Scripture or Fathers for it, can but speak of the grosser sort of Idolaters; but those that were Aug. in Ps. 113. purgatioris Religio­nis, of a more refined Religion, as they took themselves to be, had that and other excuses. Origen. l. 7. contra Cel sum. Its plain by what Celsus the Philosopher pleads, and for it cites Hera­clitus, who pronounced of them, that so [Page 301]offered their prayers to Images, (viz. as to Gods) that they did not know what the Gods or Heroes were. Also, Ori­gen repeats it as spoken by the Adversary: Who, Quis nisi totus fatuus hac Deos esse credit—but a fool, will think them to be Gods, and not rather Statues dedicated to the Gods? Arnob l. 6. contra Gen­tes. Deos per simulachra ve­neramur. And Arnobius brings them in re­plying, they did by Images worship the Gods, Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. Non quòd credatur inesse in iis aliqua Divinitas— —ita ut per Imagines— Chri­stum adoremus. therefore held them not Gods. Com­pare with this what the Trent Council saith. — Not that any Divinity is believed to be in them: and that by Images before which we uncover, and lye down, we may worship Christ.

Lactantius also tels us what they used to reply, We fear not, Lactan l. 2.2. Non time­mus opera digitorum si. mulachra, sed cos— (say they) the work of mens hands, these Images; but those we fear, to whose Names they are consecrated. These men could not think them or wor­ship them as Gods— and if they did not fear them, —Vel quòd fidu [...]ia in il­lis sit coll [...]. canda. Con­cil. Trid. ibid. neither did they put their trust in them: which is another thing, that the Council saith in excuse of Image­worship— Not that confidence or trust is to be put in them: and we may see by Arnobius, (as above cited nu, 1.) Arnobius l. 6. con­tra Gentes. that they could profess they hoped for help [Page 302]from the Deity: upon which he infers it as a great absurdity and perverseness, ad effigiem— to supplicate to an Image that hath no sense, if thou expectest help from, and trustest in the Deity. This reason touches all Image-worship; and so doth that which Lactantius re­plies to their saying above— If you fear not Images, Lact. l. 2. c. 2. Cur ergo oculos ad Coelum non tolli­tis? quid simulachra vo­lunt mortuorum, & Absen­tium Monumenta! Et si absentium, non sunt colendi, si nec vident quae facimus, nec audiunt qui precamur— but those to whose Names they are dedicated: Why lift ye up not your Eyes to Heaven? and what mean these Images of the Dead and Absent; for if absent they are not to be worshipped; if they hear not what we pray nor see what we do. Let Romanists consider whether this spoken to Heathens doth not con­cern them.

To these I will but add two replies we meet with in St. August. repeated as from the mouth of Heathens. I neither worship the very Image, Aug. in Ps. 113. Nec si mulachrum colo— Sed per effigiem— Ejus rei signum intueor quam Colere debeo.nor a Devil, but in the Corporal representation I look upon the sign of that thing, which I ought to worship. Aug. in Ps. 96. Non illum Lapidem, a [...]t simulachrum colo quod est sine sensu, sed adoro quod video, & servio ei quem non video. And in another place, I do not wor­ship that stone, or that Image which is without sense, but I adore what I see, and serve [Page 303]him whom I do not see. Thus could the Heathens plead and profefs, in excuse of their worshiping Images. The Romanists had need study and give out some new pretences. I will close this point with the consideration of one chief Cause of Image­worship, that which made it be so readily intertained, and so tenaciously held, as among the Heathen, so proportionably in the Church of Rome, and that is satis­faction of sense or sight: So in Arno­bius by applying to their Statues, Arnob. l. 6. contra Gen­tes P [...]asentiam quandam exhiberi— they conceited an enjoyment of their Gods as present, by praying to their Images, they did as it were talk with their Gods. And for this, they ob­jected to the Christians that Minutius Felix in Octa­vio. Deum suum nec osten­dere possum nec videre. they could not shew or see the God they worshiped. To this satisfaction of sense in Religion, belongs that of Lactantius; Lact. l. 2. c. 7. Horum pulchritudo perstringit ocu­los, nec ullam Religionem putant, ubicunque haec non fulserint.The beauty of these Images dazles the eyes, neither do they think there is any Religion, where those do not shine and appear. Were not these words spoken by so ancient a Father, one would think them spoken of the present Church of Rome.

III Our third Evidence is from the Inevi­dence or weakness of the proof, The plea made for Image wor­ship weak; and the pleaders unfaithful in their Allegations. that can be made by the Adversary for Image­worship. For that which they pretend to bring from before the seventh Age or Century, is either out of forged writings; or if out of true Authors, the words are perverted, or the argument made from them inconsequent, as to the worship of Images. This will appear if we examine the Collection which the Cardinal has made, or rather some careless Scribe for him, but He too blame-worthy, that would not better inquire into them, or think that others would not.

First he makes a semblance of proof from St. Bel. l. 2. de Imaginib. c. 12. sect. primò. Hierom in his Epist. to Mar­cella, where he invites her to Bethlem: saying the Tabernacle was venerable for the Cherubins— But no such words in that Epistle; Indeed in an Epistle of Paula and Eustochium to invite Marcella to Bethlem, there is such a thing but not the words of Bellarmine: Venerabantur Judai Sancia Sanctorum, quia ibi erant— Nonne venerabilius tibi vi­detur Sepulchrum Domini?The Jewes (say those Women) worshiped or reverenced the Holiest of Holies, because there was the Chernbins, Ark, Aarons rod: and doth not the Sepulchre of the Lord seem to thee more venerable? So the [Page 305]sentence or words are not Hieroms, but the Womens: nor are they their words neither as Bellarm. repeats them. But let them go as he would have them, the argument for Image-worship is altoge­ther inconsequent, from that reverence the Jewes gave towards the Temple or the Ark.

He subjoyns immediately, a Testimo­ny out of St, Aug. who in his third Book de Trin. c. 10. —Loquens de quibusdam signis, quae venerationem tanqu [...]m religiosa merentur, point pro exemplo serpen­tem aeneum: Bell. ubi su­pra. Speaking of certain signes which de­serve veneration as things pertaining to religion, puts for example there the bra­zen Serpent. St. Aug. there gives other examples as well as the bra­zen Serpent, as the Stone which Jacobs head lay upon, when he had the Vi­sion, Gen. 28. but because the brazen Serpent was an Image, this must be men­tioned, as also in the next testimony, though falsly there, and impertinently here; for the brazen Serpent was not an Image of Christ but a Type or Sign as St. Aug. has it, — haec h [...] norem ut Religiosa possunt ha­bere. So St. Aug. and upon that score there was an honour due to it, as to all other signs of Gods institution: but when religious worship was given to it by burning of Incense, (which is also done in the Romish worship before Images) it [Page 306]was broken in pieces. To this the Cardi nal there Bel. nbi suprà. Tam de Imaginibus Cherubinorum, quàm Serpentis aenei quod honorari debuerint, pate [...] ex Regula Augustini, signa di­vinitus instituta esse vene­randa quia honor eorum ad prorotypum transit. Fuisse autem illas Imagines Che­rubin. & Serpen [...]is. adds another place of St. Aug. and thus brings it in, As concerning the Images of the Cherub. and of the brazen Serpent, that they are to be honoured appears by St Aug. in his third Book de doctr. Christiana, c. 9. where he saith, Signs appointed of God are venerable, because the honour of them redounds to the Proto­type; and they were the Images of the Che­rubins and of the Serpent: having thus repeated St. Aug words, as he saw fit, he makes his argument from thence: If it was lawful to worship the Images of Angels, why not of the Saints? But first this has a falfe ground, viz. that the Jewes wor­shiped the Cherubins, Chap. III. nu 10. as above shewed that they did not. Again, from the ve­neration or reverend respect given to the holy signs instituted of God to infer Ro­mish worship given to Images, is incon­sequent upon a double account, because such veneration is of the weakest sort of honor, far short of the worship contended for; also because there is great difference twixt holy signs instituted of God, and Images of mans invention, and so from that looking towards or bowing towards [Page 307]the Temple or Ark used by the Jewes to infer Image-worship, is inconsequent and fails upon the former respects, and also because a circumstantial determining of worship given to God, this way ra­ther then another, as towards the Ark or Temple, is far different from the objective determining or receiving of the worship as an Image doth. But indeed, the Car­dinal wrongs St. Aug. both in his words and meaning. For St. Aug. doth not there deliver a Rule, nor saith as the Car­dinal sets it down, but only by the way saith, Aug. de doctr. Christi­ana l. 3. c. 9 Qui vene­ratur utile signum divini­tus Institutum: non hoc ve­neratur, sed illud poti [...]s quò talia cuncta referenda. He that reverenceth signs appointed of God (he means the Jewish Types be­fore Chri [...]) does not reve­rence these but that to which all these had reference: where this reverencing of such a sign, is so to regard it, as to understand it in the spi­ritual meaning of it, as it is plain there by St. Aug. who has no such thing, as the honour of the sign or Image redoun­ding to the prototype, nothing of the Images of the Cherubins or Serpent: as the Car­dinal made him to speak. The purpose and meaning also of the Father is far from giving any countenance to Images, and its worthy our hearing. He shewed [Page 308]in the chapters before, how the Gentiles did serve under unprofitable signs, i. e. their Statues and Images; Aug. de Doctr. Christana l. 3. c. 8. — Aliqui co­rum non tanquam Deos ve­nerabantur simulachra, sed tanquam signa Deorum in­terpretari conantur. for fome of them did not wor­ship them as Gods, but did interpret or call them the Signs of the Gods. (this may be added to the testimonies above, that Heathens could say in excuse of their worship, that they did not hold their Images which they worshiped to be Gods.) Then St. Aug. shewes how the Jewes were under profitable signs institu­ted of God. Now the Gospel freed both: the Gentiles by removing wholly those unprofitable signs, and bringing them to the worship of the One God; —ad unius Dei cultum. but freed the Jewes by bringing them to those things, of which they had before but the signs. —ad eas res quarum illa signa sunt, liberavit. Si­gnorum operatione gravi non sumus onerati,— Sed pauca pro multis— observatione Castissima. Then he shewes we Christans, are not bur­dened with the heavy obser­vance and toil of such Signs or Ceremonies. But we have few for many— and those most chaste in their observance (whereas Images expo­sed to worship are every where marked out as things tending to spiritual forni­cation) and these few Signs are Baptism and the Lords Supper; none else are na­med by that Father. He should have [Page 309]excepted Images as Signs, with the ob­servance of which, the Church of Rome heavily burdens her people; we shall see presently the Cardinal making him to except them, where he intended no such matter.

But because those Signs, which St. Aug. did speak of, were instituted of God, there­fore the Cardinal thought himself bound to say as much for Images; else would all be impertinent; and he saies it boldly (in the same chapt. where he repeats these places of St. Aug. again) Now that the Images of the Saints are profitable signs instituted of God, Bel. de Imag. l. 2. c. 12. sect, August. Quòd antem Imagines Sanctorum finituti­lia signa divinitus instituta patet ex —ap­pears by St. Aug. in his 2. Book of Christian doctrine, c. 25. How doth it appear? because speaking of Pictures and Statues, he saith, Totum hoc genus inter su­perflua hominum instituta numerandum: exceptis iis quae ob finem bonum, suo lo­co & tempore proponuntur ab eo qui autoritatem ha­bet. Sic Bel. This whole kinde may be numbred among the superfluous insti­tutions of men: those being excepted, which for a good end are in their due place and time propounded by them that have Authority; as if St. Aug. were cau­tioning here for images dedicated and set up by the Bishop for Worship; but here (as I said above) the Cardinal makes the good Father except what he never in­tended: [Page 310]for that exception is none of his, and its strange the Cardinal would be thus abused by his Collector, or thus abuse his Reader. The purpose of St. Aug. in the whole chap. is to-speak of the Signs instituted amongst men for ci­vil use of Society, The title of the chap­ter is Instituta humana. Humane Institutions. To these Signs he first reduces the Actions and Gestures of the Pantomimi or cunning players on the stage, by those Signs re­presenting any Person; Then he names Pictures and Statues as Signs by which things and persons are signified; then follows; This whole kinde (viz. Sic Aug. Totum hoc ge nus inter superflua homi­num instituta numerandum, nisi [...]cum interest, quid eo­rum, & qua de causa, & ubi, & quando, & cujus autoritate— of Action, and Pi­ctures) may be numbred a­mong the superfluous Insti­tutions of men, except when (the exception Bell. puts on him was clean another thing) it concerns upon consideration of occasion, time, place, and the Authori­ty instituting or Commanding it, Such he presently names and cals, Conveni­ent and necessary Institutes,Commoda & necessaria in­stituta, quae in habitu & cultu corporis—which in Apparel or habit of body serve for discerning sexes, honours, or the like; without which humane societies can hard­ly consist or be well held.

One place more the Cardinal adds; where because St. Aug. in the tenth Book of his Confess. cap. 34. hath these words —in pictures trans­gressing moderate and ne­cessary use and pious signifi­cation: St. Aug. l. Confes. 10. c. 34. hath it thus: In vestibus, calceamentis, Vasts, & hu­jusmodi fabricationibus, in Picturis — & figmentis usum necessarium & moderatum; Et piam significationē trans­gredientibus, addideruut ho­mines ad illecebras oculo­rum. from which words thus taken out of the midst of a sentence, and severed from those that went be­fore, and follow after, the Cardinal infers, Here St. August. reprehends the Painters and shews that some Images are of necessary use, some of pious signification: what boldness is this, thus still to abuse the Father and the Reader? The Title of that Chapter is, the Allurements of the eyes, (Oculorum illecebrae) and accordingly the Father complains, that men have added much to the allurements of the eyes, in apparel, shooes, furniture, and such kinde of workmanships, also in pictures and such figments, all trans­gressing the necessary, and moderate uses of pious signification. So that he no more reprehends the Painters (as the Cardinal confines it) then the Shooe-makers, or any other Artificers that serve to set out this Luxury and excess; But what's that pious signification, which the Cardinal thinks proper to Images only? what else but [Page 312]that moderation and sobriety which be­comes those that profess godliness, 1 Tim. 2.10. and is seen in apparel, ornaments, furniture, and many things they use or have about them, as well as in Pictures. These places out of that Father, I have the longer insisted on: partly to shew how destitute the Romanists are of proofs in this point, how unfaithful in pretending of them; partly to lay open the profita­ble instruction which that Father delivers in these places: nothing indeed to Image­worship, as the Cardinal would have it.

One more example of the Cardinals unfaithfulness. Bel. ibid. ex Ambr. Qui coronat Imoginem Imperatoris, illum hono­rat cujus est Imago, qui contempserit statuam Im­peratoris, il le fecisse in­juriam vide­tur, &c. He alledges in the same chapt. the Testimony of St. Ambr. out of his 10. Serm. upon the 118. Psalm. He that Crowns the Emperours Image, honours him, whose Image it is: he that contemns the Emperours Statue, seems to do him in­jury, &c. Thus the Cardinal and no more: thinking every one would imagine, the application of this concerned the Images of Christ and the Saints; that the honour or contempt done to the Image would redound to the Prototype; but the words before and after plainly shew, that the Fathers intent there is to apply it not to material, but living Images, poor men especially, to whom if any do wrong, God takes it as done to himself, as [Page 313]if do good to them Christ takes it as done to himself, as Mat. 25.40. and to stir them up to charity, Quot inter Imagines Christi am­bulamus? Ambr. ibid. how many Images of Christ (saith he) do we daily walk among? and so have oppor­tunity of doing good. But it is usual with the Romanists, where ever they meet with this Instance of honour redoun­ding to Emperors or Kings when done to their Statues: or with that General saying, the honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype: they lay hold on it as an argument for Image­worship: This they learn from their Ni­cone Council, which after the Seventh Age laid the foundation of this Image­worship. There besides many misap­plications of Scripture and Fathers, this is one: And Athanasius, Basil, and Chrysost. ancient and learned Fathers pretended; who did indeed in proving the Son to be worshiped with the Fa­ther, because he was his express Image, use that Instance of honour done to the Emperors Image, and that General say­ing, of honour done to the Image re­dounding to the Prototype: as most plainly appears in St. Basil. Bas. de Spi­ritu Sanct. cap. 18. Now what boldness is this to transfer to the wor­ship of material Images, that which the Fathers spake of Christ the Image of the [Page 314]Father, because to the illustrating of it, they took instance from the Civil worship?

One place more I must take notice of, which the Cardinal alledges, and truly out of St. Bel. l. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Prostrata ante Crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerne­ret, adorabat. Hierom concer­ning Paula. That lying pro­strate before the Cross, as if she had seen the Lord hang­ing there, she adored. We must consider Paula is here visiting those very places at Jerusalem where our Saviour suffered and was buried: and if she was more then ordinarily affected and made such outward expressions of it, as St. Hierom relates of her, it is not much to be mar­velled at: Ingressa se­pulchrum— osculaba­tur— ore Lambebat— Hieronym. in vita Pau­lae. Going into the Sepulchre she kissed the stone which the Angel had re­moved, and licked the place where our Sa­viours body laid: So before the Cross she lay prostrate, adoring the Lord that hung upon it: This may be done without gi­ving the Cross it self any Worship: as above noted, in the like place out of St. Gregory: If Paula transported in af­fection, did exceed: she is not therein an example to us: St. Hierom doth not say she gave worship to the Cross, or that it was her practise thus in her devo­tions to lie prostrate before the sign, but only tels us how she was affected in those very places.

IV I will conclude with the dangerous in­conveniences of this Image-worship, Complaints of the in­convenien­ces of this Romish practise. which even their own Authors complain of. Images at first brought in for better remembrance of the History, and to teach ignorant people what they could not read, after once they began to be worshiped, became ill Teachers of those rude Scholars: who could not well di­stinguish what and how they worshiped: Polydore speaking of it, complains thus: To such a madness is it come— Many of the Ruder and ignorant sort, Polyd de Invent. Rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eò insaniae de ventum est — Permulti ru­diores— stultitiâ stulti­tiam cumulantes— Illi qui talem proventum me­tunt.so wor­ship, that they trust in them more then in Christ, or the Saints represented by them; And adding folly to folly, they offer gold and silver unto the Images. And that they may be the better enticed to do it, They that reap the profit by it (the cun­ning Priests) hang up some of those Gifts and offerings to be seen. Cassand. in Artic. 21.Cassander gives us many other complaints, made by Ger­son, and Gabriel Biel— of the poor simple people led on hereby to superstitious if not Idololatrical misconceits and pra­ctises. But enough of this.

SECT. IV. Of Justification.

I BY that which was said above Chap. IV. Romanists make a con­fused work of this do­ctrine. It may in some measure appear, what a confused work the Romanists make of this doctrine of Justification; and with what difference from St. Pauls meaning, and from his way of hand­ling it.

For first to settle the Justification of a Sinner upon inhaerent righteousness they confound Justification and Sanctifi­cation. Decret. c. 7. Non est sola re­missio pecca­ [...]orum sed etiam San­ctificatio. The Trent Decree saith, It is not only Remission of Sins, but also Sanctifi­cation. Justification indeed and Sancti­fication go together, yet are they to be distinguished, as very different Acts and communications of divine grace, the Apo­stle distinguished them expresly, saying, 1 Cor. 6.11. 1 Cor. 1.30. but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified: and who is made unto us— Righteous­ness, and Sanctification.

Secondly, Remission & delotion of sin. They deny not, that Remis­sion of Sin is Justification, but confound that Remission, (which according to Scri­pture and Fathers, stands in the forgive­ness of the offence and punishment) with the actual deletion or expunging of the [Page 317]stain and corruption of sin that is in us: which is another thing from Remission and forgiveness: And when Scripture expresseth Remission by blotting out or deletion: as Isa. 43.25. Psal. 51.9; it is the blotting our sins out of Gods Book of remembrance, not out of the tables of our heart; It is as much, as God will remember them no more, no more im­pute, or lay them to our charge. As for the blotting or purging the stain and cor­ruption of Sin out of the Soul: though it be not done by Remission, but by ano­ther act of grace; yet we grant, it is done with Remission in the justifying of a sinner; and inhaerent Righteousness (by which that stain of sin is done out, and the dominion of sin broken) is wrought in the Soul, together with the righteousness of Justification.

Thirdly: The first and second Justificati­on. Having made a distinction of their Justification into First and Second: That by inhaerent habitual Righteous­ness, This, by actual or continuance in well-doing, they usually confound their first & second Justification, in the proving or commending their doctrine of Justifi­cation by Works. And when they are put to it, in plain terms to speak what they mean by Justification by works; they restrain it to that which they call the second Justi­fication; [Page 318]in the explaining whereof the Council of Trent saith nothing, which contraries the Protestant Doctrine; sa­ving that it cals that Justification, which is not so, according either to Scripture or Fathers. Of this second and improper Justification, we spoke Chap. IV. nu. 2 & 5. above, and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing, if in­deed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification, then their Council seems to make of it. So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works, in Scri­pture and Antiquity; And as for their first Justification, by inhaerent habitual Righteousness, it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works: that Righteousness being Gods work, not ours at all, as they do acknowledge; yet, be­cause we were in the former Treatise (chap. 4.) bound up by Mr. Spencers Re­plies to say only, what he gave occasion for, it will not be amiss for a fuller clea­ring of that, wherein they and we do dif­fer, to enter a farther consideration, of Inhaerent Righteousness, of Faith and of Works, as to this point of Justification. By which it will appear, They lay too much upon the Inherent, and are too [Page 319]much afraid of an imputed Righteousness: also that they give Faith too little in this business, and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides, Faith only: Lastly that they speak too confusedly, when they say and give out, Men are justified by VVorks.

II 1. For inhaerent Righteousness: The question being, Of Iohae­rent Righ­teousness, as to Justi­fication. by what Righteousness we are Justified before God? We must in the first place draw from them the acknow­ledgement of some Truths: Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out, but such as are ne­cessary for understanding this Question, as to the two Terms in it, Justification and Righteousness.

The first Truth is this, Justificati­on sounds opposition to Con­demnation. That Justifica­tion speaks opposition to Condemnation, as Rom. 8.33, 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin (offence, and punishment) the remission, or not imputing of his sin, the reconciling of him to the favour of God; and according to this importance or sense, the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it. The definition or descri­ption which the Decret. c. 4. Justi­ficationem Impii non esse aliud quam tran­slationem a statu filio­rum Ad [...]— Trent Council gives of Justification is this: It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam, into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ. Here is no [Page 320]mention of Remission of sins, but else­where it is implied, they grant it, when they say, Decret. c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiam sanctificatio.— In ipsa Ju­stificatione una cum Remis­sione peccatorum, fidem, spem & charitatem accipientes. Justification is not only Remission of Sins, but also Sanctification: and a little after, In Justification we receive faith, hope and charity, together with Re­mission of sins: Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins; but since the Jesuites prevailed, it is made sub­sequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin, and that with them is Remission of sin, or Deletion of it: for these they confound, as above noted: and are loath to express Remission of sin, as the Scripture doth, by not imputing of sin.

A Second Truth, Of the Grace of God taken for his Fa­vour and Love. which they are not so willing to profess, is, That by the Grace of God, to which we finde Justifi­cation and Salvation often ascribed, is meant the Favour, Love, or good Will of God towards Man; I do not say, they deny such an acception of Grace, for the Trent Council condemning those that say, Concil. Trid. can. 11. the Grace by which we are justified, is only the Favour of God: doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified: and their Writers, when put to it, will acknowledge Grace so [Page 321]taken; but decline so to interpret the word Grace, where ever they can, hol­ding out for it, the gift of grace inhaerent in us.

A third Truth, Of Impu­aed Righte­ousness. they unwillingly pro­fess and decline to speak of is: that there is an imputed righteousness, or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification. Their Council acknow­ledges, Decret. c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification: which doth closly imply this Truth, viz. the application or imputa­tion of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification; and this imputation is men­tioned, when in that C [...]non. 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd, that say: Men are justi­fied by the only imputation of Christs righ­teousness. And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation; in one place, with a Non est absurdum— It is not absurd to say, Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 10.Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us, as if we our selves had sa­tisfied; It seems we are but lightly con­cerned in this great Truth of the Imputa­tion of Christs righteousness for justifi­cation: but deny it they cannot.

A fourth Truth is: Inhaerent Righteous­ness im­perfect. That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion, and also in the working; This they would fain de­cline [Page 322]as prejudicial to Justification by it: but they must and do acknowledge this Truth, as we shall see below.

Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed, since the Jesuites pre­vailed: whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace, but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement. Yet notwithstanding a [...]l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth, and enemies of Peace; we gain by the for­mer Truths, this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner: What Justi­fications is and where­in properly is stands. That it is a not-imputing of his sin, an ab­solving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them, a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour, an accepting of him in the beloved, through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits, apprehen­ded by Faith. Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given, by which the sinner is made righteous al­so, and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness: yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification, (his appearing and standing in judg­ment) he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is want­ting, and to cover what is amiss.

Contaremus, a Cardinal of Rome, and a writer against Luther, was in this point clearly Protestant, convinced of the for­mer Truth and expressing it; as we shall see by his words below rehearsed.

III But now let us see what work they make, in that Church, Of Inhe­rent Right. Habitual and Actual. with the doctrine of Inherent Righteousness: and what they bring from Scripture or Fathers to make it seem Catholick.

Inherent Righteousness, they distinguish into Habitual, which is by infusion of Grace, and Actual, which is acquired by Works; and here they are not agreed, Bel. l. 2. de Justif. c. 15. An sit Habitualis an Actua­lis an utraque: De hac re disputant Catholici Docto­res: Sed conveniunt in eo omnes, ut sit in nobis ver a justitia inhaerens, non autem Christi justitia imputata. whether a sinner be made formally righteous by the Habitual, or by the Actual righteousness, or by both together? for the Cardinal acknowledges their Doctors dispute it, but, saith he, all agree, that it is a true in­haerent righteousness (by which we are made righteous formally) not the im­puted righteousness of Christ. How their Catholick Doctors agree in this we shall examine presently. But first see, how the Cardinal declares. He professeth in the same place, that his judgement is for the Solam ha­bitualem es­se, per quam justi forma­liter s [...]mus. ibid. Habitual as infused; and answers the places of Scripture which are alledged [Page 324]by those that plead for the Actual also; where we may note, that the places of Scripture, here alledged for the Actual righteousness against the solam habitua­lem the habitual only, are the very same which they usually bring for works, against solam fidem, Faith only: and the Answers which the Cardinal returns to them, may serve us to exclude works from the true Justification. The places and answers briefly are these.

Rom. Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 16. 2.13. The doers of the Law shall be Justified: The Cardinal answers out of S. Aug. They shal be adjudged or declared just, in the Divine Judgment; St. James c. 2.24. By works a man is justified: The Cardinal answers out of the Council of Trent, which interprets that place of the second justification, in as much as by good and just works the increase of habitual justice is merited. Lastly, 1 Jo. 3.7. He that doth righteousness is righteous: The Card. answers, the Apostle doth not speak what makes a man formally just, but that whereby a man may be known to be just. By this it appears how the Cardinal removes the Actual righteous­ness of Works, from that which they hold to be the first and true, and proper Ju­stification; much more are they remova­ble from the formality of that which [Page 325]we hold the true and proper Justification, according to the doctrine of St. Paul.

IV Now let us examine whether they all agree, Concessions of Roma­nists about Imputati­on. (as the Cardinal boasted) upon the inhaerent righteousness; against the impu­ted: First see what Vasquez and Bellar­mine two great Defenders of inhaerent Righteousness and the perfection of it, are forced to grant about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness. Vega had said (as Vasquez notes and corrects him for it) Divine providence ordered it so, Vasq. in 1.2. Disput. 222. cap. 1.that the Fathers used not the word of Imputation, lest they should seem to give occasion to the Hereticks of these daies, for their Error of false Imputation: He was not afraid it seems of the Apostles giving them oc­casion and warrant for the Doctrine of Imputation. But Vasquez acknowledges the Fathers did use that word, and other words aequivalent, as Communication and Application. And he grants, Concedimus imputari no­bis Merita & obedien­tiam Chri­sti— acsi revera essent nostra — ibid. that the merits and obedience of Christ are imputed to us, as if indeed they were ours: and he giveth a good Reason: Because the me­rits of Christ are the Merits of our Head. This is fair, and enough for our pur­pose, if he did not pull back what he had given out; and restrain, what he had freely and truly granted; Therefore [Page 326]he subjoyns, Dissentimus ab Haereticis in eo, ad quod merita Christi existimamus nobis imputari. Dicimus imputari ratione Effectus, quo pacto loquitur Concil. Trid. etiam ad ali­quem effectum imputari. ibid. VVe differ from the Hereticks in that, to which, or for which the Me­rits of Christ are imputed: How is that? VVe say they are imputed, saith he, by rea­son of the Effect, as the Council of Trent speaks: also that they are imputed as to some effect.

Now if we ask, to what effect? He tels us in the two next chapters, They are im­puted unto Justification, and unto life eternal: This is very true: But how un­to Justification? In regard of the dispo­sitions, and in regard of the Form of Ju­stification: in as much as by or through the Merits of Christ grace pravenient and adjuvant is given to dispose us to Ju­stification, and Inhaerent Righteousness given, formally to justifie us. Thus he explains himself in the second chapter: and as for remission of sins by the satis­faction of Christ imputed, no mention of that: We must look for it in that pur­gation of sin which he supposes to be made by Infused Righteousness; for they usually consound Remission, and Deletion or purgation of sin, as above noted, nu. 1.

The Cardinal in his Concessions speaks a little clearer for Remission of our sins by [Page 327]the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ im­puted: reserving himself still for his in­haerent Righteousness, and having no­thing to keep him off from the protestant Doctrine (which allows the being and ne­cessity of Inhaerent righteousness) but on­ly the nicety of a Term Formaliter. For Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 7. Si sol [...]m vellent im­putari nobis Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo patri of­ferre pro pecca [...]is nostris, quoni [...]m Christus suscrpit— onus satisfaciendi pro no­bis, recta esset corum senten­tia. speaking of Protestants: If they would (saith he) have only Christs merits imputed to us, because they are given to us, and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins, because he undertook the burden of satissying for us; their doctrine were right and sound. But so to have Christs righteousness imputed to us, as if by it we were formally just: is repugnant to right reason— Well, we say the first which he cannot but ap­prove: we do not say the other, for that formally just or justified, is their expres­sion not ours.

Again, Although by inhaerent Righte­ousness, saith he, Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 10. Etiamsi per justitiam in­haer— tamen per eam non sa­ [...]isfacimus Deo pro peccatis & poena aeterna— Non ab­surdum, &c. we are tru­ly denominated, and made righteous: yet do we not by that satisfie God, for our sins and eternal punishment— therefore it is not absurd to say, Christs merits and righteousness is imputed to us, as [Page 328]if we our selves had satisfied: so that it be not denied, there is besides an inhaerent righteousness in us: we do not deny there is: but affirm they ascribe too much unto it, and may observe how careful the Cardinal is for this inhaerent Righteousness, but as for the imputed, a Non absurdum will serve that; It is no absurdity to grant it.

There is one place more, where the Cardinal admits the Imputation of Christs Righteousness, and that the simi­litude of a garment (used by the Prote­stants) may agree to it, in as much as Christs satisfaction for our sins is applied to us, Bel. de Ju­stif. lib. 2. c. 11. No­bis donatùr & applica­tur, & no­stra reputa­tur.and reputed ours. This is fair: but then he adds in behalf of the formality of his inhaerent Righteousness: That one man should satisfie for another, is reasona­ble: not that one should be formally just, because another is so. True, a man can­not be therefore formally just, that is, in­haerently just, or as by an inhaerent quali­fication; but why may he not be there­fore (that is, for Christs satisfaction and righteousness imputed) accepted of God as just and righteous in the notion of Justification? that is, one to whose charge nothing can be laid, one reconci­led, restored to favour, accepted to life eternal; And as Bel. said, Christs satis­faction [Page 329]is reputed ours, he means really: so why may not we thereupon be also re­puted really just and righteous, as to the notion or importance of Justification? and if by that satisfaction and righteous­ness of our Saviour imputed we are ac­quitted in our Justification from our sins and eternal death (as the Cardinal gran­ted and so doth their Trent Council) why should not a sinner so acquitted be also accepted to eternal life, purchased for us by that satisfaction and righteous­ness imputed? accepted, I say, to eternal life, as to the first Right.

This may be inferred also from the words of that Council, when it tels us (as we had it Num. 2. above) what Justification is: A translation from the state of the Sons of Adam, into the Adoption of the Sons of God through Jesus Christ. Which though no good definition, yet implies there is in Justification a remission of sins and the condemnation due to them; under which all men lye while they are in the state of the Sons of Adam. Again it implies, such persons acquitted of their sins, are recei­ved into favour, as sons by Adoption, and that gives Right in the same moment to the heavenly inheritance. Lastly, that all this through Jesus Christ; which implies [Page 330]the satisfaction and merits of Christ ap­plyed, imputed.

Now albeit Inherent Righteousness be given, Other pur­poses of in­haerent Righteous­ness, then that we should be justified by it. in Justifying of a sinner (as often said before) yet it is not given for the for­malizing of Justification it self properly taken, but as consequential to it, for qua­lifying the subject answerably to that which is received in Justification; For there is Remission of sin as to the offence and condemnation, therefore grace also put into the Soul for doing away by de­grees the stain and corruption, and for breaking the dominion of Sin. There is also Adoption and receiving the person as a son of God, therefore Grace infused for the New-birth, and as a Principle of New life and obedience; There is ac­ceptation and Right to eternal life or heavenly inheritance, therefore grace and inherent Righteousness given for the fitting and preparing of the Person to the pursuit, obtaining and enjoying of it. We see other purposes of Inhaerent Righ­teousness given us, then that we should be Justified by it.

Furthermore, that the accepting of us as righteous in our Justification follows immediately and is intrinsecally joyned with Remission of sins, is plain by the [Page 331]Apostle, Ro. 4.6, 7, 8. telling us who are those, blessed ones to whom the Lord im­puteth righteousness: even Those, to whom he will not impute sin. And the similitude of a Garment, or of Jacobs wearing his elder brothers cloathes to get the blessing and the birth-right, (which the Cardinal granted appliable to the imputation of Christs righteousness to us) does imply more then remission of sins: Even the ac­cepting of their Persons, and receiving of them as Sons unto the blessing. Also, that the Imputation of Christs righteous­ness should not be confined (as the Ro­manists would have it or delight to ex­press it) to the bare importance of satis­faction: they might think it reasonable by that which they yield to the satisfactions of Saints appliable and imputable to others; For when we urge (against that Treasure of their Church, and the ap­plying of it) that common judgment of the School, Meritum non excedit Perso­nam, Merit exceeds not the Person, Christ only excepted: They distinguish and con­sider the good works and sufferings of the Saints, as Satisfactory, and as Meri­torious: and say as they are Meritorious, they exceed not the Person, but as Satis­factory, they are imputable, appliable to others. Which albeit said without ground [Page 332]or warrant, might keep them from re­straining thus the imputation of Christs righteousness to the point of satisfaction, and allow it to be not only as satisfactory in the Justification of a Sinner, but as Meritorious also, to all effects and purpo­ses, for compleating the act of Justification in the accepting of the Person as Righte­ous, to whom it is imputed or applied.

We have seen what concessions are made of the Imputation of Christs Righ­teousness, by those that are most for the inhaerent, I mean the Jesuites: and how they lay too much upon the inhaerent righteousness in the point of Justification, when the Imputed would bear it better.

V Now see what Vasquez (who has hand­led this doctrine of Inhaerent Righteousness most copiously and diligently) acknow­ledgeth touching their dissenting Au­thors, Romish writers dis­senting in the point of Justifica­tion by In­haerent Righteous­ness. to the great prejudice of this their supposed Catholick Doctrine.

First Vasq. in Thom. 1.2. disput. 205. c. 1. he acknowledges of Durand and other Schoolmen, that they held We are pleasing and accepted of God, before he infuseth Grace, or inhaerent Righteous­ness. And that this gift of inhaerent Grace, or habitual righteousness does not necessarily arise from that acceptation of God: but from the will of God appointing, that every one who is to be brought to [Page 333]eternal life should have it. This is that which we say; that albeit inherent grace or habitual righteousness, doth accompa­ny and follow immediately upon Divine Acceptation, yet it does not necessarily accompany or arise from it as to justifi­cation, but for other purposes (as noted above) one whereof and the main one is here mentioned, viz. the bringing, prepa­ring, fitting us to eternal life: and is there approved by Vasquez himself; But for the former part of their Sentence that pronounces us pleasing unto God, and ac­cepted of him unto Justification, by the im­putation of Christs righteousness, antece­dently to infusion of habitual righteous­ness: Non pa­rum favere Haereticis nostri tempo­ri, Vasquez disp. 205. c. 2. He saith, it doth not a little favour the Hereticks of our daies. And in another place, speaking of the Imputation of Christs righteousness and merits, which the Protestants assert in Justification: he saith, Vasq. in 1.2. Tho. disp. 222. c. 2. Hoc genus im­putationis seu applicationis fateri debent quotquot ex Catholicis asserunt Justi­tiam— Similiter & illi qui censent qualitatem nobis inhaerentem— Non purgare nos a peccatis nisi accedente nova voluntate & favore Dei condonantis peccata. This kinde of Im­putation or application of Christs Merits, all those Ca­tholicks must acknowledge, that say, inhaerent righteous­ness renders us acceptable to God, not by its own nature and worth, but through the acceptation and favour of God— In like manner all those [Page 334]must acknowledge it, that hold the quali­ty which is in us, to be true righteousness and sanctity, yet in its own nature not able to purge us from our sins, without the su­peradding of a new will and favour of God in pardoning sin. Of these he saith; Will they nill they, Velint nolint coguntur con­cedere novum imputationem meritorum Christi, ad re­mittenda & condonanda pec­cata. ibid.they are com­pelled to grant a new imputa­tion of the Merits of Christ for the remitting & pardo­ning of Sin. Why! the Je­suits allow the imputation or Applica­tion of Christs Merits to this effect, The Brief of the Je­suites Do­ctrine of Justifica­tion. that inhaerent grace or righteousness may be given us, and then the whole work of Justification is done by it; by it we are rendred acceptable to God, by it our sins done away or purged out (which with them is the Remission of Justification) without a new imputation of Christs me­rits. This is the brief of the Jesuites do­ctrine of Justification.

VI But note we, out of Vasquez his ac­knowledgment newly recited; Imperfecti­on of Inhe­rent Righ­teousness. There are two sorts of their Catholicks that do ad­mit inhaerent righteousness in some or­der to Justification; one in regard of rendring us acceptable to God, but not of it self but through the favour of God and imputation of Christs Merits; The other sort in regard of doing away sin; [Page 335]which it cannot do throughly, but still needs the imputation of Christs Merits for pardon. Both these acknowledge the Imperfection of Inhaerent Righteousness, and upon that the necessity of Christs righteousness imputed. Against both these Vasquez Vasq. in 1.2. disp. 214. c. 3.5. disputeth as against Ad­versaries to their Inhaerent Righteous­ness.

And to these all those Schoolmen whom Vasquez complains of, to have con­spired in this opinion, Vasq. in 1.2. disp. 204. c. 1. In quam sententiam non pauci Scholastici con­spirarunt— Nihil nobis in­esse sive habitum, sive ope­rationem quod suapte natura possit Justificare animam, & eam à peccatis purgare— That there is nothing in us, either habit or operation (i. e. ei­ther habitual or actual righ­teousness) which of it self in its own nature, can justifie the soul and purge it from sin; but unto this it necessa­rily needs the favour of God accepting it (viz. that righteousness which is in us) and pardoning or remitting the sin. To those Schoolmen he adjoyns Victoria and Canus, as agreeing with them. Also in the next chap. Vasquez begins thus: I cannot but wonder at those ancient Schoolemen, Non p [...]ssum non mirari An­tiquos Scholast. quod tam abjectè de inharente justitia sense [...]int, ut veram ei—that thought so abjectly of inhae­rent righteousness, as to fear to ascribe unto it the true reason of righ­teousness; [Page 336]But I much more wonder at our modern Divines, that after the Definition of the Council of Trent,Multò magis recentiores Theologos, quòd post Conci­lii Trid. defin. tàm exilem justitiam inhaerentem Justis concesserint.they should grant so weak and imperfect an inhae­rent righteousness to just per­sons: or to the Justifying of them. —Veram rationem justitiae inhaerentis de medio tol­lunt: quam Patres Triden­tini pro viribus astruere— Vasq. disp. 204. c. 2. Both of these (saith he) do take away the true reason and effect of inhaerent righteousness, (that is, as to justification by it) which the Fathers of the Council of Trent, did so much strive to assert and defend.

And yet more home in the next chapt. Otherwise (saith he) I do not see, Alioquin non video quomodo declinare possimus corum sententiam, qui negant ju­stitia inhaerente tanquam forma fieri justificationem nostram. Vasq. ibid. c. 3.how we can decline their Tenet, that deny our Justification to be made by inhaerent righteousness as by the Form of it, that is, un­less we assert the contrary to that, which the forementioned Schoolmen and Di­vines asserted. So that Bellarmine was out, when he said (as above noted) All their Doctors agreed upon the inhaerent righteousness, against the imputed; Cer­tainly he knew the contrary, but Vasquez was more ingenuous in acknow­ledging it.

VII Unto all the former Witnesses, we must add what Pighius and Contarenus say as to this question between the inhaerent and imputed righteousness. The ac­knowledg­ment of some late Romish Writers. Pighius out of the saying of St. Paul, Act. 13.38, 39. concludes that Justification stands in Re­mission of sins through Faith: There­fore, saith he, to be justified, Pigh. controversia secun­da. Hoc ergo est justificari, peccata nobis misericorditer remitti à Deo in Christo.is this: to have our sins mer­cifully remitted of God in Christ. Again, from 2 Cor. 5.18, 19. he concludes: In illo igitur justificamur, non in nobis, non nostrâ ju­stitiâ, sed illius justitia, quae nobis imputatur. Non nostra sed Dei justitia in Christo ibid. In him therefore we are ju­stified before God, not in our selves, not by our own righ­teousness, but by his, which is imputed to us: and from 2 Cor. 5. v. 22. We made the righteousness of God in him; Pighius concludes, We are made the righteousness of God in Christ Exclusively to all righteousness in our selves. Also out of Rom. 5. v. 18, 19. In Christi autem obedientia quòd nostra collocatur Ju­stitia inde est, quod nobis illi incorporatis a [...]st nostra esset accepta ea fertur, ità ut eâ ipsâ etiam nos justi ha­beamur. ibid. By the righteousness of one— by the obedience of one are many made righteous: he gathers; Thence it is that our righteousness stands in Christs obedience, because for us, being incorporated into him, his obedience is accepted, as if it were ours; so that by it we also may be ac­counted [Page 338]righteous; and then adds the example of Jacob clothed with his elder brothers raiment to obtain the blessing.

Contarenus in his Tract of Justifica­tion, gives us first his distinction of Righ­teousness. Contar. de Justific. Justi­tiam inhaerentem— Et non inhaer— Sed donatam no­bis cum Christo; Christi (inquam) justitiam & omne ejus meritum. One, saith he, is inhaerent in us, the other not inhaerent in us, but given us with Christ, the righteous­ness of Christ and all his me­rit; and afterward he cals it the Imputed righteousness, Ad utram (que) attingimus por fidem. and saith, we attain to both sorts of Righteousness by faith. Then he puts the question, Ʋpon which of these righteousnesses we ought to relye, or hold our selves justified before God and accounted righteous? He con­cludes, Justitiâ Christi nobis dona­tâ, non autem Sanctitate & gratiâ nobis inhaerente. ibid. it must be upon the righteousness of Christ gi­ven us, not upon the Sanctity or Grace inherent in us: and adds the Reason, Inchoata & imperfecta, quae tueri nos non potest, quin in multis offendamus, & assi­due peccemus— because that which is in us is but in­choate and imperfect, which cannot keep us from offending often,Idcircò in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc— — Est vera & perfecia justitia, quaeomnino placet oculis Dei, in qua nihil est quod Deum offendit.and sinning daily, and therefore have daily need to say, Forgive us our Debts; therefore we cannot be ac­counted just in the sight of [Page 339]God, for this our righteousness: but the righteousness of Christ given to us, is the only true and perfect righteousness, which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offends him. Unto this the same Author applies Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righte­ousness, but the Righteousness, which is through Faith— He gives us withall a good lesson; It is found by experience, (saith he) that holy men, —quantò magis in san­clitate proficiunt, tanto mi­nùs sibi placere, & tanto magìs intelligunt se indi­gere Christo, & justitia Christi sibi donata, ideóque se relinquunt & soli Christo incumbunt. Contar. ibid.the more they advance in Sanctity, the less are they pleasing to themselves, and the more do they understand, how they stand in need of Christ and his Righteous­ness given unto them; therefore they for­sake themselves and relie upon Christ only.

He answers also to some places of Scri­pture objected: as, that the Psalmist saith often, Judge me, O Lord according to my righteousness, and the Lord rewar­ded me according to my righteousness—for I have kept the waies of the Lord—Ps. 18.20, 21. If David had said and meant this so, — it à ut putasset se propte­rea justificatum esse coram Deo—as to think himself therefore justified before God, he had spoken as arrogantly as the Pharisee, [Page 340]Luc. — Scd & es­sent mera mendacia. 18. Nay he had spoken mere lies— All this was spoken in regard of his Ene­mies, especially Saul and Absalom, of whom he had deserved well; and not in regard of his righteousness before God. Also to that place of Deut. 6.25. It shall be our righteousness, if we observe all these Com­mandments— he answers; Justitia nostra Legalis est custedire omni [...], sed quia nullus servet omnia praecepta Legis, ergò sub maledicto omnes, ideoque omnes in­digemus Christo— Our legal righteousness is to observe all— but because there is none, that keeps all the precepts of the Law, therefore all lye under the curse, (or condemnation) and all stand in need of Christ and his righteous­ness. Thus that Cardinal was convinced of the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine in this point or question between impu­ted and inhaerent righteousness, acknow­ledging the imperfection of the Inhaerent as to its effect of Justifying, and that the imputed was to be relied on.

We might to these add, what the Co­len Divines in their Antididagma, Antidida / gma, Tit. Justific. or book opposed to the reformation endeavoured by Hermannus the Archbishop; do ac­knowledge, speaking of the Causes of Ju­stification: — Nobis im­putatur ad justitiam, dum fide ap­prehenditur. That the righteousness of Christ, as it is apprehended by Faith, is imputed to us for righteousness— and more to like purpose.

Hitherto we have shewen by the fore­going witnesses, that this Romish Do­ctrine of inhaerent Righteousness has not been Catholick, within that Church, not so generally held among themselves, as they pretend.

VIII It is now time to look higher, and briesily examine what they bring from Scripture and Antiquity to make it seem (according to Vincentius Rule) Catho­lick. Romanists destiture of Scripture in this point. And by this trial it will still appear less worthy of that name.

The Cardinal brings Bell. l. 2. de Justif. c. 3. eight places of Scripture for justification by inhaerent righteousness. Which might all be an­swered with this one exception: They may prove that there is an inhaerent righ­teousness, but not that there is Justifi­cation by it. To instance in the chief of them: His first place, is Rom. 5.19.— Made sinners really inhaerently. We grant it true, and answerably made righ­teous by Christ, but were we made sinners only so by Adams disobedience, were we not also made so by imputation? the Cardinal himself acknowledges it, Bell. de A [...] miss g [...]a l. 5. c. 17. sect. itaque. and then are we not also made righteous by imputation of the second Adams obedi­ence? The Cardinal (as we saw Nu. 4. above) in three places acknowledges the impu­tation of Christs satisfaction and merits [Page 342]for freeing us from the offence of sin and and the guilt of eternal death: and there­fore from that condemnation under which we are by the first Adams disobe­dience. [...]. That condemnation the Apostle here vers. 18. sets against Justification; and so in this Antithesis vers. 19. be­tween made sixners. and made righteous must first stand good in regard of Con­demnation, and Justification taken pro­perly— then between the inhaerent depravation, and the inhaerent Righte­ousness: Take what the Ancient Com­mentators here say is meant by made sin­ners.Chrys in lo­cum [...].Chrysost. and after him Occumenius and Theophylact to the like purpose— ex­pounds it, made subject to punishment, and condemned to death, that's the first sense of made sinners, and unto that is Justifica­tion in the first and proper sense oppo­sed.

The Cardinals second Testimony is Rom. Bel. quo suprá. 3.24. Here he would finde all the Causes of Justification, and in the word Grace taken for inherent righteousness, he fixes the Formal Cause. Of Grace and Gratis. That it is taken for the gift of Grace inhaerent, and not for the favour of God, he would prove by the word, gratis, freely, which was enough to set out the favour of God and his love to Mankinde. But the Car­dinal [Page 343]here also is impertinent and his ar­gument inconsequent: For the word, [...], gratis, freely, [...]. is not put here to set forth the true Cause of our Justifica­tion (viz. [...].Gods gracious favour) so much as to exclude the false Causes, viz. any cause, desert, motive on mans part: Freely, that is, without any price paid by us, without any Cause given by us, or any worth in us. Thus gratis is taken in Scripture, and though it consequently 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 [Page 344]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 [Page 345]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 whats 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, [Page 346]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.

IX 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 [Page 347]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 [Page 348]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 first Adam; that is, that there is a new righte­ousness also put in us, in our Justification, which we every where acknowledge; and is that which Theoph. said above, Justi­ficans Sanctificat, when he Justifies he Sanctifies.

Two other places he brings to prove the inhaerent to be our true righteous­ness: which we grant, in its order and measure, but not to the excluding of the [Page 349] imputed; from its due order and place. The Bell. l. 2. c. 8. Cardinal tels us, that St. Aug. in his Book of Nature and Grace, ch. 38. teaches, that charity infused into our hearts is our true righteousness: This is the Cardinals Collection; he does not give us the very words of that Father; we must therefore know that Book was written against the Pelagians; against whom it was his usual work to assert the true grace of God given us, and that all the good we have or do is from God, and that all the righteousness which is in us, though true, yet imperfect; and this is the very purpose of that place: He shews there, that Abel and many others in Scri­pture, were just, yet were not without sin, — and, Justi fuerunt, & sine pec­cato non fuerunt —qua una verè justus est, quicunque justus est: adhuc erat quo posset & deberet augeri, quicquid [...]minus erat, ex vi­tio erat. Aug. de na. & gra. c. 38. if in Abel the just, there was the Love of God, by which only every one is just, that is just (that is, without which there is no true inhaerent or actual righteousness) yet was it such, as might and ought to be increased, and whatsoever was less (then it ought) was to be reckoned, as of vice, or faulty. It is plain he did not mean the righteous­ness of Justification, or that those just men were justified by that righteousness he there speaks of; which will farther [Page 350]appear by the next place out of St. Aug. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 19. c. 27. Hic itaque in uno quo­que Justi­tia est, sio­bedienti De­us homini, &c. Book Of the City of God, the Cardinal draws this Testimony: Here therefore it is righteousness in every one, that God should rule over man obeying him, the minde over the body, and reason over vice. In this definition (saith the Bel. ubi suprá. Cardinal) the imputed righteousness of Christ hath no place, but only inhaerent righteousness: Definition of what? he could not say of Justification: for that Father speaks not of it in that place, and so the Cardinal is impertinent; But put the Case, that any were to give a Definition of Justification, should the imputed righteousness of Christ have no place in it? This is that they strive for, and think they allow it enough, if they grant that by the merit of Christs satisfaction and righteousness, we have grace & righteousness given us, by which we are justified, and have our sins purged out (which with them is Remission) and our persons made acceptable: we noted this Nu. 4. ex Vasque. above: and this is that which keeps the Gap from closing, which might be reasonably made up, if they would give the Righteousness of Christ its due for our Justification, as we are ready to give inhaerent grace and righteousness its due: both for the Connexion it hath with [Page 351]our Justification, and for the necessity of it to our sanctification. But to return, there is enough in that chap. to shew how little this serveth to the Cardinals purpose. The whole place speaks of Actual righte­ousness, and that is not for his purpose: and the two first words (Here therefore) shews the dependence of this upon what went before, and thereby the imperfecti­on of our righteousness here in this life; and that also is not to the Cardinals pur­pose. That which went before runs thus: Our righteousness though it be true, Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 19. c. 27. Nostra justitia quam­vis vera sit propter veri boni finem, ad quem refertur, tanta tamen est in hac vi­ta, ut potiùs peccatorum re­missione conste [...], quam per­fectione virtutum. Testis est oratio totius Civitatis Dei—per omnia membra sua cla­mat ad Deum, Dimitte no­bis—as to the end of that true good, to which it refers or tends, yet is it such in this life, that it rather stands in the remission of sins, then in the perfection of vertues: which shews the imperfe­on, as I said, of any righte­ousness in us, as needing con­tinually in this life the mer­cy of God for pardon, and therefore un­able to Justifie. As witness and proof of this St. Aug. adds, the prayer of the whole City of God, so journing upon earth witnes­seth this, for she cries in all her members unto God, Lord forgive us our Debts: and gives a reason, from this mortal con­dition [Page 352]and corruptible body, —quod aggravat animam, non perfecte ratio vitiis im­perat; ideo— necessaria est justis talis oratio.which pres­seth down the soul, so that Reason does not perfectly rule over vice; therefore is such prayer necessary for just per­sons. The Cardinal replies to the first part, that mans righteousness consists in both, that is, in the forgiveness of sins, and the perfection of virtues, which is true of the Righteousness St. Aug. speaks of, viz. the actual righteousness of man in this life— for such is the righteousness of just or ju­stified men: of whom the Father speaks here— but they had another kinde of righteousness by which they are first ju­stified. Sic orare ju­stos, ac per hoc indigere indulgentia ventalium delictorum. Bel. ubi su­prá. To the latter part he replies, That just persons pray so (as St. Aug. said they do) and by this shew they need in­dulgence of their venial sins. But if only need remission of such (which may so easily be satisfied for and done away) St. Aug. had not said potius in remissione; rather in the remission of sins: experi­ence also tels us that just men commit greater sins, and need indulgence or re­mission of them too: and see how heed­lesly contrary the Cardinal is to himself in so few lines; He had said, Mans righ­teousness stands in both these, Remission of Sins, and Perfection of Virtue, and [Page 353]meant it of the righteousness of Justifica­tion: in which he will grant the Remis­sion of all sins and of eternal death due to them: Here presently he restrains Remis­sion to the indulgence of Venial sins.

X I will but add two other places cited out of the same Father rendring the word Justifie, The word Justifie sometimes improperly taken by the Fa­thers. by making just or righ­teous as when he saith: Who has made righteousness in man, but he that justifieth the ungodly? that is, of an ungodly man, by his grace makes a just and righte­ous man: Aug. in Ps. Ps. 118. conc. 26. — qui justi­ficat impi­um, i. e. per gratiam su­am ex Impio facit Ju­stum. and to the like purpose he speaks upon 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 [Page 354]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, [Page 355] 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 [Page 356]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 [Page 357]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.

XI 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 [Page 358]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 Justification will not continue: I say, till Faith does so engage the Soul, it is not a believing with the whole heart, not a Ju­stifying Faith. Chrys. in Phil. c. 3. v. 9. [...]. As St. Chrysostom (who often attributes the whole to Faith alone) requires it should be a working Faith; as where he saith, Faith ought not to be simply by it self, or alone: and then shews how our willingness to suffer, (and in like manner our well doing) is from faith: [...]. for our fellowship with him in suf­ferings is from faith, for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer.

I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers, using that expression of Sola Fides, Faith only: The Cardinal has recited many, Bell. de Justificat. l. 1. c. 25. and undertakes to answer them. Well, he acknowledges the Testimonies, and for his Answers they come to this, That Faith only, is set against the works of Mo­ses Law. It is true, that it is sometimes so: but we must not think that the Apo­stle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law, do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification; but do rather im­ply, that no men, Iew or Christian can be justified by doing, what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandement, under which they are, as Chap. IV. p. 102, 103. above was shewen more amply.

Another of the Cardinals Answers is; That faith only, excludes the outward work only (as in the sentences there ci­ted out of Origen and Chrys.) but not Re­pentance and Charity. How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above; i. e. it admits them as Con­ditions of Remission, but not to that condition or Causality rather, which the Church of Rome advances Charity to, in the work of our Justification: which is [Page 360]not a little to the prejudice of the impu­ted Righteousness, and of that singular act of Faith, for which its said, we are Iustified by faith only: But when the Car­dinal tels us, those Fathers said by faith only, because the outward work was wan­ting: not to exclude Repentance and Charity: he should have told us, whe­ther he meant charity in habit only, or as sending forth its elicit Acts, and inward­ly working— I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justifica­tion to a bare, not working Habit, as to a bare and not working faith: which they falsly reproach us with; and then he should have remembred, he made Ha­bitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification, excluding the A­ctual, that is, charity as it is acting in­wardly or outwardly; for this it must come to.

A third sort of Answer the Cardinal, and generally they of the Church of Rome have, for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in our selves (and cannot be shuffled off by saying, they exclude thereby all righte­ousness of Works before Grace, or done by power of our Free-wil without Grace) then to say, all righteousness in us is exclu­ded and sometime denied, as of our selves, [Page 361]because so we have none, but of the gift of God. This is in it self a great Truth, but makes no apposite answer, to Faith only, which we have not of our selves any more, then we have other Graces, and which is the gift of God as much as they. When Chrysost. saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2. Chrys. in Ro. 5. [...]. we have by Faith ac­cess into this Grace, (of Justification, re­conciliation and peace with God) We brought nothing with us, but faith only: and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24. Oecumen. in Rom. 3. [...]. saith likewise, bringing with us Faith on­ly, to our Justification: it cannot be answered, we brought nothing else of our selves, for neither did we bring Faith of our selves, to our Justification; seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else, as above granted: they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions, to our Justification, or as requisite conditions to the Remis­sion that is in our Justification; or as fit­ting qualifications of the subject or per­son justified; yet Faith we bring, as that which has a singular property and effi­cacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification, for which it may be said Fide Sola, by Faith only. And this we are taught to say, both by Fathers and Scripture, that so we may attribute the [Page 362]more to Christs merit and righteousness (which Faith apprehends) and the more lessen, or take off from, any righteous­ness in our selves. We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact, Wch the Cardinal cites as objected by the Protestants: Fides sola habet in se Iustificandi virtutem. ex Theo. phyl. in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3. Faith only has the power in its self of Iustifying: & cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it; Faith only is said to have that power, because there is nothing can justifie without Faith: for so there are other things without which there can be no justification: but among all those things, or Graces, Faith only can be said properly to Justifie.

XII And now for Iustification by works, Not justifi­cation by Works in the prime sense. it is in vain to put it to the trial of Anti­quity: For as we may observe, the Car­dinal, though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question, and pre­tends several places of Scripture, to prove good works do Justifie: yet has he no­thing from Antiquity for it. Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification, to which the Romanists (when they are forced to speak distinctly) do restrain their Justifying works; ac­knowledging all good works follow Justifi­cation (in the first and proper sense) and that this second Justification, is but in­crease in righteousness, (as Chap. IV. nu. 2. above shew­ed) [Page 363]We grant and so will the Fathers, Vide ch. IV. nu. 8.105, 106, 107. that we are of duty to encrease in righteous­ness, and that our often actings, or do­ing good works, do augment the inhae­rent Righteousness: and that the more we do good works, the more Favour we have with God, the more acceptable are we to Him: but there are two words we have cause to reject; Merit & Iustificati­on. That good Works cause an encrease of the habit, and do obtain additional grace, we grant: but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken, we shall see in the next Section: Our good works can­not properly merit. Also we see no reason why this should be call'd Justification, to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment, Mans Justification be­fore God, and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works, barely delivered unto them. If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christs merit and righteousness, and give Faith its due, which apprehends that righteousness, and be content that inhaerent Righteousness should hold its due place: there would be little cause of Controversie in this great point of Christian Doctrine. I will conclude with the Cardinals answer to a saying of holy Bernard upon the Can­ticles. [Page 364]Bern. in Cantic. Chri­stus nobis justitia, — & in dulgentia Dei nostra justi­tia.Christ is our righte­ousness because he justifies us from our sins: and, the Indulgence of God is our righteousness. By Indulgence and Remissi­on (saith the * Cardinal) he understands full and com­pleat Justification,Bel. de Iustif. l. 2. c. 13. Nomine Indulgentiae. & Re­missionis, intelligit plenam Iustificationem, quoniam ut saepè diximus nunquam re­mittitur cul [...]a, quin simul—because (as we have often said) the sin is never remitted, but righteousness is together with it insused. And so say we: But the righ­teousnes, which Bernard cals Indulgence, is not the Infused, but the righteousness of Justification; for where sin is not im­puted, there righteousness is imputed, as Nu. 4. above shewen out of Rom. 4.6, 7. and this is indeed Divine Indulgence. But still we acknowledge, that continuance in the state of Justification, is by good Works, or continuance in wel-doing.

SECT. V. Of Merit of good works.

I IT was observed above (Chap. V. nu. 1.) that the Council of Trent had desi­ned, Explicati­on of the Question and the Reason of Merit pro­perly ta­ken. Good works do truly merit eternal life: but did not tell us plainly, where­in the Reason of Merit, truly so called, doth stand; only it gives us certain ac­knowledgements of Gods bounty, promise, and grace, which are so far from being the grounds of Merit, as Mr. Spencer there cals them, that they do by necessary con­sequence overthrow it. The Question therefore being about Merit truly so cal­led, it will be first necessary to see into that; for the clearing of it will plainly shew the impertinency of what they al­ledge out of Scripture or Fathers for their works truly Meritorious.

We spoke something to this purpose (in the V. Chap.) as Mr. Spencer gave occasion; We may further observe, that They who hold up the Controversie (for the moderate sort in the Church of Rome, do let it fall) use three Adverbials which speak the meaning of that Vere merentur, [Page 366]or truly meritorious: and they are sim­plicitèr, propriè, ex condigno, simply, pro­perly, and condignly meritorious; as we see in their Bel. 5. de Iustif. c. 16. Vasq. in 1.2. Tho. disp. 213. c. 4. two great Champions for Merit.

The word, Simply, is alwaies exclu­sive of that which is so or so, according to some respect only; Now the respect here considerable and to be inquired into, has regard to Gods promise, boun­ty, and acceptation, whereby good works (say we) obtain so great a reward; The Asserters of Merit, will not say, that their simply meritorious, does exclude the Promise, or all respect unto it: but lay the Promise as a ground-work of their merit. The word Merit sounds two things. The better to understand this mystery, we must consider, that the word (to merit) sounds two things, obtaining, and deserving: the first stands by the promise, but the second (which carries the reason of merit) stands by the worth of the work. The Cardinal and his fel­lowes must say, that if God had not made the promise, and of his gracious bounty appointed such a reward, the best service of man could not have ob­tained it, or brought him to eternal life: but they will also say, that such service would by the worth of the work and labour have deserved the reward. See [Page 367]to this purpose, what the Cardinal putting the que­ston of works condignly me­ritorious, delivereth: Bell. l. 5. de Justif. c 17. Meritoria ex condigno, ra­tione Pacti tantùm, vel ope­ris tantùm, vel ratione utr [...] ­usque. This may, saith he, be three waies varied or considered: that works be called condignly meritori­ous, In regard of the Covenant or promise only; or in regard of the work only, or in regard of both; —Opus mul­tò inferius mercede pro­missâ. In the first he supposeth the work or service far inferiour to the reward promised: as if a hundred Crowns should be promised for one daies labour in the Vineyard, —Opus re­vera aequale mercedi,— —Opus verè par mercedi. In the second he sup­poseth the work equal to the reward, but no covenant or promise intervening; In the third he supposeth the work truly equal to the reward, set out in the Covenant or promise; and the example of this he makes the penny given to the Labourers in the vineyard, Mat. 20. And this third way he declares for, that Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of both, the promise and the work it self: Whereas it is plain, that the promise makes but way for the Consecution, or obtai­ning of the reward, and is requisite to make works meritorious only according to the first and less proper importance of the word meriting for obtaining: but as for deserving of the reward, (wherein the [Page 368]reason of Merit properly stands) that is laid upon the worth of the work, which is supposed, as we see, to be truly equal to the Reward promised.

Vasquez, usually more free and open then the Cardinal, plainly professeth and mamtains, Vasquez in Tho. 1.2. disp. 214. c. 5. that good works without any promise, or divine acceptation are condign­ly meritorious of eternal life, and have of themselves a value or worth equal to it: For he saw that the pretence of the Co­venant or promise, or divine acceptation, was no ground, but a prejudice to the rea­son of Merit truly so called: and there­fore a little after sets himself to prove, Vesq. c. 8. —nullo ms­d [...] pertinere ad ratio­nem meriti. that the Covenant or promise does not at all belong to the reason of Merit; and makes this his argument for the condign meriting of Good Works: Sin, saith he, deserves a punishment equal to it, without all Cove­nant or Commination— therefore also the works of the Just do condignly merit the eternal Crown of glory,Vasq. ibid. cap. 10. —abs (que) ul­lo pacto vel comminati­one.without all Cove­nant or promise,—siqui dem ho [...] prae­tr [...] aequale est —for this reward is equal to the worth of the work without the pro­mise.

But this is thwarted by the Bull of Pius V. and Greg. XIII. two Popes con­demning certain Propositions, of which this is one. Vasq. ibid. cap. 13. [...] Even as the evil of sin in its own nature deserves eternal death, so a [Page 369]good work of its own nature deserves or merits eternal life. What else did Vasquez say? but he strives to clear himself by pre­tending this difference between his As­sertion and the condemned Proposition: that the Author of those Propositions held good works without Grace were so meritorious, which Vasquez does not: Now whether Jesuites little regard what their Popes define in their Bulls, being 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.

II 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 [Page 370]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, [Page 371]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.

III 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 [Page 372]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 secun­d [...]un opera, quomodò mise­ricordia aestimabitur? Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. In eo enim— ipsa operum qualitas intel­ligiu [...]— 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 [Page 373]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.

IV 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 [Page 374]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 [Page 375]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 thats 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 [Page 376]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 [Page 377]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 [Page 378]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.

IV 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 [Page 379]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 [Page 380]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 [Page 382]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 [Page 383]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 [Page 384]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 Apostle purposely makes, in saying Death is the wage or stipend of Sin— but not saying so of life eternal.

There is another place cited out of St. August. that makes a great noise of Justice in giving the re­ward: Aug. de nat. & gra. c. 2. Non est injustus Deus, ut Justos fraudet mercede ju­stitiae. God is not unjust (saith he) that he should defraud, or disappoint, the just of the reward of their justice, or righteousness. But upon what respect God is said to be Just in rewarding: was shewen Nu. 3. above [Page 385]in answer to those places of Scripture, which spake Gods Justice in that parti­cular. And the same answer may serve all those Testimonies which the Cardinal or others bring out of the Fathers, saying in some loftiness of Language that man by good deeds may make God his Debtor: The Wiseman in effect said so, Prov. 19.17. and that proverbial way of speech may bear it. That saying of St. Aug. (which in this Controversie of Merit, Truth has forced the Cardinal thrice to mention) will clearly unfold how God becomes, and may be call'd, Mans Debtor, and answer all plea of Merit, made from such speeches of the Fathers. The Lord, saith he, Aug. Ps. 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se secit, non accipiendo, sed promitten­do. makes himself a Debtor, and how is that? not by receiving from us, but promising unto us. To this purpose it is what the same Father saith elsewhere, Aug. l. 1. Confess. c. 4. O thou, that payest Debts, or renders what is due, yet owest nothing to any man, (qui reddis debita, nulli debes) where (debita) debts, are (promissa) his promises. And Aug. Serm 16. de verb. Apost.—redde, quia accepisti; sed [...]edde, quia promisisti. elsewhere: We do not say to God, ren­der because thou hast re­ceived, but render because thou hast pro­mised.

The Cardinal pretends he can easily answer all this, and replies thus: It is said so by St. Bel. l. 5. de Justif. c. 18. sect. Sed facilis—absolutè, sed solum ex promissione & dono suo; quod autem non ex sola promissione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus effi­ciatur Debitor, docet Aug. cum subjungit, —redde, quod promisisti, quia feci­mus, quod jussisti. Aug. because God owes nothing to any man, absolutely, but only by his promise, and his own bounty and gift; This is fair and true: but nothing to his advantage, and therefore not many lines after, he sups it up again with the same breath, saying; Nevertheless, that God is made our Debter not only by his pro­mise, but by our work too: St. Aug. tea­cheth, when he subjoyns; we may say ren­der what thou hast promised, for we have done, what thou commandest. If this may be said to God Almighty, yet with such caution, that it cannot (as bold as it is) be a plea for Merit: for it must be said with respect to the bounty and pro­mise of God appointing such a reward for them, that do so and so; and with ac­knowledgment of his Free-grace helping us to do so; wherefore it follows imme­diately in St. Et hoc tu [...]fe­cisti, qui la­borantes ju­visti. Aug. Ser. 16. de verbis A­post. Aug. (which the Cardinall thought good to omit) and this thou hast done, which hast helped those that labour, or strive to do well. If we take it not as said in such a respect, St. Aug. himself will judge it a proud and presumptu­ous [Page 387]saying; for so it is censured by him, Against the plea of Merit. upon Ps. 142. vers. 2. Enter not into judgment— where he brings in the pre­sumptuous justifiers of themselves, saying; Aug. in Ps. 142. Jeju­navimus, & non vidisti; fe­cimus quod jussisti, quare non reddis quod promisesti — ut accipias quod promisi, ego dediut faceres— We have fasted and thou seest not— we have done, what thou hast commanded, why dost thou not render what thou hast promised? To such (saith he) God will answer, that thou maist receive what I promised, I gave unto thee to do. Finally the Pro­phet speaks to such proud ones, &c. If therefore man may so plead, render what thou hast promised, for we have done what thou hast commanded, it must be with such corrections; We have done what thou commandest, what thou graciously doest require of us, and accept as condition of obtaining what thou hast bountifully pro­mised: VVe have done, but what was our duty antecedently to thy gracious pro­mise; done what thou mightest have re­quired of us without such reward: done what thou didst help and enable us to do: and done it but imperfectly, so that it needs thy merciful acceptation: and still we need to say, Testimo­nies of Fa­thers a gainst Ro­mish Merit. Enter not into judgment with thy servants, O Lord.

V Now to proceed to the Testimonies of Fathers, against Romish Merit. First we [Page 388]alledge their sayings, whereby they plain­ly deny Merit, or that we are worthy. And here we must observe (as to the sense of those words, Those that deny Me­rit and Worthiness in us. Merit, and Worthy, in this Controversie) a great difference be­tween those sayings of the Fathers, which barely affirm our Merits or Worthiness, & those wch deny the same: I say a great dif­ference between the force of the one and of the other; For when they affirm, they speak according to the remiss sense of Me­rits, put for good works obtaining eternal life: and do mean such a worthiness that consists by divine acceptation; but when they deny either, they speak punctually to the exclusion of that worth and merit, which the Church of Rome would esta­blish in the Works themselves, Bern. de dedicat. eccl. ser. 5. — dignatione divinâ, non dignitate no­stra —Nec dignatio lo­cum habet, ubi fuerit prasumptio dignitatis. as answe­rable to the reward; Thus Bernard, We are so by divine dignation, not by our own worth ordignity: & a little after he saith, Divine dignation hath no place, where there has been a presumption or conceit of self-dignity: Thus when they are upon the negative, they speak punctually & distinctly of me­rit and worth, as concerned in this Con­troversie. St. Basil speaks home, Basil in Ps. 114. — [...]— Eternal rest, saith he, remains for them that have striven law­fully in this life; not rendred, according to Debt, unto their [Page 389]works: but given according to the grace of a bountiful God. He speaks it with re­verence to those words of the Apostle, Henceforth a Crown is laid up for me, 2 Tim. 4. and a distinction borrowed from the same Apostle, Rom. 4.4. of grace, or of debt: and so cuts out all the core of pretended Merit, which the Ro­manists would fix in the former place of 2 Tim. 4. Bel. l. 5. de In [...]f. c. 6. The Cardinal cites this Testi­mony of St. Basil, as objected by Prote­stants, and shuffles pitifully in his replies to it: First leaving out the word ( [...], 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 [Page 390]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 m [...]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 [Page 391] 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 wel­doing) is grace, and of the gift of God. [Page 392]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 coro­na [...] qud [...] 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; [Page 393]whereas they all speak of giving (not the first grace, but) the reward of eternal life.

VI 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 D [...]o petatur ve­nia delicto­um. wherein mans righteousness stands, is to beg of God pardon of his of­fences and failings; and this, he saith, [Page 394]the Lords Prayer witnesseth, which tea­cheth us daily to beg, forgive. To this purpose that of Ambr. in Exhort. propè finem. Ʋnde mihi tantum meriti, cui indulgentia pro Corona est? St. Ambr. in his exhort. to Virginity. VVhence have I so great me­rit, to whom Indulgence is in stead of a Crown? and up­on Ps. 118. in reference to those words, thy tender mer­cies, and thy judgments, in the 156. Ambr. in Ps. 118. con­tione 20. —quis enim mostrum sine divina potest miseratione subsistere? vers. The Lord (saith he) tempers his judg­ment with mercy: for which of us can subsist without the divine mercy & indulgence? And a little after concludes, the process of divine Judg­ment is made, Non ergo secundum merita mostra, sed misericordiam Dei— not according to our Me­rits but Gods Mercy.

St. Hilary upon the beginning of the 31. Ps. (or as with us, the 32.) where the Psalmist places righteousness in the forgiveness or not imputing of sin: Hil. in Ps. 31. Opera justi­tiae non sufficient ad beati­ [...]ud. nisi misericordia Dei— non reputet vitia. saith thus, The works of righteousness will not be sufficient for a desert or Me­rit (or obtaining) of that blisse, Greg. mor. 9. c. 14. — ad vitam non ex me­ritis, sed ex venia—unless that the mercy of God— do not impute our faults.

Greg. the great, saith thus in his Com­ments on Job, If I grow up to the work of vertue, I come to life, not by my merits, but [Page 395]by his pardon and indulgence: To these sayings of Hilary and Gregory, the Car­dinal answers, by their needing of the re­mission of Venial sins: as if the several ac­knowledgments of these and other Fa­thers, yea of the Ps. 143.2. Psalmist too, did but imply, they complained only of some venial sins; and stood in need only of mercy for them. Experience may suffi­ciently convince such conceit of vanity and presumption. Bern. de Annunc. ser. 1. Holy Bernard in one Sermon gives many reasons against the presumption of Merits, and alledges the example of the Psalmist, VVho (saith he) is better then the Prophet? (that is, could better plead merit and righteousness) yet he held it necessary to say, Enter not into judgment with thy servant.

VII Our third rank or sort of Testimo­nies, Testimo­nies affir­ming our Duty to the excluding of Merit. is of such as speak our Duty in doing all we can: conformably to that of our Saviour Luc. 17.10. Say, unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. The Romanists think to elude this Scripture, by saying: Though we be unprofitable to God, yet we may be profitable to our selves, gaining everlasting life by our good works— This is true, but its one thing to gain or obtain so great profit, as eternal life by good works, another thing to merit it by doing them: [Page 396]and if our being unprofitable to God will not overthrow the Romish Merit, yet our duty to do all we can will do it. Indeed unto Merit taken in the most strict sense according to absolute right and debt, it is required that a man bring profit and ad­vantage to the person, of whom he chal­lenges any thing by such Merit: but be­cause the Romanists will say there is not such Merit between God and Man, therefore the force of the Argument rests upon the Duty— which silences all plea of such Merit they contend for: Merit truly so called.

St. Aug. thus, O the great goodness of God! Aug. Serm. 3. de verb. Domini — Cui cum pro conditione reddere debea­mus obsequia — ut manci­pia redemptori—to whom though we ought by reason of our Crea­tion to return all service and obedience, as servants to our Lord, as bond-servants to our Redeemer: he makes us promises of re­wards as to friends.

Bernard in his Sermon of the fourfold Debt, shews (as the Bel. de Justific. l. 5. c. 14. sect. Tertia. Cardinal acknow­ledges) that all our good works are so due to God, that he might exact them, although he would give no reward: Bern. de quadrup. debito. Creator tuus est, tu Creatu­ra, tu servus, ille Dominus, ille Figulus [...]u figmen [...]um, Totum ergò quod es, illi de­be [...]— He is thy Creator (saith Bernard) thou his Creature: thou art a ser­vant, He thy Lord: He the [Page 397]Potter, thou his workmanship: therefore all that thou art, thou owest to him, of whom thou hast all.

Theophyl. saith, Theophyl. in Luc. 17.9. [...]. A servant that doth not his work, is worthy of stripes, but when he has done his work, let him be content that he has escaped stripes: that is, if reward come for so doing, let him account and receive it as of meer bounty; for it fol­lows in Theophyl. Therefore that servant ought not to exspect honour or reward as ne­cessarily following, or as due (as he might, if he truly merited) for it is of his Lords liberality and bounty, to give him, yea ra­ther frankly to bestow any thing upon him; where we may observe he did not think it enough to say ( [...]) give him, but adds [...], freely bestow on him; the better to express the undeserved boun­ty of God, so rewarding man for doing what was his duty to do.

Bernard gives a good reason against our Meriting, Bern. de Annun. ser. 1.because all our Merits are Gods gifts (that St Aug. said often) but he adds, and for them man is a debtor to God. So far are Gods gifts of Grace from being the ground of Merit (as the Romanists pretend) that they take from it by encreasing our Duty and Debt.

VIII Our last sort or Rank of Testimonies, is of such as speak, Testimo­nies affir­ming the Impropor­tion of our works to the reward. our sufferings or do­ings not to be compared with the Re­ward in any proportionable measure: and herein they have the Apostle going before them. Rom. 8.18. 2 Cor. 4.17.

St. Ambrose thus; What can we do wor­thy of those Coelestial rewards? Ambr. in Ps. 118. conc. 20. Quid possu­mus praemiis dignum fa­cere coelesti­bus? which has so much the more force in it, if we consider what goes before, and what fol­lows after it. He had said before; God tempers his judgment with mercy, and none of us can subsist without the divine in­dulgence: then immediately after al­ledging that of the Apostle Rom. 8.18. he concludes, Therefore the execution of the heavenly decrees proceeds not according to our Merits but the mercy of God. Some­thing of this, we had above in the second rank of Arguments, Nu. 6.

Greg. the first, upon the seventh penit. Psalm, having said, God renders according to works, Greg. in Psal. 142. Illi namque beatae vitae, in qua cum Deo & de Deo vivitur, nullus labor aequari potest, nulla opera comparari, preser­tim cum Apostolus—not for our works (which saying was made use of above) he adds imme­diately as a reason; For un­to that blessed life, in which we live with God, and of God, no labour can be equal, no endeavour or doings compared with it, especially [Page 399]seeing the Apostle saith, The sufferings of this life are not worthy— Rom. 8.18.

Anselm saith, If a man should serve God most fervently for the space of a thousand years, Amselm. de mensur. Cru­cis prope medium —Non mereretur ex condigno, di­midiam diem esse in regne coelorum.he would not merit condignly to be half a day in the king­dome of heaven; so great a disproportion did he conceive there was between our performances and the hea­venly reward.

Lastly, Bernard, on the Canticles: It may suffice for Merit to know, Bern. in Cant. Serm. 68. Sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant Me­rita.that our Merits are not sufficient: for such a re­ward and bliss: besides ma­ny other sayings he hath in those Sermons to beat down Merit; as also in his Sermons on the Annunciation (the place above ci­ted Nu. 6.) where among other Reasons that may be gathered, this from the im­proportion of our good works to so great a glory is one.

The whole School agrees in this, that to merit is an act of justice; and justice alwaies requires an equality between the things, which are awarded one for the other; as between the price, and the thing bought; between the offence and the punishment, between the work and the reward; And though the Assertors of [Page 400] merit as it stands between God and man, cannot finde the Reason of Justice either commutative or distributive properly be­tween them: Dur. l. 2. dist. 27. qu. 2. nu. 6 yet Durand holds them to it, if they will have good works con­dignly meritorious of eternal life in proper speech and sense, they must finde such an equality and proportion between Mans service and Gods reward, as Justice in a proper sense requires. To make up some proportion between them, it was Aqui­nas his invention, (and is held to by all the Assertors of Merit, for they have no better defence then to say) Good works are proportionable to eternal life, Quatenùs à spiritu San cto fiunt.in as much as they proceed, or are done by the Holy Ghost.

But this could not blinde Durands eyes, Dur. quo suprà nu. 8, 9. who answers it with good reason. The force of that invention he thus puts by way of objection or Doubt: The grace of Gods Spirit which we have, Etsi non actu, est tamen ae­qualis [...]n virtute— Semi­narium quoddam gloriae; Semen autem in virtute est tota Arbor.is equal to glory though not in act, yet in ver­tue: because it is a kinde of Seminary of glory; Now the Seed of a Tree, is in vertue the whole Tree; Which was the reasoning of Mr. Spencer above in Chap. V. nu. 4. Durand answers first to that of their pro­ceeding from the Spirit of God: An [Page 401]Agent, saith he, Agens non perficit pas­sum secun­dum seipsum sed secun­dum aliquid immissum— doth not perfect the pa­tient according to it self or its own perfe­ction, but according to that which is put into or impressed, and formally exists in the act or the power of the subject: that is, although the Holy Ghost be of infinite perfection, yet the grace or gift infused or impressed is finite and imperfect in it self: Indeed the Master of the School who did not distinguish the gift of Charity from the Holy Ghost it self, (could he have made it good) might have stood upon the extraordinary perfection of that Gift; But all that followed him quitted that erroneous opinion: and the Asser­tors of Merit, not able to defend that opinion, can as little defend the answera­ble proportion, they say good works have to eternal life, because they proceed from the Holy Ghost: Durand adds another reason to confute them; because the Ho­ly GhostMovet ad actus, qui non sunt me­ritorii. ibid.moveth to acts which are not me­ritorious, as the prophesying of Balaam, and Saul; So the many gifts which St. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. 12. were all from the Holy Ghost; though such as the School cals Graces given gratis, Gratia gra­tis datae. or not to the purpose of justification or Merit: yet all proceeding from the same Spi­rit.

IX I will conclude with the Concessions of those that assert Merit truly so called. Concessi­ons The Council * of Trent thus: Eternal life is to be propounded to them that do well, Sess. 6. c. 16. — tanquam Gratia filiis misericorditèr promissa, & tanquam Mer­ces ex ipsius Dei promis­sione fideliter reddenda—both as a Grace mercifully promised through Jesus Christ to children, and as a reward faithfully to be rendred through the pro­mise of God to their good Works and Me­rits. If they would hold here, there would be no further Controversie; and if they will give cause still for exception, by adding for all this, that good works do truly merit, yet is that decree of the Council enough to refute it. —tanquam Caput in membra, ju­gitèr virtu­tem influit— Semper an­tecedit & comitatur & subsequi­tur— —Grata & meritoria— & Verè pro­meruisse— Moreover, in the same Chapter the Council affirms, Christ infuses virtue continually into Per­sons justified, as the Head into the Mem­bers: which virtue alwaies precedes, and accompanies and followes their good works: and without which they could not be ac­ceptable to God. This is good: but in­consistent with that which follows: and meritorious— and that such do truly me­rit eternal life— for therefore those works (though acceptable to God) can­not be also meritorious because they are so from his free grace.

The Cardinal, Bel. l. 5. de Just. c. 16, 17, 18. that stoutly takes upon [Page 403]him to maintain (against so many honest Schoolmen and Writers, (that went be­fore him) That good works are Con­dignly and truly meritorious, not only by reason of the promise of God, but by rea­son of their own worth: and that God is made Debter to us not only by his pro­mise but by our work: He I say, had be­fore granted enough to overthrow such bold Assertions. Bel. l. 5. de Justif. c. 12. For he proves a man must be received into the state of Adopti­on before he can Merit, and that is an Act of free Grace, also that life eternal is due to such children as an Inheritance: which Title overthrows the other preten­ded Title of Merit; For albeit Almighty God has freely prepared the heavenly inheritance, yet he will have us do some­thing for it; upon the doing whereof we may expect and shall obtain what he has so freely prepared and faithfully promi­sed: without challenging it by the Title of Merit.

Furthermore, He tels us, Bel. c. 14. the Doctor (whom Pius V. condemned, and of whom we spoke at the beginning of this Sect.) —meritoria ex sua na­tura— held that good works were of them­selves meritorious, so that a Convention or free promise was not requisite for this,—gratuita promissio ad hoc, ut ex justitia de­beatur—that the reward of eternal life should be in ju­stice due to good works. Now albeit what [Page 404]this Doctor asserted, was most false, yet does it plainly follow upon the Romish Doctrine of truly meritorious: which the Doctor saw plainly must be deserted, or this must be maintained: he saw plainly, that if good works were truly meritorious, they would be so whether there were promise made or no (for as I noted above, The promise makes not for the merit of the work, but for the consecution or ob­taining of the reward) also he saw, that if eternal life were by a gracious and free promise, it could not be due to the work of Justice.

Lastly, the Cardinal in the same place acknowledges, Bel. l. 5. de Just. c. 14. sect. Tertia— Omnes conditione servi & Mancipia Dei— —operibus nostris alioqui debitis— We are all by our Creation servants, yea bond servants of God: and that there cannot be justice between us & God: unless he had been pleased of himself by a free Con­vention to appoint a reward to our works, which were otherwise due. Due antece­dently to all promise, due from our being and Creation: and if all the justice that can be found 'twixt God Almighty and us men, be in regard of his promise only, as indeed it is, it cannot be in regard of any obligation the work it self casts upon God, to make him our Debtor, as the Cardinal above did not fear to assert.

Truth, and the Conviction of Gods free and bountiful dealing with man, ex­torts such Concessions from them, as do sufficiently contradict their bold Asserti­ons, and might put end to the Controver­sie, if some unjustifiable ends did not still engage them.

SECT. VI. Of Purgatory.

I THat Purgatory is conceived to be a Place of pain or punishment, What Pur­gatory is? & that for Souls of just Persons, departed out of this life, is plain by the Sess. 6. Can. 30. Council of Trent: and by the Reason or ground of it according to the Romish conceit; be­cause it is for those, to whom the sin and the eternal punishment is forgiven, but the temporal not fully satisfied by them here, and therefore must be payed or born hereafter. This appeared above, chap. VI. nu. 1.5.6.

The Cardinal is bold to affirm, Bel. li. 1. de Purgat. c. 15. that Purgatory is an Article of the Catholick faith, and may be proved all the four [Page 406]waies, that points of Faith use to be pro­ved by, viz. by express Testimony of Scripture, with the Declaration of the Church; So is the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father proved; or by evident deduction from that which is ex­press in Scripture; So is the Article of two Wills in Christ proved, &c. and so is Purgatory proved, saith the Cardinal: and he boasts that he has so proved it, by giving us many places of Scripture mistaken, as to that sense, and many say­ings of Fathers misapplied, as to that purpose; which will appear upon the Trial following.

It will appear, that this Doctrine of Purgatory is not Catholick, but the in­vention of later Times: taking Rise from that which St. Aug. hinted, as probable, touching pains after death: and then ha­ving an Advancement by fabulous reports of Visions and deluding apparitions in St. Gregories time and after; at last re­ceiving a Definition and establishment in the Church of Rome. And for the coun­tenancing of it, They force many places of Scripture, and whatever they finde in the Fathers, concerning prayer for the Dead, or touching a purging Fire; though spo­ken to other purpose: doing therein as those Hereticks of whom St. Hilary said [Page 407]that they drew Scripture to that, —ad id quod praesumpse­runt creden­dum.which they had of themselves presumed, or before conceived to be proposed and held as matter of Belief.

For better proceeding: We will re­duce all to these Heads. The Place or state of Souls after death: The Prayers that were made for the Dead: The Re­mission of sins after death. The pains or punishment after death. What the Ro­manists bring from Scripture or Fathers touching any of these, we shall meet with. As for the Texts of Scripture al­ledged by them, we may say this in Gene­ral: They have no consent of Fathers for such a sense as they would fasten upon the Texts they cite in behalf of Purga­tory.

II First for the Place or state of souls de­parted; Of the Place or state of Souls de­parted. Scriptures alledged by the Roma­nists. There are two Scriptures especi­ally which they alledge for such a place of Souls, as they phansie Purgatory to be. The one is Zach. 9.11. I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the Pit, where no water is: which text in the first and immedi­ate sense speaks the deliverance of that people out of the Babylonish captivity: but is by many of the Ancients applied to our Saviours bringing forth the Souls of the Fathers of the old Testament out of their Receptacle or Limbus. And [Page 408]the Cardinal acknowledges, Bel. l. 1. de Purgat. c. 3. Non est aqua Con [...] solationis. it has been usually taken in that sense, but thinks it as proper for Purgatory, and the rather because in this there is not the Water of consolation, as there was in the other; And this is to be noted here, because we shall finde the Cardinal below put to de­vise how prayers for the Dead, made by the Ancient Church for those that rested in peace, Bel. l. 2. de Purgat. c. 4. —admixtam cum crucia­tibus incre­dibilem con­solationem, propter cer­tam spem sa­lutis. could concern Souls in purgato­ry, that is in Torment, and cannot invent any expedient for it, but by referring that rest and peace to the Comfort and sa­tisfaction they have there together with their Torment, by reason of their hope, and assurance of coming out of those pains into eternal bliss. That which the Car­dinal, for proof of his interpreting that text of Zach. in behalf of Purgatory, fastens upon St. August. is not that Fa­thers expression or intention, but the Car­dinals misapplication. St. August. in the places cited by the Cardinal Epist. 49. ad Euod. & lib. 12. in Genes. c. 33. speaks of our Saviours descending into Hell, and delivering some that were there; but i. e. in Purgatorio, is the Cardinals addition.

The other Text is Mat. 5.25. where we read of a prison and a payment to be made there, but what proof is there more then a strong phansie, that this must [Page 409]signifie Purgatory? The Cardinal indeed alledges some Fathers, using those words of our Saviour as a Commination against Sinners, but that they should thereby in­tend a Romish Purgatory is still the Car­dinals misapplication. One and the chief of those Fathers cited by him, is St. Cy­prian in his Epist. 52. ad Antonian. where He plainly, as we shall see below, applies that of the prison, and the paying of the ut­most farthing, to the Severity of Ecclesi­astick Pennances and Satisfactions, under which the Lapsi, or those that fell in time of persecution, were held. Now when the Fathers give any direct interpretation of that place, they either restrain it to the literal, as it inforces concord and agreement between man and man: or take it in the parabolical sense as applia­ble to our agreement and reconciliation to God, for want or neglect of which the prison of Hell and eternal sufferings there will follow. St. Chrysostom and some others are content with the first way, Aug. 1. qu. ad Dul­citium; and else­where. St. Aug. and others apply it in the Pa­rabolical sense: not to any place or pains of Purgatory, but to Hell and the pains never ceasing. To this their own Au­thors consent. Maldonat on the place expounds it of Hell and eternal punish­ment; so Jansenius. and others. Jans. con­cord. c. 40. Salme­ron [Page 410]seems indifferent, first setting down that Interpretation of the eternal punish­ment, and acknowledging Aquinas and others so to take it; but thinking it ap­pliable also to Purgatory, cites the very same Fathers, which we said above, were cited by the Cardinal and misapplied as to this belief of Purgatory.

III Now see we what the Fathers hold out concerning the Place of state of Souls, The opi­nion of the Fathers in­counstent with Pur­gatory. be­tween the Day of Death, and of the Re­surrection: We shall finde it inconsistent with Romish Purgatory; as may appear by the Particulars following.

I. They held but two stares, places or Receptacles of Souls, the one of pain and grief, the other of rest and bliss; There is scarce any Father, but concludes this from the Parable or story of Dives and Lazarus, Luc. 16. the one going to Hell, the other to Abrahams bosom. I need not cite the places, which are obvi­ous to every one that looks into their Writings.

II. They did not agree about the par­ticular place of the Souls of Just persons: which difference among the Ancients, shews plainly that this place of Purgatory was not then known. Iren. l. 5. [...]. 31. St. Irenaeus and many that followed him, held they were all kept in a secret Receptacle below or [Page 411]out of Heaven and sight of God till the resurrection; which place was also called by them Hades, or an Invisible place; and sometimes Abrahams bosom: This condi­tion of Souls, Legem mor­tuorum ser­vavit— Irenaeus cals Legem mortuo­rum, the Law of the Dead: and saith, as our Saviour observed it, not ascending to his Father till after his Resurrection, so must all his Disciples: and gives this Rea­son for it, Because the disciple is not grea­ter then his Master. Of this common Re­ceptacle of Souls till the Resurrection speaks Lactantius in his 7. Book, and chap. 21. Tert. l. de Anima c. 7. & cap 55. & contra Marc. l. 4. c. 34. Also Tertullian in several pla­ces: only he seems to allow Martyrs this prerogative to enter Heaven upon their death, as in his Book d [...] Anima c. 55. and in his Book of the Resurrection, c. 43. This was one opinion of the Ancients, and held by many; But others conceived the Souls of Just persons were admitted into Heavenly bliss and a sight of God: whom Irenaeus notes in the first words of the chap. above cited: Quidam ex his qui rectè putantur credidisse, transgredi­untur ordi­nem promo­tionis Justo­rum. Some (saith he) of those, that are thought to believe aright, do transgress the order or degr [...]s of the pro­motion of the Just, viz. by admitting them (as he conceived) too ha [...]ily into Hea­ven: Of this Judgment was Cyprian and generally the Fathers after him: as we shall see presently. Now as the former [Page 412]opinion that kept Souls out of Heaven till the Resurrection could not stand with the doctrine of Invocation (as we no­ted above in the II. Sect.) so this diver­sity of judgment touching the place of Souls after death could not consist with a belief of Purgatory.

III. Although the Ancients were not a­greed upon the particular place, or degree of bliss: yet all held the place and conditi­on, in wch they put the Souls of Just per­sons, to be a place of rest and refreshment, and a blessed condition. This is manifest; because they set it out by the place of Lazarus: also because the Prayers which the Church anciently made for the Dead, were still pro quiescentibus, for them that were at Rest, as we shall see below; And St. Aug. (whom I specially name, because he first stumbled on a conceit tending to Purgatory) doth often speak of the secret Receptacle of good Souls as at rest: sometimes with distinction from that place where they shall be after the resurrection (as in his Confessions, l. 9. c. 3, and of the City of God, l. 12. c. 9.) sometimes in opposition to that other re­ceptacle or place of pain and grief, as in his Enchirid. c. 107. and in his second quest. to Dulcitius. But we shall have occasion below to shew that St. Aug. was [Page 413]not at any certainty, as to this point of Purgatory.

III Lastly, Those ancients which held the Souls of Just persons admitted into Hea­venly bliss, Souls of the Just go pre­s [...]ntly to bliss. did suppose (and so expres­sed it) that they went thither presently after Death, without any diversion to, or detention in any place of pain and tor­ment.

The Author of the Questions in Justin Martyr thus: Quest. ad O [...]thod. [...]5. [...]. After their going out of the body, there is presently made a difference between the Souls of the just and the wick­ed: for they are both carried to places wor­thy of them: What are those places? The Souls of the Just (saith he) into Paradise; but the wicked into the Regions of Hell. St. Cyprian in his Book of Mortality, Cypr. l. de mortali­tate. —Pos­sessio Para­disi — in Patriam re­gredi —ad Christum ire — & cum Christo inciper [...] re­gnare. gi­ving comfort against the sickness that swept away many Christians, as well as other, useth these Reasons: Because good Christians by death are put into possession of Paradise: they do return into their own Countrey after their peregrination in this life: they then go to Christ, begin to reign with Christ: It is for him to fear death, that is not willing to go to Christ, and that believes not, he shall then begin to reign with Christ. —de turbi­nibus mundi extracti—And when the servants of God are drawn out of the storms of this world, they gain the haven of and eternal [Page 414]mansion and security, [...]tranquil­lam quie­tem— Justi vocantur ad refrigerium, i [...]justi ad supplicium.and have an undistur­bedrest; and at death, the Just are calle [...] to a refreshment, the unjust to punishment. All this to comfort Christians against death by their present removal to a bles­sed condition: And none of these can be said of them that go to Purgatory; for that is not to take possession of, or enter into Paradise: that is not the Countrey which the faithful seek: not a reigning with Christ: not the Mansion of Rest, or Port of eternal security, and undistur­bed quietness. And these several expres­sions of this Father may assure us, that the place so much urged by the Romanist for a semblance of Purgatory, must have another meaning, then that they would put upon it. Cypr. [...]p. 52. ad An­tonian. The place is this: It is one thing to stand (as a Penitent) for pardon, another thing to come to glory: One thing to be cast into prison, Aliud est ad veniam sta [...] re—and not come thence till the utmost farthing be payed, a not her thing presently to receive the reward of their faith and vertue: —pro pecca­tis longo d [...] ­lore [...]ucia­tu [...] emun­deri, & pur­gari diu igne—pendere in die judicii ad sententi­am Domini.One thing to be cleansed by suffering a long grief for sins, and to be purged a great while by fire, another thing to have all a mans sins pur­ged away by the passion of Martyrdom. One thing with suspence to expect the sen­tence of the Lord in the day of judgment, another thing to be presently crowned of [Page 415]the Lord. The objectors of this place, were they not so ready to phansie a Pur­gatory meant, where ever they finde men­tion made of a Prison, or last Farthing, or Fire, might easily see those phrases and expressions to be used with reference to the severity of Ecclesiastical satisfacti­ons and pennance, to which they that fell (the Lapsi) either by Adultery, or re­nouncing through fear the Christian Faith, were put to: The occasion upon which he spoke it, was an objection made against the receiving of those, that fell in time of persecution: that if such savour were shewen them, and Ecclesiastical disci­pline let loose, we should have no Confessors or Martyrs. He answers, Nam & Maechis à nobis poeni­tentiae tem­pus conce­ditur, & pax datur, Non tamen, ideirco vir­ginitas in Ecclesia de­sicit. We give peace to Adulterer's after their time of pen­nance fulfilled: and yet Virginity fails not in the Church, but flourisheth: then fol­lowes that place as affording reason for their receiving of penitents, from the se­verity they are put to, and the great dif­ference between their Condition, and the happiness of those that have continu­ed constant or proved Confessors and martyrs; And therefore he expresses that severity, with which the Lapsi were han­dled, in a reference to the Martyrs suf­ferings and priviledge: That they stood long desiring pardon; before they could be [Page 416]restored to former state: that they were as Men held in prison, till they made full satisfaction; that they were put to a great Torment, in the shame and grief of their pennance, and the anxious sollici­tude of obtaining what they desired: And lastly, as to the Sentence and Judg­ment of the Lord, there is a great diffe­rence between them and the Confessors, or other Just persons, who without sus­pence and such solicitude expect the sen­sence of the Lord: for that, Pendere ad sententiam Domini, is spoken either of the Time, while they are under Ecclesia­stical Censures, during which time they continue in great perplexity and suspence, as to the sentence of the Lord, till they be re­conciled to the Church: which often was deferred to the time of their Death: or else it is spoken in relation to a more severe scrutiny and examination, which they shall undergoe at their appearing before the Lord; and not have that ready ad­mittance, which Confessors and other Just persons that needed not their repen­tance shall finde, being admitted with­out delay readily, Sine cuncta­tione— as St. Cyprian speaks of them, or without judgment to grace and favour, Sine judicio ad gra [...]iam. as Ambr. on the first Psal. vers. 5. whereas the other shall be held under a scrutiny, examination, an opening of [Page 417]their failing and denials:—quis pudor quae consu­sio?what shame then and confusion of face (saith St. Ambrose there) when all shall be laid open, or when taken in that, which thou taughtest others should not do? Thus sometimes some Fa­thers speak of those, that dye in a salva­ble condition, through faith and repen­tance though late: as distinguishable from those that died Martyrs, or having repented betimes, had lived long in a constant course of Christian profession, and careful performance of righteousness. St. Ambrose thus: Ambr. de bono Mor­tis c. 12. When that day comes (the day of death) they go to their Redee­mer, to the bosome of Abraham: yet ibid. c. 10. else­where he seems to defer it to the Resur­rection, according to the first opinion of the Ancients delivered above: Unless we take that going to Abrahams bosome gene­rally, for a state of blessed Rest: and be that where it will, either below or in Hea­ven, yet their going thither presently upon death, excludes Purgatory.

Dionysius in his Eccles. Dionys. Eccl. Hier. c. 7. parte 3. [...]. Hierarchy spea­king of those that dye in the Lord, trans­mits them presently to a Christ-like Rest. Nazianzen in the death of his brother Caesarius towards the end of his oracio [...], saith, Every good soul loosed of the body, Nazien in Epitaphio [...]. — [...]—goes presently to the state of bliss, which he there describes, such as he believed [...]s [Page 418]brother was gone to. And which is to be noted, he brings in the former Asser­tion thus: I believe the sayings of the wise, Every good soul being loosed &c. and for the Purgatien, mark the Parenthesis he there puts in, (Eo quod tenebras effunde­bat, purgato & deposito: vel quo verbo ca res appellanda sit. Nazian. ibid. (that which did cause darkness, being purged, and deposed) which must be by death or sepa­ration from body: or by what word that thing is to be called, I know not.

Chrysost. Chrys. in Mat homil. 32. [...]. thus: This present life is sub­ject to many sorrows and troubles, but no such thing, saith he, is spoken in Scripture, of the future: but there all grief flies away; and Chrys. ad Philip. Serm. 3. [...]— elsewhere speaking of Sinners and Righteous, he saith of these, being gone from hence, they are with Christ face to face— as the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.7. saith being absent from the body we are present with the Lord, Chrys. ad Hebr. ser. 4. And in another place, he asks: what mean the Lamps, and Hymns, and Prayers (viz. at the Funeral of the Dead) but as signs of joy to tell us, The Lord has crowned him: [...].and has him with him. And in his 61. hom. in Joan. he saith of the righteous man dying, ( [...]) he goes away with the Angels, alluding to Lazarus his Soul carried by Angels into Abrams Bo­som. [Page 419]All this and often thus he speaks of the Just man, opposed to the Sinner that dies in his sins without Repentance: (for he usually divides All men into these two sorts.) but such righteous Men the Church of Rome sends to Purgatory. [...].

Epiphanius, Epiph. Haer. 39. [...]. in the Heresie of the Ca­thari, shews that after this life ended, the condition is unalterable, the receptacles sealed up— the Crowns given— Not so, if souls truly penitent go to purgatory for of such souls he speaks there against the Novatians. Thus much of the Place of Souls.

IV We come now to the second Head: Prayers for the Dead, infer not Purgatory. that is, Prayer for the Dead, from which the Romanists would infer Purgatory. And for Scripture proof they give us 2 Machab. 12.43, a fit foundation for such an Article of Faith; the book of all the Apocryphals least considerable; which will easily appear to him that layes toge­ther, what the Author himself saith of his own work, in his 2. chap. v. 23, 24, 26. and chap. 15.38, 39. Evidences enough of a meer humane work, done by the la­bour of the brain not the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. St. Aug. indeed some­times cals these books Canonical accor­ding to the large acception of the Afri­can Church: but being put to answer [Page 420]an argument of the Donatist, grounded upon the Machab. example of Razis, he much lessens the Authority of them: as not to be compared with the books of the Law, and Psalms, Aug. contra Gauden l. 2. c 23. —quibus Dominus te­stimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis. Luc. 24 44. —recepta non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur. and the Pro­phets; to which (saith he) our Lord gives testimony, as to his Witnesses: But this writing of the Mach. is re­ceived of the Church not un­profitably if it be read soberly— Gregory Bishop of Rome citing a place out of these Books, Greg. Mo­ral. l. 19. c. 13. excuses it, because he did it out of Books not Canonical: in Moral. l. 19. c. 13.

Again; he that well considers the place, will easily distinguish between the Fact of Judas, and the mistaken collection or misapplication of the writer of that Book. Judas no doubt did piously: for he see­ing their Sin or Sacriledge, as the cause why they were slain: vers. 40. fell to his devotions; prayed and sent a sin-offering to Jerusalem, v. 42.43. Not for the sin of them that died: that's the mistake of this Writer; but upon occasion of their sin, to divert the Wrath from the rest of his Army: as Joshua thought himself con­cerned, upon the sin of Achan, Josh. 7.10. Also it is apparent that they died in their sin (the things they had stoln being found [Page 421]about them) which argues both the in­cogitancy of this writer (who vers. 45. supposes they died godly) and the imper­tinency of the Romanists, who suppose them in Purgatory, whither they send none that dye in their sins, but only justi­fied persons.

They also urge 2 Tim. 1.18. for pray­ing for the Dead: whereas that prayer for Onesiphorus (supposing him dead at that time) has but reference to the Mer­cy, which shall be imparted at the last day; to which also the prayers of the Ancient Church do much refer, and make nothing for Purgatory. And therefore all the Testimonies they bring out of the Ancient Fathers or Councils for praying for the Dead are impertinent as to the proving of a Purgatory: there being other Reasons for such praying; as we shall see. A wilful perverting it is of that Ancient Practice, to draw it off (as the Church of Rome has done) from the first intent and purpose, to fasten it upon their conceit of Purgatory pains. We shall see this better by the trial follow­ing.

V The Ancients, when they set them­selve to give reasons of the Churches praying for the Dead, Other pur­poses of such Pray­ers. give not this of Purgatory, (which had been most obvious [Page 422]and most fit to stop the mouth of the Ad­versary, had it been the Doctrine of the Church) but other Reasons they alledge differing from, or inconsistent with Pur­gatory. This appears by Epiphanius, who was put to it by Aerius questioning the prayers made in the Church for the Dead: and by Dionysius in his Hierarchy, who puts himself to answer the like Questions. In both of them it appears, that the in­tent of the Church by those Prayers was mainly this: The instruction of the living and the confirming of their Hope. See first what Epiphanius saith.

He cals this practice a seemly preaching or publishing: Epiph. Har. 75. [...]. of what? of the happy estate and Rest of those that dye in Christ: whereby the belief of the living was con­firmed and their hope raised. What more profitable, saith he, then that the living should believe, — [...]—they that are depar­ted are in being, and do live with the Lord. [...]— And again, There is hope, saith he, to them while they pray for their Brethren, as now in their peregri­nation or absence: Insinuating that al­beit they are departed or gone from them, yet they shall meet again. Also to shew [...], that which is more [Page 423]perfect: which must refer to the state of the next life: for, saith he, while we are here in the world, we offend often. And lastly, [...]. because all men do offend and slip in this life more or less, — [...]. there­fore we pray for all even for Patriarchs, &c. to separate Christ from all other; for he being with­out sin altogether, is not to be prayed for, but to be prayed unto, and worshipped These are all the Reasons he gives of their praying for the Dead: which we see do respect and provide for the instruction of the Living: and do not imply any such state of the Dead in pain and grief, as Pur­gatory supposeth, but the Contrary.

Now see we, what the Romanists endea­vour to pick out of words; Because he saith, Prayer for the Dead is profitable, [...]. Epiph. ibid.although it cuts not off sins, all or wholly: they infer thence, therefore it doth cut off sin in part. We answer; As Epiphanius does not say that, so neither could he mean it: For first, we must suppose he would not answer impertinently to Aerius, who ob­jected, [...]— If the prayers of the living altogether profit the Dead, then let no man live Godly, &c. Therefore Epiphanius his [...] must answer to Aerius his [...], and must [Page 424]be understood of the sins of such persons as Aerius spoke of, such as had no care of their lives, but left it to their living friends to pray for them after death. Now if Epiphanius should mean, that prayer did in part cut off such mens sins, then must he speak according to that merciful opinion, of mitigating the pains of the Damned by the prayers of the Living; with which conceit some of the Ancients were tainted: as we shall see below; but this would be nothing to Purgatory. Se­condly, if his meaning had been, (as the Romanists would have it) that prayer for the Dead did not cut off such mens sins: but that there was another sort of sinners, whose sins and punishment it does in part cut off, (viz such as have not fully satisfied here, but must do it elsewhere) then would Epiphanius (had he known such Doctrine) have much forgotten himself, and betrayed the Church in not stopping the mouth of the Adversary therewith. To conclude; Epiphanius his answer to Aerius must come to this: Al­beit Prayer for the Dead doth not (as you misconceive the intent of it) cut off such mens sins, yet is it for other reasons pro­fitable; for such as were above recited.

Another thing they object out of Epi­phanius his words: that he saith, we pray [Page 425]for sinners, and implore mercy of God for them; but such sinners, say they, must be in Purgatory. Answ. Epiphanius doth not say, we pray for sinners, [...]. but we make mention of the Just, and also of sinners: and of sinners, as imploring the mercy of God. Again, let the word ( [...]) stand, which some queston as put for ( [...]) looking unto or looking at the mercy of God; and let it sound, as they would have it, an imploring of Gods mercy: and let it have respect to the forgiveness of the Dead, which yet Epiphanius doth not say, but seems rather to direct it to the instruction of the living, to shew, that forasmuch as we offend all in this world (as above noted) we all need mercy: I say let all these be granted, it would a­mount to no more then that which Dio­nysius speaks of their praying for the Dead at his carrying forth to burial: that all his sins committed through humane weakness may be forgiven him, Dionys. Eccles. Hierar. c. 7. parte tertia. [...]—and he placed in light in the Re­gion of the living, in Abra­hams bosom. And now see what this Author saith of that praying for the Dead, suitable to Epiphanius his account of it.

He there by way of objection puts the Ques [...]ion: — [...]. Dionys. ibid. By what prayers of the Bishop or Priest can he (the Dead person) be transferred into any other seat or state, then he deserves to be in? How obvious had the Answer of Purgatory been here, had it been known doctrine then? But no­thing is said by him to that purpose: his Reasons (as Epiphan. above) implying that the intent of such praying was main­ly to give hope and instruction to the li­ving. First, he insinuates, In vain is the benefit of such prayers expected by those who are careless of the precepts, i. e. who live not well. Then, that the Bishop or priest in so praying, — [...], is the Interpreter or publisher of the Divine judgments: — [...].viz. in giving rewards according as men deserve— and how that? — [...]. the divine loving kind­ness in great goodness over­looks their infirmities or spots and stains of sin contracted by humane weakness. Thus that prayer which begs all his sins may be forgiven, is doctrine to the living, shewing and assuring them of Gods mercy to them that strive to live well, notwithstanding through humane weakness they offend often, and can­not [Page 427]be free from all spots and stains of Sin.

Then in relation as it seems, to the other part of the Prayer, which begg'd, that he might be placed in light, &c. this Author adds. The Bishop or Priest knows such good things are promised, and [...]. therefore prayes, that they may come to pass, and be given to them, that have lived well. Also, He knowes that the good things promised will come to pass, and therefore [...]—as the Interpreter of Gods will. he shewes they will surely be made good to them that so live and die. This is the very sum of his Answer, which plainly speaks comfort and instruction to the living. His con­clusion is this: Wherefore the Bishop or Minister prayes for those things which are promised of God, and [...].are to be rendred and performed; in which [...]— [...].he declares both the good disposition of his own minde to God, and to those that are present, the good things, which shall be to the Saints. So still the end of those prayers was (as Epipha­nius call'd it [...]) a preaching or In­struction to the Living that were pre­sent.

Now these instructions for the living, and Indications of the will of God, and their own good disposition, They gave out by way of prayer and wishing, rather then by bare Assertion of the happy estate of them, that dye in Christ: because this did not only speak such Truths, but did also witness their compliance of desire, and signifie their affection towards the Deceased, and shew their complacency and congratulation in and for the hapyy estate of the Deceased; that mutual wel­wishing, which is between the Members of the same body, the Church. It was more prompt, as to the expressing of their own affection; and more profitable as they thought, for the Living, to speak by way of Prayer, what the departed had, then by bare assertion.

If it be objected, (as it is sometimes by the defenders of Purgatory,) that the like Prayers were made for the Dead, not only at the departure and Funeral, but every year afterward; and therefore must suppose them in such a state, or place wherein they wanted still forgiveness, and light: the things prayed for. This infe­ference is inconsequent; for still there may be like intent in the yearly using those Prayers, as was before expressed; the shewing of their hope of them that [Page 429]were Departed, the instruction of the Li­ving. Bel. lib. 2. de purgat. c. 5. But the Cardinal also will furnish us with another Answer; for being put to clear an objection arising from a prayer in their Mass for the Dead: which runs thus (Deliver O Lord the Souls of all the faithfull departed from the pains of Hell, from the deep Lake, from the mouth of the Lyon—) and seems not to agree to Souls in purgatory, which they hold are delivered from Hell, and sure of Heaven; He answereth first, That al­beit the Souls in Purgatory have received their first sen­tence already in their parti­cular Judgment:Etiamsi jam acceperint pri­mam sententiam in parti­culart judicio, eaque Sen­tentia liberae sunt a Gehen­na: restat [...]amen Generale, in quo secundam acceptu­ri—and by that sentence are delivered from Hell; yet there is a General Judgment behinde, in which they must receive a second sen­tence. It is a Truth inde [...]d and Catholick Doctrine, that sentence for Mercy or Condemnation is passed both in the first appearing of the Soul before God at death, and after at the Resurrection or general Judgment, when the sentence is pronounced openly and before all the World: and to these, the Prayers made at the Funeral and afterward, may refer without supposing Purgatory: for this answer of the Cardinal though he ap­plies [Page 430]it to souls in Purgatory, will fit all faithful Souls going immediately to bliss. Again, he answers. The Church useth the same manner of speech (in praying yearly for the Dead) as if their Souls were then going out of their bodies, or in their passage. So then prayers anciently made for the Dead year by year, need not suppose their Sou [...]s were in Purgatory: for such prayers may have (as the Car­di [...]al yields) [...]o other meaning then they had at the Obit or Funeral of such per­sons: which was to accompany them as it were to Gods Tribunal, and to instruct the Living, by shewing them, what they that dye in Christ have, forgiveness, light, rest, joy.

Thus much for Epiphanius and Diony­sius, who on set purpose give us an ac­count of this practise in the Church: by which we see, Their Prayers as they might be Petitions for what the Departed were yet to receive, so were they C [...]le­brations and Congratulations in regard of what they had received, and in both instruction to the living for confirming their saith and Hope as to the happy state of those that dy in Christ: And by this also is apparent, what was intended by Offering the sacrifice of the Altar for the Dead, as they used to speak: No more, [Page 431]then the remembering of them in their prayers there and then offered up. But more to this purpose in the next point.

Again; The Prayers of the Church for the Dead must in all reason refer to such a state of the Dead as was then known and taught: which as we saw above, was inconsistent with Purgatory.

First, It was held by many, that the souls of the faithful were kept in a secret Receptacle till the Resurrection: and it is probable that this opinion being so an­cient, gave the first beginning to these prayers for the Dead, the most ancient forms of which begin with a Memento Domine, Remember them Lord, because they held such souls not yet admitted to Gods presence: and did beg, that God would give them Refreshment, Refrigeri­um. because of that burning desire they have to the time of their Resurrection: and Light, Lucem. because they had not yet the heavenly light of the beatifical Vision: This is that stay or expectation of the resurrection, Mora resur­rectionis. Tertul. which Ter­tullian speaks of sometimes.

Secondly, It was held by most (as above also was shewen) that the Souls of Just and godly persons, dying in Christ, went to bliss & heavenly happiness: who at the last day should rise first, and receive their publick and final acquittance, and con­summation. [Page 432]And certainly the Ancient Church, in her prayers for the Dead, had special relation to the Day of Judgement and Resurrection, finding how much it is referred to in Scripture. 2 Tim. 1.12.18. and cap. 4.8. and elsewhere.

VI And to this did also refer the offering of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist for them; The Sacri­fice of the Altar: or offering of the Eucha­rist. which implyed first, praise and thanks­giving for all that were departed in the true Faith of Christ, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and all other, that were at rest in Christ: [...] Quiescenti­bus in Chri­sto. This is that offe­ring, pro dormitione, for the sleeping of such, which we meet with in St. Cyprian, that God had taken such a one out of the worlds troubles, and given him rest in Christ; Secondly, Supplication by vertue of that once offered All-sufficient Sacrifice to beg all the mercies and good things pro­mised;Chrys. in fine Hom. 24. in Act.That they and we may attain to the good things promised, saith St. Chrysost. and so Dionysius spake of the prayers made with respect to the good things pro­mised (as we saw above) such was a joy­ful resurrection, a final acquittance, a Con­summation in bliss: the mercy to be found in that day, 2 Tim. 1.18 and so it was pro dormitione, for their sleeping too by way of supplication. For that phrase of St. Cyprian, cannot imply prayer and [Page 433]supplication properly (for who can be said properly to pray for the sleeping of such a one, when he is dead?) but only in regard of the good things which he that sleeps in Christ, shall receive at his awa­king. In the Liturgy going under the the Name of St. James: thus, Memento Domine om­nium— ab Abel justo— facito eos requiescere &c. Remem­ber Lord all the faithful— from Abel the Just— Make them to rest in the Region of the living, in the delights of Paradise, in thy Kingdom— This cannot suppose these souls to be in Purgatory, for the Romanists cannot suppose Abel and the other Patriarchs to be in such a place. So in St. Mark's Liturgy, for Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, it is thus prayed: Give them, O Lord, Dona iis re­quiem in re­gno tuo. Memento fa. mulorum— qui dormi. unt in somn [...] pacis. rest in thy King­dome; So in the ancient Canon of the Masse: Remember Lord thy servants, which sleep in the rest of peace. Now as some of the Ancient prayers mentio­ned Patriarchs, Apostles, Martyrs: so all of them were made for those that were at rest in Christ, and could not imply them to be in Purgatory. Nor is it here implied, that they wholly wanted these things that are prayed for, but that they might fully and consummately re­ceive and enjoy, what already they had in part and in some measure.

The Reason of this remembring of the Faithful, Reason of remem­bring the Dead in the offering of the Al­tar or Eu­charist. that are departed, is be­cause all the Faithful Dead and Alive belong to the same body: and do there­fore wish and desire mutually the good, which each other are capable of: they in bliss interceding for the Church below, and we below glorifying God for their reception into bliss, and intreating for their consummation, and the complea­ting of Christs Kingdom: and this most especially in the participation of his body and bloud; in which all the members of the Church have their Interest, and by which they receive what they have or shall have. St. August. speaking of the Kingdom of Christ above and below, saith to this purpose: Aug de Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 9. N [...]que enim animae Piorum mortuorum separan­tur ab Ecclesia quae nunc est [...]egnum Christi: Alioqui nec ad Altare D [...]i sieret eo­rum memoria in communica­tione corporis Christi. For nei­ther are the Souls of the god­ly (which are dead) separa­ted from the Church, which now is the Kingdom of Christ: Otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the Altar of God in the communication of the body of Christ.

Thirdly, it was a known Truth, held, and taught in the Church: that Souls af­ter departure from the body do appear before Gods tribunal and receive their [Page 435]first and particular judgment: therefore prayers were made for Mercy and Remis­sion at or in reference to their passage thi­ther: the Living as it were accompany­ing them with their prayers, wishes, inter­cessions; Thus they prayed at the Burial or carrying out of the Dead: and did it as we saw above, for the reasons there mentioned, viz. the instruction of the living and confirming of their hope, and demonstration of their affection, and the like: And upon the like respects they yearly repeated the like prayers, as we hinted above, out of the Cardinal, ac­knowledging as much.

VII Lastly it was a private opinion, but no­torious and held by many: That the Damned had benefit or ease by the Pray­ers of the Church, a private opi­nion or mis­applica­tion. That they which died in their sins without true faith and repentance might at length be reco­vered out of their Pains, or at least have them mitigated. And to these, the Prayers for the Dead, which begged forgiveness, ease or release were (I do not say refer­red by the Church, but) applied or rather misapplied by many. Origen gave occa­sion first to this Error; for he held that All should at length come out of their Torments: and his Error was, as Vincen­tius notes, a great temptation to the Church, by reason of the wit and parts of [Page 436]the Author, Aug. En­chirid. cap. III. Frustra quampluri­mi aeternam damnato­rum poenam miserantur affectu— and St. Aug. tels us in several places that many were of this merciful opinion. Very many, saith he, do commise­rate through humane affection, the eternal sufferings of the damned, and do not believe it will be so, &c. Of these also in other places, especially in his work Of the City of God: l. 21. c. 17, 18, 19, 20. where he reckons five latitudes in the extent of that Opinion, refuting them all.

Greg. Nyssen seems to be deeply tain­ted with that merciful opinion, and is noted for it by the Greeks in their Apo­logy against the Romish Purgatory made and given out in the time of the Coun­cil of Florence: for that Nyssen in orat. Deus omnia in ommbus. Idem in o­rat, le Mor. tu [...]s. pag 1067. Mixtam cle­menti sen­tentiam— Father seems plainly to assert the restoring of all men to salvation: and in another place speaks of the purging of some, and their turning to God after death, who were impure in their lives. And that place of St. Hierom upon Isa. 66. ult. which the Cardinal mis­applies to Purgatory (for it plainly speaks of wicked Christians) does shew some tin­cture of that merciful opinion: Now it is plain that Chrysosto [...]e applies the Prayers and oblations made for the Dead, to such sinners; And I should choose rather to silence those errors and mistakes of some ancient Fathers: did not the importuni­ty [Page 437]of the Romanists force us to shew the misapplication of them to Purgatory: I shall insist therefore in some passages of St. Chrysostome. Hom. 61. in Jo. Hom. 21. in Act. Serm. 3. in Philip. The sinners he speaks of to be prayed for, are in several Homilies, towards the End of them, thus set forth by him. One, saith he, that daily offended God, — [...]—One that lived every day to his own pleasure. One that died in his riches, and never used them to the be­nesit of his soul. — [...]. One that was ( [...]) corru­pted and lost: [...] and of whom he saith (Hom. 32. in Mat.) If God had seen he would have changed, he would not have cut him off before his Repentance: Such as these the Romanists will not say, that they go to Purgatory but to Hell; yet of these he saith, Let us mourn for such a one; but that avails not: Let us help him as we can. How is that? [...]. by prayers and alms; — [...]those things must be done, which may bring some comfort and ease to him. To this tenour he speaks in all the pla­ces above cited: but especially in Hom. 21. upon the Acts: Shall we not try (saith he of one that lived to himself and [Page 438]the Devil) to rescue him from the dangers and evils he is encompassed with? — [...].for there is a way, if we will, to make his punishment lighter; and this by making prayer for him, and almsdeeds, and these, saith he, so much the more, — [...].as he was guilty of the more sins. And this he takes to be doctrine suta­ble to the loving kindness of God towards man. [...]. And then a little after he adds, — [...]. Though we be not vertuous our selves, yet let us get friends that will do this for us, when we are gone. Then presently follows. — [...]. Oblations are not in vain, nor Supplications, nor Almsdeeds. All these things the Spirit has ordained, willing or commanding, that we should help one another: Then he mentions the Offering of the Eucharist, — [...]. and saith; It is not the Minister simply (or only) that praies so for those that are faln asleep in Christ: It is not he only that sends forth that voice, — [...].but the Spirit. He indeed holds the Offering or Sacrifice in his hands, &c. And so goes on expressing the honour to be then remembred, and the power and [Page 439]efficacy of Christs death, then represen­ted.

Where we may observe; that this say­ing of his, The Spirit has ordained all these things (which the Romanists do much urge, as if their prayers and offerings for souls in Purgatory were by an Ordinance of the Spirit) relates to the help of one ano­ther by Prayers, Oblations and Almsdeeds: which in general is true, so far as we are capable to be helped by them. But if it be particularly applied to the helping of such sinners as before he had spoken of, it makes nothing for the Romanists, for they will not allow that the Prayers and Oblations of the Living do avail or help such as died in their sins; but if it be ap­plied to the Prayers and Offerings in the Eucharist, as he seems here to intend it, it makes nothing still for them or against us; for we allow that Ancient practice of remembring there, and praying as they did for those that sleep in Christ. The in­tent and purpose of those prayers he ex­presses in the close of his speech, that they and we, saith he, — [...]— may obtain the good things promi­sed, through the Grace and merciful loving kindness of our Saviour Christ.

A place parallel to the former he hath [Page 440]in his third Hom. on the Epist. to the Philip. where speaking of Prayers and Ob­lations, with respect to the Dead, These things, Chrys. in Phil. hom. 3. [...]. saith he, were not in vain ordained by the Apo­stles: that a remembrance be made of those that are dead in the most reverend and holy Mysteries: For when all the people stand, and the company of Priests with their hands stretch'd out toward hea­ven, and the great sacrifice lies before them, how shall we not them move and make God propitious, while we pray for them that are departed? Here again the Romanists triumph, as if St. Chrysost. made their praying for Souls in purgatory an Ordi­nance of the Apostles: whereas he plain­ly restrains this Ordinance of the Apostles, as above he did the Ordinance of the Spi­rit, to that which the Church did in the Holy Eucharist; and that concerned on­ly them, who were at rest in Christ: No­thing of Souls in pains and torment is mentioned in the Ancient Liturgies, or Prayers of the Church. As for this Fa­thers speaking of prayer for such sinners, as he described in all the forementioned places, such as were gone to endless pains, yet might receive as he thought, a little case thereby: we must reckon it as a pri­vate [Page 441]opinion, and misapplication of that practise of praying for the Dead. And indeed he seems to acknowledge so much himself; for in his forementioned Hom. 61. in Jo. he faith, [...]— in relation to those his exhortations for such prayers and offer­ings, These things I speak not as one giving precept or setting a Law: but as one al­lowing, and condescending to the affecti­ons and frailties of men.

The Romanists here reply: that St. Chry­sost. and others seem to urge Prayer for All: because they knew not who died in the state of repentance: and so they pray for all in the Church of Rome, yet hold those prayers appliable to, and available for only those that dye in that state, and go to Purgatory pains. This is a meer shift, for St. Chrysost. does plainly sup­pose, that those sinners he speaks of died in their sins, such, Chrys hom. 61. in lo. [...]. as if God had seen they would have changed, he would not have cut them off before their repentance, as we had it above; such as he in another place speaks thus of, of such a one there is no cause to rejoyce, but only, because the course of his wicked life is cut off: yet for such he exhorts to pray and offer, and help him as they can. And indeed the reason of this extending the benefit of Prayers to such sinners was not any supposal of Pur­gatory, [Page 442]but of some mitigating and ea­sing of those eternal pains, to which such sinners were adjudged: and this in part according to that merciful opinion, and the motion of humane affection, of which St. Aug. speaks in his Enchiridion, C. 111. as we noted above; and to which affecti­on St. Chrysost. gives too much scope, as we see in the forementioned passages of prayers & oblations for such sinners. But as for Purgatory pains, which are suppo­sed to begin at death, & to end before the resurrection, he knew no such pains, as evi­dently appears by that exact distribution of the several sorts of punishments, made by this Father and cited below Nu. 11.

What we have said of some expressions of Chrysost. applying prayer and relief to such sinners as before were described, may be said of that place, which the Romanists much urge out of St. Cyril. Myst. [...]atech. 5. [...]— Cyril, who tels us, they prayed simply for all: and accounted it a great help to those souls, for which the prayer of the great and holy sacrifice was offered: and the great power, which that prayer hath to help, he sets out by the similitude of a King intreated to pardon and call back one that is banished; [...] — Ac­cording to the same manner (saith he) we praying for sinners, render God propitious. Now if it be after the same manner, then [Page 443]by the force of this similitude it must be implyed, that the prayers of the Church may obtain pardon for sinners not recon­ciled to God before their death, for so the banished person is supposed to be, not reconciled to his Prince: and then it sounds to like purpose as those passages in Chrysostom did, and is but a private application or misapplication of that Ancient practise: neither agreeable to the intent of the Ancient Church, remem­bring in her prayers and offerings only those, that were at rest in Christ, as by the Forms of those prayers may appear: nor making any thing for Purgatory, which supposes the person reconciled and justified before he comes there.

But if the Sinners (which Cyril here saith are prayed for) be taken in a more remiss sense, for such as the Romish Church sends to purgatory: then the praying for them, comes to no more, then what we said above to Epiphanius and Dionysius; that such prayer had reference to the passage of such souls, and their appearing in judgment, not to their be­ing in pains after death; For that such persons must appear in judgment, the first and the last judgment, and undergo a scrutiny or examination, and have as it were their hay and stubble burnt up, was a [Page 444]Catholick Truth: but that persons recon­ciled to God, dying and resting in Christ, should presently go to pain and torment was no doctrine of the Church, and there­fore the prayers of the Church could not refer unto such persons. And we may observe that the undoubted Cyril (for those Mystagogical Catechismes are thought to be composed by John B. Cyril. Ca­tech. 15. of Jerusalem) tels us that Christ, when he comes to judgment shall draw after him a sloud of trying fire, [...]. which shall burn up all hay and stubble of their Actions. So that if such sinners be prayed for, it must be with reference to the fire of trial and examination, which they are to undergo in the day of Judgment, and according to the true Cyril. Thus much for that practise of the Church praying for the Dead: that it does not prove a belief of Purgatory, but was used upon other Rea­sons.

VIII The third general Head was Forgive­ness of sins after Death: Forgive­ness of sins after death or in the world to come. out of which the Romanists would conclude a Purgatory. The Text of Scripture is our Saviours speech Mat. 12.32. it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Here they are bound to make good three things. 1. That the world to come, signifies the Time beginning at every [Page 445]mans death. 2. That from our Saviours Negative, nor in the world to come, this af­firmative followes, therefore there are some sins shall be forgiven in the World to come. 3. That if some sins shall be forgi­ven, then to them to whom they shall be forgiven, there remains pain and torment to be suffered.

I. For the Time. Of the world to come. The world to come is no where put for the Time between eve­ry mans death and the Resurrection: for so it would be present to some and future to others; but is every where seculum futurum, which is so to every one: whe­ther it be taken according to the Jewish acception, or the Christian. With the Jewes, the world to come, did sometimes signifie, the Time of their exspected Mes­siah; and indeed that place of Isa. 9.6. where the Messiah is called Pater futuri seculi the father of the Age or world to come: to whom a generation shall be ac­counted, Ps. 22.30. does accord there­unto. Now it was an opinion among the Jewes (as they that are acquainted with their Rabbins do tel us) that some sins should then be forgiven, which could not before: and accordingly it was an usual expression, by saying such a sin shall not be forgiven, no not in the world to come, to shew the Atrocity and flagitiousness of [Page 446]such a sin, which the grace that the Mes­siah should bring, would not take away: and so our Saviour might speak this ad hominem, according to their common opi­nion and saying, to express the hainous­ness of that sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

But take this Phrase according to the tenour of the New Testament which sup­poses the Messiah come already, The world to come, every where signifies that which begins at the Resurrection, or last day of this world. Then is fixed the End of this world, Mat. 13.39.40. & cap. 28.20. and then begins the world to come, Marc. 10.30. Luc. 18.30. Eph. 1.21. And so it must be taken by St. Aug. in that place which the Romanists cite, as to their purpose, for the forgiveness of sins not forgiven before: Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. Neque enim de qui busdam veraciter diceretur, non remittetur—Otherwise, saith he, it could not be truly said of some: it shall not be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come: for if we inquire of him, when shall this be? —factâ re­surrectione. He tels us there, after the Resurre­ction is done. And so also Futurum secu­lum, the world to come, is taken both by Greeks and Latins Concil. Flor. Sess. 1. de Purga­torio. in their debate of this point.

II. Of the For­giveness. For their inference from our Savi­ours Negative, Not forgiven (saith he) in the world to come, therefore, say they, there are sins to be forgiven in the world to come: The Cardinal acknowledges it does not follow according to the Rules of Logick: Indeed such forgiveness, as they pretend in relation to Purgatory cannot in any reason follow upon our Saviours speech. That there is a forgiveness of sins after death cannot be denied, so long as we be­lieve there is a Judgment of God to come; for when that comes, and passes upon the Souls of men, either privately at their death, or openly at the Last day, there is an absolution of some, and a condemnation of others: a forgiving, and a not forgi­ving in the world to come: whether we begin that Time at the day of Death, or of Resurrection; but this forgiveness is nothing to Purgatory.

Again, This forgiveness or not forgive­ness of sins in the world to come may have regard to the forgiveness or retaining of sins by Man in the Ministry of reconcilia­tion in this life; so there is a loosing and binding on Earth, and a loosing and bin­ding in Heaven: in like manner a decla­ration of sins forgiven in the Church in this life, and a declaration of sins forgiven or not forgiven in the world to come [Page 448]For then it shall appear, that many sins forgiven by Man, (Clave errante, through misapplication of the Keyes) are not for­given of God, but shall receive sentence of condemnation; and many that have been unjustly excommunicated and con­demned here, shall be owned and absol­ved there. And so in this respect it may be said truly, that whoever will continue obstinate, and rebel against light, as they that here blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, must not exspect to have his sin forgiven, either in this life by the Church, or in the world to come, when God shall appear in judgment, and so it comes to what St. Marc. saith, Hier. in Mat. 5. Huic nullo tem­pore blasphe­mia remit­tetur. he hath never for­giveness: and what St. Hier. saith upon the place; This blasphemy shall never be forgiven him.

The Sins which the Romanists will have forgiven in the next life, Venial Sins. are Venial or light sins. But why these forgiven in the next world when the great sins are for­given in this life (as they acknowledge) unto those justified persons, whom they send to Purgatory? why should such small sins, which do not cut off the state of justification, or put the person out of the favour of God, be retained and call'd so so severe a reckoning, as is that of the Purgatory Prison? It is true, that sancti­fied [Page 449]persons after their Justification, are subject to the daily subreption of such lighter sins: but seeing, as St. Aug. saith often, we do for them daily confess and say, Forgive us our debts— why should not the general repentance and confession with which such Persons dye, be available to the forgiveness of all such failings and secret sins, (that cannot be remembred in particular) through the merit of Christs perfect obedience, apprehended by the faith of such justified persons?

And as for the stains of sinful corrupti­on, The stain or remai­ning cor­rupting of Sin. yet remaining after forgiveness of the guilt and punishment: (the doing away of which the Romanists call forgiveness) what need is there of a Fire to purge them away? for it is not fire but the grace of God, likened unto fire, that can work that effect upon the soul. And why may not final grace, as some call it, do away the remaining corruption, at the parting of soul and body? They acknowledge that grace infused does it in the first Ju­stification: not only taking away the guilt but the stain and corruption too; and why may it not do so, in the last in­fusion or communication? They acknow­ledge also that the stain of original Sin comes upon the Soul in a moment at the conjunction of it with the body: and [Page 450]why may not the contracted stains and blots of sin, be by the grace of God done away at the separation of soul and body? All this is far more reasonable to say, then from our Saviours speech not forgiven, to infer, some shall be then forgiven: and from that forgiveness, to conclude such a Purgation of Souls as they imagine: More reasonable, I say; though not so prudential, it may be, considering what is gained by it in the Romish Church. For hear what the Cardinal saith of that In­ference of the affirmative (shall be forgi­ven) from our Saviours Ne­gative (shall not be forgiven) It doth not follow, Bel. l. 1. de Purgat. c. 4. Non secundum Regulas Lo­gicae, sed sequi secundum regulam prudentiae, alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptis­simè locutum — saith he, according to the Rules of Lo­gick (that is of Reason), but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence: Else should we make our Lord speak inconsiderately in saying, neither in this world nor in the world to come. For their Prudence in drawing Purgatory out of so many pretended places of Scri­pture besides the Rules of Logick or Reason, we envy it not; but it was nei­ther Prudeut nor seemly for the Cardi­nal to conclude, that unless such Inference were good, our Saviour had spoken in­considerately, or (as his word sounds) foo­lishly; whereas we saw above, our Savi­our [Page 451]might speak so in many respects, without reference to any such Purgatory: In respect to the Age of the Messiah, ac­cording to the opinion of the Jewes; In respect to the General judgment of God, and the sentence then to be passed: In re­spect to the forgiveness of sins, and that loosing made on earth. Another respect we may add, and say our Saviour might speak so in regard of the punishment of the world to come: which is the necessary consequent of not forgiven; shall not be forgiven, i. e. shall be punished. So Fe­rus on the place; and Chrysostom. And this will bring us to their Inference from these words which was the third thing they were to make good: and it is directly contrary to that of St. Chrysostom.

III. They infer Purgatory pains from the forgiveness, which they suppose to be in the world to come: forgiven, i. e. pu­nished. This is inconsequent and incon­sistent.

First, in regard of the Time, for the for­giveness of the world to come, is that fi­nal open absolution or forgiveness at the Last day: but their Purgatory forgive­ness and punishment is secret and before that last day. But here they seem to an­swer; that sins indeed are forgiven at the last day, but to them that have first par­sed [Page 452]the Purgatory fire; and for this an obscure place of St. Aug. is alledged. Even as at the resurrection, there will not be wanting some, Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 21. c. 24. Sicut factâ resurre­ctione non deerunt quibus post poenas, quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum imperti­atur misericordia, ut in ignem non mittantur aeter­num; Neque enim de qui­busdam veraciter directeur—to whom, after the pains which the souls of the depar­ted do suffer, mercy may be imparted, so that they shall not be cast into eternal fire. For it would not else be tru­ly said of some: it shall not be forgiven, neither in this nor the world to come. What these pains are, and when suffered, he speaks not; and in the applica­tion of this Scripture he goes alone. Only he is plain for the Time of this forgive­ness or imparting of mercy; that it is at the resurrection. But this will not stand with the Purgatory forgiveness nor with the profit to be raised out of Papal In­dulgences, by which Souls may be loosed out of Pains every day, and sent to hea­venly bliss before the resurrection.

Secondly, in regard of the Opposition between Forgiveness and punishment. The former Inference, which from our Saviours Negative shall not be for­given, concluded, some sins shall be forgiven then, the Cardinal acknow­ledged not to follow according to the Rules of Logick; but from their sup­posed [Page 453] forgiveness, to infer punishment, is still more unreasonable. The Scripture sets, reconciliation with God against pay­ing the utmost farthing, Mat. 5.25. sets the forgiving of the d [...]bt, against the pay­ing of the debt, Mat. 18. 32. 34. The Greeks after the Council of Florence set out their Apologie concerning Purgatory, in reference to what they had discoursed with the Latines there: where we finde this to be one point of difference between them: [...]— What agreement, say they, is there between Remission and such purga­tion or punishment? there is no need of both; and a little after they shew that St. Aug. was the first that conceited this middle kinde of punishment after this life in order to forgiveness of some sins; and the occasion that brought him into that conceit they also declare, which we shall mention under the next Head.

IX Our fourth General Head, was con­cerning the Pains and punishment be­tween Death and the Resurrection. Of Pains af­ter Death. The Text of 1 Cor. 3.13. mis­applied to the Purga­tory Fire. We have already considered them in relation to Forgiveness of [...]n: now more spe­cially of the Purgatory punishment, to which the Roma [...]ists apply what they meet with touching the purgation of fire. We will first examine that noted place of Scripture so often misapplied by them [Page 454]to their purgatory Fire. It is 1 Cor. 3.13. the fire shall try every mans work, and vers. 15. He shall be saved yet so as by fire.

The Cardinal acknowledges this to be one of the most difficult places, Bel. de purg. l. 1. c. 5. Ʋnum ex difficilli­mis locum— and that so St. Aug. thought of it; and conse­quently he should have acknowledged it no fit place to ground an Article of Faith on: as affording no more certainty of a purging fire after death, then such as St. —non in cre­dibile: —so sitan ita est. —non re­darguo. Aug. does usually express in the se­veral places, where he fals upon this Text, such a thing is not incredible; It may be, it is so: and if any will take it so, I do not reprove him.

Again, the Cardinal giving us the se­veral opinions of the Ancients about the meaning of Hay and Stubble there men­tioned, he cannot finde any before St. Gre­gory that understood thereby Venial sins, and therefore all the Ancients were far from conceiving any such purgatory couched in this place. Also in giving us the several opinions of the Ancients touching this Fire: Bel. ibid. Sect. Ter­tio quia— He tels us all the Ancients seem by the day (mentioned ver. 13.) to understand the day of the last judgement: and he gives four Rea­sons to prove it so: and after their dif­ferent opinions of the fire (there also [Page 455]mentioned) he concludes, that cannot be the purgatory fire, because the fire in St. Paul, touches all, Bel. ibid. onmes tangit — at Ignis purgatorius non probat opera eorum. even those that build gold and sil­ver— But the Purgatory fire does not prove their works.— Apostolum [...]olqui de igne severt & justi judicii Dei qui non est ignis purgans & affligens, sed probans & examin [...]ns.It remains therefore that we say, the Apostle speaks of the fire of the severe and just judgment of God, which is not a purging and afflicting fire, but a proving and a trying fire: and for this he gives unanswerable reasons, and in asserting this the Cardinal is sound and ingenuous. But what will become then of his Purgatory fire? and where­fore is this Text urged for it? He finds it in the 15. vers. shall be saved, yet so as by fire; This in the Cardinals imagination is the purging fire: But what consent of Fathers for this interpretation? He ac­knowledges that some of the Ancients do here also understand the fire of Tribulati­on, some the fire of Conflagration, some the eternal fire: as St. Chrysost. and Theophy­lact, taking the word, ( [...]. saved) cata­chrestically, for an eternal abiding or li­ving in the fire: All these therefore are not for the Romish purgatory fire: As for those Fathers he cites, they have ano­ther meaning; Cyprians words, Long [Page 456]purged with fire, — purgari diu igne. were above cleared to be spoken in relation to the severity of Ecclesiastical censures and penances: in this Sect. nu. 3. That which he has out of St. Ambrose speaks no more then, (what the Cardinal before had cited him for) the fire of the severe judgment of God. — cui jun emendato (not emen­datorio) igne opus non sit. That which he brings out of St. Aug. upon Ps. 37. To whom there is no need of the amending fire: is falsly cited; for it should be thus, To whom being amended, there is no need of fire, that is, the fire of tribulation which God uses in this life to that purpose, and of which St. August. often interprets the fire here mentioned in this place. These are the three Fathers he alledges here for his interpretation of this Text, altogether impertinently; and these very Testimonies he cites again Bel. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. in his chapt. of proofs out of Fathers for the Purgatory Fire or punishment. The like impertinency may be observed in all his other witnesses alledged there, and misapplied by him. Testimo­nies o [...] Fa­th [...]rs misap [...]lied, as as to the Purgat [...]ry F [...]re

X That which is cited out of St. Ambrose upon ps. 36. is plainly spoken of the last day. That which the same Father hath upon Psal. 1. vers. 5. of a fire, which they must endure between the first and second resurrection, — [...] magi quàm Lu [...]em. that loved darkness more then light, I know not well what to make of, [Page 457]sure I am, it cannot fit their Purgatory Fire: For they that love darkness more then light, are of the worst sort; and those the Church of Rome does not send to the Purgatory, but Hell fire. In Hilar. upon Ps. 119. Gimel, the Cardinal meets with mention of an unwearied or not ceasing fire: Ignis inde­fessus. and misapplies it to his conceit of Purgatory: but is plainly meant of the Fire at the last day. Hierom also upon the last words of Isa. their fire is not quenched: is alledged by the Cardinal, but the Father expresly speaks there of wicked Christi­ans, for whom the unquenchable fire of Hell is prepared, and to that fire, that place of the Prophet is applied in the Gospels. Basil upon Isa. 9.18. is cited; to which may be added what the same Fa­ther saith upon Isa. 4.4. In both places he has nothing appliable to the Romish Pur­gatory fire: [...]. but speaks of the Purgation or examination by the fire of the day of Judgment: and shews in cap. 9.18. how our sins are like grass for the spreading in­crease thereof, but by repentance and con­fession are dried and withered, and made like Hay and Stubble fit for burning up, (which alludes to 1 Cor. 3.) — [...]. Then shall sin so dried and withered be consumed by the purging fire: viz. by the fire of the divine judgment before mentioned. The [Page 458]Greeks in the Council of Florence do well interpret that devouring or consuming of the hay and stubble by being made to vanish or disappear, [...]. as things burnt up do; And so shall such sins or errors (as are there compared to hay and stubble) af­ter they have passed the examination of divine Judgment be done away and ap­pear no more. St. Basil also upon the 19. verse of that chapter, speaks of a pu­nishing and afflicting fire: but what fire is that? the fire, saith he, that the Lord sent into the earth, Luc. 12.49. and that is the fire of tribulation in this life: — [...] — [...]. Ʋn­to this punishing fire are our Terrene (sin­ful, carnal) affections delivered up; for the benefit and amendment of the Soul.

Gregory Nyssen (in orat. pro mortuis) speaks of the Furnace of a purging fire, and is cited by the Cardinal for the Ro­mish purgatory, but plainly means the fire at the last day, which (as the Father thought) should at length purge and re­store all men. And those other words (which the Cardinal cites out of the same Orat.) — Non po­test nisi pur gatus fieri particeps. Of it he cannot be made partaker unless first purged, do plainly speak of one, that dyed impure and in his sins, yet may (as that Father thought) receive a purgation after, when the Soul (parted from the body) sees a difference between [Page 459]vertue and vice, and so turns to God: This speaks, what we noted Nu. 7. above of this Father, that he was tainted with the stain of that merciful opinion: derived down from Origen.

Nazianzen also (in Sancta Lumina) is cited by the Cardinal, but intends the fire of the Damned, for it concerns the Novatians, that denied the baptism of Tears, (or the reception of Penitents) and therefore were in danger, if they go on, to be baptized with fire: So that Father threatens them there: and let the Ro­manists judge whether obstinate Here­ticks, such as they were supposed to be, are in danger of, and to be threatned with, the Purgatory or the eternal fire.

XI And now our Argument for the Ne­gative, They knew not such a Fire. that the Fathers did not know the Romish purgatory fire (which begins at Death and goes out before the Resur­rection, which afflicts and torments justi­fied Souls) is evident by their speaking of several sorts of fire, that of tribulation in this life, that of the severe judgment of God at the last day, that of Conflagration at the end of the world, that of eternal pain after, and by their attributing a purgation to every of these; yet none of them mentioning the Romish Purgatory. Besides places newly cited out of the Fa­thers, [Page 460]I finde Nazianzen, thus speaking of fire, in his 26. Orat. for Moderation in disputing: [...].The last fire, by which all our doings must be judged, and purged: which is the fire of Gods judgment at the last day. And in his 40. Orat. in Baptism. he thus distinguishes the several sorts of Fire. I know (saith he) the purging fire, viz. that which Christ came to send on earth, Luc. 12.49. the fire of tribulation in this life: I know, saith he, another fire, but it is a punishing, not a purging fire, viz. the fire of the damned. Had he known another sort of fire, that was both pur­ging and punishing after death, as the Romish Purgatory fire is conceived to be, he would have mentioned it: In his Orat. de Pasch. [...]. he saith, there is no purging af­ter this life: and in his Orat. de plaga Grandinis, after this life is a time of punish­ing, not purging. The Romanists are rea­dy to restrain such sayings of the Fathers, to such persons as were not at all purged here, or did not in this life begin to purge themselves; but his saying is general to all unto whom punishment or chastise­ment is due; and had he known the Ro­mish Purgatory after death, he would not have let those former sayings slip from him, without some mention of it. Ni­cetas also that comments upon him would [Page 461]have taken occasion to have spoken of it.

It was noted Nu. 8. above that St. Chrysost. upon that of Mat. 12. not forgiven in this— expounds not forgiven, by shall be punished here and hereafter. In the same place, he takes occasion to speak of punishment in this life, and in the next: Some, saith he, are punished here and hereafter, as the Sodomites: Some not here, but hereafter, as the Rich glutton, Luc. 16. Some here, not hereafter, as the incestuous Corin­thian: Some neither here nor hereafter, as the Apostles and such Disciples of Christ. He did not know any other sort or rank of men punished, such as they are that go to be tormented in Purgatory; And lest it should be objected, that the Apo­stles and such Disciples of Christ suffered great persecution and affliction, and therefore were sore punished in this life: He severs the notion of Punishment from their afflictions or Trials. For speaking of the sufferings of Job, and such men, he tels us, — [...]—. they were not the sufferings of punishment, or inflicted on such men as punishments, but belonged to the com­bate, and were for their exercise. So may there be other ends of Gods sending Af­flictives (after sin forgiven) then for pu­nishment: but of that Torment in Pur­gatory, [Page 462]no end or reason can be given, besides punishment. We will conclude with St. Aug. the only Father that (for the first 400 years) spoke any thing to the purpose of that Purgatory punish­ment between Death & the Resurrection.

XII It is very evident how he came first to stumble upon that conceit; St. Augu­stines opi­nion touch­ing Purga­tory pains. if we consider the prevalency and danger of that merciful opinion touching the pains of the damned, which this Father ob­served and endeavoured to work out of mens minds. This opinion touching the end or mitigation of those pains, we no­ted Nu. 7. above. The danger of it the Greeks in their forementioned Apology, do well note: saying, It was thought in the 5. Synod, to be a most cruel opinion, [...].pernicious to the Church, and loosing the nerves and endeavours of the vertuously disposed. St. Aug. saw this, and therefore often encounters it, especially in his book of the City of God: but in his contending against it, stumbled, as I said, upon this conceit; seeming out of his earnest desire of working that dan­gerous merciful opinion out of the minds of Christians, to be content there should be Temporary pains conceived to remain for some sort of men between their death [Page 463]and Resurrection. And this also the Greeks, in the aforesaid Apology, do ob­serve in that Father: — [...]. saying of the La­tines in General, that to take away a grea­ter evil (the ceasing of the pains of Hell fire) they yielded to a less: (a kinde of purging fire) before the resurrection; and of St. August. they say, [...]. — [...]. that he willing & endeavouring to work that opinion out of mens mindes, admitted this third sort of pu­nishment. This is evident to him that will examine the several passages of St. Au­gust. one and twentieth Book of the City of God: as where he seems to be content, that men should think favourably of some mitigation in the pains of the damned, Aug. l 21 de Civ. De c. 24. —no­ideo consir. [...], quia no resisto. so they would hold them eternal; for of that opinion of mitigation, he saith; I do not therefore confirm it, because I do not resist it; he had Aug. l. 21. c. 16. before suggested what he thought more probable, viz. Some Temporal pains before the last day.

There is a place which the Romanists much urge in behalf of Purgatory; what sense it bears is not very certain; but certainly it cannot be applied to Pur­gatory. Speaking to those words, in the sweat of thy browes, Gen. 3.19. he saith, He that tills his field, (i. e. orders [Page 464]his life carefully and vertu­ously) it is not needful that he should suffer after this life: Aug. de Genesi. contrà Manich. l. 2. c. 20. Qui coluerit agrum suum, post hanc vitam non est necesse ut patiatur; Qui non coluerit, sed Spinis eum opprimi per­miserit, habet in hac vita maledictionem, & post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem purgationis, vel poenam aeter­nam.but he that tils it not, but suffers it to be overgrown with thorns, he has in this life a Curse, and after this life, he shall have either the fire of purgation, or the eter­nal punishment. That he al­ludes here to Heb. 6.7. is very apparent: that such as are sent to Purgatory cannot be intended here, is also apparent; for these are careless and profane Christians, whose lives are overgrown with vice, and are supposed to so continue till death, and are therefore subject to cursing, and must be burnt with the eternal fire. And it is probable, he puts in that fire of purgation, by way of concession only to the merci­ful opinion: as if he had said, He that suffers his life to be so overgrown— must have his burning, either such as that opi­nion fancied, such at least; or else eter­nal pains, which indeed is the Truth.

Now concerning these supposed pains or purging fire after death, St. Aug. uses many expressions of uncer­tainty, Aug. de fide & operibus, [...] 16. De Civit. Dei, l. 21. [...] 26. Enchirid. c. 69. Ad [...]ulcitium qu. 1. far from any sted­fastness of belief. As when [Page 465]he saith, If in that interval, Si hoc tem­poris inter­vallo—forsi­tan verum est— non re­darguo. or space be­tween death and resurrection, any will conceive such a fire, such pains, It may be true, and I do not reprove or contend against it: Again, Some such thing may be af­ter this life— and, Tale ali quid etiam post hanc vitam fieri potest— & u­trum ita sit quaeri potest. Non est incredibile. Talia quaedam judicia post hanc vitam— non abhor­ret, quantum arbitror, a ra­tione veritatis. whether it be so, may be questioned, or inquired into: It is not in­credible, that it should be so. Again, that some such judgments or punishments follow after this life, it does not in my opinion abhor from the reason of Truth. All these the Car­dinal recites by way of objection in his first Book de Purgat. c. 15. But what answer gives he? This, That St. Aug. — dubitare solùm de ge­nere peccati, quod puni­tur.did only doubt of the kinde or sort of sin, that was to be punished— which is alto­gether impertinent, as may at first sight appear to him, that looks into the places cited: Therefore elsewhere he gives these Answers; That St. Aug. doubted only of the quality of the pain or torment, Bel. l. Dubitat de poenae qualitate, an idem sit ig­nis— —an animae urentur igne illo doloris de amiss [...]one tem­poralium—whether it were the same fire in substance with that of Hell: also, that he doubted, whether souls shall be scorched with that fire of grief, for the loss of things tem­poral.— But these exceptions or answers [Page 466]are also impertinent: for his Tale ali­quid, some such thing, and his Talia quae­dam judicia, some such punishments do not refer to any material fire, or fire properly taken, or to such a fire as Hell fire: but to the fire of tribulation in this life, which he every where speaks of, when he fals upon that place of 1 Cor. 3.13. and that some such thing, that is af­flictive, may be after this life, he thinks not incredible; and that perhaps it is so. For let the Romanists conceive the pain or Torment of purgatory to be of what condition or sort soever they please, it will be answered by that tale aliquid, and talia quaedam judicia; and so will imply that Fathers uncertainty in that his opini­on of Purgatory pains after death; So for that fire of grief upon loss of Tempo­rals, which the Cardinal will have St. Aug. doubt of: it is plain he could not mean that very kinde of grief when he said tale aliquid, some such thing, but any kinde of grief or vexation that should torment the soul as with a kinde of fire. Whether there were any such thing, any such grief or pain, that's it he put to the question, and declared his opinion of it, that it was not incredible, but rather that he held it probable: and that place in his Book de Civit. Dei, where he delivered it po­sitively, [Page 467]that there were such purging pains, can amount to no more then an opinion he had entertained; which he delivers there the more peremptorily, in opposition to that other opinion of the Ceasing of the pains of the damned.

To conclude, the Cardinal declares it as a thing Certain, Bel. de purg. l. 2. c. 10. Certum, esse in Purgatori [...] poenam ignis, sive propriè accipiatur sive Meta [...]ho­ri [...]é. that there is in Purgatory the punish­ment of fire, whether taken properly or Metaphorically: whether a real fire, such as of Hell, or such a pain, that as fire, tor­ments the souls of men: Now St. Au­gust. his tale aliquid— of which he doubt­ed, was such a thing, such a fire or tor­menting pain: and therefore St. Aug. was uncertain of that, which the Church of Rome delivers as certain, and as an Article of Faith.

SECT. VII. Of the Real Presence.

I TOuching the state of this Contro­versie, The questi­on. there was enough said above, Chap. VII. Nu. 1. That we deny not a Real presence, but such a presence as they contend for, such as by a transubstantia­tion of the Bread and Wine, sixes the bo­dy and bloud of Christ under the remai­ning species: the inconveniencies of which are hinted above chap. VII. Nu. 13, 16, 17. I will only add, to the far­ther clearing of this state of the Questi­on, what the Cardinal notes upon the word substantialiter in the Trent Coun­cil, can. 1. sess. 13. It means, that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner, Bel. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Christum esse in Eu­charistia ad eum modum, quo erat substantia panis sub­suis accidentibus—that the sub­stance of bread was under its accidents: this only excepted, that those accidents were in­haerent in the substance of the Bread. So then, such a manner of Presence is that which we deny.

The Scripture which they pretend, (This is my body) was examined Chap. 7. above, and [Page 469]found to be best explained by that of the Apostle. 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is the communion or communication of the bo­dy of Christ: which supposes the bread continuing in substance, and tels us how it is (notwithstanding) the body of Christ.

II And now for a brief Survey of Anti­quity, upon this enquiry: Testimo­nies of An­tiquity. whether such a presence by way of Transubstantiati­on or fixing the body of Christ under the species, in stead of the substance of the bread, was taught as Catholick Doctrine. The Truth will quickly appear by the dif­ferent condition and force of those Te­stimonies which they and we bring from Antiquity, within the compass of 600. years. Many sayings of the Fathers they alledge, and want not for number but weight. For if those sayings or sentences be examined, they will be found not to speak properly and strictly to the point, but either fall short of the change here in­tended, or shoot beyond all measure, by some hyperbolical expressions: whereas we bring Testimonies of Fathers speaking punctually of the nature and substance of the Elements according to the proper and strict sense of those words: Also we bring real Arguments, necessarily con­cluding (by that which the Fathers [Page 470]disputed against Hereticks) that Tran­substantiation, or such a Presence, by put­ting the body of Christ in the place of the substance of Bread, could not be the Doctrine of the Church. We will reduce all to this Head: The remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine.

III First, To omit all those bare sentences, which affirm it to be the body or flesh of Christ, Sayings of Fathers al­ledged by the Roma­nists. after Consecration; as speaking nothing but what we say, and what we conceive ought to be answered in the af­firmative, if the question be put, Whe­ther is this the body of Christ: And it speaks no more then the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16. This bread is the communication of the body of Christ: And it is to be no­ted that some of the sentences alledged by the Romanists, expresly make Bread the subject of that affirmative propositi­on, saying, Panem esse corpus Christi, that bread is the body of Christ, or the like: which kinde of speech the Romanists, themselves acknowledge improper and figurative. Also to omit all those sen­tences, which barely say, the bread is changed: or transelemented, or the like. For there are many kindes of change, and that only, which is concerned in the Que­stion, is the change of substance.

Secondly therefore, Those Testimonies [Page 471]only may seem to speak something to the purpose, which say the Elements are changed in Nature: for this Cyprian, Ambrose and Nyssen are alledged by Bel. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. the Cardinal. But the word Nature is of a large acception here: not expres­sing the substance or essence of the thing, but the condition and special quality of it, as we say; Things are of different Na­ture, some are common and profane, some holy and divine: so the elements after consecration are changed in their Na­ture, beginning then to be of holy use and divine vertue. On the contrary, we alledge Theodoret denying they are chan­ged in Nature, taking the word strictly for the sub­stantial nature, as the dispute he there makes required he should do: Theod. Dialog. 1. c. 8. [...]. changing, saith he, not the Nature (of the Symbols or Elements) but adding grace unto nature, by which grace or blessing of consecration they be­come of holy use and divine vertue. A­gain he saith, Theod. Di­al. 2. [...]. The Symbols do not go out of their proper nature. And this he spoke in answer to the Eutychian, objecting the change made in the Sacrament as a proof or illustration of the change of the Hu­mane Nature into the Divine, asserted by those Hereticks. In the place which the Cardinal alledged out of St. Cyprian, [Page 472]in his Sermon de Caena: is subjoyned the similitude of the Humanity and Divinity of Christ, united together: which very frequently is by the Fathers applied to the business of the Sacrament. Omnipoten­trâ Verbi carc. factus. The Cardinal opposes, that St. Cyprian saith there, The bread by the omnipotence of the Word is made his flesh: Now what omnipotency is it, saith he, to make the Bread only signifie his body? The Omnipotency, say we, is not in making the Bread a bare sign of his body, as he would impose upon us, nor yet in changing it substantially into the body of Christ, as he would have us believe; but in making the bread his body (or communication of his bo­dy) and yet to remain what it was, the same in substance: Ambr. de Sacram, l. 4. c. 4. Ʋt sint, quae e­rant, & in aliud com­mutentur. as St. Ambrose ex­presses it, That they be what they were, and yet turned into another thing, viz. into the body and bloud of Christ; and this he affirms to be a greater work then that of Creation, which made things to be, which were not. There is one place which the Cardinal cites out of St. Chrysostome de Euchar. in Encaeniis. I could not finde it, Num vides panem? num vi­num? num ficut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? absit! ne Cogites. but thus it speaks as he reports it, Do'st thou see Bread? or Wine? do they go as other meats into the draught? far be that from them! do not think so. Then followes, for as Wax, if [Page 473]it be held to the fire, is assimulated to the fire (or turned into a flame) and nothing of the substance remains. Sic & hic puta, My­steria consu­mi Corporis substantia.So also think here, the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body. Answ. It is fami­liar with that father, for better raising the thoughts from all earthly considera­tions in this Sacrament, to use such man­ner of speeches: Elsewhere he bids them, not to think they are now on Earth, but in Heaven, and that they receive it from the hand of a Cherubim or Seraphim: So here, Do not think thou seest Bread and Wine, &c. and so think here the Myste­ries are consumed, as Wax turned into a flame; to shew there is nothing of ter­rene or bodily consideration, nothing for filling the belly, intended or left in the use and purpose of this Sacrament: and so neither should there be any thing of that concernment in our thoughts. Now as to the point, which the Romanists aim at, the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine: We may say in strict reasoning it would follow also, that the Species of Bread and Wine do not re­main, for he saith, the Mysteries are con­sumed, and those according to the Ro­mish doctrine, are the Species after con­secration. But in all Reason we ought to have more regard to Fathers speaking [Page 474]punctually and properly in their Com­mentaries, or disputes, then loosly and and at large in their Rhetorical flourishes and perswasions, as St. Chrysost. often doth, and most especially on this mat­ter of the Sacrament. We shall there­fore now add some Testimonies of the Fathers speaking distinctly and properly to the point.

IV First of those that had to do with He­reticks, Testimo­nies for re­maining of the sub­stance of the Ele­ments. and were in their disputes bound to speak properly and to the point.

Irenaeus dealt against such as denied our Saviour to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament, or of the God that made and created all; against whom he brings one argument from the Sacrament insti­tuted by our Saviour: saying, Our sen­tence or doctrine is consonant to the Eucharist,Iren. l. 4. c. 34. No­stra sententia est consonans Eucharistiae, & Eucharistia confirmat nostram sententi­am.and the Eucharist confirmeth our Doctrine: Why? because Christ as the Son of God, took of his Creatures Bread and Wine, to apply them to his own use and pur­pose. So his making an Eucharist of those Creatures or fruits of the earth, made against the vanity of that Hereti­cal assertion: In like manner the Eu­charist, or that which Irenaeus saith of it here, confirms our Doctrine against the [Page 475] Romanists. For there he saith. The Bread (after consecration) is not now common bread, but an Eucharist, Panis non jam communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. Iren. ibid.consisting of two things, the terrene and the Heavenly. If not common bread, yet bread still: and if it consists of these two, then is bread still in it; for else it could not consist of it. And this is according to the Cardinals own rea­soning, who intending by this place to prove a Real presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament, argueth thus. Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 6. Nihil constare di­citur ex eo, quod in ipso non est. Irenaeus saith, It consists of the Earthly and the Heavenly part, but nothing can consist, saith the Cardinal, of that which is not in it: not observing that it equal­ly proves the substantial presence of the Bread, for it consists of the terrene as of the coelestial. Now we can say the coe­lestial part, the substance of Christs bo­dy and bloud is given in the Sacrament; they dare not say it of the substance of the Terrene part; but betake them to the species of bread and wine: when as Ire­naeus speaks of the substantial creatures and fruits of the earth, and it concerned him to mean so; else those Hereticks might have said our Saviour took those Creatures to destroy them, and leaves only the appearance and species of those [Page 476]things, which the God of the Old Te­stament had made.

Again, the Cardinal makes another ar­gument from those words of Irenaeus, Our bodies receiving the Eucha­rist,—jam non sunt corrupti­bilia, spem resurrectionis ha­bentia. Iren. ibid.are not now corruptible, as having the hope of a resur­rection: wherein he abuses that good Fa­ther, and himself. For thus he argues from that saying. Corpora nostra reipsa fient immortalia, ergo panis ter­renus reipsa fit corpus Chri­sti. Bel. ibid. Our bodies shall be truly & indeed incor­ruptible, therefore the terrene bread is truly indeed made the body of Christ. Whereas that Father speaks of the present, Our bodies are not now corruptible, which the Cardinal turns in­to, shall be incorruptible: because he could not say, they are now truly and indeed incorruptible. So that according to this Father the Argument would stand thus: As our bodies now are incorrupti­ble, (not because they are so according to nature and substance, but) in as much as they have the hope of a resurrection; so the Bread is the body of Christ, (not be­cause changed in nature and substance, but) in as much as by the grace of conse­cration it is the communion of his body.

Tertullian had to do with Marcion and such Hereticks that denied Christ had a true and solid body. And he proves the [Page 477]contrary by Bread the figure of his body, Tertul. contra Mar­cion. lib. 4. c. 40. Non fuisset figu­ra, nisi ve­ritatis esset corpus. both in the Old Testament and in the Eucharist. Now, saith he, it could not be the figure of his body, if his body were not a true body; And if there be force in this Reason, then should Marcion (supposing Transubstantiation) have great advan­tage upon a phantastical figure, that had no substance of bread, but only the Acci­dents and appearances: and upon such a phantastical mode of a Body, Si proprereas panem sibi corpus sinxit, quia corpo­ris carebat veritate— Tert. ibid. as the Ro­mish doctrine puts our Saviours body in­to. Also the words following: If he took bread (as those Hereticks said) to make it his body, because he wanted a true body: then it would follow, that Bread was given and crucified for us: These words (I say) do necessarily suppose the sub­stance of Bread to remain: for how could that be said, if the Bread also should want the truth of a body; remaining only in shew and appearance? which would much have confirmed Marcion in his misbelief of the reality of Christs body, of which there should be so phantastical a figure or sign. This is so evident and con­vincing, that Beatus Rhenanus in his An­notations, acknowledges Tertullian of this judgment, That Bread is so the figure of Christs body, that it still remains the same in substance as it was before.

Add to this what he saith elsewhere: Tertul. de anima c. 17. Sensus non falli circa ob­jecta, ne hinc aliquid pro­curetur Haereticis, de Chri­sto phantasma credentibus. Non est gustus Discipulorum Iudificatus— The senses are not deceived in their own ob­jects, lest thereby something of advantage might be yiel­ded to the Hereticks, making but a phantasm of Christ. The tast of the disciples was not de­ceived, when in the marriage of Cana they drank wine made of Water, nor was the Feeling of Thomas abused, when he put his finger in our Saviours side— Nor are our senses (may we say) abused or deceived, when they tell us, this is true bread, which is in the Sacrament.

Theodoret had to do with the Euty­chian Hereticks, that held our Saviours humanity swallowed up in the Divine Nature: for which they made Argument from the Sacrament; Theod. D [...] al. 2. That even as the Symbols or Elements were after consecra­tion changed into another thing (for such was the common phrase of that Time, when speech was of the Sacrament) so is the humane Nature or body of the Lord, after assumption changed into the divine substance. This Argument had been un­answerable had Transubstantiation been then the Doctrine of the Church; But Theodoret answers him that makes this Argument; Thou art taken in thy own [Page 479]Net: for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature,— [...].but remain in ther former substance, and figure and shape. That the words, Nature, and Substance must be here taken properly, and not confounded (as in the Romanists irrational answer they are) with the Ac­cidents or Species of the Bread and Wine, is clearly evinced both by the absurdity of putting Substance for Accidents, and by the very reason of the Argument here made, which supposeth Nature and Sub­stance properly taken on the Eutychian part, and so must be meant in Theodorets Reply, to the plain exclusion of a Substan­tial change.

The like demonstration is made by Gelasius in his In Bibli­oth. Pa­trum, To. 5. parte. 3. Book of the two Na­tures of Christ, against Eutyches & Ne­storius. Of which Book the Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 27. Idem prorsùs docet, quod Theodoretus, & ad eandem rem confirmandam. Cardinal acknowledgeth, that Gela­sius taught the same with Theodoret, and for confir­ming of the very same thing. It being familiar with the Catholick writers of those Times, to use the instance of the Eucharist against the Eutychian Heresie; which did necessa­rily infer the remaining of the substance of the Elements, to shew the remaining [Page 480]of the humane Nature of Christ after its assumption. Nay before that Here­sie appeared, some of the Ancients did make use of the same Instance, arguing from the Union of the two Natures in Christ, to shew the Sacramental Union, as they that wrote against Eutyches did from the Sacrament borrow a demon­stration or illustration for the two Na­tures united in our Saviour Christ. Ju­stin Martyr saith thus, We take these not as common bread, or com­mon drink,Just. Apol. 2. ad Anton. — [...]—but even as Je­sus Christ being made Flesh by the Word of God, had flesh and bloud for our sal­vation:— [...]—So we learn also, that the meat or food, (which by the prayer of his Word is blessed and made an Eucharist, & by which our flesh and bloud through the change of it, are nourished) is the flesh and bloud of the same incarned Jesus. Here is Bread, though not common bread after con­secration; and Bread remaining in Sub­stance, for it nourishes our bodies by a change into our flesh, and it must answer to our Saviours flesh remaining in substance after the Incarnation: notwithstanding that it is made the body of Christ, so far as the reason [Page 481]and purpose of the Eucharist requires.

St. Cyprian or the Author of that Ser­mon de Coena: of the Lords Supper saith, Even as in the Person of Christ, Sicut in persona Christi Hu­manitas apparebat, late­bat Divinitas; ità sacro vi­sibili divina se ineffabiliter infundit essentia.the humanity appea­red, and the Divinity laid hid: So doth the divine es­sence ineffably insinuate it­self into the visible sacred Element. This place is cited for a Real Presence, by the Cardinal: but he should have considered, it cannot be such a Real Presence as will serve his turn. For the substantial presence of the visible outward element is equal­ly proved by this saying of the Father; and a dangerous thing it is to make the bread and wine remain, as the Cardinal doth, in shew and appearance only; which renders this instance of the Sa­crament held altogether useless against those Hereticks, which held our Savi­ours body or humanity was but such in appearance only, not substance.

Thus the Fathers that dealt with He­reticks were bound to speak properly and distinctly; and did so, as we have seen. We will add to these, First, Origen spea­king by way of distinction, Orig. in Mat. 15.17. Ille cibus quisanctificatur per— juxtà id, quod habet Materi­ale, in Secessum mittitur. and therefore exactly to the point. That food, saith he, that is sanctified by the Word [Page 482]of God and Prayer, according to the Ma­terial part of it, (there's his distinction) goes into the belly and is sent into the draught. The Cardinal is here driven to their poor shift, of interpreting the Ma­terial part of that food, by the Visible Ac­cidents of it.

Secondly, St. Ambrose his saying is re­markable, speaking of the Elements: That they be what they were, Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. Ʋt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur.and yet be changed in­to another thing: that is, made the Body and Bloud of the Lord. The Cardinal makes two impertinent answers: First, that some read it, (Ʋt quae erant, in aliud commu­tentur) that the things which were, be turned into another thing; and this he approves as consonant to that, which St. Ambrose speaks in his Book de Ini­tiandis:Ambr. de Init. c. 9. Ser­mo qui potuit ex nihil [...] fa­cere quod non erat, non po­test ea quae sunt mutare in id, qued non erant?That Word, which could make of nothing that which was not (so in the Creation) can it not change those things that were, into that which they were not? So in the Sacrament. But the purpose of the Father in this place is diffe­rent, from what it was in the former: here he shews the possibility of this change in the Sacrament, by that of the [Page 483]Creation: arguing a majori ad minus, from the greater work to the less: it be­ing a greater work to make a thing out of nothing, then out of that which was; and so in that respect it was fitting to say, ea quae sunt — those things that are, be changed into what they were not. But in the former place it was his purpose to shew the greatness of this work or change in the Sacrament above that of the Crea­tion: for which it was necessary to say (ut sint quae erant) that they be what they were: for though it be a greater work to make a thing out of nothing, as Wine created, then to make it out of that which was before, as Wine out of water, Joh. 2. yet is it a greater work then that of Crea­tion, to make or change things into ano­ther thing, and yet those things to re­main what they were: as in the Sacra­ment. Quantò ma­gis est opera­torius— ut sint quae erant— How much more operative is that word (saith he) that they be what they were, and yet changed into another thing? The Cardinal therefore in his second an­swer, retires to his old shift, saying that the outward Accidents remain what they were. But he might have remembred that sint and erant are Verbs Substantives, and when spoken of bodies (as here) sim­ply and without the adjection of qualities or Accidents attributed to them, must [Page 484]mean the substantial being of such bodies. Or if the Cardinal had inquired, what are changed into another thing, he would have found, those things that are, what they were: but those things cannot be the outward Accidents of Bread and Wine, for they are not changed into that other thing: i.e. the Body and Bloud of Christ. Or lastly, had he considered the purpose of St. Ambrose, he might easily have ob­served it was necessary for him to say of the substances of Bread and Wine, that they are what they were.

I might add many Testimonies out of St. Aug. which upon the consideration of the nature of a Sacrament, and upon other Reasons and occasions, speak pun­ctually to the same purpose; that the visible signs or outward Elements remain in their former substance, and yet are the body and bloud of Christ, so far as the reason and purpose of that Sacrament re­quires. But these which I have alledged may suffice.

SECT. VIII. Of Communion in one kinde.

IN the state of this Controversie, we find two points asserted by the Romanists (as appears by what said above, Ch. VIII.)

I. That it may be so administred to the People, when it may be done otherwise: or that the People may be forbidden to receive it otherwise.

II. That such a receiving is a compleat Communion.

The Scriptures that concern this Con­troversie were examined above. And for the Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church, we will only add some Generals, which will clear the point on the Pro­testants side.

I. The confession of the Romish writers, granting the use of receiving in both kindes, continued from our Saviours time many ages throughout the Church. As may be seen in the Council of Constance, in Alphons. de Castro, Soto, Costerius, Tolet.

II. In answering to the Testimonies of the Fathers (asserting Communion in both [Page 486]kindes) we finde the Cardinal (and so the rest of them) forced to acknowledge the use and practise, Bel. de Eu­char. l. 4. c. 26. and content to say, Those Testimonies do not speak a Necessity it should be so.

Now that it should be so, where it can be so, necessarily follows upon our Savi­ours precept, Drink ye all of this, (the Disci­ples, that did all drink, representing then the whole company of the faithful, as the Fathers frequently assert) and upon the force of his Institution, and Example, and the answerable practice of the Catholick Church in the succeeding Ages; For if so, what Church or Age following shal think it self at liberty to do otherwise?

III. In proving those false Assertions, but necessary for the Romanists to hold, (viz. Bel. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 22. & 33.That the whole Reason of the Sacrament is contained in one kinde: and That there is not greater profit received by communi­on in both kindes, then in one:) we finde the Cardinal cannot alledge One Fa­ther, nor rise higher then Thomas Aqui­nas.

IV. As they cannot bring one Sentence of any Ancient Father commending or al­lowing their half Communion: so the In­stances they give us for it, are impertinent, and unconcluding: far from proving, the People may be held from receiving in both: [Page 487]or made to believe they have a compleat Communion in One.

A Collection of such Instances we finde in the Bel. in defens. A­polog. con­tra Regem Jacobum c. 13. & in l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. Cardinal; The chief of them are these following. I. The breaking of Bread, often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and sometimes signifying the Sacrament. What then? They gave it to the people in one kinde only, because one only is mentioned. If this be a good ar­gument as to the administration, it will be good also as to the Consecration: they consecrated it in one kinde only, because one only is mentioned. But if the Roma­nists count it Sacriledge (as indeed it is) so to consecrate: they might think it Sacri­ledge also, wilfully so to administer it. II. Intinct [...]. The custom of giving the Bread dip­ped in the Wine for a whole Sacrament. What then? therefore it is not necessary that both kinds should be given severally; But by this expedient we see they thought it necessary to give both; Also this was on­ly used in some places, and it seems at first to be found out for Communicating In­fants and sick persons, that could not well swallow it dry. And afterward this custom was rejected and forbidden. III. The carrying of one kind to the sick, viz. Communio Aegrorum. Bread only. But where both could, both were carried: it was necessity, if in one; and bet­ter [Page 488]one then neither, and an incompleat Communion, Communio Presanctifi­catorum. then none at all. IV. The Communion of the preconsecrated Ele­ments: when as one day in the Passion Week, they used to receive in one kinde. But this was not from the beginning: 2. Not held a compleat Communion: but a consuming of the remainder os the precon­secrated Bread: the Wine being all consu­med or made an end of, the day before— 3. From this usage to conclude a liberty of abstinence from the Wine in celebrati­on of the Sacrament is unreasonable: 4. The Priest did that day receive but one kinde: therefore it might be likewise concluded: that it was (or may be) the practise of the Church, to have the Priest, as well as the people, confined to receive in one kinde. Microl. in Biblioth. Patrum c. 19. de vi­tanda intin­ctione: Non est Authen­ticum, &c. —ut populus plenè com­municare possit. I will only add, what Mi­crologus; saith in his Ecclesiast. Observa­tions, where the Title of his 19. chapt. is Of avoiding Intinction: or giving the Host dipped. It is not Authentick, faith he, which some do, giving it dipped, for the completion of a Communion: and that the Wine or other Species is to be given, (he means severed from the other) that the people may fully and compleatly communi­cate. Also he there tels us, that Julius the first, (Bishop of Rome) writing to certain Aegyptian Bishops, forbids that usage, and [Page 489]enjoyns, that both kindes be received seve­rally (Scorsùm panem & scorsùm Cali­cem.) And that Gelasius (Bishop of Rome) puts them under censure of Excommuni­cation, who abstain from the Cup, having received the body of our Lord: and in the same Decree, defines it Sacriledge to do so. This is also in Gratian. Decr. part. 3. de Consecratione. And this enough to con­vince the boldness of the Romish Church, in doing contrary to all this, and yet as­serting her Doctrine and Practise to be Catholick.

Deo Gloria.

THE END

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.