The Answer.

HE that teacheth men to live righteously, teacheth them to pray continually, even to lift up holy hands and holy hearts to him that dwell­eth in the heavens: But sin must be pour­ed ont of the soul, before the soul can truly be poured out in prayer: For in vain is Holiness in the mouth, whiles wic­kedness is in the heart; in vain are we Saints in our expressions, whiles we are [Page 4] Sinners in our affections and in our acti­ons; in vain do we think of multiplying our prayers, whiles we resolve to multi­ply our sins; for that is not to ask God forgiveness of sins past, but to ask him leave of future sinning: So little reason is there for our eyes to be dazled at seeing that Truth, which the born blind man could not but see, God heareth not sinners, John 9. 31. For there needs no other light to see the Sun withall, but its own; And this being a Proposition so clear as to be known by its own light, may very well stand for its own exposition.

But concerning Saint Augustines gloss, it is thus at large in his own Tract. (for both Aquinas whom I alledged, and Mal­donat whom you alledge, cite it imperfect­ly. Adhuc inunctus loquitur; nam & Peccatores exaudit Deus; si enim Peccato­res Deus non exaudiret, frustra ille Publi­canus oculos in terram dimittens & pe­ctus suum percutiens diceret, Deus propi­tius esto mihi peccatori. He is yet blind, whiles he speaketh this; for God doth hear sinners; for if God did not hear sinners, in vain did the Publican fix his eye upon the ground, and strike his hand upon his breast, saying, God he mercifull to me a sinner. [Page 5] And surely this is not an Exposition, but an Exception upon that generall rule gi­ven in the Text, God heareth not sinners: For it is resolved into this sense, God heareth not a sinner as a sinner, but only as a Penitent, such as was the Publican when God heard him. Which though it be an admirable doctrine, yet is it deli­vered there by Saint Augustine as an Ex­ception against, not as an Exposition upon the blind mans words, and was clearly so intended by him. For it is certain that Saint Augustine was of the contrary per­swasion, and did believe that God doth hear sinners, since himself professeth this belief; Lib 1. Retr. c. 3. Nec illud mihi placet, quòd quùm dixissem Summa opera danda est optimis moribus, mox addidi, Deus enim noster aliter nos exaudire non poterit, benè autem inventis facillimè ex­audiet; Sic enim dictum est tanquam Deus non exaudiat peccatores, quod qui­dam dixit in Evangelio, sed ille qui non­dum cognoverat Christum. Nor doth that please me, that when I had said, we must la­bour above all things to live vertuously, I presently added, for else our God cannot hear us; but he will easily hear us if we live well; For that was so spoken as if God did not hear [Page 6] sinners, which a certain man said in the Go­spel, but he which yet knew not Christ. Now Sir, look upon my words again, and do not think I have mistaken Saint Augu­stine, but rather that you have mistaken me, and heaped up a company of hetero­geneous quotations against me, as if I had mistaken my self; whereas all my guilt is, that I did not follow Saint Augustines opinion, because I took Peccatores in a stricter sense then he did; not for those who unwillingly were under the infection, but for those who willingly were under the dominion of sin. Wherein however I did no more then Aquinas had done be­fore me; for whereas Saint Augustine thought it was not a true Proposition, God heareth not sinners,, Saint Thomas said it was, if the word Sinners were taken properly (as it ought in every expositi­on) for so is his ingenuous profession; Quamvis possit verificari si intelligitur de peccatore in quantum est peccator, per quem etiam modum oratio ejus dicitur execrabilis: Though it may be made true, if we understand it of a sinner as a sinner, for so his prayer is called abominable. He relates to Prov. 28. 9. He that turneth away his ear from Hearing the Law, even his [Page 7] prayer shall be an abomination; Oratio ejus erit execrabilis, (saith the Latine;) so that this is a most undoubted Truth, not only made known to us by the light of nature, as I formerly asserted, but also by the light of Grace, and the two convey­ances of that light, the Old and the New Testament, that God heareth not sinners; And it is more fully explained in the Old then in the New, (as are generally those Truths which the Law preacheth, whose office it was to terrifie and frighten men into obedience) for it is much more to say, God will abominate or hate his prayer, then to say, God will not hear it. 2. Now, Sir, if this be the generall rule, God hear­eth not sinners, as sinners; tis clearly an ex­ception of this rule, to say, He heareth sinners as Penitents, since that gloss is not properly an Exposition, but an Exception, which changeth the originall sense and meaning of the Text, as a sinner into no sinner, that God may hear him: And yet here will be found, or must be made a greater change of the Text then this, to make your ensuing allegations so many severall expositions, and not rather so ma­ny severall exceptions, or at least so many severall descants or variations upon this [Page 8] Rule; For then we must put audit for non audit, and say, not hearing doth signifie hearing, and so turn a negative propositi­on into an affirmative, that we may ex­pound it. Truly Sir, in my poor judge­ment, it is safer and better to say, God heareth the Sin, not the Prayer, when he heareth the sinner only in Anger: That this is rather Gods not hearing, then his hearing, whiles he continues in his anger; and mans not praying, then his praying, whiles he continues in his sin: For I fear if I say otherwise, I shall be forced to grant, That God did once hear the De­vils prayers, since I find they besought him that He would not send them away out of the Countrey. There's such a kind of sinners praying, and he suffered them to enter into the [...]rd of swine. There's such a kind of Gods hearing; (Mark 5. 10.) They be­sought our blessed Saviour for a liberty to do mischief; will you call that praying? Then say, Prayer may be without, nay against Religion; for how full may facti­ous mens mouthes be of such prayers, whiles their hearts are empty of faith, and of the fear of God? And he gave them that liberty; will you call that a hear­ing of Prayer? Then say, That hearing of [Page 9] Prayer is not an Act of Grace, but of Vengeance; for a liberty of doing mis­chief, doth of it self tend to nothing but to the increase of damnation: He that seriously considers Prayer to be an elevation of the soul to God, will not ea­sily allow it to be an engagement of the soul to the Devil. 3. As for Gods hear­ing the good desires of naturall men, that is also in my weak apprehension, another exception against this generall Rule, God heareth not sinners; rather then an exposition of it: So far am I from think­ing that Aquinas intended to expound this rule, by turning it into a question; and much further was I from saying, That he made a sufficient exposition of it: For I must look upon all naturall men, as God looks upon them, that is as sinners; so saith the Text most expresly, God look­ed down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did under­stand, that did seek God: Every one of them is gone back, they are altogether become filthy, there is none that doth good, no not one, Psalm 53. 2, 3. which is alledged by Saint Paul as a proof that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, Rom. 3. 9, 10, 11, 12. That is, They are all under sin as they are [Page 10] in themselves, or as naturall men: And therefore as such, that is, As naturall men, or as sinners, God heareth them not. Hi­therto I think the generall Rule is not ex­pounded but excepted; and though natu­rall men may in some respects have good desires, yet as such, I do not see how they can have good prayers; Good desires may be from nature, but good prayers are only from grace. 4. You may take to your self what liberty you please in some other o­pinions, but scarce in this, because it may easily be made destructive of true Chri­stianity: For every Christian Divine is bound not only to believe, but also to profess, That none can properly be said to Pray, but only a Christian. And that no Christians prayers, whatsoever he be, are heard by vertue of his own, but only by vertue of Christs intercession: The Catholick Church having taught us the belief of both these doctrines by her constant obsecration in all her prayers, Through Jesus Christ our Lord; And the Holy Ghost having taught it his, For no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, (much less, our Lord) but by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12. 3. And he must not only say, Our Lord, but also Our Father, that will truly [Page 11] pray; that is, he must draw near to God in the acknowledgement of Christs Com­munion, and through the Faith of Christs intercession; Our Father which art in heaven, teacheth us both these Truths: In that we call God Father, we profess that we pray through his eternall Sons intercession; for till he reconciled us, we were enemies, not children: In that we call him Our Father we profess that we pray in his eternall Sons Communion, who did graciously teach us to call him Ours, because he had made him so; Nor can any man say to God, Our Father, who knows not Christ; nor any man that knows Christ, truly say it, but in that Communion whereof Christ is the Head: If nature doth teach men to pray in faith of Christs intercession, and in the ac­knowledgement of Christs Communion, saying, Through Jesus Christ our Lord, then without doubt God may hear the Prayers which proceed from naturall men: But if nature doth so indeed, then am not I so much bound as I think and willingly acknowledge, to Christ and his Church, for teaching me to pray so. And I had rather disown, (that is not em­brace) any mans opinion, then disown [Page 12] the least part of my obligation to Christs Catholick Church, which doth by me as Saint Paul did by the Galathians, travail­eth in birth of me, till Christ be formed in me, that I may offer to God such Prayers as proceed not from my nature, but from his Grace; and that, not through my self, but through Jesus Christ our Lord. And much more am I bound not to disown my obligation to my blessed Saviour, by whose Grace I am enabled to pray, and for whose sake God doth hear my Pray­ers; In the merit of whose unspotted righteousness I offer and present my im­pure person; in the righteousness of whose all-sufficient intercession, I offer and present my imperfect prayers before the throne of the heavenly Grace, as often as with my heart, and not only with my lips, I say unto my God, Our Father which art in heaven.

For though men may number their prayers by their repetitions and by their beads, yet surely God numbereth them by their sighs, and by their gr [...]ans: And it were to be wished that all men did likewise so number them, having such an heavenly attention in their prayers as to be with Christ, and such an heavenly af­fection, [Page 13] as to be in Christ; since it is re­quisite they should have their hearts in and with him in praying, whose mediati­on they desire to have with their Pray­ers.

The Answer.

POpe Siricius his doctrine concerning marriage is plain enough in his Epistle ad Himarium Tarrac recorded by Binius Tom. 1 concil. and cited by me as his first degmaticall Epistle, because so I find it the [...]e, in which speaking of married Priests, he expresly applyeth to them Saint [...] words, They that are in the flesh cannot please God: which being ap­plyed to them in regard of their mar­riage, and not of their Priesthood, con­cerns them as married men, and not as married Priests; even as he that saith, A blaspheming Priest ought to be disdain­ed, sheweth that disdain belongeth to the man, not to the Priest: For in a blasphe­ming Priest, it is the man, not the Priest, is the blasphemer, though as a Priest he is the greater sinner by blaspheming: So in a married Priest, it is the man, not the Priest who is married; and therefore if a married Priest be said to be in the flesh, his being in the flesh must be ascribed to him from his marriage, not from his Priesthood; for it may be ascribed to all other married men as well as to him: This [Page 18] is the doctrine concerning marriage, which I blamed in Siricius, as I found it had flowed from his own pen; And it is to small purpose (it seems) that Bellar­mine hath endeavoured so long after, to furnish him with a little better Ink; For even from his new proposition which he puts upon Siricius, [That Priests may not have commerce with their wives] you infer this conclusion,

That for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh; only you annex some new proposi­tions to make your conclusion sound the better, though it is impossible to make it good; and they are these, That for Priests to marry, is contrary to the Churches order, and to the doctrine and decree of the Apostles, and to be in a continuall state of sin and dam­nation.

2. I am very sorry that your zeal to excuse Siricius, hath in effect made you accuse both the Church and the Apostles of Christ; For it is an high accusation a­gainst both, to say that they have forbid Priests to marry, since Saint Paul expres­ly reckons this among the doctrines of De­vils, Forbidding to marry, 1 Tim. 4. speak­ing in generall of the prohibition, in whom­soever it forbid marriage, whether in [Page 19] Priests or in any other men; And now by the help of this Text, I have found out a fit subject for your abominable praedi­cate, [To be in a continuall state of sin and damnation] For none is truly in a conti­nuall state of damnation, but only the De­vil, or they that are led captive by him at his will, which cannot justly, much less charitably, be said of any sort of men meerly for using that liberty which nei­ther Christ nor his Church hath denyed them, especially if they use it, (as doubt­less they should, and I hope they do) not for an occasion to the flesh, but as the ser­vants of God, that they may with the lesser distraction, if not with the greater devotion, attend his service.

Wherefore though this doctrine of forbidding Priests marriage, may not be disliked by you as you are a Papist, be­cause it came from a Pope; yet pray let it not be approved by you as you are a Christian, because it first came from the Devil; And it were to be wished that those of your party who desire to be thought of a purer mould then all man­kind besides, would so labour from hence­forth to make us poor sinners more then Angels, (for it is more to put off, then [Page 20] not to put on the flesh) as not to make themselves little less then Devils, by ca­lumniating Gods own holy institution, and shooting such thunderbolts as may well be thought to come from the Prince of the air, but sure cannot come from the God of Heaven.

3. For he hath spoken in a still small voice, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, Mat. 19. 12. And again by his Apostle, Nevertheless to avoid fornicati­on, let every man have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7. 2. If God say every man, for you to say, the Church hath said not a Clergy-man, is to accufe the Church of that which she hath taught you daily to pray against, even of the contempt of Gods Word and Commandement; For Christ who spake the one by himself, the other by his Spirit, is Head of the Church, and therefore it is monstrous and prodigious to affirm, that the Church, which is his body, hath spoken otherwise; For sure the body cannot have a voice without the Head; and Christs Church is such a Bo­dy, as will not have a voice without, and much less against her Head.

4. Therefore you should not have said The Churches precept, but your [Page 21] Churches, or rather your Popes precept, when you spake of forbidding Priests to marry; for your own Canonist calls the statute which inhibits Priests marriage, Statutum Ecclesiae non ita generale, Glos. in Decr. par. 2. Causa 25. c. 3. Papa non potest contra generale Ecclesiae statutum dispensare, sed contra statutum Ecclesiae quod non est ita generale, sicut de con­tinentia sacerdotum, bene potest dispen­sare: The Pope cannot dispense against a generall statute of the Church, but he may against one that is not generall, such as is that of Priests continency. Pray learn here­after to speak with your own Doctors; or do not require all the world to follow their Doctrine; And yet in truth, even your own Church the Church of Rome, or rather your own Popes, the Popes of Rome, did not make any such precept till Siricius his daies, if you will again believe your own Gloss upon Gratian, Par. 1. Dist. 84. cap. 3. descanting upon this ve­ry Canon of Carthage, which you have urged; for there saith the Gloss, Dicunt quod olim sacerdotes poterāt contrahere ante Siricium; They say that Priests might lawfully marry before Siricius his daies. And again, A tempore Siricii vocat Anti­quitatem, [Page 22] The Canon calleth that Anti­quity, which was from the time of Siricius: 5. And whereas the Canon (as it is al­ledged by him) affirmeth that the Apo­stles taught this doctrine, the same Gloss brings fresh fasting spittle to allay this quick-silver, and the allay is good enough for the metall, saying, Apostoli docuerunt exemplo & opere, & admonitione, non institutione vel constitutione, The Apostles taught it by their example, deed, or admoni­tion, but not by their doctrine, or any consti­tution; So far is it from truth, (in the judgement of your own Canonists) which you averr so confidently, That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to ab­stain from wives. And besides it is clear from the Apostles own writings, that they neither taught it nor decreed it: Else why did Saint Paul say to Timothy, (1 Tim. 3.) A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, if he were indeed to be blamed for having one? And that he [...]ught to have his children in subjection, if it were unlawfull for him to have any children; Therefore the Apostles taught it not: Again, why did the same Saint Paul say to the Corinthians concerning this ar­gument [Page 23] pro and con, I speak this by permis­sion and not of commandment, 1 Cor. 7. 6. if the Apostles had given any command concerning it? And v. 7. I would that all men were even as I my self, but every man hath his proper gift of God; if there had been any Apostolicall decree to force those who succeeded him in his calling, to succeed him also in his continency; for then sure he would not have wished, but have commanded them to be as himself, whereas on the contrary he only wisheth them to be as himself, who have the Gift enabling them so to be; therefore the Apostles decreed it not: And the truth of both these was antiently attested by your own Gratians ordinary copies of this ve­ry Canon; for so saith your new Glossator upon those words, [Apostoli docuerunt] In vulgatis codicibus sequebatur Exempla, quod est sublatum, In the ordinary copies it was written, The Apostles taught it by their Example, but I have taken that away. The addition of which word Example, (whe­ther by Gratian himself or by any other) being commonly received, is a sufficient evidence that even the Church of Rome in those daies did not think that the Apostles had forbid Priests to marry, [Page 24] by the [...]r Doctrine, and much less by their Decree.

6. From the Apostles, let us pass to the Church, for you say, for Priests to marry is contrary to the Churches precept: But you do only say it, and will never be able to prove it: For the Greek Church in its most pure and flourshing age, had a married Clergy, insomuch that Gregory Nazianzene was born after his Father had officiated at the holy Altar; let his own mouth witness it, who brings in his Father thus speaking unto him,

(Greg. Naz. in carm. de vitâ suâ.) Which is in plain English, Thou hast not yet had thy life so long, as I have had my Priesthood. I hope you will not affirm that the Father, because a Priest, was the worse for having such a son, when you cannot deny but the whole Christian Church hath ever since been the better for that he had him.

Again, How came the first Council of Nice to be kept from determining for the forced continency of Priests by one single Paphnutius, if so be the Apostles had so determined before, or the Church had [Page 25] thought fit so to determine it after them? Nay it is evident, The Catholick Church determined there should be no such de­termination, as appears from the fore­cited consent of the Nicene Fathers to Paphnutius his advice, which is generally attested and approved by the Authors both of the Greek and Latine Church; As by Socrates, lib. 1. c. 11. (Lat.) By Gelasius Cycicenus, lib. 2. de actis Concil. Nic. c. 33. By Nicephorus, lib. 8. cap. 19. By Cassiodorus, hist. Trip. lib. 2. c. 14. By Gratian, Par. 1. Dist. 31. cap. 12. And by Peter Crabbe, in actis Concilii Niceni: So that if you may have recourse but to one of these, you shall little need to go either to Neteoricks or to Epitomists for the story, as you did in your first Excepti­on for Saint Augustines answer, and in this for Siricius his words. And yet I will add to these one more proof, and that from the Council of Gangra, whose Ca­nons were put into the Code of the Ca­tholick Church, so often appealed to by the Fathers at Calcedon, and placed toge­ther with the Holy Bible, in the mid [...]t of their Council; Concil. Gangr. can. [...] [...] [Page 26] [...]: If any man make a dissention between married and un­married Priests, as if he ought not to take the Communion from the married Priest, let him be accursed: Now if the Church had made that distinction, why should not the people make it? But in truth the Church was so far from making it, that she shew­ed it to be against her judgement to make it, speaking no less reverently of the of­ferings of the married, then of the un­married Priests: Or you may thus inter­pret the Canon, If any man withdraw himself from a married Priest, as if he ought not to communicate, whiles such a Priest doth officiate, let him be accursed. It is plain here in the judgement of the Church (for these Gangrensian Canons were admitted into the Code of the Ca­tholick Church, which yours of Carthage were not) That the married Priests were as fit to serve at the Altar as the unmar­ried; and if they were as fit to serve God, why not as fit to serve the People, and to content you? And to shew you I have not strained this Canon in my interpretations I assure you they are not mine, but your own Authors: The first is Gratians Par. 1. Dist. 28. c. 15. Si quis discernit Presbyte­rum [Page 27] conjugatum, tanquam occasione [...]ptia­rum, quod offerre non debeat, & ab ejus ob­latione ideo se abstinet, Anathema sit: The latter is the new Glossators upon Gratian, in the edition authorized by Greg. 13. Si quis secernat se à Presbytero qui uxorem duxit, tanquam non oporteat illo liturgiam peragente, de oblatione percipere, Anathema sit: And he tells us, That Dionysius exigu­us had in effect so interpreted it before him.

7. And this one single Canon might I alledge, not only as the Jugement and De­cree of the Catholick Church, from the Code of her Canons; but also as the Judgement of your own particular Ro­man Church from Dionysius, and as the Decree of the same Church, from Gratian; But that both the antient Judgement and Decree of your Church are more clearly proved by the practice of it: For in your very Church of Rome, have heretofore been no less then nine Popes, which were the sons of married Priests and Deacons; whereas if Priests and Deacons marriage had been forbid by the Apostles, or by the Catholick Church, I might say, They were the sins of Priests, not sons; and you might say, They were very unfit Popes, because [Page 28] very unfit successors for Saint Peter, but more unfit Vicars for his master: But so saith Gratian (Par. 1. Dist. 56. cap. 2.) Osius Papa fuit filius Stephani subdiaconi; Bonifacius Papa fuit filius Jucundi Pres­byteri; Felix Papa filius Felicis Presbyteri; de titulo Fasciolae; Agapetus Papa filius Gordiani Presbyteri; Theodorus Papa, filius Theodori Episcopi de civitate Hiero­solymâ; Silverius Papa filius Silverii E­piscopi Romae; Deus dedit Papa filius Stephani subdiaconi: Felix etiam tertius natione Romanus ex Patre Felice Presby­tero fuit; Item Gelasius natione Afer, ex Episcopo Valerio natus est; Item Aga­petus natione Romanus, ex Patre Gordi­ano Presbytero originem duxit; complu­res etiam alii inveniuntur, qui de sacerdo­tibus nati, Apostolicae sedi praefuerunt. See here are nine Popes named which were all the sons of married Cler­gy-men, and yet Gratian concludes this Chapter, saying, These were not All; di­vers more might be found if he had a mind to look after them: yet these are enough to prove the practice of the Church of Rome for having married Priests till the year of our Lord 158, when Anastasius flourished, who writ the [Page 29] lives of the Popes, saith Bellarm. de script. Eccles. with this emphatical asseverati­on, Ut notum est, denying Damasus, cited by Gratian, to have been the author of of that Book, as well he might; For Damasus lived in the year, 367. So that very few of these men (not above three at most) had been Popes before his time; for it is evident That Agapetus (who is reckoned fourth in this Catalogue) lived in the time of Justinian, that is above 500. years after Christ: For by his couragious answer he kept Justinian from embracing Eutychianism, saying, He thought he [...] come to a Christian Emperour, but he had found a Pagan persecutor; the reason was, The Emperour had laboured to perswade him to be an Eutychian; And that Silve­rius who was this Agapetus his next suc­cessor, may (by the way) be added to Gratians list, for he was the son of Hor­misdae (not of Silverius) Bishop of Rome. I have no mind nor leisure to make any special enquiry after the rest, and I need not: For if you will consider this testimony seriously, you will find in this one Catalogue not only Priests and Bishops of Rome to have been Fathers of Popes, which is enough to prove the marriage of [Page 30] Priests allowed in that particular Church, but also Theodorus Bishop of Hierusalem in Asia, and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa, to have been Fathers of two of your antient Popes, which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests then allow­ed in the Catholick Church; that is to say, not only in Europe, but also in Asia and in Africa. But I do intreate you to take special notice of Valerius Bishop of Hippo; for he alone may very well make you misdoubt, if not the truth, yet the authority of your own alledged Canon; since it is incredible that such a married Bishop should live at Hippo at the very same time in which such a Canon was made at Carthage against Priests marriages and neither confute the Canon, having such a Learned Priest under him as Saint Augustine, nor be confuted by it, having so many enemies about him as the Dona­tists; but however, in that so many Fa­thers of your own Church have been the sons of married Priests, it will be discre­tion in some of your Zealots hereafter to bestow better language upon the children of married Priests, for fear they be con­strained to reproach not only many of their own Popes, but even the whole Church of [Page 31] Christ: For so far doth your own Gratian justifie this Truth, as to assure us That the marriage of Priests was lawful at that time in every Countrey over all the Christian world: Dist. 56. c. 13. Quum ergo ex sacer­dotibus natiin summos Pontifices supra le­guntur esse promoti, non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione, sed de legitimis conjugiis nati, quae sacerdotibus ante Prohibitionem Ubique licita erant, & in orientali Eccle­sia usque hodie eis licere probatur: When as therefore the sons of Priests, as we we read before (viz. cap. 2. which I alledged) have been promoted to be Popes, we may not think they were born to those Priests in forni­cation, but in lawfull marriage; for it was lawfull everywhere, (that is in all the Christian world) for Priests to marry be­fore the Prohibition, and in the Eastern Church it is at this day proved to be lawfull. So we see that the Clergy both of Eastern and Western Church did plainly shew by their Practice, That the marriage of Priests was not prohibited by the Apostles or the Catholick Church, and therefore generally used their liberty, till some after-prohibition denyed the same to the Clergy of the Western Church: And the new Glossator himself, who confidently [Page 32] saith that Gratian was mistaken as to the Latine Church, sheweth little reason for his own confidence, because no pretence or proof for the others mistake, till this Decree of Siricius, which was not made till almost 400. and not generally ratified or received in his own Diocess, till above a 1000. years after Christ: For so Baro­nius himself hath recorded, that in the year 1074. this Decree of prohibiting Priests marriage was forced upon the Bi­shops of Italy, Germany and France, by Pope Gregory the seventh, after they had unanimously gainsayed, and most earnest­ly deprecated and opposed it, (v. Bar. An. 1074. nu. 37, 38, 39.) Now if this Decree were not generally received in the Latine Church till then, though it were made before, yet was it not ratified and confirmed till then; for that is an undeny­able rule of her own Canonist, Leges instituuntur quùm promulgantur, firman­tur quùm moribus utentium approban­tur. (Grat. Par. 1. Dist. 4. cap. 3.) Whence it follows, That neither this De­cree of Siricius, nor any other of the like nature, could properly be called a Prohibition, till that time when it was first generally received imto Practice, and [Page 33] that was not til the year 1074. a longtime sure after the Apostles: And this same Truth is attested by Gratian in the first words of his 31. distinction, Tempus quoque, Quia nondum erat institutum ut sa­cerdotes continentiam servarent; where your new Glossator is very much trou­bled to prove that Sacerdot [...]s is put for Subdiaconi Priests for Subdeacons, that so he may rather elude then expound the Text: It doth therefore neerly con­cern you as a Trustee of Gods Truth, (not of any mans mistakes or insolencies) and as a member and Minister of Christs Catholick Church, to mitigate, if not recall those words, [That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed, that Priests ought to abstain from wives;] And those other [For Priests to marry contrary to the Churches precept, Siricius might well say is to be in the fl [...]sh, because it is to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation] unless you will say, That the Apostles taught and decreed that in word, which they have contradicted in writing: & that the whole Church witting­ly and willingly sinned against their De­cree for above a thousand years together, by which means you may chance teach [Page 34] others to say (and we now find many Schollars most ready to learn such a wic­ked lesson) That for so long together Christ was without a Catholick and Apo­stolick Church: For my part, I dare not be so far an Accuser of my Brethren, but sure I will never be brought to be so far an Accuser of my Mother.

8. But least it may be thought that Sampsen-like you have smitten us poor Philistines hip and thigh, and have carried away our Gates by the vertue and strength of the Council of Carthage, I will now look after a Razor that shall ve­ry much endanger that lock, wherein your great strength lyeth, for I have yet only clipped it a little by Valerius his hand, and must now labour to cut it off, which I shall endeavour to do by cutting the Africane Church from the Catholick; and that Council you have alledged, from the Africane Church, and that Canon you have alledged from the Afri­cane Council; I say therefore,

1. That the Africane Church was but a particular Church, and could not pass the sentence, may not have either the re­pute or the authority of the Catholick Church; And for this answer I have [Page 35] your own Cardinals precedent, Bellar. lib. 2. de concil. cap. 8. & 9. Where that objection against the Popes being called Summus Pontifex, which is brought from the 26. Canon of the Council of Carthage, Ut primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacer­dos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus, is by him thus answered; Quùm hoc Concilium natio­nale fuerit, non universae sed tantùm Afri­canae Ecclesiae leges tulisse potuit: Itaque hoc Canone non prohibuit neque potuit prohibere ne Rom. Pontifex diceretur sa­cerdotum princeps, vel summus sacerdos, sed tantū ne ita appellaretur ullus Metro­politanus Africae; This Council being but nationall, could not make Canons for the Ca­tholick Church; and therefore by this Can­on, could not prohibit the Bishop of Rome to be called an high Priest, but only the Bishops of Africa to be so called. Pray shew me a reason why this answer is not as good for the Priests of Europe, as for the Bishop of Rome; for all the world cannot make one National Church the whole Catholick Church, no more then it can make a particular an universal, or one corner of the South or West, all the world.

[Page 36] 2. That second Council of Carthage scarce deserves to have the credit, and cannot have the authority of the particu­lar Africane Church: First because for ought that can be collected out of the acts thereof, there were not above seven Bishops present at it, (no more then were at a Collation with the Donatists) v. Bin. Conc. Tom. 1. Col. p. 624. whereas Africa afforded above two hundred Bi­shops, and they were all by their Can­ons strictly bound to be present at Natio­nal Synods.

Secondly because there is a plain and a gross untruth set down in the first words of that Council, as it is in the Latine Copy, (which only befriends your asser­tion) for there it is said, [Gloriosissimo Imperatore Valentiniano Augusto 4. & Theodosio viris clarissimis consulibus. i. Whiles Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time, and Theodosius with him, these Bishops met at Carthage] whereas it is evident by the Archives of Chronologie, That Valentinian the Emper­our never at all was Consul with Theodo­sius; and it is as clear by the same Archives that when Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time, Neotorius (not [Page 37] Theodosius) was his partner; (See Hel­vicus An. Christ. vul. 390.) So I shew you plainly we have a false Consul put up­on the Council; and I have some reason to suspect we have also a false Council put upon the Church: For it is clear that this Council was not held in the year 390. when Valentinian was Consul the fourth time, because Genedius, (who speaks first in it, and was President of it) was not taken by Aurelius to be his Coadjutor at Carthage, till after Saint Augustine had been taken by Valerius to be his Coadju­tor at Hippo, (as saith Binius, Aurelius factum Valerii Hipponensis imitatus, onus Episcopale in Genedium stranstulit) And it is asserted by Helvicus, That Saint Au­gustine was made Priest of the Church of Hippo but in the year 391. that is, the year after this Consulage: And sure he lived some years a Priest of that Church, before he was made Bishop thereof, per­chance so many as to satisfie the custom of the Church; but sure so many as to write full thirteen Books (as appears by his Re­tractations, lib. 1. cap. 14.) notwith­standing his continual Preaching all that time: For he was required and autho­rized by his Bishop to be a Preacher [Page 38] whiles he was yet a Priest, which till his daies had not been known in the Afri­cane Church; and he preached both pri­vately and publickly against the Dona­tists, Manichaeans and Pelagians, saith Possidius; and sure the more time he spent in Preaching, the less time he had for writing; But to let pass collections and conjectures, we see Genedius the Pre­sident of this Council, was not a Bishop till after Saint Augustine; And Saint Au­gustine was not so much as a Priest till one year after the date of this Council; so it is certain the Council hath a false date, and it is possible we may have a false Council; Accordingly Binius is forced to confess, That the second Council of Carthage, though it was so in Title, yet was not so in Truth; but was such a second as had at least five before it; Post quinque saltem ante­riora, hoc quod secundum appellatur, ha­bitum fuisse oportet: Which he proves, first from the Bishops names recited in the Acts of this Council, Genedius, Alypius, Faustinus, who were not Bishops till long after the year that Valentinian was the fourth time Consul. Secondly from the very words of this very second Canon which you have alledged: For that begins [Page 39] thus, Quùm in praeterito consilio de continentiae & castitatis moderamine tractaretur; relating to a fore-past Council, which fore-past Council (saith Binius) was that Africane Council cele­brated the first year of Pope Coelestine, which was the year 424. after Christ, ac­cording to Helvicus; (A great distance sure from 390.) And the 37. Canon of that Africane Council, saith Binius, is that which is here related to: The like he affirms concerning Fortunatus his words in the third Canon, Memini praeterito consilio fuisse statutum, I remember in a fore-past Council it was ordained; where saith the same Binius, That fore-past Council, was the forenamed Africane, and Fortunatus reflected back to the tenth Canon of that Council; But if this Council in which were so few Bishops, and concerning which are so many uncer­tainties, may deserve the credit and au­thority of the particular Africane Church, yet sure it will be hard to prove, That the words alledged by you deserve to have the credit or Authority of a Canon of this Council, to that purpose for which, and according to that sense in which you have alledged them.

3. Wherefore thirdly, I make bold to [Page 40] assert, That this your Canon, as you have applyed and urged it, was no Canon of the Africane Council, called the second of Carthage; for the Fathers in Trullo (Can. 13.) do upon this very occasion of Priests continency, cite that yery numerical Canon of Carthage, with an addition of other words, and in another sense, say­ing, [...], &c. We know that those who met at Carthage, and took care of the grave and sober behaviour of Priests, did say, That at some proper and set times, they should ab­stain from their wives: [...], Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant: So that this, and no other but this, is the doctrine which the second Council of Carthage did say, The Apostles had taught, and antiquity had practised: And this is no more then what we find in Saint Pauls writings, [Except it be with consent for a time, that you may give your selves unto fasting and prayer, 1 Cor. 7. 5.] which though spoken generally of all married men, yet may without any violence to the Text, and with great zeal of, and advan­tage to godliness be appropriated à forti­ori to the married Clergy: But for Priests total abstaining from wives, you must find it in some other Canon, or say [Page 41] the Trullane Fathers did either want Honesty in mis-citing this Canon, or Learning in mis-understanding it, or Iudgement in mis-applying it: Whereas on the contrary they were so far from wanting any of these, that they had more­over power and authority to have reversed it, and would have used that power, had they indeed found it a Canon of the Afri­cane Church; For they are so bold as plainly to reverse a Canon near of kin to it, delivered in the Roman Church, re­quiring married men if they were made Priests, to promise they would after that time not co-habite with their wives: And to assure us (and all the world) That these words [...]: (con­cerning which in truth is all the contro­versie) came not either by surreption or by mistake into their Canon. The reason of this restriction is thus given in the en­suing words, [...]: Oportet enim eos qui altari afsident, quum sacra ma­nibus tractant, in omnibus continentes esse; not bidding Priests contain from marriage at all times, but only at such times as they were to administer the holy Sacrament.

[Page 42] This was certainly the sense of your se­cond Canon of the second Council of Carthage; or not only Greece did not un­derstand carthage, but also Carthage did not understand it self: Whence Balsamon is so bold as to assert in plain terms, That they of Rome and their accomplices, were much mistaken, who inferred from this, or any other Canon of the Councils of car­thage, That Priests and Deacons might not have their own wives, [...] But were bound to keep themselves single and unmarried: (vid. Bals. in Can. 3. & 4. Concil. 3. Carth.) And he proves his as­sertion from the 70. Canon of the third Council of Carthage, (meaning the 73. as we commonly say the 70. when we mean the 72. interpreters) where the injuncti­on is plain, That they ought to abstain, [...]: Secundum proprios terminos, At their proper or peculiar times, viz. At the times of their Administration. Nay yet more, Aurelius who is said to have propounded this your Canon, doth himself thus alledge, or at least thus inter­pret it in the Greek Canons of the third Council of Carthage, as they are entred and received in the Code of the Africane. Church, your own Binius being my wit­ness; [Page 43] For there Can. 25. he requires Priests to abstain from wives only at some proper times, [...], Pro­priis terminis ab uxoribus abstineant: (v. Bin. Concil. Tom. 1. edit. Colon. p. 580. in alterâ editione quorundam Canonum Concilii tertii Carth. ex codice Africano:) But the Latine interpreter in Binius ren­dring these words, [...], Se­cundum priora statuta, (priora instead of propria) and Binius fo [...]lowing that read­ing in the 37. Canon, concil. Africani sub Coelestino & Benifacio; and preferring it as the better of the two, in his notes upon Concil. Carth. 5. sub Anastasio cap. 3. even contrary to the reading of that same Canon, as it is in its own edition, makes me suspect that the Africane Canons have not been derived to us so entire and in­corrupt in the Latine copies, as in the Greek; wherein if I am mistaken, you may well pardon my mistake, because your own new Glossator upon Gratian hath presum­ed to correct the Latine Copy of this very Canon, (as he had found it in the Books then commonly received) by the Greek Copy, leaving out exemplo after Apostoli docuerunt (as I shewed before) for this one reason amongst others, That he found [Page 44] it not in the Greek Copies: I know Bini­us is of another mind, (so impossible is it there should be Unity, where there is not Verity) and saith concerning the carthage Canons, That the Latine Edition is of a greater authority then the Greek transla­tion; But confessing two various editi­ons of the Latine Canons (Secundum propria statuta, and priora statuta) and not being able to shew any more then one translation of the Greek, he hath un­awares granted that the Latine Canons are not of so great certainty, and should not be of so great authority as the Greek; For one of Two cannot be so certain, as One by it self. Again, prof [...]ssing that se­cundum priora statuta in the Latine, is the better edition of the two [Quaedam alia lectio melior habet secundum priora sta­tuta] he hath unawares granted it is the worse; for that could not have been quae­dam alia lectio, if the other of propria sta­tuta had not been before it; and surely of two various readings, the first must needs be the best, because that was the Original, according to the rules, Id verum quod pri­mum, Id bonum quod verum. Thirdly, confessing secundum priora statuta to be the Original, in that it was the better, [Page 45] (for else the Original was falfe, and the variation from it was the true reading) he hath as unadvisedly taxed the Greeks for mistaken Interpreters: [Graeci haec ver­ba malè intelligentes vertêrunt, [...]] For if he mean these for the words ill translated, secundum propria sta­tuta, the Greeks did not ill translate them; for [...], doth fair­ly and fully express those words: But if he mean for the words ill translated, secun­dum priora statuta, then it is not credible the Greeks intended to translate them; for they must have said, [...], not [...], if they had read secundum priora statuta in the La­tine copies, and meaned to translate what they had read: Tis much more probable that the Greeks found secundum propria statuta in the Original Africane Canon, which sure was penned in Latine; for the Africane Fathers writ in Latine; and Va­lerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa did there­fore take Saint Augustine while he was yet but a Priest, to officiate for him in the Pulpit, contrary to the custom of that Church, because himself being a Greek, and not expert in the use of the Latine tongue, could not Preach so well to the [Page 46] edifying of the Africane people (as saith Possidius in the life of Saint Augustine;) And it is as probable, That the Latines did at first read that same Canon secun­dum propria statuta, as did the Greeks, till some of later years, (sc. after the Prohi­bition of Priests marriage in that Church) thinking priora statuta would better serve their turn then propria statuta, (not only because it took off the specification of time, but also because it put on the face of anti­quity) ventured to shuffle that in for the other: For it is evident that Gratian did read that very Canon secundum propria statuta, concerning which Binius avoweth secundum priora statuta to be the better reading: (v. Grat. Dist. 84. cap. 3.) But indeed Binius in this assertion is confuted not only by his own Latine interpreter in his own Councils in this very particular Canon, upon which he hath passed this un­warrantable sentence, but also in Balsa­mons Councils by Gentianus Hervetus, if that marginal note be his upon the 13. Canon of Trullo, Legerat interpres Grae­cus in Canone Carthaginensi, secundum propria statuta; And if that note be not his, we have gotten a new author to con­fute Binius, but we have not lost our old [Page 47] confutation; For in the Latine translati­on, which without doubt belongs to Her­vetus, we see not only that he so read, but also that he so understood those words; for he there thus interprets them, Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant: Let them abstain from wives at proper and peculiar seasons or times, that is, At the times of their administration, as saith Balsamon: So that Binius sheweth more his animositie then his ingenuitie in his en­suing words, Hac translatione nostri tem­poris haeretici caelibatum Clericorum im­pugnant, quasi hujus Canonis authoritate Clerici ab uxoribus in ordine tantùm Vi­cis suae abstinere deberent, reliquis verò temporibus iisdem maritali consortio co­habitare liceret. For, we say no more in this, then Balsamon had said four hundred years before us, your own Hervetus be­ing his interpreter, [...], Vicis suae tempore; [...], Eo sc. tempore quo sacrificant. Bals. Concil. Trul. cap. 13. Nay we say no more in this, then the whole Council in Trullo had said 600. years before Balsamon, as hath been pro­ved already in most express words; yet in truth we have no reason to be angry with [Page 48] Binius; for though he hath given us bad language, he hath given us a good advan­tage; for having said that secundum priora statuta, was the better, and therefore the antienter and truer reading of this Canon, he hath not only justified our appeal to former Canons concerning this matter, but hath also confuted his own new expo­sition of the Greek words, [...], which is this, secundum proprias re­gulas. [...] enim non tantùm significat ter­minum, sed etiam regulam ac praeceptum; For though we may admit that [...] doth signifie Regula, yet [...], would have been an improper translation in Greek for secundum proprias regulas in Latine (in which language the Canon was first penned) because it would have been equivocal, and therefore unexpr [...]ssive and uncertain; But it must have been an im­possible translation of these Latine words, secundum priores regulas, for all the world cannot make priores signifie [...], no more then priority signifie property: And yet he confidently avoweth that secundum priora statuta, was the better reading of the two: The upshot of all is this, whe­ther we look to the Greek [...], or to the Latine, secundum propria [Page 49] statuta, (for priora was a meer device, I will not say a forgerie) If we will look upon certainties, not upon conjectures, the Greek word [...], doth import termi­num temporis, not terminum orationis, a determination of time, not of law; and so likewise the Latine word statutum; or the whole Greek Church did not rightly un­derstand their own tongue; and the Afri­cane Church did not intend their Canon should be rightly understood: wherefore I hope you will pardon this my Descant upon Binius, because you see I have done it, not to shew my self a Grammarian, but a Divine; not a bold Critick, but an ho­nest Church-man: For I have followed that sense of the Africane Canon, which I find given it not only by the Greek, but also by the Latine Church: And there­fore this your Canon may not bear that sense which you have given it, because it may not contradict all other Canons of the same Africane Church, according to the judgement of all Greek and Latine Interpreters: And yet this seems to me the best defence you have made for Siri­cius, whereby you have taught us Prote­stants (very ingenuously, though very Covertly) to believe, That a Pope may [Page 50] need the authority of a particular Church to defend his Decrees; notwithstanding that some others of your profession would fain perswade the world, That the Popes De­crees ought to be received and embraced as the infallible rules of the whole Catho­lick Church.

9. Having done my weak endeavour to vindicate the Church, I now come to vindicate my self, and to make good my decarded instances: As for that of Abra­ham, if it reach not Siricius, it must con­tent me; For if my salvation shall go no further then to be in Abrahams bosom, my Religion may seek no further then for Abrahams righteousness: And he must be to me a bold Dogmatist, who would make me more righteous then my Father, who am not righteous but for being his Son: And if Saint Paul hath thought fit to argue from Abrahams faith to our faith, sure I am not mistaken in my To­picks for arguing from Abrahams righte­ousness to our righteousness: And yet I will give you a better precedent then Saint Paul; for I find our blessed Saviour himself so arguing, This did not Abraham, John 8. 40.

10. As for my instance out of Saint [Page 51] Paul, [It is better to marry then to burn] I think it doth prove Siricius a false Dog­matist; for he saith, It is not better to marry then to burn; and I am sure that both parts of the contradiction cannot be true, and dare not imagine That Siri­cius hath taken the true, Saint Paul the false part: For if for Priests to marry, is to be in the flesh, Then clearly it is better for Priests to burn then to marry, not­withstanding Saint Paul hath said gene­rally concerning all men, It is better to marry then to burn; And neither good Reason, nor good Religion, nor good Manners, will allow any man to give an exception upon Gods general Rule, or to distinguish where his Law doth not di­stinguish, or to set up an Hypothesis against his Thesis; by saying, That is unlawfull for some particular men, which he hath de­clared to be lawful for All men; or to say, That puts a man in the state of sin, which God hath said is consistent with the state of righteousness; For this is to give earth a Dominion over heaven, to al­low men a legislative power over God; for he that in this manner judgeth the Law, doth indeed condemn the Law­giver; according to that assertion of the [Page 52] irrefragable Doctor, Si enim aliquis effecit aliquid quod non sit determinatum in sa­cra Scriptura, mortaliter peccat, quia se constituit supra Deum; (Halensis Par. 1. qu. 68. num. 1. art. 2.) Therefore I dare not say The Church hath determined that to be unlawful in Any, which God hath de­termined to be lawfull in All; For I am in love with that Rule in the Angelical Do­ctor, which he hath improved out of Aristotle, (as he hath indeed all other Ethicks) In his quae arbitrio Judicis re­linquuntur, viri boni est ut sit Diminitivus Poenarum, (22. qu. 67. art. 4. ad 1.) In those things which the Law hath left to the Judges arbitrement, it is the part of a good man to Diminish Punishments; and if so, Then much more to diminish, not to en­crease sins; What an Heathen hath allow­ed to be the part of a good man, pray let a Christian allow, to be the part of his best Mother; and not suppose the Church 10 cruel as to be willing to encrease sins, when he may not suppose a good man so cruel as to be willing to encrease Punish­ment.

11. This makes me follow the Trullane Fathers, who thought it fitter (Can. 13.) to tax the Roman Church for making a [Page 53] Canon to keep married Priests from co­habiting with their wives, then by con­senting to such a Canon to bring them­selves under the suspition of disparaging or disgracing marriage, which God had instituted by his Law, and both honoured and blessed by his presence: For the whole Gospel (say they) cryeth aloud, What God hath joyned, let not man put asunder; but if Priests that are married be in the state of damnation, let us say, not God but the Devil hath joyned them and their wives together, and therefore man ought to put them asunder: and so call marriage in them not Gods but the Devils instituti­on: The same Fathers urge further that of Saint Paul, Heb. 13. 3. Marriage is; honourable in all; to prove it honourable in Priests, for that was the whole matter then in debate: And I desire you to shew me, How in this enuntiation, marriage is honourable in All; the universal particle All, doth signifie All but Priests; And yet in another enuntiation, Drink ye All of this, the same particle All doth signifie none but Priests; me thinks by this extra­ordinary kind of subtilty, All is come to signifie None; For All is none of the Cler­gy in one place, and none of the Laity in [Page 54] another; and in my dull sense the whole company of Christians are either Clergy or Laity. I will yet further add the testi­mony of Adrian, that I may oppose a Pope against a Pope, both for the credit of this Council, and for the truth of this cause: For I find him in Gratian speaking these words, Sextam Sanctam Synodum recipio cum omnibus Canonibus suis, I receive the sixt holy Synod with all her Canons, (Gr. de consec. dist. 3. c. 29.) He saith, I receive the sixt holy Synod; so the Council is good, (as to you who are so zealous for the Pope, whatever it be to others.) He saith, with all her Canons; so the cause is good against you; for this Canon is recei­ved among the rest; And he that said all this, lived above 800. years after Christ; so your assertion is not good, [That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives] For if Pope Adrian could have alledged the least particle of an Apo­stolical decree against Priests marriage, no doubt he would not have said, He received all the Canons, meerly for this one Canons sake, which had been made of purpose to confute his own Church and Chair (of both which he was not a little zealous) [Page 55] meerly for following Siricius, in being ad­dicted to the contrary opinion; chuse you which of the two Popes to follow, Siricius or Adrian, for both you cannot.

12. But you say, To burn, doth not here signifie to be tempted, but to fornicate; I cannot think Saint Paul was so zealous to determine that which no man was yet so impudent as to doubt, viz. It is better to marry then to fornicate; for that is no more in effect then this, It is better to be a man, then to be a beast; which surely was not the doubt concerning which the Co­rinthians had desired to be resolved: Therefore I think this cannot be Saint Pauls meaning, It is better to marry then to fornicate; and I suppose you will think so too, when you shall consider that from this interpretation I can justly make this inference, That if Priests do fornicate first, they may marry afterwards, and not be in the state of sin by marrying; For then by your own allowance the Rule will hold; and truly if the rule will not hold till then, I believe the inference will hold ever after: For if a mans being tempted to for­nication will not, yet sure his actual forni­cating will put him under this indulgence of marrying, because if he once fornicate, [Page 56] he then may lawfully marry, since the Apostle in saying, It is better to marry then to fornicate, hath allowed if not command­e him to chose the better, and to leave the worse: And whereas you appeal to the precedent words, If they cannot contain, let them marry; the same absurdity still follows your new gloss, which is this, That the Priviledge of marriage depends upon the bestiality of fornication; for If they cannot contain, is no more then if they burn; and if they burn, in your gloss, is no less then if they fornicate; whence it follows that according to your new gloss, Saint Paul hath said, If they fornicate let them marry: And this is yet more palpable as the same Rule is set down in the second verse, not by way of supposition, but by way of Position, in these words, To avoid fornication let every man have his wife; for if to avoid fornication do there signifie not to avoid the danger, but only the guilt of fornication, this concession, To avoid fornication, let every man have his wife, will in effect be turned into this Prohibiti­on, Let no man have his wife till he hath actually fornicated, and so the Laity must plunge themselves in vitiousness as well as the Clergy, if they will have wives: For [Page 57] Saint Pauls [...] every man; comprizeth Clergy and Laity both alike, neither of them more nor less then the other: Wherefore since there is no man in Chri­stendom but is either a Clergy-man, or a Lay-man, it will follow that no man in Christendom hath a Licence, much less a Command to take a wife, until he hath actu­ally fornicated; and so the ready way to avoid fornication, by this remedy of mar­riage, according to your gloss, is to commit fornication: To joyn all three together, you in effect say, That to burn is to forni­cate; and if they cannot contain, is, If they be actually guilty of Incontinency; and to avoid fornication, is to avoid the sin of fornication, not the temptation to that sin; And I say that this being supposed (though it be not granted) you will scarce be able to prove, That any man hath the Apostles concession, and much less his approbation to marry; but only such a man as hath first actually forni­cated; which is a strange kind of Do­ctrine, and may well make any sober man exclaim with the Canonist, Nota mi­rabile, quod plus habet hic luxuria quam castitas: (Gloss. in Decretal. Greg. lib. 1. Tit. 21. cap. 6.) See here a wonder­full [Page 58] case, That Luxury hath a greater pri­viledge then chastity; Therefore I con­ceive it fitter for a Divine to say, That Saint Paul intended the remedy before the disease, not after it; and consequently did allow men to marry, that they might avoid not only the guilt; but also the danger of fornication, for else he had not allowed marriage to avoid fornication, till it was impossible to be avoided: And consequently, it is a greater sin in any Christian Church to allow one Priest to fornicate, then to allow all her Priests to marry; for by the one she thwarts Gods command, by the other she follows his ex­ample; by the one she approves and en­courages a damnable sin, by the other she approves and encourages a most glorious Vertue; For allowing Priests to marry, doth not make their marrying the more necessary, but only their abstaining from marriage the more voluntary, that is to say, It doth only make Vi [...]ginity in Priests a Free will offering, which cannot be acceptable unless it be free; and the more it is free, the more it is acce­ptable.

13. You say further, That Saint Paul himself had great temptations of the flesh, [Page 59] but did neither marry nor fornicate to avoid them. I answer, If I had fully transcribed my Instance concerning Abraham, as it is in Ignatius his Epistle to the Philadel­phians, I might have added not only Saint Peter but also Saint Paul to the number of married men, and so perchance have prevented this part of your Objection: But to let go conjectures, Saint Paul him­self tells us what were his Temptations, Acts 20. 19. even temptations which befell him by the laying in wait of the Jews; Temptations from other mens flesh, not his own; from other mens fleshly minds, not from his own fleshly body: And I wonder upon what probability of Truth you say Saint Paul was under the sinfull motions of the body, when himself saith, he could not tell whether he were in the body or out of the body, at the time he had that revelation, after which was given him a Thorn in the flesh, lest he should be ex­alted above measure, v. 3. & 7. The Text saith, Saint Paul had a Thorn in the flesh, not Temptations of the flesh; that is, he had penall afflictions, not sinfull motions; These if they went up with him into Para­dise, yet surely came not with him down from thence: For going to Paradise doth [Page 60] (by your favour) much more purge sin, then going to Purgatory. Besides, datus est mihi stimulus, was not so properly said of these motions, as natus est in me stimulus carnis meae; nor can you say That was gi­ven him at that time, which you know was born in him so long before, and was pro­perly to be called, a Relick, not a Gift; Or that God gave that concupiscence to his chiefest Apostle, which by his Spirit he doth subdue in his meanest servants: Nor is it probable Saint Paul did call that a Messenger of Satan, which was inbred in him from his own natural corruption; or ascribe that to the Devil, which was rather to be ascribed to the flesh; Summe all these inconveniencies together, and I believe you will hereafter joyn with Saint Chrysostom (Saint Pauls most faith­full interpreter, in the judgement of your own Divines) who gives us this interpre­tation, [...], &c By the Angel of Satan, he meaneth Alexander the Coppersmith, those about Hymaeneus and Philetas, all that opposed the word, and con­tended or contested against him, those who did cast him into prison, scourge and drive him away, because those did the works of Satan: Therefore even as he calleth the [Page 61] Jews the sons of the Devil for following his example, so he calleth the Messenger of Sa­tan, every man that fell foully upon him: [...]: And this (saith he) was the thorne in the flesh given to buffet me; And truly the world is still very full of such Messengers of Satan; for no Ortho­dox Divine now adaies can teach men either how to live or how to die accord­ing to his duty, trust and conscience, but legions of factious spirits will be pecking at him, by making either frivolous objecti­ons, or fond cavils, or false calumnies against his Doctrine; which in truth is to be the Messengers of Satan; And for ought we can see, Saint Pauls truest Dis­ciples are most like to have such Messen­gers to buffet them to the worlds end: For this is one of those requests which according to Saint Chrysostom is most like to come under that Text, For we know not what we should pray for as we ought, Rom. 8. 26. When men who are perse­cuted and troubled for Religion, pray for deliverance from their persecutions, or for rest and relaxation from their labours and troubles: But yet the Scholars (saith he) need not be so much ashamed or dis­mayed; for even the great Master of Is­rael [Page 62] was himself in the same condition; Saint Paul saying of himself as well as of others, For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; and that not out of modesty or humility, as appears in that he uncessantly made request to see Rome, which was not then granted him, when he requested it; and that he prayed earnestly and fre­quently for deliverance from his thorn in the flesh, that is, from his manifold dangers and afflictions, which was never granted him at all. [...], Chrys. in Rom. cap. 8. v. 26. [...] 14.

You have here a second place out of Saint Chrysostom to confute your new in­terpretation; take yet a third; for upon those words of Saint Paul to the Gala­thians, [which are next of kin with these to the Corinthians) My temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not, Gal. 4. 14. the same Saint Chrysostom thus glosseth, [...]: I was tumb­led and tossed, I was beaten with rods, I was under a thousand deaths whiles I preached to [Page 63] you, and yet though I was in that contem­ptible condition, you contemned me not; (Me thinks I hear my despised and distressed mother the Church of England at this time saying the same to all that still em­brace her doctrine and continue in her Communion) For this he meaneth, when he saith, My Temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not; Whereas if Saint Paul had been under such Temptations of the flesh as you imagine, these supercilious pretenders who sought to be justified by their own righteousness, must needs have condemned him for more then an ordi­nary sinner: They who boasted of their own circumcision in the flesh, would cer­tainly have despised him as uncircumcised who had such temptations in the flesh; For what is it in the world that to this day makes any man more despicable? nor could Saint Paul well have given such proud Justiciaries a greater advantage against him or his doctrine, then such an open profession as this, which you have made for him, That he had great Tempta­tions of the flesh; But indeed the whole context speaks with Saint Chrysostom, and against you, That the Thorn in Saint Pauls flesh, was not his great Temptations, [Page 64] but his great Tribulations in the flesh; For they are particularly mentioned in the ensuing discourse, wherein is not one word concerning any impure motions; Therefore (saith he) I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christs sake: And he particularly asserteth the Grace or strength he had obtained by prayer, as given him to encounter with these Tribu­lations; and I ask you seriously, would not these words, Most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, be very ill para­phrased after this manner, Most gladly therefore will I glory in my concupiscence? and I would fain know how it is possible for that which is naught in the Para­phrase, to be good in the Exposition; since a Paraphrase is no other but a verbal Ex­position?

14. Lastly you say, This hath and will be still sufficient to the worlds end, for milli­ons of good men to undertake the office of Priesthood, without needing either to marry or burn, especially if they will do as he did, not only assiduously pray, but also Castigo corpus meum, 1 Cor. 9. 27. Good Sir, how do you know that the married Cler­gy with us do not so, or that the unmat­ried [Page 65] Clergy with you do so? Did not Saint Peter do this as well as Saint Paul; and yet he was doubtless a married man. But I answer, I do find that men are bid abstain from marriage to fast and pray, not that they are bid fast and pray to ab­stain from marriage; nor have Priests any particular promise more then other men, that they shall be enabled to live perpetual Virgins by fasting and praying, that so they may fast and pray in faith of that promise; nor have they any particu­lar command more then other men to fast and pray to enable them to live perpetual Virgins, that so they may fast and pray in obedience to that command: And why should any man place Religion in that which neither is in faith, as to Gods pro­mise; nor from obedience, as to Gods com­mand? And whereas you speak of your millions of good men, I heartily wish it may be more then speech; but I have a fear, a suspition, nay a proof, that hitherto it hath been no more: For first your own Panormitane, as I find him quoted by my late Reverend and Learned Diocesan Bishop Davenant, makes me fear otherwise; for he saith expreslly, Credo pro bono & salute esset animarum ut volentes possent [Page 66] contrahere; I believe it would be for the good and salvation of souls, if they that will might marry: He means sure the Priests souls, and therefore thought many of them deeply plunged in sin for want of marriage.

Secondly the Testimony of your own Agrippa, makes me think otherwise; for he saith plainly of your Priests & Monks; Clanculum confluunt ad lupanaria, stu­prant sacras virgines, vitiant viduas, And puts his Quod ego scio & vidi, to their clancular yet prodigious abominations, and at last thus concludes, Et quarum animas lucrari debent Deo, Illarum cor­pora sacrificant Diabolo; Agrip. de van. scientiarum, cap. 64.

Thirdly, the authority of your own Espencaeus makes me say otherwise; for these are his words in his exposition, upon Titus 1. Turpissimum est quod & Cleri­cos cum concubinis, pellicibus, & meretri­cibus cohabitare, liberosque procreare sinunt, accepto ab eis, atque adeo alicubi a continentibus certo quotannis cansu: Ha­beat concubinam sive non habeat, aureum solvat & habeat si velit: I should have been ashamed of quoting these three Te­stimonies, had not your great boast con­strained [Page 67] it, but I am ashamed to English these quotations, though by so doing I should go near to overthrow your boast­ing. Indeed your own Cassander hath overthrown it; for this is his ingenuous profession and confession in this kind, That the want of able Ministers (ido­neorum Ministrorum inopia) is one cause amongst others, why the constitution which forbids the marriage of Priests in your Church, should be recalled; for that had kept many learned and picus men from the Ministry: So that for the most part no other young men entred into holy orders, but such as looked after a fat living, and a licentious life, unless it were some few who through unadvised­ness and inconsideration were brought in­to the snare: Praeter nonnulios qui im­prudenter & nondum sibi satis noti in la­queum inducuntur: And therefore saith plainly and positively, unless marriage be tolerated, they should scarce be able to find out fitting Ministers to supply the Church: Nisi conjugium toleretur, vix idonei Ecclesiae ministri in posterum qui­dem inveniri poterunt: Cassander in Consult. Art. 23.

And now considering that Truth is [Page 68] good in it self, and Virginity is good on­ly in order to another thing, sc. to righte­ousness: let any conscientious man judge, which of the two Priests is more in the state of sin and damnation; whe­ther he that is lawfully and righteously wedded to a wife, or he that is unlawful­ly and unrighteously wedded to such a false opinion; although as self-interest now steers Saint Peters ship, there is little hope that the one will part or be divorced from his opinion, as there is little honesty that the other should part or be divorced from his wife.

The Answer.

1. MY intent was to comfort the dying, not to contest with the living: To shew to penitent and belie­ving Christians, That for them to depart out of this life, is to be with Christ, be­cause it was so to Saint Paul and to the good thief before them: You are wil­ling to lay Purgatory in their way, which I look upon as a very stumbling block, fit on­ly to make their passage hence much more formidable, and much less comfortable; Nor can I find your Commission, as you are a Christian Divine, to break a bruised reed, and quench the smoaking flax; much less to throw it into the flames, to burn and to consume it: For sure it cometh nearer the office of Christ, (which is the founda­tion, should be the platform of yours) to preach good tidings to the meek, to bind up the broken-hearted, to comfort them that [...]ourn in Zion, to give beauty for ashes (not [Page 75] burning instead of beauty) the oyle of joy for m [...]urning, the garment of praise, (even the immaculate robe of our Savi­ours righteousness) for the Spirit of hea­viness, (Isa. 61.) For our Saviour Christ requiring the Ministers of his Gospel, sparingly to use even true frights in bringing obstinate sinners to rely on his merits and mediation, will never approve those who invent false fears to scare true Penitents that are actually with him, from their comfort and hold in him. 2. But this is rather to acquit my self. I come now to answer you, and say, That Saint Paul looked upon his life as that which gave him a being with the Philippians, and therefore was more advantagious to them: But he looked upon his death as that which would give him a being with Christ, and therefore would be more ad­vantagious to himself: This makes him desire rather to die then to live, because by his death he should so depart from the one, as to approach to the other: His dissolution was to be his admission into heaven, not his introduction towards it, to let him first into Purgatory, and from thence to transmit him unto Christ: This is Saint Chrysostoms exposition; He saith [Page 76] It is good to be dissolved and to be with Christ; for death or dissolution in it self is an indif­ferent thing, neither good nor bad; but it is bad when a man dies to be punished, (and sure Purgatory in your belief is a very great punishment) good when he so goes from men as to go to Christ: So that if you suppose his being dissolved and being with Christ were not both together in one and the same instant; Saint Chrysostom will tell you his dissolution was not good; and if not good, sure not desireable; And if good only for being with Christ, then de­sireable only for that being. 3. Yet you say, All the strength of my first argu­ment stands upon the desire: If so, it cannot stand upon the dissolution; and then it will follow, Saint Paul might be dissolved and not be with Christ; say then Saint Paul might go to Purgatory, to make your good Catholicks the more willing to go thither after him; But first so make them good Catholicks, as not to let them be bad Christians: For their desire to die so holily as to escape Purgatory, is too servile to make them good Christi­ans, even in the Heathen Poets divinity, Oderunt peccare mali formidine poenae, They are wicked men who hate to sin for fear [Page 77] of Punishment; Therefore if they desire to avoid sin meerly for fear of Purgato­ry, they are not good Catholicks: If for love of Christ, as their life is to be in him, so their death is to be with him, and that immediatly; for else not to be with him, but with some other before him; which made Saint Hierom to say concerning Nepotian, when he was but newly dead, Scimus Nepotianum nostrum esse cum Christo; corpus terra suscepit, Anima Christo red­dita est: (Hier. in Epitaph. Nepot.) We know that our Nepotian is with Christ, (you now say quite contrary, we know that he is not with Christ, for he is in Pur­gatory) the earth hath his body, but his Saviour bath his soul: See how he dispo­seth of a man that dies in the faith of Christ, His body goeth to the dust, but his soul goeth to Christ that redeemed it; Oh Sir, be not you so willing to allow, much less to make a separation betwixt Christ and good Christians, in that very instant which God hath appointed to con­summate their Union, since you find it so expresly said, That neither death nor depth (and sure Purgatory is a depth in your account) shall be able to separate us from the Love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our [Page 78] Lord, Rom. 8. 38. and much less shall it be able to separate us from Christ Jesus our Lord, of whom it is said, Jesus having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end, John 13. 1. Nay who hath said of himself, Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be where I am, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, Joh. 17. 24. This will of his was fulfilled not only in Saint Paul, who was given him by a miraculous conversion in his life, but also in the good thief, who was given him as a more mira­culous Convert just a little before his death; yet even he was told that he should be with Christ, not with torment­ed souls, immediately upon his dissolution, and that in Paradise, not in Purgatory: And I cannot see, may not say, That Christ is less willing to receive those who are now given him, (or shall be given him to the worlds end) then he was to receive that thief: And therefore I still say he was no priviledged person after his conver­sion to go to bliss sooner then other Pe­nitents, though he were indeed a privi­ledged person in regard of his conversion to be made a penitent, when his fellow thief, and many others, were still left in [Page 79] their impenitency, And that satisfies all the evidence you have produced against me either out of your Rhemish or out of your Romish Doctors, so that you may re­serve your Jo. Poean, Jo. Triumphe till ano­ther occasion; For that evidence makes not my assertion, (of his being no privi­ledged person) any whit more inevident; For he was not priviledged as to his death; but only as to his conversion: Wherefore since our blessed Saviour is still as ready to receive other true Penitents as he was the good thief, I hope you will not say he is ready to receive them in Purgatory, not in Paradise: For sure you are, if it were to be proved (as you assert) that Christ once shewed his glory in Purgato­ry, yet he doth not now shew it there, and therefore that cannot be the place for Christian souls to go to, when they depart from hence, because Christ himself hath said concerning them, I will that they be where I am, that they may be [...]old my glory: I will that they be where I am, not where I have been, for then they might still remain on the earth, or when they go hence, sooner go to Hell then to Pur­gatory, since it is without doubt (say your authors) Christ was once in Hell, but [Page 80] much doubted, whether he were once in Purgatory, because that is looked on as a fictitious Place, and so could not receive him: But in truth the words will have those who are given unto Christ, to go immediately unto Heaven; for that is our Saviours meaning, I will they be where I am, viz. in heaven, for there he then was in his Divinity (in which respect we are taught to say to him, Our Father which art in heaven) and I think you must have recourse to the Divinity of Christ to prove that the good thief enjoyed his promise to be with him that day in Para­dise, for his body was in the grave, and his humane soul in Hell, say you, and for ought we can prove, only his Divinity was in heaven: Wherefore whiles Christ was in the state of Humiliation, all those who were given him, were at their deaths with him as God; But now he is in the state of his Exaltation, all that are given him, are at their deaths with him not only as God, but also as man, that they may behold his glory, whether given him of the Father by eternal generation as God, or by tem­poral dispensation as man; And surely if they be with him that they may behold his glory, they cannot be in Purgatory; [Page 81] for neither he nor his glory is there: And how their faith can be so long suspended from Vision, their hope from comprehen­sion, their charity from fruition by the in­terposition of some continuance in Pur­gatory, not to be measured by time, for they are past that, nor by eternity, for they are not yet come to that, I cannot see without a great injury to their soul [...], which may not part with these Theologi­call vertues till they be fully perfected, and yet a greater injury to their Saviour, whose merit and satisfaction is not thought enough to perfect them. 4. As for those words, Bellarmine himself con­fesseth de Purgatorio incertum est; Tis clear by the context, they are to be under­stood only of the humane soul of Christ, that it is uncertain whether that were ever in Purgatory or no; for I said, The good Thief was without doubt to be with his Saviour, and therefore was to be in Paradise, not in Purgatory, since it was not without doubt that Christ was in Purgatory, but it was without doubt that he was in Paradise: And Bellarmine him­self hath said thus much in sense, though not in words, and I intending to meddle only with his sense, thought it needless to [Page 82] quote either Chapter or Book, since I thought his sense so known to all Papists, as not to be doubted, and so received by them as not to be denyed; For my busi­ness was a consolation of Protestants, (at such a time when they wanted it very much, and yet against such a time, when they might want it more) not a contesta­tion with Papists, and therefore I quoted only the substance of his doctrine, not the words of it, and not the place, be­cause not the words; which is not uncouth amongst serious Divines, though, as you say, it is amongst learned Antagonists: But since you have followed this quarrel­som age, which will not let Catholik Di­vines and honest men, either live securely, or die peaceably, that you might be my Antagonist, and have turned that into Controversie, which I intended only for peaceable Divinity, (for I was not then in case to answer a challenge, much less to send one) you have made it necessary for me to quote the very place, that I may not be thought to have misquoted the thing. The place I pointed at in Bellarmine was lib. 4. de Christo, cap. 16. (the very same which after your long excursion you have alledged, as you think, against me, but in [Page 83] truth for me) Probabile est profecto Christi animam ad omnia loca inferni de­scendisse, It is probable that Christs hu­mane soul, descended to all the places of Hell; I knowing that he reckoned Purgatory for one of those places, took this for his sense, It is probable that Christs humane soul went down into Purgatory. But Logick having taught me that what was asserted only as probable, was acknowledged as uncertain, I put his sense in such words as I thought most suitable to my purpose, saying, Bellarmine himself confesseth De Purgatorio incertum est, that is in plain English, (since my Latine had so ill luck) Bellarmine himself confesseth it is uncertain concerning Purgatory whether Christs hu­mane soul went thither or no; which is clear­ly his own doctrine by undenyable conse­quence: For he only saith, It is probable Christs humane soul went down into Pur­gatory; which is all one as if he had said, It is uncertain that Christs humane soul went down into Purgatory: For if it be but probable it was so, it is also probable it was not so, and therefore uncertain it was so; This is all Bellarmine doth say, and this is more then he doth prove: Nay his proofs make his assertion altogether [Page 84] improbable, if not impossible: For all the proofs he brings concerning Christs de­scent, do speak only of Hell properly so called, not of Purgatory; As that of Ful­gentius, Ubi solebant peccatorum animae torqueri, He went thither where the souls of sinners had used to be tormented: Whereas Purgatory, though a place of torment ac­cording to his doctrine, yet is it not so for the souls of sinners, but for the souls of the righteous: And that other proof he brings from all the Fathers at once, is like to this: Et ipsi patres dum describunt terrorem gehennae & daemonnm in de­scensu Christi, aperte indicant Christum praesentiam suam illis manifestasse. And the Fathers describing the frights and fears of Hell and the Devils in Christs descent, do plainly shew that Christ did manifest his pre­sence to them: I think you will not allow this to be spoken of Purgatory; for then you must make it all one with Hell, and take it for a place of Devils, not of righte­ous Spirits, which after they have been purged in flames from the reliques of their sins not expiated by their own for­mer penance, nor their friends after pay­ments, are sure to see the face of God.

5. This is all the certainty I find in Bellar­mine, [Page 85] of Christs descending into Purga­tory, and this I look upon as a very great uncertainty: But you look upon this as a great certainty, in that you give a reason for it, saying, it was to take possession of his whole Kingdom; say then, Purgatory is a part of Christs Kingdom, and if Christ did not take possession of this part amongst the rest, you do nòt believe He did take possession of the whole: But take heed whiles you say so, that they who are against you and deny Purgatory, tax you not of blasphemy, for saying that which is not in being, is a part of Christs King­dom, (for to make Christ a King in Uto­pia, in a place which is not, is to make him no King:) And that they who are with you, and affect purgatory, tax you not of infidelity, for believing that Christ hath taken possession of his whole Kingdom up­on no better grounds, then upon a meer uncertainty.

6. For even your own Bellarmine, though in his first Book de Purgatorio, he writ so confidently, as if all men were bound to believe Purgatory that will be saved, yet in his second Book de circum­stantiis Purgatorii, He writes so ambigu­ously, as to enfeeble any unprejudicate [Page 86] mans belief; I will give you some few in­stances, and then leave you to judge what small reason he had for his so great confi­dence.

Cap. 6. de loco Purgatorii, He saith, The Church hath not defined in what place Purgatory is, for that the purgation of souls may be in many places, and some are purged where they sinned: but after several other opinions he seems to like that best which placeth Purgatory in the bowels of the earth, because of several eruptions of fire out of the earth, in several parts of the world: Be it so, if we must needs have a Purgatory, that they may have the great­est share in it, and terrour from it, who were once the first inventers, and now are the chiefest maintainers of it, even the Italian Monks and Fryers; for the most notorious eruptions of fire, in these parts of the world, are either in Italy, as at Mount Vesuvius, or not far from it, as at Mount Aetna in Sicily.

Cap. 9. De tempore quo durat Purga­torium; Of the time that Purgatory lasteth, which is as uncertain as the place; Quando ab hoc loco in coelum avolant res est incertissima, How long the souls must stay in Purgatory before they can get to [Page 87] heaven, is a matter of the greatest uncer­tainty.

Cap. 10. & 11. Qualis sit purgatorii poena; The quality of the Torment in Pur­gatory is as uncertain as either the time or place: De poenâ Purgatorii quaedam sunt certa, quaedam dubia; As concerning the punishment of Purgatory, some things are certain, some are doubtfull: Certa sunt Carentia visionis, & poena sensus, & poena ignis: Tis certain (saith he) the souls in Purgatory are under the punishment of loss for want of the beatifical vision, and are un­der the punishment of sense by torment of fire: Do they want the beatificall vision? say then God hath thus sentenced them at their particular Judgement, Depart from me ye cursed, and let them hereafter be ac­counted not blessed but cursed souls, not in a Communion with God, but in a separa­tion from him; yet in saying so, remember you bid your best Champion recall even the very subject of this whole Contro­versie (which indeed is the best, if not the only way to end it) De Ecclesiâ quae est in Purgatorio, of the Church which is in Purgatory; for that cannot be a part of Gods Church, which is in a separation from God: And sure I am your Cardinal [Page 88] is beholding to the latter part of this same sentence, to prove that souls in Pur­gatory, are under the punishment of sense by fire; for he proveth it by these words, Ite in ignem aeternum, Go into everlasting fire, (Mat. 25.) And why not also prove their punishment of loss in the want of the beatifical vision, from the first part of the same sentence, Depart from me ye cursed? For the same sentence denounceth the judgement of loss and of sense; of loss in Depart from me ye cursed; and of sense, in Go into everlasting fire: And we may fan­cy the one to be Temporarie as well as the other, and to belong to righteous souls as much as the other; but surely the Text saith both are eternal, and belong on­ly to the cursed: And indeed tis a strange proof, which brings Hell to prove Pur­gatory; yet this is the best he can find in all the Scripture: For here he proves that material fire can punish immaterial souls, because it was provided to punish the De­vil and his Angels, which are immaterial spirits: But still the proof concerneth only Hell fire; so that in plain truth, He alledgeth hell to prove Purgatory: All the doubt is, how he can make it so: This proof is yet further enlarged in the next Chap­ter, [Page 89] where he answers some chief doubts concerning Purgatory, as, whether it be a true real fire, and how it can act upon separated souls? and both are answered from these words, Go ye cursed into ever­lasting fire: Ignem Purgatorii esse cor­poreum, quia in Scripturis passim poena impiorum vocatur Ignis; Et regula Theo­logorum est, ut verba Scripturarum acci­piantur propriè, quando nihil absurdi se­quitur: The fire of Purgatory is corporeal; for commonly in the Scripture, the punish­ment of the wicked is called fire, (what is the punishment of the wicked to the righteous? or must men turn wicked, that they may go to Purgatory?) and it is a rule of Divines, That the words of Scri­pture are to be taken properly, if there follow no absurdity; and a little after, Corpora damnatorum puniuntur igne, Mat. 25. Ite in ignem aeternum: est autem idem ignis corporum damnatorum & spirituum corpore vacantium; nam ibidem dicitur, qui paratus est diabolo & Angelis ejus: The bodies of the damned are punished with fire, (Go into everlasting fire, Mat. 25.) but it is the same fire which punisheth their bo­dies, and other souls or spirits without bodies, as it is said, Which is pre­pared [Page 90] for the Devil and his Angels.

Pray Sir, why should any Christian be taught to desire to go to that fire which was prepared for the Devil and his An­gels? and if he do once go thither, how shall he ever return from thence? And yet your Cardinal would have us believe Purgatory, that we may have the happi­ness to go thither; and saith, if we do not, we shall burn for ever in Hell-fire: A new Apostle sure, he speaks not only so resolutely, but likewise so authentically, yet not dropt down (as the rest) from Mount Sion, bùt from Mount Sina, as we may guess by his Thunder and Lightning, Seriously, it is a sad thought for all good Christians, that any Divine should (after Nadab and Abihu) dare offer strange fire, for God is not well pleased with such an offering: But it is a joyful thought for us poor Protestants, that this fire of Pur­gatory is not only a strange, but also a false fire; for so we are sure it cannot burn us: Else, it seems, after it hath been your Purgatory, it should be our Hell; However it is palpable, That your Cardi­nals talk only is of Purgatory, but his proof is of Hell; Thus himself hath brought his certainties concerning Purgatory into [Page 91] doubts, and his doubts into nothing: Nay in truth his last doubt in this 11. Chapter is a meer nothing of it self, An per se agant istae poenae, Whether those pnnish­ments do act upon the souls by and of them­selves? For to think accidents can act of themselves, is to think them substances; and to think they can act upon immaterial souls, is to think them above the best sub­stances; And to think they can act upon blessed souls, is to think them above the substance of substances, above God him­self; For the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, neither doth any grief hurt them, Wisdom 3. 1. or rather, and there shall no torment touch them; The Latine translation Et non tanget illos tormen­tum mortis; And the torment of death shall not touch them, is too short by being too long; hath taken from the Text by add ng to it; for putting in mortis, and saying the Torment of death shall not touch them, seems to allow that Torment after death may touch them; But the Greek Origi­nal is plain, [...], Et non tanget illos tormentum, And no torment at all shall touch them; sc. after once they may be truly said to be in the hands of God, as resigned unto him, ac­cording [Page 92] to that most comfortable Resig­nation sanctified unto us by the Spirit of God which made it, and by the Son of God which used it; In manus tuas com­mendo spiritum meum; Into thy hands Lord I commend my spirit; It was alwaies in thy hands, by thy dominion and Tuition; But now it is more peculiarly in thy hands, by my own resignation; The souls of the Righteous are alwaies in Gods hands as their Governor, but more peculiarly at the hour of death as their Receiver and Possessor: For they no sooner go from their own bodies, but they go into his hands; and being there, no grief can hurt them, no more then it can hurt him, or take them out of his hands: And sure we are, he will not hurt them, for he doth not receive them with one hand, that he may torment them with the other; so saith the voice from heaven, (and it is both shame and sin for any voice from earth to say otherwise) Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord; for they rest from their la­bours, and their works do follow them, Apoc. 14. 13. That is, their good works, to pro­cure their reward, not their evil works to procure their punishment (such as you teach to be in Purgatory) for thats not [Page 93] agreeable with their rest, nor consistent with their blessedness: And I desire to know how he can say to God at his death, Into thy hands I commend my spirit, who be­lieves the Torments of Purgatory, by which, (for ought you dare avow to the contrary) he may be in the hands of the Devil.

Again, Cap. 12. Sciri non posse in hac vita, quomodo ignis corporeus Animas urat: It cannot be known in this life how material fire can burn immaterial souls; let me add, much less how it can purge them, or expiate the reliques of their sins; for though we read that fire is an instru­ment of Gods Justice, and so may punish immaterial spirits; yet we do not read that it is an instrument of Gods Grace; that it should purge or expiate them.

Cap. 13. An in purgatorio torquen­tur Animae à daemonibus: Whether or no in Purgatory the souls are tormented by the Devils? Concerning which he answers, Res est omnino incerta: It is a a thing al­together uncertain; This is the second time he hath answered us with that very word; so we see he could be confident, where he could not be certain; But in this case we have reason to believe him; For there [Page 94] are divers several opinions concerning it; so the doctrine is uncertain as to the Be­lievers; and not one of those opinions but hath an objection stronger then its proof; so the doctrine is uncertain as to the belief; For some say the souls in Pur­gatory are tormented by the good An­gels; but how come they from being their friends and Guardians, to be their ene­mies and tormentors? Others say, That they are tormented by the Devils (and to this Bellarmine inclines, because forsooth the pretended Revelations have avowed it) But how comes the Devil from being conquered by them whiles they were in the infirmities of the flesh, to be a Conquerour over them when they are nothing but pure spirits? Doth God say, Resist the Devil and he will fly from you, (James 4. 7.) and shall men say, The Devil comes as a Conquerour upon them who have most resisted him? Doth the Church pray That God would beat down Satan under our feet; and have we no better benefit of that prayer, Then that God should per­mit Satan to get up even over our Head? Others say, they are tormented by the fire, meaning I suppose, as it is directed and assisted by the hand of God; But how [Page 95] comes God so low in their esteem as to do that, which they do not think fit to be done by his meanest good Angel? Why must that office of an Executioner become him, which is unbecoming his most infe­riour Minister? Besides, how can his Ju­stice which hath been satisfied by Christ, require a second satisfaction? Or where hath God declared that he will allow his Justice to be thus satisfied? We dare not deny, That Gods Justice is fully satis­fied in Christ for penitent Sinners, because himself hath said, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, Mat. 3. which were nothing to us, if he were not well pleased with all that flie to Christ, or ra­ther that are in Christ, for Christs sake; yet sure not well pleased, if his Justice be not fully satisfied, since Justice first and then Charity, is a rule not to be violated or broken on earth, much less in heaven: Again, our blessed Saviours fore-runner thus proclaimed concerning him, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1. 29. If he hath taken them away, they cannot be left behind, ei­ther for our guilt or for our punishment; since guilt is nothing else but an obligati­on to punishment; for that were to say, [Page 96] He hath taken them away, so as to leave them behind, for us to take them away; which is in effect to deny him to be the Propitiation for our sins, against the express word of God, John 2. 2. and consequent­ly not only against the benefits, but also against the belief of our own souls: where­fore we dare not deny, That Gods justice is fully satisfied in Christ; and if we dare, we shall not know where to find him any other satisfaction; for he hath not allow­ed or appointed any other; and sure no satisfaction can give him content, but such as himself hath allowed and appoint­ed: And indeed that is the only satisfacti­on which is adequate to his offended Ju­stice, the satisfaction made by his Son, not by the sinner, either in doing or in suffer­ing, because there is no proportion be­twixt an infinite Justice, and a finite satis­faction: This considered, may I not be as gross an Ebionite or Cherinthian, by say­ing there is a necessity of penal satisfaction, as if I say, there is a necessity of legal ob­servations for the expiation of sin? do not both alike diminish and disparage the effi­cacy of Christs death? Or may I think that the Church of Christ by using the power of the Keyes in retaining sins, in­tends [Page 97] to retain where Christ remits, to wi [...], in the true Penitent, to the undervaluing of Christs merit in purchasing remission of sins, and Gods free grace and mercy in granting it, and Gods holy Spirit in te­stifying it: Therefore I must let the satis­faction enjoyned by the Church, die with the Penitent, and not be required of him after death, unless I will suppose the Church both able and willing to bind where Christ hath loosed; For if Christ loose not the sinner here, I do not find up­on what grounds to believe That he will loose him hereafter: So that we see if sa­tisfaction is to be made by the sinner, All must go to Purgatory, and for ought we can prove, tarry there eternally. And so Purgatory will in truth be Hell. If satis­faction hath been made by Christ, then none at all can justly go thither: And so Purgatory will in truth be Nothing; cer­tain it is, no other satisfaction was given for all the offences of the good Thief, though he were not a Penitent till the hour of his death; and with what colour of Truth can any Divine teach that God will not take this satisfaction (and this alone) for all other Penitents? And yet this (in Bellarmines acount) is one [Page 98] of the two supporters of Purgatory; the other is Venial sins, which may also be shaken in good time.

In a word, The Place, the Time, the Quality of Torment, the manner of tor­menting, the Tormentor, and the cause or end for which souls are said to be tor­mented in Purgatory are all uncertain; and how can the torment it self be taken for a certainty? For it is not any mans con­fidence can make that certain, which is in­vested with so many intrinsecal doubts and ambiguities, nor any mans arguments can make that credible, which is not cer­tain: But besides the uncertainty w [...] meet with in this temporary Torment [...] which will not suffer us to believe it, w [...] find it casts an uncertainty upon that eter­nal Torment which we confess our selve [...] bound to believe: For as you rightly say [...] Nothing is more certain amongst Christia [...] then what is de fide, of Divine Faith: So crave leave to inferr from that sayin [...] Nothing is to be affirmed de fide, of divi [...] faith among Christians, which is not ce [...] ­tain, unless we will labour to overthro [...] the Certainty of the Christian faith; F [...] to require men to believe an uncertai [...] equally with a certainty, is to invite the [...] [Page 99] to disbelieve a certainty, since it is not possible they should have one and the same Divine Faith for uncertainties and for certainties: And therefore to teach men to believe Purgatory which is uncer­tain, is the ready way to make them not believe Hell, which is most cer­tain.

Nor is it to be wondered, That Bellar­mines certainties concerning this doctrine should be so much enfeebled by his own uncertainties concerning the same, no more then it is to be wondered that the certainty of our Christian saith should depend, not upon the wit of man, but up­on the word of God.

7. For this doctrine of Purgatory is so far from being taught in the Word of God, that if you should ask those Dis­ciples who have been most and best instru­cted in the Word, Have ye received the doctrine of Purgatory since ye believed? They must answer you, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Purga­tory; and yet the same men will plainly tell you, They have heard there is an holy Ghost and have received him; though your over-bold Peltanus would perswade the world, That Purgatory is as expresly taught [Page 100] in the holy Scriptures, as the Unity of God, and yet that is a little more expresly taught then the Deity of the Holy Ghost, though (blessed be God) the Scripture is very express in both these Doctrines: But in the whole Book of God there is neither in words nor in sense, neither ex­plicitly nor implicitly any such thing as your Purgatory, which we cannot say concerning any Article of the Christian Faith, That the thing we are bound to be­lieve is not so much as really or virtually named in all the Holy Bible: For an sit is as truly a precognition in the object of faith, as in the subject of any question, by that Rule of the Apostle, (if reason will not serve) How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a Preacher? Rom. 10. 14. We cannot believe what we have heard, we cannot hear any supernatural truth, unless God preach it; and if he hath been the Preacher, we may find the do­ctrine in his written Word; which the most zealous defenders of this your do­ctrine, durst not assert in former times: For a very eminent Schoolman of our own Cou [...]rey, (Iohannis Bach [...]nus, lib. 4. dist. 45. qu [...]unica) answers all the [Page 101] Texts that were in his daies commonly al­ledged out of the Bible to prove Purga­tory, which were then but three, though since they have swelled into a far greater number.

The first Text was that of 2 Mac. 12. To which his answer is, Libri Macchabae­orum non sunt de Canone Bibliae, ut dicit Hieronymus; The Books of the Maccha­bees are not of the Canon of the Bible, as saith Saint Hierom: Nor doth your Car­dinals new subtilty invalidate this answer, Dico librum Maccha. non esse Canonicum apud Judaeos, sed apud Christianos esse, I say the Books of the Macchabees were not Canonical among the Jews, but they are among the Christians; For the Christian Church had the Canon of the Old Testa­ment from the Church of the Jews, who not daring to make themselves a Canon, took that which God gave them, and therefore left out the Macchabees, be­cause they were not in the Ark, that is to say, not in that Canon which God had given them: Nor hath God given the Christian Church power and authority to make that or any other Book Canonical, which himself hath not made so; for the Text is plain which saith, To them were [Page 102] committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3. 2. Which words only shew a Trust of keep­ing, not a power of making the Oracles of God, either in Jew or Christian.

The second Text then alledged to prove Purgatory, was that of 1 Cor. 3. To which his answer is, That the Apostle there speaketh of that fire which shall burn the world at the day of Judgement; therefore that place will not prove such a a purging by fire as the Doctors suppose, before the day of Judgement; Benè pro­batur Purgatio ista conflagrationis in die judicii, non ista purgatio quam Doctores ponunt ante diem judicii: Mark his words, He saith the Doctors, not the Apostles, had been the Teachers of Purga­tory. Yet this is the Text your Cardinal most magnifies, (lib. 1. cap. 5.) as fittest to prove both this fire and its fewel, both Purgatory and Venial sins, though a very learned interpreter of his own Church Erasmus had avowed before, that it was not sufficient to prove it either; and in truth in that himself hath confessed it to be one of the hardest Texts of all the Scri­pture, (unum ex difficillimis) he hath in effect discredited his own proof; For no Divine may laudably take that Text to [Page 103] prove an Article of Faith, whose obscuri­ty is fitter to shew men their ignorance, then to remedy it: For God doth not ob­lige any man to an impossibility to believe that which he cannot know, or to know that which he cannot understand; and therefore to say the place is very obscure, and yet to ground an Article of Faith upon it, is in effect to say, There ought to be a belief where there is not an under­standing; or there ought to be an under­standing where the thing is not to be un­derstood: For sure God is not defective in necessaries; and therefore if this do­ctrine had been necessary to salvation, he would not have delivered it so obscurely, as to leave the unlearned under a most ir­remediable ignorance, which is inconsistent with the knowledge of Faith; nor the learned under most inextricable doubts and perplexities, which are incompetible with the assent of Faith: So that this text makes no more for the belief of Purgato­ry, then the former.

The third and last Text then alledged to prove Purgatory, was that of Mat. 12. to which the forenamed Author answers, Non sequitur, non remittitur hic ne (que) in futuro, ergo utrobique est remissio, Quia [Page 104] ex negativis nihil sequitur, sed tantum di­citur ad majorem gravitatem peccati blasphemiae: It follow [...] not, because it is said, It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come, that for­giveness may be had both here and there; for nothing can follow from meer negatives; But this is only spoken by way of aggravati­on against the sin of blasphemy. Thus that judicious man answers this Text, and I think you can scarce shew any of your writers that have exceqted against his an­swers: But the very same answers in Peter Martyrs mouth much displease your Car­dinal, (lib. 1. cap. 4.) For first he excepts against that part of it, That the words were spoken by way of aggravation, and tells us, That by the same reason we may deny Hell it self; and say those other words, [Go ye cursed into everlasting fire] were spoken only by way of aggravation: Pray let another add after him, that we may as well deny heaven too, and say that those words in the Creed, I believe the life everlasting, were spoken only by way of aggravation, that so if we will not have a Purgatory, we may not have an Heaven, as well as not have an Hell in our Creed: But if you think this in forme too irreligi­ous, [Page 105] pray think the other so too, which caused it, and you will not approve your Cardinal as the only Master of Gods Is­rael, who is so ready to teach men to turn Atheists, if they will not turn Papists. For all the Christian Churches many years be­fore us, and most Christian Churches at this day with us, have no belief of your Pur­gatory, and yet firmly believe both Hea­ven and Hell; For both are alike contain­ed in the same Article, to wit, the life ever­lasting, which teacheth us to believe this Truth, [They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil shall go into everlasting fire] But we have no third state of those who have neither done good nor evil, but partly good, and partly evil; Good by avoiding mortal sins, or repenting of them; but evil by committing venial sins, and not repenting of them: Or good by repent­ing, but evil by not satisfying: And we have no third place for this third state of men to go into, a place in which is neither everlasting life by it self, nor everlasting fire by it self; but a strange kind of med­ly, which is made up partly of life, and partly of fire, only the life of it is ever­lasting, but the fire of it is temporary, not [Page 106] everlasting; so yon see we may very well deny Purgatory, and yet not so much as doubt of Hell, because that very Article which teacheth us to believe everlasting fire, teacheth us not to believe temporary fire.

But your Cardinal hath another exce­ption against this exposition; Exaggeratio non debet esse inepta, qualis est quum fit partitio, & uni membro nihil respondet. An exaggeration ought not to be improper and unfit, as that is which makes a Partiti­on, and leaves nothing to answer one member of it. Pray Sir who can imagine, That Negatives are capable of a Partition, any more then meer non entities, and therefore an exaggeration grounded upon nega­tives, may not be supposed to make a par­tition, because a non entity cannot be sup­posed to have any parts or members: As if I should say of a confirmed Christian, He is not to be made a Papist or a Turk, what partition is here of Christians into Papists and Turks?

8. Secondly he excepts against that an­swer, Nothing can follow from meer Ne­gatives; As Philip King of Spain is not King of Venice, therefore some other man is King of Venice; it follows not, saith Peter [Page 107] Martyr, by good Logick, because it is grounded upon a negative: So here, It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come; it follows not, There shall be forgiveness in the world to come: The Cardinal excepts, saying, It follows not according to the rules of Logick, but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence, because otherwise we should suppose our Saviour had spoken most unfitly or improperly; nay (in plain terms) most foelishly: Respondeo non sequi se­cundum regulas Dialecticorum, id quod inferimus ex verbis Domini, sed tamen se­qui secundum regulam Prudentiae, quia alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptissimè loquutum. An horrid blasphemy to say the eternal Word spake impertinently, or Wisdom it self spake foolishly, unless we may set up a false consequence to make his words good.

Is not this contrary to the wise mans advice, Ne dixeris quia ipse me implana­vit; Say not thou He hath caused me err, for he hath no need of the sinfull man, Eccl. 15. 12. Let an insolent Dogmatist say what he pleaseth; but a conscientious Di­vine must say, God needs not my Lye to maintain his Truth, no more then he needs m [...] [Page 108] sin to maintain his righteousness: For a con­sequence without the Rules of Logick is a Lye, since it is a conclusion without pre­mises, an effect without a cause, or a Con­sequent without an Antecedent, that is a meer nothing, but pretending to be som­thing it is no longer a meer nothing; for it is a Lye, which is worse then nothing. I say, A Consequence without the rules of Logick, is a Lye, and I am forced to say it as a Christian Divine, That I may not be­tray the Truth of Christ, nor bely the Church of Christ: For how many Truths doth the Church of Christ teach me to believe, which are Divine Truths only as they are Logical Consequences, whereas it is palpable, A Logical Consequence can­not be a Truth, but an Unlogical Conse­quence must be a Lye. I will instance but in one; The Monothelite who said Christ had but one will, is condemned for an Heretick by the sixt general Council; and yet it is only a Logical Consequence, That Christ had two wills, from this Antece­dent, That two compleat rational Na­tures must have two wills; Whence com­eth this Syllogism, Two compleat rational Natures must have two wills: Christ had two compleat rational Natures, (sc. the [Page 109] nature of God, and the nature of man) Therefore Christ had two wills: Here is a Truth inferred by Logical Consequence, which hath a Being in it self, and chargeth them for Hereticks who deny it, because it is a Divine Truth; whereas such infe­rences as are only from Prudential not Logical Consequences, have no being save in the fancy of him that makes them, and therefore Charges all with Heresie that believe them, because they are not Divine Truths, but only humane imagina­tions: For it is an heresie to believe that for a divine Truth, which God hath not taught in his Word, neither explicitly nor implicitly, neither as a doctrine, nor as a deduction; neither as a Theological Prin­ciple, nor as a Logical Conclusion; For such a belief doth not only set up Fancy, or rather Falsity instead of Truth, or man instead of God for the author of our Faith, but it also disbelieveth that Truth, whereof God is the undoubted Author: For he which believeth that which God hath not taught concerning any Truth must needs in some respect not believe that which God hath taught concerning the same Truth; as in this particular case concerning the remission of sins, He that be­lieveth [Page 110] remissionn of sins in the next world which God hath not taught, must needs not fully believe remission of sins in this world, which God hath taught: For what sins are left to be remitted there, cannot be remitted here; so I must not be­lieve remission of all sins here (though upon never so earnest a repentance, never so true a faith) that I may believe the re­mission of some sins hereafter: So dan­gerous a thing is it for any Divine to set up rules of prudence, (rather of impru­dence) instead of rules of Logick, that is to say, Phantastical additions, instead of rational deductions; even as dangerous as to teach men to believe a Lye, instead of believing Truth; For what is inferred from any Text of Scripture by Logical consequence, is a Theological conclusion, and may not be disbelieved without an affront to God the Author of Logick, that is, of Reason; But what is inferred with­out Logick, is not a Theological conclu­sion, but a Phantastical Addition, and may not be received by us either as Christians, because it comes not from God; nor as men, because it comes not by Reason: And I think such a conclusion is that of the same Cardinals, (lib. 3. de euch. c. 7.) [Page 111] Per divinam Potentiam posse ab homine tolli facultatem intelligendi, interim ut maneat Homo; That by Gods Almighty power may be taken from a man the faculty of understanding, and he may still remain a man: A Consequence doubtless from the first Article of our belief (I believe in God the Father Almighty) but inferred only by the Rules of this new prudence, not by the Rules of old sound Logick, and therefore to be looked upon as a meer fi­ction; for it supposeth an Impotency in Omnipotency, as if God could deny him­self, working contradiction, and making a man not a man, a reasonable creature not a reasonable creature at the same time and in the same respect: But how­ever this Consequence hath found us out a man fit to believe other such like Con­sequences; For such Consequences are clearly without Reason, and therefore the man that can believe them, had need be a man without Reason.

9. But it is high time to leave your Cardinal (whom yet I had not traced so far, had it not been to follow your foot­steps) and since our Countrey-man could not, his own Countrey-man shall stop his mouth: For Saint Thomas of [Page 112] Aquine as good an Italian as himself, and a far better Divine, seeth here no remis­sion of sins in the next world, but pro­veth the contrary both out of Saint Au­gustine, and out of Saint Chrysostom, in his Commentary upon this Text, that is, out of the two chiefest Doctors both of the Greek and of the Latine Church: And he sets down Saint Chrysostoms ex­position with the approbation not only of its Truth, but also of its perspicuity: Chrysostomus valdè planè exponit, & di­cit, &c. Saint Chrysostom expounds this place very plainly, and saith, That we are here told of a twofold blasphemy, one against the Son of God, calling him a wine-bibber, and for this they had some excuse because of their ignorance; The other against the Spirit of God, calling him Beelzebub, and for this they had no excuse, because they were suffici­ently instructed in the Scriptures, (that evil spirits could not be cast out by an evil spi­rit, but by the good Spirit, that is the Spirit of God) and therefore this blasphe­my should not be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come, which (saith he) is spoken upon this ground: Be­cause some sins are punished in this world, some in the next, some both in this and that; [Page 113] The sins punished only in this world, are those of Penitents, (yet your Purgatory will needs punish them, and only them in the next world) The sins punished only in the next world, are those of miscreants, of whom it is said, Job 21. 13. In a moment they go down into Hell; But the sin which is punished in this world and in the next, is the sin against the Holy Ghost: Therefore it is said concerning that sin, [...]t shall not be for­given neither in this world, nor in the world to come, Non quia sit remissio in futuro, sed quia poena erit in futuro, unde sensus est, quod non remittitur quin poenam pa­tiatur in hoc seculo & in futuro, Not be­cause there is any forgiveness in the next world, but because there shall be punishment in the next world; wherefore the meaning is, It shall not be forgiven, but he shall suffer punishment for it, both in this and in the next world: Thus the Angelical Doctor ex­poundeth this Text, and his Exposition stood good a long time, and was generally received in the Latine Church; for your own Ferus hath followed it, saying, Mi­nus dicit, plus significat; vult enim quod non solum in futuro, sed etiam hic punitur tale peccatum: He speaks little, but he signifies much; for his meaning is, That [Page 114] such a sin is punished not only in the next world, but also in this.

10. Your late Jesuites tell us of a re­mission of the sin, with a reservation of the punishment; but your old Divines take remitting for not punishing, without which in truth it cannot be remission; For God doth not afford us a less forgiveness, then he doth require us to afford one another, and that is so to forgive the sin, as not once to think of punishing or of reveng­ing it: For indeed to forgive sin, is no­thing else in its own nature, but not to reserve it to be punished; and because God punished our Saviour for our sins, it is said, He made him sin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. For so Christ took our sin upon him, that is to say, not our Guilt but our Punishment; and he took it upon himself, that he might not leave it upon us; For he was wounded for our transgressions, Isa. 53. 5. He was bruised for our iniquities; (that is, He was punished, that we might be acquitted) The chastisement of our peace was upon him, that is, His chastisement was our Peace) and with his stripes we are healed. And bles­sed be God we are so; for sure it is, we could never be healed with our own stripes; it is his wounds work our cure, [Page 115] and not our own; yet I will not follow Scotus, who to confute them that denyed contingency, did say, It is pitty but such men should be under torments, till they should confess it were possible for them not to be tor­mented; I will not say in like manner, It is pitty but they who deny our souls to be heal­ed with our Saviours stripes, should them­selves be beaten with many stripes, till they should confess that their own stripes could not heal them; for then I know they would be under the lash for ever; But I must say, That it were just with God to put them under such a confutation; For they are under a gross denyal, not of a Metaphysical, but of a Theological Truth, and that of such a Truth as hath joyned Gods Mercy and Justice both together in mans salvation, and therefore such a Truth as may not be denyed without great uncharitableness to man, and greater unthankfulness to God.

I think few of those men who now most stand upon this new Divinity of re­mission in the next world to be obtained by our own stripes and others suffrages, because it brings them so good a market, would be willing at their deaths to ven­ture their souls upon it, for fear it should [Page 116] bring them as bad a remedy; And I can­not but wonder at your Cardinal, who hath said concerning this Text, Hinc col­ligunt Sancti Patres, quaedam peccata re­mitti in futuro seculo, per orationes & suffragia Ecclesiae, (Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 4.) Hence the holy Fathers do gather that some sins are forgiven in the next world, by the prayers and the suff ages of the Church; for he could not say this, if Saint Thomas said true, without putting Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom out of the Catalogue of the Fathers.

11. I know our Country-man Backet was swayed by Saint Augustine to con­clude for Purgatory; but I fear either he mis-applyed or mis-understood Saint Au­gustine, or Saint Augustine mis-understood himself; For Saint Augustine hath most dogmatically determined against it, lib. 13. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. In requie sunt animae piorum à corpore separatae, Impi­orum autem poenas luunt, donec istarum ad aeternam vitam, illarum vero ad aeter­nam mortem corpora reviviscant: The souls of the righteous are in rest, of the un­righteous in torment, after they are separated from the flesh, till the bodies of the one shall be raised again to eternal life, the bo­dies [Page 117] of the other to eternal death.

12. But he that will not teach Fancy in­stead of Faith, must take God for the Author, and Gods Church for the Pillar and ground of that Truth which he teach­eth; else he may chance rove in uncertain­ties to the worlds end, especially if he shall take Metaphorical allusions for dogmatical conclusions, and florid decl [...]mations for solid determinations, as Divines now usually are on all sides in their citations out of [...]he Fathers upon any argument, making some of them speak against their own doctrine, to speak for new devices, and in effect to write contradictions, rather then not write for the great Diana of these clamor­ous Ephesians: Therefore I will not here examine the citations of the Fathers; for surely A Christian Divine is bound to teach no other Faith for Christian, then such as hath been manifestly declared in the Word of Christ, and generally and constantly professed by the Catholick Church of Christ: And your Cardinal finds not so muth as the word Purgatory in all the Scriptures, nor in any one gene­ral Council, till the fourth of Laterane under nnocent the third, above twelve hundred years after Christ, which was as far [Page 118] from being Oecumenical, as Rome is from being all the Christian world; and if it had been so, yet hath only furnished us with Consultations, not with Canons or Constitutions, your own Platina being my witness, who saith thus in the life of Inno­cent the third, Venere multa in consulta­tionem, nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit; Many things were debated, but nothing was openly decreed in this Coun­cil; and I hope you will not say that they passed their decrees in private, or by any underhand dealing; An observation that may weaken some of your other Tenents no less then Purgatory, which you ob­trude upon the consciences of men as established by the Canons of this Coun­cil, which in truth made no Canons at all, if your own Platina be worth be­lief.

13. Next I meet with your Cardinals Reasons, whereof some do rather put, then prove this new Article of Faith, (con­trary to Aquinas, who allows not of Ratio ponens, but only of Ratio probans radicem fidei, par. 1. qu. 32. art. 1. ad 2.) arguing not so much from the authority of Gods Word, as against it: As parti­cularly that reason (lib. 1. cap. 11.) In­telligibile [Page 119] non est quomodo verbum ocio­sum ex naturâ suâ dignum sit perpetuo odio Dei; maneat igitur quaedam esse pec­cata venialia & solâ tempora [...]i poenâ dig­na; No man can understand how an idle word is in its own nature worthy of Gods eter­nal hatred; therefore let it stand for a Truth, that some sins are venial, and only worthy of temporal punishment: A strange way of arguing for a Divine, who should not ex­ercise his Readers curiosity, but establish his conscience: Christ saith, That for eve­ry idle word men shall give account in the day of Judgement, to make men repent before hand, even of their least sins, that judging themselves, they may not be judged of him; Bellarmine saith, It is not intelligible how a man should be judged for an idle word, and therefore it must be taken for such a picro, such a little sin as cannot come into Judgement: An ex­cellent Doctor sure to correct his master as if he had wanted Truth, and to corrupt his Scholars as if they did not want Re­pentance.

14. For this Text if rightly urged, will rather ptove no sin venial in its own nature, but only by Gods mercy: For if not an idle word is venial, then much less a [Page 120] greater sin; but not an idle word is venial for that shall be accounted for at the last day, if not repented of before, at least virtually in the contrition, if not actually in the confession: Thus he first makes bold with Gods Justice, proving some sins to be venial, that he may find or make matter for Purgatory, and afterwards he teacheth others to make as bold with Gods Mercy, that he may the better fol­low his proof; for he telleth us that a man may die a true penitent (for no other hath hopes of Purgatory) and yet die with a resolution of abiding in sin: Potest quis dùm moritur habere volunta­tem per gendi in peccato veniali, igitur tale peccatum deleri in morte non potest; A man when he dies may have the purpose of continuing in a venial sin, therefore such a sin is not to be abolished by death, He means a man in the state of grace, for no other is capable of the benefit of his purging flames: So he cares not to pull down re­pentance, that he may set up Purgatory; whereas sure it more suits with conscien­tious and sound Divinity, to pull down venial sins, to set up repentance: For it is not possible that man should die in the state of true repentance, who dyeth [Page 121] with a purpose of retaining any sin in his soul that displeaseth God; for by that very purpose he prefers his own will and pleasure above Gods, and therefore loves not God with all his heart, and conse­quently is not a true believer, because not a true lover; and not a true penitent, be­cause not a true believer: Surely this cannot be a doctrine of Piety which teacheth Impenitency, since no man now hath hopes of being righteous by his in­nocency, but only by his repentance: Nor had Saint Augustine such a light esteem of venial sins, if we may believe Gratian, Par. 1. dist. 25. cap. 3. For this was his do­ctrine, Nullum peccatum est adeò veni­ale, quod non fiat criminale dum placet; No sin is so venial but it may be made mor­tal if it please the sinner; and this it must do if he hath a will and purpose to con­tinue in it: And Consequently, if he die having such a will and purpose, his venial sin is become mortal, and by that means is made fewel for Hell, not for Purgatory; And so venial sin is also in danger of fal­ling, which is the other supporter of this your new building: Isto enim fundamen­to posito, quod tollitur satisfactio, & de­scrimen peccati mortalis à veniali, necessa­rio [Page 122] sequitur nullum esse Purgatorium: Bell. lib. 1. c. 2. This foundation being laid, that there is not satisfaction for sin (sc. of our own) and that there is no venial sin, (sc. in it self) it must follow, there can be no Purgatory: And this foundation may very safely be laid by us, because it is without if not against the Text, that you have laid the other foundation.

15. I know your Cardinal alledgeth many more places of the Bible (besides those three formerly mentioned) to prove this new Article of Faith: But there is so much straining of the Scripture in his al­legations (I will not say wresting, because I hope it was not to his destruction) that he comes under that condemnation of the wise man, There is an exquisite subtilt [...], and the same is unjust, Eccles. 19. 25. Men may by their wit and exquisite subtilty make Gods Word seem to say any thing, but it is unjust for them so to do, and they must be unrighteous in so doing, and had need be very penitent for that unrighte­ousness: For if we shall give an accoun [...] for every idle word of our own, much more for endeavouring to make Gods Word partake of our idleness. And in­deed Gods Word being to be interpreted [Page 123] according to the analogie of Faith, Rom. 12. 6. it is fitter for Infidels then for Chri­stians, to seek after such interpretations thereof, as are not agreeable with that analogie: But herein your writers are partly excusable; for being over-ruled by the determination of your Church to set up a new Article of Faith, which is not reducible to any of those in the Apostles Creed, they have been after a sort con­strained to interpret the Scriptures ac­cording to that new Article lately made by your Church, and not according to the Analogie of that Faith which was at first left by the Apostles; For sure it will pose an ordinary understanding, to shew how your Purgatory is consistent with the Communion of Saints, and with the forgiveness of sins, which are both in that Creed, since they cannot be of the Com­munion of Saints, who are in a separati­on from God, (and perchance under the power of the Devil) nor have they ob­tained remission of sins, who are still un­der torments for them: Nor can I see how this doctrine doth agree with that which is the very marrow and substance of the whole Gospel, to wit, That we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son, [Page 124] Rom. 5. 10. and That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not im­puting their trespasses unto them, 2 Cor. 5. 19. For if there be a punishment re­served, the trespass is imputed; But [...] there be an actual reconciliation, (a [...] doubtless there is for true Penitents an [...] true Believers) then surely no punish­ment is reserved, and no future satisfacti­on is necessary, and so we may fully be­lieve the remission of sins, according to ou [...] Creed: And no present separation is pos­sible; and so we may as fully believe th [...] Communion of Saints: The woman tha [...] came behinde our blessed Saviour an [...] touched but the border of his garment was healed immediately, Luke 8. 43. D [...] not you say, A soul shall come, not behi [...] but before him, look him in the face, na [...] go into his bosom to dwell in him, and he again dwell in that soul, and yet it sha [...] not be healed, unless you will recall th [...] of the Psalmist, Bless the Lord O my soul who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who hea [...] ­eth all thy diseases? Psalm 103. 3. For wh [...] is the disease of the soul but sin, or ho [...] is that healed but by forgiveness? Ho [...] is sin forgiven if it must be satisfied, o [...] how is the soul healed if it must be tor­mented? [Page 125] for sure not healing but wound­ing cometh from torment. He that took upon him our flesh that he might save us, did thereby shew, He more willed our sal­vation then our flesh; and how shall we say, He more willeth our punishment then our salvation?

16. But if any will hereafter thus abuse the Word of God, let him know he must likewise abuse the Prayers of his Church, that so the sight of the one may bring him to the greater detestation of the other; Wherefore let him say, Domi­ne, non secundum peccata nostra facias nobis, 1. non secundum mortalia, sed fa­cias nobis secundum venialia peccata; O Lord deal not with us after our sins, that is, deal not with us after our mortal sins, but deal with us after our venial sins: Neque secundum iniquitates nostras re­tribuas nobis, 1. non in inferno, sed in Pur­gatorio; Neither reward us after our ini­quites, That is, reward us not after our iniquities in Hell, by eternal torments; but reward as after our iniquities in Pur­gatory, by temporal punishment: And if he think these too direful deprecations for his Hope, let him think those other too direful interpretations for his Faith, which [Page 126] would make repentance so take away his mortal, as to leave behind his venial sins or would so take out Hell, as to le [...] in Purgatory for his bounden satisfaction.

For our parts, we will do Gods Wo [...] and Gods Church more right, then to fi [...] such Doctrines upon his Word, or such Prayers upon his Church: And since th [...] thoughts of our hearts are repute [...] among our venial sins, we will say, Tha [...] both God and his Church have taught u [...] how to get those thoughts purged fro [...] our souls whiles we live, and not expect [...] their purgation after our death, even by heartily praying in this manner, Cleans [...] the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiratio [...] of thy holy Spirit, (not by the operation of an imaginary or unholy fire, which if it come not from Hell, is but imaginary; if it come from Hell, is but unholy) that w [...] may perfectly love thee, and worthily magn [...] ­fie thy holy name: This we can pray in faith; for our heavenly Father will give his holy Spirit to them that ask him, Luk. 11. 13. And that holy Spirit will purifie our heart by faith, Acts 15. 8, 9. [...], Fide purgans corda eorum Purging their hearts by Faith; This is a [...] the Purging of sin mentioned in the Scri­ptures, [Page 127] even a Purgatory by Faith, not by Fire: And this is all the soul needs; for if we may by vertue of this Purging Spirit, or Purifying Faith, either in our life or at our death, perfectly love God, we may doubtless after our death presently enjoy him; since then as our faith is to be turn­ed into Vision, and our hope into Com­prehension, so our Charity is to be turn­ed into Fruition; our love of Christ into the enjoyment of him, & we cannot enjoy him where he is not, but where he is, that is, not in a place far from Heaven, (if at least it be a place at all) but in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of God, making intercession for us.

17. And we had rather trust to his in­tercession to keep us from Purgatory, then to others intercessions to deliver us from it: For we are sure their intercessions are nothing worth but by vertue of his intercession; and we are not sure that he doth intercede for souls in Purgatory, for we cannot believe that he doth pray to God, that a fire (we know not whence) should purge those souls, which himself that came down from heaven could not purge; For whatsoever fond Christians may fancy, yet sure Christ himself will [Page 128] not so undervalue his own most precious blood, and his own most holy Spirit, as to pray that fire may cleanse those souls which his Spirit and blood have not cleansed: And were it possible that such prayers could be made for souls in Purga­tory, as Christ would please to intercede withal, yet since it cannot be known how long it is fit for souls to be in Purgatory, no living man can use such prayers in faith of Christs intercession to go along with him to the throne of Grace; But as he may pray for them without Christs in­tercession, if they be there, so he must pray for them without it, when they shall be gone from thence: For God hath not let us men on earth know the time of their deliverance, no more then he hath taught us the belief of their captivity: And now by this time I hope you understand what is my aim in making this answer, though you say you did not in making that obje­ction; and will not perswade men here­after to go to Purgatory, that you may pray for them, when it is so undenyable a Truth, that if they be there, they can have no benefit by your Prayers.

The Answer.

1. I Spake not of you Catholicks, but if I spake of you, it was of you Pa­pists, who by your own Cassander are not to be called Catholicks, but false Ca­tholicks: Sunt quidam qui Pontificem Romanum, tantum non Deum faciunt, ejusque autoritatem non modò supra to­tam Ecclesiam, sed supra ipsam Scriptu­ram divinam efferunt: Hos non video quò minus Pseudocatholicos & Papistas appellare possis: (Cassander de officio pii viri:) There are some who make the Pope almost a God, and extoll his authority not only above the whole Church, but also above the holy Scripture: These are to be called Papists and Pseudocatholicks, that is to say, false Catholicks: Wherefore in the [Page 134] judgement of your own Cassander, if you will needs be Papists, you cannot be Ca­tholicks.

2. But in truth my intent was not so much to speak in condemnation of you Papists, as in justification of us Prote­stants; not so much in condemnation of your Church, as in justification of our own: But since you have taken it for a condemnation of your Church, pray con­sider whether you may not take these particulars for the parts of that con­demnation.

First that in your General confession, Confitior Deo omnipotenti, & B. Mariae semper Virgini, &c. You suppose the blessed Virgin, and the holy Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and all the Saints departed, equally present at your Confession with God to hear you, if not equally powerful or merciful with him to forgive you; whereas we who are taught only to say, Omnipotens & clementissime Pater, Almighty and most merciful Fa­ther, in our general Confession, cannot be under the suspition, much less under the danger of communicating to the creature either the presence, or power, or mercy of the Creator.

[Page 135] Secondly, That in your particular and private confession, you clog mens consci­ences with an absolute necessity of con­fessing every mortal sin, though it be but only in thought: For so saith your Late­rane Council under Innocent the third, (cap. 21.) Omnia sua peccata fideliter confiteatur, Let him faithfully confess all his sins: And though that of Trent after­wards seem to mitigate the matter (sess. 14. c. 5.) saying, Nihil aliud exigit Ec­clesia à Poenitentibus quàm ut confiteantur omnia peccata mortalia, quae post diligen­tem sui excussionem memoriae occurrent; Yet Cardinal Bellarmine, whom his fel­low Jesuites will certainly follow (and they are now your chiefest confessors) saith plainly, after a full debate of the cause, Colligimus hinc necessarium esse confiteri omnia peccata mortalia, etiamsi solâ cogitatione commissa sint (lib. 3. de Poenit. cap. 7. § ex his) so that tis to little purpose for your Council to say that tis necessary for the Penitent to confess all the mortal sins he can remember, whiles your Champion, and after him your Con­fessors, say, tis necessary for him to con­fess all the mortal sins he hath committed, and spare him not so much as a thought, [Page 136] which may easily be a mortal sin, and yet is as easily forgotten as committed; whence it was that your own Cassander called your auricular confession Carnifi­einam conscientiarum (in consult. Art. 11.) the wrack of consciences, to tor­ment not to ease them; For who can tell how oft he offendeth! O cleanse thou me from my secret faults, said the ma [...] after Gods own heart, Psalm 19. If none can tell how oft he offendeth in word or deed, much less in thought, who is able to con­fess all his offences? yet you say, He must confess all, or he can receive pardon of none: And therefore as you leave the horrour of that question upon the con­science, Who can tell how oft he offendeth? So you take away the comfort of that prayer from it, O cleanse thou me from my secret faults.

Thirdly, That in your absolutions you remit the punishments of Purgatory, for all the sins committed against God and man: Remitto tibi omnes poenas Pur­gatorii propter culpas & offensiones quas contra Deum & proximum tuum commi­sisti: This was the form of that Absolu­tion which Dr. Harding brought over from Rome to bestow amongst those of [Page 137] his party in this Nation, who would joyn with him in his dis-allegiance against Queen Elizabeth; I meddle not with its vanity, in absolving from Punishments which are not in being, or if they were, cannot come under the Churches absolu­tion. I meddle only with its Impiety, that it turneth the gift of God into the instru­ment of Ungodliness: For no credulous Papist that believes the torments of Pur­gatory, can stick to do any Villany, if he may be thus absolved for doing it: And it is to be seared that some of your party still heighten their absolutions ac­cording to their designs, which is little less then to make the power of God sub­servient to the malice of the Devil; and to fill the hearts of men with impiety that they may commit sin, and with im­penitency when they have committed it.

3. This and much more might have been said by way of condemning your Church; but I desired only to acquit our own, and to shew that if we would our selves, we might all be sincere and true Penitents, because our Church was not really but only seemingly defective in the practice of Pennance; For though she [Page 138] wracked no mans conscience, yet she so far instructed all, that not the meanest of her Communicants who were not Hypo­crites, could be under the danger, and much less under the guilt of Impenitency. And I had reason to satisfie my self and others in this point; for it is evident by Saint John Baptists first Sermon, Mat. 3. 8, 9. [Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance, and think not to say within your selves, we have Abraham to our Father:] That it is in vain for any man to boast he hath Abraham for his Father, or as we Christians use to speak, He hath the Church of Christ for his Mother, who is not a true Penitent: Nay it is in vain for any Church to boast of her being the daughter of Abraham, or the Spouse of Christ, if she follow not his example who first Preached Christ, calling upon all that are of her Baptism, and are associated in her Communion, To bring forth fruits meet for Repentance.

And upon this ground did Lactantius determine so positively, That the true Church of Christ was to be known only by the practice of Pennance; Lib. 4. de vera sap. cap. 30. Sed tamen quia singuli qui­que caetus Haereticorum, se potissimum [Page 139] Christianos, & suam esse Catholicam Ec­clesiam putant, sciendum est illam esse ve­ram, in quâ est Confessio & Poenitentia, quae peccata & vulnera quibus subjecta est imbecillitas carnis, salubriter curat; But because the several Congregations of Here­ticks think themselves the best Christians, and each his own Church to be the Catholick Church, we must know That is the true Ca­tholick Church, in which there is Confession and Penance, to take care for the healing of those sins and wounds which the infirmities of the flesh bring upon us: He saith the Catholick Church is to be known by an Healing Confession and an Healing Pen­ance; the same in effect which Saint John Baptist had said before him; I knowing that those words, Confession and Penance, made more noise in your Church then in ours, was willing to examine, whether we had not the same vertue of them amongst us, to heal us, as was amongst you, to heal you, because we had not the same noise of them; And I found we had; For besides the greater censure of Excommu­nication in the power of the Bishops, and the lesser censure of abstention in the power of all Parochial Priests, enabling and requiring them to deny the Commu­nion [Page 140] to scandalous sinners, till they had testified their repentance for their sins, I fòund that every one of us was put under a necessity of censuring and condemning himself, which was the readiest way to bring us all to an ingenuous confession of our sins, and to a serious contrition for them: For being bound in our daily pub­lick prayers to hear the Ten Commande­ments from the mouth of the Priest as from the mouth of God, kneeling upon our knees, and to say at the end of every Commandement, Lord have mercy upon us; We could not justly be charged for want of an Healing Confession, (to let pass that at the beginning of our prayers) be­cause no sin but was against some one of Gods Commandements; and we asking mercy for our transgression of every one, did in effect confess our transgressing it: And being also bound to say, Encline our hearts to keep this Law, we could not justly be charged for want of an healing Penance, because that wholly consisted in the con­trition and conversion of the Heart: That Penance most healing the soul, which had most broken the heart; A broken and a contrite heart, O God shalt thou not despise; For this Contrition as it is true Penance, [Page 141] so it is sufficient for wiping away of all sin from the soul; your own Cardinal not only asserting but also assuring this for true doctrine, (Bellar. li. 2. de de Poenit. cap. 15.) Utrum omnia peccata per ve­ram contritionem sive Poenitentiam dele­antur? Resp. Illud autem affirmamus, non ut probabile sed planè ut certum & apud Catholicos exploratum, nullam esse pec­catorum multitudinem vel gravitatem, quae per veram poenitentiam non expie­tur; nam Ezech. 18. & 33. Deus saepius clamat Nolo mortem Peccatoris, & sine ullâ exceptione veniam pollicetur omni­um iniquitatum, si impium serio paenitu­erit vitae praeteritae cum emendationis proposito; Whether all sins are blotted out by true Contrition or Penance? I answer, we affirm this not only as probable, but also as certain and unquestionable amongst Ca­tholicks, That there is no multitude or mag­nitud: of sins which is not expiated by true Penance; For God himself, Ezech. 18. & 33. often saies (nay swears) I will not the [...]eath of a sinner, and promises forgiveness without exception, of áll iniquities whatso­ever, if the wicked earnestly repent of his sinful life past, and truly purpose amend­ment for the time to come; Here you see he [Page 142] takes true Contrition and Penance for one and the same, and saies, That is true Contrition, when the wicked earnestly repents of what is past, and really pur­poseth amendment for what is to come; We have this earnest Repentance profes­sed and practised in our Church; for we say, Lord have mercy upon us, and encline our hearts to keep this Law; And we have also this real purpose of amendment; for after our repenting we say, And write all these thy Laws in our hearts we beseech thee; So that having this true Contrition, it cannot be denyed but we have also true Penance amongst us, that is, such a Penance as doth expiate our sins, though never so many and great, heal our wounds, and save our soul: If such an Healing Pen­ance as this, may not be had without an Healing Confession, it is plain we have also an Healing Confession amongst us, because we have this Healing Penance; If it may, tis as plain we need no other Con­fession, then that we have: I desire not to implead your Church concerning the ex­ercise of Penance, for I see our own wishes it might be restored: But I crave leave to say, That our Church which re­quireth us to lay open our consciences [Page 143] daily before the searcher of hearts, doth not permit us to conceal any one sin in our confession, nor retain and keep back any one sin from our Penance, but biddeth us follow the example of David, saying, Try me O God, and seek the ground of my heart, prove me and examine my thoughts, look well if there be any way of wickedness in me, and lead me in the way everlasting, Psalm 139. You cannot say, He conceal­ed any one sin in his Confession, though he had not the Priests Interrogatories; for he desires God to examine and to interro­gate him; Interoga me, saith your Latine; Nor can you say he retained or kept back any one sin from his Penance, though he had not the Priest for his Penitentiary; for he had God instead of him; Mark well if there be any way of wickedness in me, and lead me (from that perishing way) into the way everlasting.

4. I heartily wish I could say the same of your Church, which requireth the people to say open their consciences be­fore the Priest, That she did not permit the people to conceal any one sin in their Confession, nor retain and keep back any one sin from their Penance: For I am so far from envying for your sakes who [Page 144] alone would be thought to sit in Moses his Chair, that as he wished all the Lords people were Prophets, so I heartily wish all the Lords people among you were Pe­nitents; for then we should have less per­plexity and more piety and peace on both sides then now we have, either within us or without us. But as there is great rea­son to fear that a late faction among us by putting down the Ten Commandements as they were repeated with our Confessi­on and Penance, hath not only suppressed the practice, but also banished the very thought of Repentance from some men, no less then the desire of Innocency from themselves: so there is great reason to believe, that a late faction among you, by putting no interrogatory upon the se­cond Commandement, and putting all other sins into interrogatories, hath not only suppressed the practice, but also ba­nished the very thought of repentance both in themselves and others, as to all the sins that are generally committed amongst you, against the rule of that Commandement: And surely there may be sins not only of Ignorance, but also of Infirmity and of Presumption committed against the second Commandement, as [Page 145] well as against any of the other, of which sins there should be a Confession, and for which sins there should be a Penance, as well as of and for the sins against any of the other Commandements: For the se­cond Commandement being as moral as the rest, is as capable of being transgres­sed as the rest; and why then should your Interrogatories upon the seventh Com­mandement (in true account, though the sixt in yours,) be so many and gross, as almost to lead even your very Priests into Temptation, and yet so few or none at all, upon the second, as not to lead your people out of it? Si cognovit faeminam in vase naturali vel extra vas, is such a que­stion as may justly come under an inter­dict; for God plainly forbids all such ri­bauldry which leads men into sin, Ephes. 5. 3. Let it not once be naemed among you as becometh Saints; And Colos. 3. 8. [...] filthy communication is to be put out of the mouth, not taken into it, for fear it should pass from the mouth into the heart; But si adoravit imaginem, if he hath falen down and worshipped an im­age, is such a question as ought not to be omitted in your Penitential Interrogato­ries, because God hath forbidden such a [Page 146] worship, and hath commanded such a worshipper to repent, and the goodness of God leading him to repentance, (Rom. 2. 4.) it is the wickedness of man to keep him from it: And truly the practice of your Church doth not lead such a sinner to repentance, but rather doth confirm him in his impenitency: For seeing so many interrogatories upon all the other Commandements, not only for Commis­sions in thought, word, and deed, but also for Omissions, and seeing none at all upon the second Commandement, he is thereby confirmed that there can be no sin against that Commandement, and so no repentance needful concerning it: By which means he is in danger not to repent truly of any sin; This general Axiome, He that offends in one point is guilty of all, being as undenyably true concerning each point of repentance, as concerning each point of obedience; for by the witting and willing neglect of repentance no less then of obedience in any one particular, Gods authority is equally contemned, and Christian Charity is equally violated; And though I doubt not but God graci­ously accepts of your Peoples unfeigned repentance, because being cordial for the [Page 147] sins they know, it is effectual for the sins they know not; yet sure your Priests do not discharge their duties so conscionably as they ought, who keep the people from knowing their sins against the second Commandement; for by that means they do keep some from being true Penitents, & do not take a right course to make any one a true Penitent. Do you think God will forget this his own Commandement in his last sentence, because you are now willing to forget it in your examinations? If not, why should you thus betray the souls committed to your charge, not teaching them to judge themselves, that they may not be condemneded of the Lord? For even your method of Confessi­on Printed at Paris, 1556. which pretends fully to shew all sins and their remedies, (in qua peccata & eorum remedia plenis­simè continentur) yet quite leaves out the second Commandement; for thus it summs up the Precepts of the Decalogue, Unum crede Deum, Believe in one God, for the first; Ne jures vana per ipsum, Take not his name in vain, for the second Com­mandement, and more at large so sets them down in the Titles of the two en­suing Chapters, that we cannot think the [Page 148] omission of the second Commandement the fault of your Poetry, but of your Di­vinity; So you see it was not out of any humour of quarrelsomness, but meerly out of zeal to godliness, that I hinted the defect of your Confessional Interro­gatories.

5. But it seems by you, It is not only the practice, but also the Doctrine of your Church, That there needs no repentance for any sin against the second Commande­ment, and you think to justifie this do­ctrine, first by making no second Com­mandement, and then by making no sin against it: First by making no second Commandement; For you say, Saint Au­gustine and all Catholick Divines after, reckon these two but as one. Secondly by making no sin against the second Com­mandement, for you say, It is impossible for Christians well instructed in the first, to offend through ignorance against the second. I answer first in general, That there is no Catholick Divinity, either in the one, or in the other; either in making the second no Commandement, or in making no sin through ignorance against it: For the Ten Commandements of the Decalogue are no [...]ess fundamentals in regard of [Page 149] our Charity, then the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed are fundamentals in regard of our Faith; and it is as Catho­lick to abolish or confound an Article, as to abolish or confound a Commande­ment; and you may as well say, there may be no errour of ignorance against one of the Articles, as that there may be no sin of ignorance against one of the Com­mandements: For the Decalogue is Sym­bolum agendorum, as the Creed is Symbo­lum credendorum; the one is a short sum­marie of Duties to be practised, as the other of Truths to be believed; and all the Decalogue is as necessary to salvation as all the Creed; for as he that dis-believes any one Article is in the state of damnati­on, so he that disobeyes any one Com­mand; And as God requires us to know and believe every particular Article, at least in the purpose and preparation of our souls, that we may be saved; so also to know and obey every particular Com­mand, dispencing no more with our dis-obedience, then with our dis-belief; and exacting as much our knowledge of, and obedience to his Commands, as our know­ledge and our belief of his Promises; both Faith and Obedience must be alike, as to [Page 150] the perfection of parts, though neither is or can be as to the perfection of degrees: As our faith is not a true faith able to save, us unless in our desire we perfectly believe all that God hath revealed to us; so our charity is not a true charity able to save us, unless in our desires we perfectly fulfill all that God hath commanded us: For God accepting through Christ the will for the deed both in our believing, and in our obeying, doth so accept us in his Son, [...]s not to deny himself. He takes that for a true faith which saith, Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief; because it desires to believe whatever he hath pro­posed for the object of faith; He takes that for a true Charity which saith, We are not able of our-selves, as of our-selves, to think a good thought, because it desires to perform whatever he hath proposed as the object of our obedience; There is his gracious accepting us in his Son: But he takes not that for a true faith which saith concerning the least title of his revealed Truth, I will not believe; for that is to question his being the first Truth; nor that for a true Charity which saith con­cerning the least title of his imposed Com­mands, I will not obey; for that is to que­stion [Page 151] his being the last or chiefest good; There is his not denying himself: God ac­cepts us in his Son by taking the will for the deed, both in our Faith and in our Obedience; but he denyes not himself by allowing us to believe or obey according to our own wills; for what we want of actual conformity to his will in our righteousness, we are bound to make up by a potential conformity to his will in our repentance; which is a plain demon­stration that God accepts not of half-Christians, either in believing or in obey­ing, but will have us put on All Christ, before he will accept us in Christ, ac­cording to the Apostles exhortation, Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 13. 14. that is, Put him on no less as your Lord to be ruled and governed by his commands, then as your Jesus to be revived by the purchase and promise, or to be anointed with the joy and gladness of his salvati­on; For a meer speculative knowledge of the divine promises can bring no man to Christ, without a practical knowledge and love of the Divine Commands; and therefore the doctrine of the moral Law is as necessary to us Christians, both to be known and to be practised, as it was to [Page 152] the Jews; and consequently whatsoever is propounded in the Decalogue, is so re­ally fundamental in joyning us to Christ the foundation, that as it must be obeyed to keep us from refractoriness, which se­parates the will, so it must be taught to keep us from ignorance and from errour, which separates the understanding from the blessed Redeemer and lover of our souls. For as the Creed doth teach us to know God in Christ, as he will be known; so the Decalogue doth teach us to worship God in Christ, as he will be worshipped; The same Messias who came to teach us all things, hath not only said, This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, John 17. 3. but also, I know that his commandement is life everlasting, John 12. 50. As his Creed is life eternal which teacheth us to know God in Christ, so his commandment is life eternal which teacheth us to love and obey God in Christ; I know that his commandement is life everlasting. If Christ know it, the Christian may not doubt it, much less de­ny it: And therefore he that denyes or eludes any Commandement in the Deca­logue, is in as great danger of damnati­on, [Page 153] as he that denyes or eludes any Ar­ticle of the Creed; For a false tenent in matters of obedience against any one Commandement, is an heresie in practicks and destroyes salvation, if it be unrepent­ed, even as a false tenent in matters of Faith against any one Article of the Creed, is an heresie in speculatives: So saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adul­terers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of them­selves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covet­ous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extor­tioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God: As if the Apostle had said, It is no less damnable to err in the principles of pra­ctice, then in those of speculation; there­fore he supposeth these also may be Here­ticks, saying unto them, Be not deceived; For corruption of judgement in duties of life may make an Heretick, as much as in Articles of Faith, especially if it be in any principle or ground of the Law; as he which thinks he may be a Rebel or an Idolator, and yet inherit the Kingdom of God, is as much deceived, as he which de­nyes the Communion of Saints, and yet [Page 154] thinks to be saved: For he doth impinge in as fundamental a point, and conse­quently incurrs a most pernicious and damnable heresie: For a Practical truth declared in any Commandement, is a fun­damental Truth, and challengeth our knowledge and belief no less then a specu­lative truth declared in an Article of faith.

6. And therefore Suarez doth justily and judiciously except against those who labouring to maintain the Infallibility of your Church, do notwithstanding confess that she may err in doctrina morum, but not in doctrina fidei, in doctrine of life, but not in doctrine of belief; in matter of fact, but not in matter of faith (Disp. de fide, sec. 7. & 8.) because (saith he) by and from any impious and ungodly deci­sion or determination in duties of life, must needs follow an errour in Faith: And so Bellarmine himself professeth (lib. 4. de Pont. c. 5.) Si Papa erraret praeci­piendo vitia & prohibendo virtutes, tene­retur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtutes esse malas, & proinde teneretur errare; If the Pope should err so grosly as to command us to do evil, and to eschew that which is good, the Church would be bound to believe that Vices were lawful, and [Page 155] Vertues unlawful, and so consequently would be bound to be in errour. We may yet fur­ther improve this tenent, and say, That no man can maintain what is false in mat­ter of fact, but he must also maintain what is false in matter of faith, according to the very same particular in the Creed, which corresponds to that of the Deca­logue, wherein he is erroneous; whether the falsity concern his God, or his neigh­bour, or himself; For as all practicks, so all speculatives are reducible to these three heads, Our God, our neighbour and our selves: As for example, He that explicitly in fact maintains that fornicati­on is lawful, or any sin that is against his own body, doth implicitly in faith deny his own resurrection; and as in fact, so al­so in faith doth sin against himself: He that maintains any point of faction and disobedience against the fifth Com­mandement, or any thing of injustice against the rest, doth not only in fact ex­plicitly sin against the Decalogue, but also in faith implicitly sin against the Creed, in that part of it which concerns his neigh­bour, that is, The Catholick Church and the Communion of Saints. Lastly, He that maintains any false external wor­ship, [Page 156] being rather willing to expunge or confound the second Commandement, then to obey it, sins not only in fact but also in faith against his God, and doth in effect expunge that Article out of his Creed, which immediately concerneth the Deity, I believe in God: So you see there is no Catholick Divinity in this doctrine, which either makes the second no Com­mandement, or makes no sin against it: as it is no Catholick Divinity which sup­poseth our belief in God to be no Article of Faith, or that there may be in Christi­ans no errour or heresie against that Ar­ticle: For your seeming qualification in these words, [through ignorance] alters not the case, because the second Com­mandement hath as great an obligation, and as distinct a morality as the first, and therefore may be transgressed as many waies as the first, that is to say, as well by ignorance as by negligence, infirmity, or presumption; and I suppose you can­not think it for the credit of your Con­fessional Interrogatories, so to keep men from ignorances, as to let them continue in presumptions: Therefore either say, there may be no sin at all against the se­cond Commandement, or do not say, [Page 157] What Interr [...]gatories are needful concerning it? For if your Interrogatories do not discover the greater sins, they must dis­cover their own weakness, if not your de­ceitfulness: & thats my answer in general.

7. Secondly, I answer in particular, That Saint Augustine did in the division of the Commandements, reckon the first and second but as One; not that he thought the second comprized in the first (as you seem to intimate) but that from a Trinity of precepts concerning our du­ty towards God, we might readily ac­knowledge a Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead; For he neither expunged the second Commandement out of the practical principles of his Re­ligion, nor confounded it with the first, but allowed it to prohibit an external Idolatry in worshipping the Godhead by any Image or representation: For so saith he, (lib. de fide & Symb. cap. 7.) Simulachrum Dei nefas est Christiano in templo collocare; It is a great sin for a Christian to set up any Image of God in the Church; which is the very second Com­mandement changed from a legal prohibi­tion, into a doctrinal conclusion: Again, (Epist. 119.) In primo praecepto prohi­betur [Page 158] coli aliqua in figmentis hominum Dei similitudo, non quia non habet ima­ginem Deus, sed quia nulla imago ejus coli debet, nisi illa quae ho [...] est quod ipse; nec ipsa pro illo, sed cum illo; In the first Commandement, (sc. the second being joyned with it, according to his new me­thod) we are forbidden to worship any Im­age of God, according to the false inventions of men, not that God hath not an Image, but because no Image of his ought to be worship­ped, but only that one substantial Image of him, his begotten Son, who is the same with himself, and to be worshipped as himself: And in his 222. Epistle, Si Trinitas sic est invisibilis, ut nec mente videatur, multò minus de illa hujusmodi opinionem ha­bere debemus, ut eam rebus corporalibus, vel corporalium rerum imaginibus simi­lem esse credamus: If the Trinity be so invisible, as that it is also incomprehensible, we ought not to have so slight an opinion con­cerning it, as if it were like any corporeal thing, or to think it may be represented by any corporeal images. What could Saint Au­gustine say more for the second Com­mandement, and against you, who are now come to represent and worship God the Father under the image of an Old [Page 159] man, God the Son under the image of a Lamb, and God the holy Ghost under the image of a Dove? If I wrong you in this, you may thank your own Cajetane, who saith expresly, Ecclesiae Romanae usus admittit hasce Trinitatis imagines, eaque pinguntur non solum ut ostendan­tur, sed ut adorentur: (Cajet. in 3. Aqu. qu. 25. art. 3.) The custom of the Roman Church admitteth these images of the Trini­ty, and they are painted not only that they may be shewed, but also that they may be wor­shipped: See the vast difference between Saint Augustines and your doctrine con­cerning the second Commandement; He alloweth it to prohibit both the making and the worshipping any Image of God, either in Trinity or in Unity; you not­withstanding that prohibition, say it is lawful not only to make, but also to wor­ship the images of the Trinity: Doubt­less were Saint Augustine now alive, he would again part the second Commande­ment and divide it from the first, meerly out of hatred to this your most abomi­nable idolatry: For rather then suffer the holy and undivided Trinity to be thus sinfully either represented or wor­shipped expresly against this second Com­mandement, [Page 160] He would certainly restore it to its own place, that it might no longer lie hid under the first, but recover its own power, as being much more zealous of Gods glory then of his own, and there­fore such a Divine; as had much rather lose his argument of proving the Trinity from the number of three Commande­ments in the first Table, then let you lose your Religion by an idolatrous represen­tation and worship of that Trinity ex­presly against the letter and the end of the second Commandement: Or if you think Saint Augustine a greater lover of his own imagination, then of your refor­mation, which were to make him a bad Divine; yet you must believe him a greater lover of Gods glory, then of his own imagination; for else you cannot allow him to be a good Christian: Therefore that you may not un-Saint him, pray un­sinner your selves, and allow the second Commandement to have its own force and vertue, wherever you find it, or plead not Saint Augustine for your precedent; because he did only make bold with the place and order, but not with the prohibi­tion, or power, or substance of that Com­mandement: And consider seriously, [Page 161] whether your being Antinomians in this one Commandement, hath not taught others to be Antinomians in all the rest; and whether your allowing such a gross representation and worship of the most holy, most blessed and most glorious Tri­nity, hath not much rebated the awfull reverence and serious belief of the holi­ness, and blessedness, and glory that is in those three persons of the God-head, and consequently be not a ready way to make the scoffers that are come in these last daies, to turn Antitrinitarians.

8. But you say, [All Catholick Divines after Saint Augustine have reckoned these two Commandements but as one.] I take the boldness to say, They have not done so; Nay more, I take the courage to say, They may not do so. First I say, They have not done so; For, 1. Sedulius a Scotish Priest who lived in 430. (ten years after Saint Augustine) and writ a Comment upon all Saint Pauls Epistles out of Ori­gene, Saint Ambrose, Saint Hierom and Saint Augustine (as saith your Bellarmine) in his explanation of these words, Eph. 6. 2. Honour thy Father and Mother, which is the first Commandement with promise, saith positively out of Saint Hierom, [Page 162] There was a promise before in the second Commandement; In secundo mandato re­promissionem esse sociatam; Ait enim non facies tibi Idola: He would not forsake the old division of the Decalogue, recei­ved by the Fathers, to follow Saint Au­gustines new division. 2. Eucherius Bi­shop of Lions in France, in the year 440. in his questions upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, saith concerning the fifth Com­mandement, Alii vero hoc mandatum, non quarto sed quinto loco, quod & nos probamus, esse confirmant; Others rec­kon that not as the fourth, but as the fifth Commandement, of whom we approve; Tacitely reproving Saint Augustines new division of the Decalogue, but openly approving those who followed the other division before it. 3. Primasius Bishop of Utica in Africa in the year 545. writ a Comment upon all Saint Pauls Epistles, (saith Bellarm.) and upon these words, Eph. 6. 2. which is the first Commandement with promise, gives us this exposition, sc. in secundâ tabulâ quae ad humanitatem pertinentia praecepta sex numero conti­nebat; Prima enim tabula propriè Divina officia exigebat; The fifth Commande­ment was the first with promise, sc. in the se­cond [Page 163] t [...]ble, which contains the six precepts, expressing mans duty towards his neighbour; as for the first table, that only declareth mans duty towards his God: See here is an Africane Bishops testimony to prove that Saint Augustines new division of the De­calogue, was not yet received in his own Church; for the Africanes above an hun­dred years after he had made that divisi­on, did still reckon but six Commande­ments in the second Table; whereas if they had made but one of the two first, they must have made two of the last, or else have come short in the number of Ten Commandements. 4. Procopius Gazaeus a Catholick Author of the Greek Church, and commended by Photius, who writ about the year 560. saith Bellarmine, in his Comment upon Exodus saith thus, [Non erunt tibi Dii praeter me, &c.] Hoc primum est praeceptum, secundo ser­mocinante de idolis & imaginibus: ni enim in hunc modum quis leges distin­guat, non poterit in ordinem certum re­digere Decalogum; The second Com­mandement is that which forbids Idols and Images; for unless we follow this division, we cannot have a right order of the Commande­ments. 5. Hesychius Bishop of Hierusa­lem, [Page 164] who lived in the time of Saint Gre­gory, (saith Bellarmine) and expounded Saint Hieroms Latine Text, then general­ly received in the Church, in his expositi­ons upon Leviticus, sets down a new di­vision of the Commandements, making Two of the first, and putting the second in the place of the third, (which Saint Augustine had made a part of the first) and the third in the place of the fourth, that so he might leave out the fourth, (which he thought meerly ceremonial) and yet retain the right number of four Commandements in the first Table. Di­stinguit tamen quatuor praecepta pertin­entia ad Deum, (12 ^ae. qu. 100. art. 4. in c.) Though he left out the fourth Com­mandement, yet he would not have less then four in the first table, and consequently, could not allow seven in the second; so it is clear that in neither Table he thought himself bound to follow Saint Augustines division of the Ten Commandements. 6. Jonas Bishop of Orleans in France, (about eight hundred years after Christ, and full four hundred years after Saint Augustine) saith of Claudius Bishop of Turine, That he took the second Commande­ment to forbid the making of all Images, [Page 165] (Quum de omni similitudine facienda se­cundum Decalogi praeceptum assumpse­ris) Which he could not have said, if the second Commandement had been then joyned with the first, according to Saint Augustines example; though since it hath had the ill fortune to be suppressed by it, or to be forgotten in it. This Centurie pro­duced one more famous Writer or Com­mentator upon the whole Bible, in the Latine Church, namely Rabanus Maurus Bishop of Mentz, an. 835. and he in his Comment upon Exodus, (lib. 2. cap. 12.) hath this Title, Sermo Dei ad populum, Decalogum Legis proferens, The Ser­mon of God to the people concerning the Ten words of the Law; and in the Chapter it self hath these words, Primum ergo mandatum est Non erunt tibi Dii alii prae­ter me; & post haec sequitur, Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem, &c. The first Commandement is this, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me; and after that follows, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing, &c. which he could not have said did follow after the first, if he had found it joyned with the first, and reputed, in the judgement of all Catholick Divines, [Page 166] as a part of that Commandement: But I will now pass to the twelfth Centurie, where I meet with Rupertus Tuitiensis, who lived about the year 1124. (that is, full seven hundred years after Saint Au­gustine) yet sheweth plainly, That Saint Augustines division of the Decalogue, was not then received in the Latine Church; For in his Comment upon Exo­dus (lib. 3. cap. 31.) he saith, that the first Commandement was, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me; the last, Thou shalt not covet; [Primum est, Non habebis Deos alienos coram me; Ultimum, Non concupisces] whereas if his Church had then followed Saint Augustines division or account, he must have said, not ul­timum, but duo ultima Non concupises, not the last, but the two last are, Thou shalt not covet; For Saint Augustine takes Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house for one, and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife for another Commandement: But in the first words of the following Chapter he speaks yet more plainly, whereby he that runs may read, he that reads must under­stand, That in the age wherein he lived, neither was the second Commandement confounded with the first, nor the second [Page 167] Table augmented in the number of its Commandements: His words at large are these; speaking of the Commande­ments in the very beginning of his 32. Chapter, Quorum primum, Non habe­bis Deos alienos coram me; Non facies tibi sculptile, sequens; sed ultimum est, Non concupisces; Quatuor ex his dilecti­oni Dei, sex dilectioni subserviunt proxi­mi: Non habebis Deos alienos coram me; Non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem si­militudinem; Non assumes nomen Domini Dei tui in vanum; Memento ut diem sab­batorum sanctifices; Quatuor ista Dei dilectioni repugnantia prohibendo, locum eidem dilectioni Dei, sermo Dei parare intendit; The first of the Commandements is this, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me; The next to that is, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image; and the last of all is, Thou shalt not covet: Four of these set forth our love towards our God, and six our love towards our neighbour; Thou shalt have no other Gods, Thou shalt not make an image, Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain, and Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day, by forbidding those four things which are repugnant to the love of God, do intend to prepare amongst us a place [Page 168] for his love: See here he allows four Commandements to treat of the love of God, and the second to be one of those four; So he admits not of Saint Augu­stines conjunction of the first and second into one; and he allows six Commande­ments to treat of the love of our neigh­bour; so he admits not of Saint Augu­stines division of the Tenth Commande­ment into two: And he was of so great a repute for a true Catholick Divine, that Tritenhemius saith of him in his life, Vir in divinis Scripturis spiritu sancto per vi­sionem illustrante, doctissimus: He was a man instructed in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, by immediate Visions and Reve­lations from the Holy Ghost.

Thus I have surveyed the chiefest Ca­tholick Divines till full seven hundred years together after Saint Augustine, not only of the Greek and Latine Church, but also of Great Britane, France, Germany, Africa and Hierusa [...]em, and not one of them follows Saint Augustines division of the Decalogue; and though the master of the Sentences about the year, 1145. brought the same in request, and the Schoolmen after him; yet Aquinas himself (who is most zealous for it) durst not [Page 169] say it was the division of the Decalogue generally received in the Church from Saint Augustines daies, for it is his positive determination, Quod praecepta Decalogi diversimodè à diversis distinguuntur, (12 ⁴ qu. 100. art. 4. in c.) The Com­mandements of the Decalogue have been se­verally distinguished by several men; and he instanceth in Hesychius, whom I named before. Now Sir, if you consider That the whole Catholick Church did speak by the mouthes of these fore-named Divines for so many Centuries, after Saint Au­gustine, I hope you will say This was an Assertion much sooner to be vented then to be verified, (for indeed never to be verified) That ‘All Catholick Divines after Saint Augustine, did reckon the first and second but as one Commande­ment.’

Having done my poor endeavour to prove de facto, That all Catholick Divines after Saint Augustine have not reckoned the first and second Commandements but as one; I now come to prove it de jure, That they may not; because indeed it is very Uncatholick so to do, as being against essential Catholicism, that is to say, The substance of a Divine Truth taught by God himself: and against Ac­cidental [Page 170] Catholicism, that is to say, the Profession of A Divine Truth alwaies taught in the Church of God: And if I prove both these, I hope you will here­after allow the Commandement an Inter­rogatory in your Confessions, if not a distinct place in your Catechisms: First I say, it is against essential Catholicism, that is, against the substance of a divine truth taught by God himself; For the Commandements are called by Gods ho­ly Spirit, Ten words, Exod. 34. 28. Scri­psit decem verba, [...], say the 70. He writ the ten words, whence hath been derived the name [...], which hath ever been the usual appellation in all Christian Churches, to say, The Deca­logue or Ten words, for the Ten Com­mandements: And Deut. 4. 13. tis ex­presly said that God writ these Ten Com­mandements upon two Tables of stone; As many words as he writ with his finger, we must read with our eyes, hear with our ears, and obey with our hearts; and as many words as he writ in each Table, so many must we read, hear, and obey in it, neither more nor less, if we will have our Divinity come from God; or in vain shall we talk of being Catholicks with his Church, whiles we are Schismaticks from [Page 171] himself; for the reason why we may not separate from his Church, is because his Church doth not separate from him; Considering then That God writ these Ten distinct words in Two distinct Tables, it must needs be uncatholick either to make no distinct word of Gods second word in the first Table, or to make two distinct words of Gods last word in the se­cond Table: For most Catholick is that saying of our blessed Saviour, Mat. 19. 6. What God hath joyned together, let not man put asunder; From whence by the Rule of Conversion emergeth this other, What God hath put asunder, let not man joyn together; The first Proposition will not allow us to divide the Tenth Commande­ment into two, because God hath made it but one; so we must have but six Com­mandements in the second Table: The second Proposition will not allow us to make the first and second Commande­ments into one, because God hath made them two; and so we must have full four Commandements in the first Table; For neither fewer words then four were writ­ten by Gods own hand in the first, nor more then six in the second Table; And the Church of God may not be said to have power, may not be thought to have [Page 172] will, to correct Gods own Hand-writing: For the same God who hath given us Ten words in both Tables, hath also given us four in the one, and six in the other: And doubtless he that telleth the number of the stars, will not learn of man how to number his own Commandements: Wherefore if our number disagree from his, we shall not only have a false piece of Arithmetick in the numerus numerans, in the number numbering; but we shall also have a false piece of Divinity in the nu­merus numeratus, in the number number­ed: For we shall call that First which God calls Second, there is the false Arith­mitick; and we shall make that nothing, which God hath made a Commande­ment; or make that two, which God hath made but one, there is the false Divinity: Therefore as we may not leave Gods own hand-writing to consult with the Church about the number of the Commande­ments, whether there be Ten or no; so neither may we leave it to consult about the number of the Commandements in each Table, whether three or four in the first; for God hath said four; whether six or seven in the second Table; for God hath said six; And what God hath made his Determination, the Church of God [Page 173] may not make her Consultation; It is the doctrine of your own Casuist, (Reginald in praxi fori Poenit. lib. 13. c. 15.) Ut omnia rerum genera ad decem summa re­ducuntur, sic omnia praecepta moralia ad decem praecipua, quae Decalogum con­stituunt, ex quorum etiam distinctione, sicut res ex distinctione summorum gene­rum inter se distinguuntur: As all things which have a natural being are reduced to the Ten Predicaments: So all things that have a moral being are reduced to the Ten Commandements: And as natural entities are distinguished by the Ten Predicaments, so moral entities are distinguished by the Ten Commandements. So that the Ten Com­mandements, are as it were the Ten Pre­dicaments or general heads in Divinity, to which all moral Duties are to be redu­ced, by which they are to be examined, & from which they are to be Practised: And therefore as he would shew himself no good Logician, who should expunge or confound any one of the ten Predicaments because that were to disturb the order of nature; so he would shew himself no good Divine, who should either expunge or confound any one of the Ten Commande­ments, because that were to disturb the [Page 174] order of Grace; The one would bring Babel upon our natural, the other upon our spiritual inheritance; The one would confound us in regard of earth, the other in regard of heaven; The one would con­found us as men, the other would confound us as Christians, which is infinitely the more dreadful and the more damnable confusion: Therefore we must needs say and believe, That there is a much greater necessity of distinct entities in morals, then in naturals, because there is a much greater necessity that we should exactly know our Duties, then that we should ex­actly know our estates or habilements; That we should know our God, then that we should know the world; And conse­quently, any true Christian Church which teacheth us in morals, must much more abhor to confound a [...]ommandement, for fear she should perplex us in our Religi­on; then the most careful Tutor, that teacheth us in naturals, canabhor to con­found a Predicament, for fear he should perplex us in our learning: For there is no such desperate perplexity as that of Conscience, and no such damnable con­fusion as that of Religion; and God hath ordained and commanded his [Page 175] Church to prevent and to redress, not to create or to continue either such perplexi­ties or such confusions: And a late facti­on in your Church, by either expunging or abridging the second Commandement, (for in some Catechisms it is expunged, in others it is abridged, for fear if it were read out all at length, it should either stag­ger the people by the plainness of its Pro­hibition, or else awake and frighten them by the terribleness of its commination) have brought two great absurdities upon the outward Profession of your Religion, which I may not be ashamed to name, whiles you are not afraid to practise; First that in this point it is less certain, then was the Religion of the Jews; for they had no confusion in their principles concerning the outward worship of God, as you have; and where is confusion, there must be uncertainty. Secondly that in this respect it is more scandalous and of­fensive, then was sometime the Religion of the Heathen; For Numa would not allow any image to be made of God (saith Plutarch in his life) because he was a mind invisible, and therefore neither to be represented nor worshipped by any image; But you will needs both repre­sent [Page 176] and worship him by images: Why should any Christians do that against the Law of God, which some Heathen would not do against the Law of nature? For if the Gentiles which had not the Law, doing by nature the things contained in the Law, were a Law unto themselves, and shewed the work of the Law written in their hearts, by ab­staining from so gross Idolatry: what can be said in excuse of those Christians who have the same Law of nature as fully written in their hearts, and more fully written in the Holy Scriptures, yet will not do by Grace the things contained in the Law, nor shew the work of the Law written in their hearts and in their Bibles, but will needs be a Law unto themselves against the Law of God and nature, that they may be and continue most gross Idolaters? I could wish with all my soul that the question were imper­tinently asked, because I fear it cannot be substantially answered; and if it may stand good without an answer, it will not only be a most harsh question, but also a most heavy accusation.

Secondly, this reckoning the First and Second but as one Commandement, is al­so against accidental Catholicism, that is [Page 177] to say, against the Profession of a Divine Truth, universally taught in the Church of God by the Jews and by the Christians, both before and after Saint Augustines daies; For the Jews Church, we have the testimony of Josephus, who lib. 3. Antiq. cap. 4. hath these words, [...]: The first Commandement teacheth us There is but one God, and that we must worship him alone; The second commandeth us not to worship him by any image.

For the Christian Church, we have ge­nerally the Testimony of all the Fathers before Saint Augustine, and of all the writers after him, till the Schoolmen; and we have his too, as to the force and ver­tue of the second Commandement, though not as to the place and order of it. I will cite but some few.

1. Origene in his 8. homily upon Exo­dus, speaking of the first and second Com­mandements, saith, That some would have them both go but for one, but he al­together dislikes their opinion, and thus confutes it; Quod si ita putetur, non com­plebitur decem numerus mandatorum, & [Page 178] ubi jam erit Decalogi veritas? If we rec­kon so, we shall not have the full number of Ten Commandements, and where then will be the truth of the Decalogue?

2. Athanasius in bis Synopsis, cap. [...]: This Book of Exodus containeth the S [...]atutes or Judgements, and before them all the Ten Commandements in two Tables, whereof this was the first, I am the Lord thy God, &c. This the second, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image.

3. Greg. Naz. in his verses, which have this title, [...], The Ten Commandements of Moses, sets this for the first Commandement, [...]: Thou shalt not know any other God: and this for the second, [...], Thou shalt not make any vain or breathless image; I could moreover add Saint Chrysostom, and Epi­phanius, and others; but this was never at all a doubt, much less a Controversie in the Greek Church: Therefore I make haste to the Latines, where I will not in­sist upon Saint Hierom, because we had his [Page 179] testimony already in Sedulius, but only Saint Ambrose, who in his Comment upon the sixth of the Ephesians, saith ex­presty, This is the first Commandem [...]nt, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me; and this the second, Thou shalt not make to thy self any image or likeness; This is enough to shew the doctrine of the Latine Church, whereof Saint Hierom and Saint Ambrose were accounted the two first and chiefest Doctors; yet to these I will add Severus Sulpitius, who in the first Book of his holy History hath these words, Nos eam (sc. legem Dei) bre­viter perstringemus; Non erunt (inquit) tibi alii Dii praeter me; Non facies tibi Idolum; Non sumes nomen Dei tui in va­num; Sabbathis nullum opus facies, &c. I will briefly set down the Law of God, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, Thou shalt not make to thy self an image or idol, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, Thou shalt do no work on the Sab­bath daies, &c. This man undertaking to set down the Decalogue, sets down those four Commandements distinctly as be­longing to the first Table: And though the Schoolmen in process of time had ge­nerally followed Saint Augustine, joyning [Page 180] the first and second Commandements in one, yet the other Divines had not gene­rally followed the Schoolmen, till of very late years, if we may believe Polydore Vir­gil, (an Author that writ in the daies of our King Henery the eight) For in his fifth Book de Invent. rerum, and ninth Chapter, he hath these remarkable words, Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, quorum capita haec sunt, Unum Deum colito; Nullius animalis effigiem colito; Per Dei nomen haud frustra dejerabis; Festos dies piè & ri [...]è celebrato; Parentes venerare; Hominem ne occideris; Adul­terium fuge; Furtum non feceris: Nihil alienum concupiveris, nec falsum dix eris testimonium: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandements, the Heads whereof are these, Worship one God; Worship not the image of any creature, (mark he puts these for two several heads of the Deca­logue, and not the one as it were the tail of the other) Swear not vainly by the name of God; Observe the Festivals piously and righteously; Honour your parents; Kill no man; Fly adultery; Steal not; Covet nothing that belongs to another; Bear no false witness; He is so far from dividing the Tenth Commandement, that he puts [Page 181] the ninth after it, whereby to keep others from dividing it; for it is palpble himself took Nihil alienum concupiveris, but for one Commandement: And he saith so plainly, That these were the heads of the Commandements; that nothing could be said more plainly, to shew That though the School did use a liberty in Disputing, yet the Church did not use a liberty in Dogmatizing against the Ten Commande­ments, as they had been taught and deli­vered by God himself.

9. But that generally all good Church­men did even at that time in their method of Preaching (of which he there speak­eth) part the first and second Com­mandements, and did not part the tenth; for he that saith, Covet nothing that be­longs to another, sets down but one uni­versal negative concerning all coveting; And an universal negative may no more be divided into particulars, then it may be limited; for its division, will at last prove its limitation; and so an universal will be turned into a particular, and Gods Negative will be made mans Affirmative; as for example, Thou shalt covet nothing of thy neighbours, may be made, Thou shalt covet something of thy neighbours; [Page 182] for the enumeration of all the prohibited particulars in an universal negative being impossible, to particularize in some few only as prohibited, is in effect to leave those which are not particularized or enu­merated out of the Prohibition; and therefore we may not think those parti­culars which are set down in the Tenth Commandement, to be set there by way of enumeration, as if they were All, but only by way of instance or exposition, as being the most notorious; And conse­quently one and the same Prohibition, Thou shalt not covet, must be extended to them All alike, and then pass from those particulars till it come to this universal, Nor any thing that is his; So that this is in truth the Tenth Commandement, Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neigh­bours; for we cannot make it an universal Negative, unless we suppose it but one universal Prohibition, concerning all man­ner of concupiscence, forbidding inter­nally the first motions and affections thereof, and the consent to either; ex­ternally, the leud significations or expres­sions, and much more the completion and custom of concupiscence; All these are alike forbidden in the Tenth Commande­ment, [Page 183] by one & the same universal Prohi­bition; And if it be but one Prohibition, it cannot be two Precepts; and if it be two Precepts, it cannot be one Prohibition, & so it must come from an universal nega­tive, forbidding all concupiscence to be a particular negative, forbidding some con­cupiscence, and consequently licencing that which it hath not forbidden.

10. I have hitherto examined your as­sertion, ‘That all Catholick Divines af­ter Saint Augustine did reckon the first and second Commandement but as one;’ I now come to examine your Divinity built up­on it, and first that Position, ‘It is im­possible for Christians (whatever the Jews did) well instructed in the First, to offend through ignorance against the se­cond Commandement;’ You might as well have said, It is impossible for Christians well instructed, to sin through ignorance; for you allow the instruction of the first to reach to the second, or you allow no second Commandement; so the instru­ction and the ignorance both concern the same thing. I answer, 1. God thought it not impossible; for he hath given the se­cond Commandement no less to Christi­ans then to Jews, since we find it not only [Page 184] re-inforced, but also even repeated in the New Testament, 1 John 5. 21. Little chil­dren, keep your selves from Idols; 9. d. If you will keep your selves Gods children, and in his Communion, you must keep your selves from idols or images in his ex­ternal worship: For to use idols or im­ages ( [...] in Greek being translated by your own Vulgar Interpreter, simula­cra in Latine) as a part of the worship of the true God, is to communicate with those who did worship false Gods, that is, with the Heathen, who worshipped their false Gods, (or rather Devils) by Idols and Images: The same is Saint Pauls do­ctrine, 1 Cor. 10. That the Israelites who did eat of the sacrifices, were partakers of the Altar, v. 18. that is, by eating of the sacrifices, did shew their Communion in the Mosaical rites and ceremonies; from whence he inferrs this conclusion, That for any man to eat things offered unto Idols, is to communicate with Idolators in their idolatry, and that is no less then to forsake the Communion of God, and to have Communion with Devils, v. 20, 21. And I hope you will say there is little reason and less Religion, for any Divine to averr, That Christians may not [Page 185] indeed communicate in things offered un­to Idols, but yet they may communicate in the Idols themselves, without being Idolaters; that is, without breaking Communion with God, or beginning Communion with Devils: For if they be Idolaters, they must do both; and they may be Idolaters not only by committing Idolatry, but also by communicating in it: Therefore as God had before said to the Jews, [You shall make you no Idols nor image to bow down to it, for I am the Lord, Levit. 26. 1.] So after that he said also to the Christians, Wherefore my Beloved, flee from Idolatry, 1 Cor. 10. 14. and used the same reason as before, but much more fully explained, for as he said to the Jew, I am the Lord; so he said to the Christian, Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord Table, and of the table of Devils; as if he had said, Unless you will forsake my Communion who am your Lord, and unless you will needs communicate with Devils who are mine enemies, you must ab­stain from this and all other idolatrous rites and ceremonies in my worship, which have been used by the Heathen in their worship, and particularly from [Page 186] Idols, for I will not be worshipped by you as the Devil was worshipped by them, with Idols or Images; This is the general reason which God himself gives of the Prohibition, For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; and this reason without doubt did not then more con­cern the Jew, then it doth now concern the Christian; for God is now as jealous of his Honour and Worship, as he was then, and hath as great cause for his jea­lousie. 2. We ought to follow God, and think it both possible and easie for Chri­stians well instructed in the first, to offend through ignorance against the second Commandement: For the second Com­mandement hath its own peculiar and di­stinct moralitie from the first, not only that it prohibiteth external, when the first prohibiteth internal Idolatry, (as you ac­knowledge) but also because the first treateth of the Object, the second of the Manner of our religious worship, and therefore is as liable to be transgressed through ignorance, as the first; ac­cording to Saint Johns rule, [...], Sin is the transgression of the Law; 1 John 3. 4. Therefore you must deny the [...], or not deny the [...], you [Page 187] must deny the second Commandement to be a Law, or not deny but you may trans­gress it as far as you may transgress any other Law: And consequently unless you will pass your index expurgatorius up­on Gods hand-writing as you have upon mans, and come with your deleatur upon his Commandements, as you have upon their Books, you may not think to per­swade Christians, That it is impossible for them to sin through ignorance against the se­cond Commandement; For the Text is plain which saith to Christians well in­structed in the first Commandement, Neither be ye Idolators as were some of them, 1 Cor. 10. 7. speaking not at all of in­ternal, but only of external idolatry; and speaking to no purpose, if the Knowledge of the one were incons [...]stent with the Ig­norance of the other: But the contrary is here proved. For the Jews believed in one God, calling him Jehovah according to the first Commandement, (To morrow is a feast to Jehovah, Exod. 30. 5.) yet are called Idolators, because they worship­ped that God by a molten image, against the second Commandement; Now if those Jews were ignorant Idolators who said to an Image, These be thy Gods O [Page 188] Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt; How are not those Christians ignorant Idolators, who say to a piece of wood, Thou hast redeemed us, Thou hast reconciled us unto God? Neither perchance to be called Idolators through ignorance against the first Commandement, in the undue object of worship, for that was God; yet both alike gross Idolators against the second Commandement, (either through ignorance or through presumption; and my charity bids me say through igno­rance) in the undue manner of worship­ping; for God will not be worshipped by any Image or Representation.

11. But that brings me upon your se­cond position, which concerns the wor­shipping of our blessed Saviour by his pi­cture; and I think that also very false and dangerous Divinity, both in the specula­tion and in the practice, both to be taught and to be followed; For surely we Chri­stians may not worship our Saviour Christ by any Image, because as Christi­ans, we believe him to be God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Fa­ther by whom all things were made; and we cannot deny but as God he forbids him­self [Page 189] to be worshipped by pictures or im­ages: So that here I may justly retort your own argument against you; For you in effect say, That because Jesus Christ is the true God, therefore he may be worshipped by an image: But it is quite contrary; for therefore he may not be worshipped by an Image, because he is the true God: Or to set it down in your own words, ‘[It must first be proved that Jesus Christ is a false God, before the ap­plication of our divine worship through his pictures unto him can be convinced of Ido­latry]’ For because Jesus Christ is with­out controversie the true, not a false God; therefore the application of di­vine worship through a picture unto him, is idolatry; for it is the true God which forbids himself to be worshipped by an image; for it is the true God which being an infinite, eternal, incorruptible Spirit, òught not, cannot either be re­presented or worshipped by a finite, a momentary, a corruptible Image; and this himself hath taught us saying, For I the Lord, there is his Omnipotency; Thy God, there is his All-sufficiency; do not you then think he may be described by a picture the workmanship of your hands; [Page 190] for that is to think him neither omnipo­tent nor all-sufficient; Do not you think he may be worshipped through a picture which himself hath so expresly forbidden; for that is in effect to deny him to be your Soveraign Lord. For if he be the Lord, ascribe unto him that worship and honour which himself hath commanded, not that which himself hath forbidden, because you cannot ascribe unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name, whiles you do not ascribe unto him the honour due unto his Nature; that is, the honour of being the Lord: For this is to say un­to him, Lord, Lord, according to the let­ter of the first Commandement, whiles by your breaches of the second, you force him to say unto you, I know you not, de­part from me ye workers of iniquity; so far is it from Truth, That Christians well in­structed in the first, cannot through igno­tance offend against the second Comman­dement; yet I will strive to make it true for truths sake, by annexing to it this supposition, if they exactly follow the in­structions given them in the first Commande­ment; for then clearly they will know God too well either to worship him by an image, or to worship any image in­stead [Page 191] of him; But now this your own assertion, like a rebellious subject, will take up arms against you; for by the Rule of Logick, which proceeds from the ever­sion of the Consequent, to the eversion of the Antecedent, it may be proved that notwithstanding all your great boasts of being so well instructed in the first Com­mandement, you have not well received, or not well followed those instructions, be­cause you have not rightly received and followed the prohibition of the second; For if the first Commandement were in truth rightly understood and obeyed amongst you, according to your own ne­gative, Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me; and according to your own affirmative, Thou shalt have me only for thy true God, you would not be so zealous as you are, to bestow religious worship upon your petty Deities, for that is to have strange Gods, not him only for your God; nor would you be so ready to represent or worship the eternal Deitie through a picture; for that is not to have him for the true God; since undenyable is that of the Apostle, God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in [Page 192] Temples made with hands, Acts 17. 24. And if not in Temples, then sure not in Images made with hands, yet take away this crude and carnal thought, that the Creator is like the creature, to be confi­ned or comprehended in his dwelling, which is against the very light of nature, and much more against the light of grace, and you will not easily be Idolators either in worshipping him by an Image, or in worshipping an image instead of him: So that from your not honoring God rightly according to the Prohibition of the se­cond, we have reason to fear you do not honour him rightly according to the in­struction of the first Commandement: For even Damascene himself though a great admirer of other Images, yet al­lows not any to make the Image of God; but saith, (lib. 4. de Orthod. fide, c. 16.) [...]; Who can make a repre­sentation of the invisible, incorporeal God, which can neither be described nor defined? it is then the height of madness and of wic­kedness, to make any form or picture of the Deity: Therefore Christ as God, is not [Page 193] to be represented, much less worshipped by a picture, and consequently your ap­plication of divine worship through his pictures, unto him, may easily be convin­ced of Idolatry.

12. I next come to your third position, which concerns the worshipping of Saints and Angels, for they are to be Re­ligiously worshipped before their pi­ctures; and if not they, then not their pictures; since therefore all moral du­ties (that are performed without us) are reduced by our blessed Saviour to these two Heads, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart; and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self, (Saint Mat. 22.) I ask, To which of these two you will re­duce your Religious worshipping of Saints and Angels? If to the first, say there is more then one God, and you can love more then one God with all your heart: If to the second, do not talk of a Religious worship; for no man yet ever worshipped himself with a Religious wor­ship, and you are to love your neighbour but as your self, not as your God; For since God hath called All but himself your neighbour, how can you call Any but himself your God, whiles you wor­ship [Page 194] him as your God by a Religious worship? Can you think that Job did not intend that of every other creature whatsoever, which he spake of the Sun & Moon, (because the Heathen bestowed their Religious worship on them, as not knowing any creature more glorious then them, for they knew nothing of the An­gels, or glorified Saints) If mine heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand, This also were an iniquity to be punished by the Judge; Hebr. [...] Iniquitas judicans vel judicialis, & digna quae à Judice puniatur, an iniquity to be punished by the Judge of quick and dead, since it is a Judged Case in his own Court, (since he himself hath judged it to be an iniquity) For I should have denyed the God that is above; Here is the Religious worship, which calleth the creature the Creator, for so saith Jarchi [...] If I have worshipped the Sun or Moon, saying they are Gods; And here is the iniquity that cannot escape Judgement; for this calling the creature the Creator, is to de­ny the God that is above; so saith [...] I should have denyed the [...] [...]at is above; The meaning [Page 195] is, [...] The God that is above these two great lights; The Hebrew words will yet bear another in­terpretation, [...] For I should have lyed against the God above; Hence Idolatry is called mendacium perni­ciosum, a pernicious lye, by your own Reginaldus; Scandalous to men, injurious to God, directly against the honour due unto him, which is not communicable to any but to himself, (Regin. lib. 16. cap. 14. sec. 3.) Idolatry is therefore called a Lye in Job, a pernicious lye in Reginaldus; be­cause it communicates that honour to the creature, which is due only to the Crea­tor: And according to this Principle, The Religious worship of Saints and An­gels must be called Idolatry: For to wor­ship them Religiously, is to Communi­cate to them the honour of God, it is to say they are Gods: And to say they are Gods, is to lye both to God and man; for it is to deny the God that is above them, and to deceive the men that are amongst us: For it is vam here to talk of inferiour degrees of worship, since Magis & minus non variat speci [...]; if it be Religious worship properly so called, the least degree of it is Religious worship, [Page 196] and the g [...]eatest degree of it is no more; Therefore we say, That Religious wor­ship in what degree soever, is to be given only to God, because he alone is the ob­ject of Religion: For Religion, though it command and govern such acts as pass from man to man, or from man to God, yet it doth not of it self produce or excite any act but only such as hath God for its immediate object: And therefore all the elicite and proper acts of Religion, such as flow from its own nature, are reducible to some of the four Commandements in the first Table, which concern God only, as appears in that his name alone is used in every one of them: And therefore to bestow any act of Religion upon any other then upon God alone, is to set up both a God and a Religion neither re­vealed nor commanded in the first Table, and consequently not of Goa's, but of our own making; Nay it is to fetch a God out of the second Table, to bestow upon him the Duties enjoined in the first; It is to borrow an Object from the second Table, to exercise the Acts of the first: For the whole Decalogue knows no other object but only God or neighbour; and these are so distinct, That what is neighbour, [Page 197] cannot be God; what is God, cannot be neighbour; And the Acts concerning these are as distinct as the Objects; for all the Acts commanded or forbidden in the first Table concern our God; All the Acts commanded or forbidden in the se­cond Table, concern our neighbour; and tis equally absurd, to apply to neighbour the Duties belonging to God, as Glory or Worship; and to apply to God the Du­ties belonging to neighbour, as relief or maintenance: This is the Divinity God himself hath taught; for it is the plain un­doubted sense of his Commandements; and this is the Divinity Gods Church hath learned and professed; for thus she understood his sense, as saith Lactantius, (lib. 6. cap. 10.) Primum Justitiae offici­um est conjungi cum Deo, secundum cum homine; sed illud primum Religio dicitur, Hoc secundum misericordia vel humani­tas nominatur; The first office of Justice is to unite man to God; The second to unite man to man, or to his neighbour: The first office is called Religion, the second is called Humanity: And therefore it is against the very order of Justice to confound these offices; For as Humanity cannot extend to God, so Religion cannot extend to neigh­bour: [Page 198] Wherefore since all Communion is founded in Justice, those who most con­found the offices of Justice, are the great­est enemies and opposers of true Christi­an Communion; and consequently, They who worship Saints and Angels, are the greatest Schismaticks, because they most confound the Offices of Justice, doing to neighbour those offices which belong to God, and not doing to God those offices which belong to him; For he that renders to Caesar Gods due, doth for that cause not render to God his own due: And ac­cordingly these two are disjoyned and divided as two distinct offices of Justice by Gods own eternal Wisdom and Truth; and therefore may not be confounded without mans unsufferable folly and mi­stake; for so saith our blessed Saviour, Mat. 22. 21. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; there's the Debt of Ju­stice belonging to Humanity: And unto God the things that are Gods; there's the Debt of Justice belonging to Religion. Cesar must have his own, but he may not have Gods Tribute: The noblest creature that is either in Heaven or in Earth, may not have the Creators due: Since there­fore Religion is the Creators due, as Hu­manity [Page 199] is the creatures, (according to Lactantius) Gods most glorious Ser­vants, Saints and Angels, may not be sharers with their Master in his due, that is to say in the offices of Religion, though in never so inferiour a degree, because they cannot be Gods, though in never so inferiour a degree: But they may only be sharers with their fellow-servants or creatures, in the offices of Humanity, whether double or treble, or (if you will) centuple sharers, it matters not, according to their several degrees of glo­ry and of excellency: And this was so clear a Truth in our Saviours daies, that it is said concerning the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians, when they heard these words they marvelled, and left him, and went their way, (v. 22.) And it is still so clear (notwithstanding the ma­ny sophistical distinctions whereby some of late have clouded it) that if any man now will needs reply against it, he must be more refractory then those Pharisees or Herodians, and fall under Saint Pauls reproof, Nay but O man, who art thou that replyest against God? Rom. 9. 20. For God the Father in his Law, God the Son in his Gospel, and God the Holy Ghost [Page 200] the Pen man both of Law and Gospel, hath so determined, That the offices of Justice may not be confounded; but those which belong to Religion must be reserved by themselves for God alone; none of them all bestowed upon our neighbour; he is capable only of those offices which belong to Humanity; but of none of those which belong to Religion: Therefore your words, ‘[And the same I say proportionably, though in an infinitely inferiour degree of our Religious worship of his glorious Servants, Saints and Angels]’ are not to be justified, though you should say them to the worlds end; For there is no proportion betwixt the creature and the Creator, and consequently you may not say the same thing, or talk of the same worship proportionably concerning them.

13. The Honour of Humanity or of the second Table, due from the fifth Com­mandement, though in the highest degree of proportion, being infinitely below the Creator; and the honour of Religion or of the first Table, due from the four first Commandements, though in the lowest degree, being infinitely above the crea­ture; For that honour is internally in the [Page 201] understanding an apprehension or belief of an infinite excellency; in the will, a subjection or submission to it; there's the duty of the first Commandement: The same honour is externally in the gesture an adoration, in the speech a profession, in the deed a publick and solemn Homage made to the same infinite excellency; there's the duty of the three other Com­mandements in the first Table: Where­fore you must place your degrees of pro­portion, not in religious worship, to make an inferiour degree of that, but in civil worship to make a superiour degree of that for Gods glorious servants, unless you will serve them instead of God to the dishonour of their Lord, and to the de­spight of his Commandements. I would not speak so positively, were this Divinity of yesterday; but you see Lactantius shews it was of old in the Catholick Church: And the Angelical Doctor shews the same; for notwithstanding the Pra­ctice of the Church was corrupted in his daies, yet this Doctrine, this Divinity was not corrupted: For this we find was his determination, 12 ^o qu. 100. art. 5. in c. Sicut praecepta Legis humanae ordinant hominem ad quandam communitatem hu­manam: [Page 202] Ita praecepta legis divinae ordi­nant hominem ad quandam communita­tem seu rempublicam hominum sub Deo; Ad hoc autem quod aliquis in aliquâ com­munitate be [...]è commoratur, duo requi­runtur: Quorum primum est ut benè se habeat ad eum qui praeest communitati; aliud autem est ut benè se habeat ad alios communitatis consocios & comparticipes; oportet igitur quòd in lege divinâ primò ferantur quaedam praecepta ordinantia hominem ad Deum, & inde alia quaedam praecepta ordinantia hominem ad alios proximos simul convenientes sub Deo. As the praecepts of humane Laws do order men to a Communion or Common wealth amongst themselves; so the Precepts of di­vine laws do order men to a Communion or Common-wealth under God; Now that a man may be fit to live in any Communion, two things are required; The first is that he behave himself well towards the Head of that Communion; the next that he behave himself well towards his fellow-members and co-partners in it: Accordingly in the Di­vine Law, first we meet with precepts teach­ing a man his duty towards his God; after these we meet with other precepts teaching him his duty towards his neighbours, who to­gether [Page 203] with himself do live under the govern­ment of that same God: Nothing can be spoken either more plainly or more pun­ctually, to shew that the Decalogue, as the Rule of Justice, is the g [...]ound of Chri­stian Communion; That whosoever de­sires to be of that Communion, must first learn his Duty towards his God the Head of it; then his duty towards his neigh­bours, his fellow-members in it: That these Duties are as distinct as their ob­jects, taught in two several distinct or­ders of precepts, some concerning God, others concerning his neighbours: And that all save God alone are to be account­ed as his neighbours in this Communion, as all living with himself under one and the same Head, which is God: From which premises we may well inferr this conclusion, That what Duty belongs to the Head only, may not be practised to­wards any of the members, without a confusion of Gods Order, a violation of Gods Law, and an invasion of Gods Right, which must needs be highly dis­pleasing to all the true members of this Communion, whether in heaven or in earth, who all agree in nothing more then in honouring their Head; and [Page 204] therefore cannot but detest whatsoever shall tend to his dishonour; for since himself hath said, I am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to ano­ther, Isa. 42. 8. we may be ashamed, must be afraid of giving that Glory to Saints and Angels, which God will not part withall; for if he deny the gift, how dare we give? that's to give in sin; there's rea­son for our fear: If he will not give it, they will not take it; that's to give in vain; there's reason for our shame: For as in mens natural, so in Christs mystical Body, all the members alike are made to serve the Head; and in order to the Head it is that they serve one another; So that there is not one member, which will not neglect to serve it self, and much more its fellow-member, when it should serve its Head: Let God but have the same pri­viledge among Christians (as without doubt he hath the same right; for they are that body whereof he is the Head) and no man will hereafter so misplace his devotion, so mispend his time, so mi­stake himself, as to be worshipping of an Angel or a Saint, whiles he should be worshipping of God: I will not ask, With what faith I can say, I believe in an [Page 205] Angel, instead of I believe in God; or to which Article of the Creed this Religi­ous worship (as you call it) is reducible, that it may be done in faith, (though what is not of faith is sin; more then ex­ceeding sinful in our Prayers) for in that I have proved this worship cannot be without f [...]lly, I have sufficiently proved it cannot b [...] with faith; Nor will I ask how it is agreeable with our Lords most holy Prayer (the pattern of all sound prayers) for me to say Our Brother, instead of Our Father which art in heaven; (though if I pray out of Christs Communion, who will not, cannot joyn with me in saying Our Brother, but will and doth joyn with me in saying, Our Father, I cannot pray in hope, because I must also pray without Christs Intercession, through which alone God heareth my prayers) for having proved that this worship cannot be with faith, I need not prove it must be without hope: I only ask, How this worship can be with Charity; I mean that Charity which hath God only for its immediate object, since Faith, Hope and Charity are three Theological vertues no less insepa­rable from themselves, then they ought to be inseparable from our souls: And if [Page 206] this worship may not be with Gods Cha­rity, why should my Charity be with this worship? If it love not God, why should I love it? and if it love another instead of God, how doth it love God? Sure I am, God himself hath determined in a case very like this, That They who em­brace a false worship, do hate the true God; Exod. 20. 5. Visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And how can good Christians with any conscience do that which may come under the least temptation or suspition of hate­ing God? Wherefore this false worship must needs so trouble and startle true Believers, as to be the cause of division and dis-union for ever in the Church of Christ, dividing man from man to the worlds end, because it divides man from God; for whose sake and in whose name and love we ought to follow and embrace the Christian Communion: For the same Voice which calls us to Communion in worshipping, first calls us to Religion in the worship; nor is it possible for any man to shew a Text which saith, O come let us worship, (there's the Communion) which doth not likewise say, worship God, [Page 207] there's the Religion) Thus saith the man after Gods own heart, and therefore nearest his mind, O come let us worship and fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker, Psal. 95. 6. So establishing publick, as also establishing true, and forbidding false worship; For Rectum index sui & obliqui; he which saith, O come let us worship and fall aown and kneel before the Lord our maker, doth by the rule of con­traries likewise say, Let us not worship nor fall down nor kneel before any that is not our maker; Wherefore since you have most shamefully violated this com­mand, you were best to let your repen­tance follow yout shame, that your shame may not fore-run your confusion: Put then your own translation into your pra­ctice; come with your Venite adoremus & procidamus, & ploremus ante Dominum qui fecit nos; O come let us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our maker, because we have worshipped and falen down and kneeled before those who have not made us, do not convert or call us, cannot save us.

14. For it is the part of Religion to order a man rightly in regard of his God, as of Temperance and of Justice to order [Page 208] him rightly in regard of himself and of his neighbour; so saith Saint Augustine, Tract. 23. in Johan. Haec est religio Chri­stiana ut colatur unus Deus, quia non fa­cit animam beatam nisi unus Deus; This is the true Christian Religion, that we wor­ship one God, because none can make the soul blessed but one God; None can make the soul, saith holy David; None can make the soul blessed, saith holy Augustine, but one God; therefore we may worship none but him; Idem principium creationis & beatificationis; The same God is the au­thor of our Being and of our well-being, and claims our worship as his homage for both; The same is our maker and our Saviour; The same Lord which giveth na­ture, giveth also Grace and Glory; and therefore to ascribe unto others the ho­nour which is due only to him, is to put others in his place, as if they were Lords with him, and were the givers of Na­ture, of Grace, of Glory. Yet this is the Divinity you teach your people; this is the Duty you bind them to do by the first Commandement: Sacrosanctam Eucha­ristiam adoratione latriae venerari jube­mur; Virginem autem Mariam honore hyperdu [...]iae; Cru [...]em etiam adorare & [Page 209] venerari; Angelos vero & maxime An­gelum nostrae custodiae designatum, san­ctos, sanctas, eorum reliquias & Templa, honore duliae honorare jubemur: (me­thodus Confessionis in expositione primi praecepti) We are here commanded to wor­ship the holy Eucharist, the blessed Virgin, the holy Cross, the Angel [...], (especially him that is our Guardian) The Saints, their reliques and Temples: And it is to small purpose that you would be thought to give a lesser kind of worship to these then to God; for all kinds of Religious wor­ship are alike forbidden to any creature by this Commandement; as all kinds of uncleanness by the seventh, of slander by the ninth: So that in truth you have taught your people to worship many Gods, instead of worshipping one God; for you cannot multiply acts specifically distinct, without multiplying the objects; therefore you must make many Gods, by making many several distinct acts of Re­ligious worship: This is such a Babel as reacheth up to heaven, a very great and horrid confusion which confounds the Creator with the creature; and staies not there, but cometh down again and also confoundeth the Communion of [Page 210] Saints, and the Commandements of God, and consequently not only the work, but also the whole rule of Religion; For see­ing our blessed Saviour hath said, On the [...]e two hang all the Law and the Prophets, Mat. 22. 40. by confounding the two Tables of the Commandements, you must also confound the whole Book of God: So then this false worship may only belong to Babel, not to Jerusalem: For in con­founding the Creator with the creature, it strikes at God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; In con­founding the Communion of Saints, it strikes at God the Son, who is the Head of that Communion; In confounding the Commandements, and the whole Book of God, it strikes at God the Holy Ghost, the Pen-man of those Commande­ments, and of that Book: And we ought not to think that Jerusalem the City of God, will either teach or practice a wor­ship against God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: For such a worship is not a Religion, but a Confusion, and is accor­dingly punished with confusion, Psalm 97. 7. Confounded be all they that worship carved Images, and that delight in vain Gods; worship him all ye Gods: A Text that [Page 211] exactly follows the method of the second Commandement proceeding by Com­mand and by Commination; only here the commination is put in the first place, because the command had hitherto been so much transgressed, and so little regard­ed; God thereby intimating, That if his Command doth not restrain us, his com­mination shall ruine us; which in this sin is more terrible then in any other; for here he threatens to visit the sins of the Fathers upon their Children, which in the language of this Text, is To confound both them and theirs: Confundantur om­nes qui adorant sculptilia, saith your own Latine; for that's to delight in vain gods, who are all commanded to worship the true God, as well as we; for so it follows, Worship him all ye Gods; [...], saith the Seventy, wor­ship him all ye his Angels; Here's yet ano­ther confusion, This Idolatry makes them Idols whom God made Angels; it makes them vain Gods, whom he made Gods; It unmakes Angels; and what is that but to make Devils? I mean in regard of those that worship them; For though the holy Angels in themselves are blessed Spirits, yet by those that Religiously wor­ship [Page 212] them, they are after some sort made wicked Spirits, because to them they are the occasion of sin and wickedness; So far is man from righting Angels, by wronging God, from honouring the servants, by dis­honouring their Lord; and yet the best pretence that is usually made in this kind, is, least the Angels for sooth should lose their right, whereas by doing them this right, we do them the greatest wrong, See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-ser­vant; Thou wrongest no less then three by doing it; Thy self, and me, and our common Master; A prohibition twice urged, (Rev. 19. 10. & 22. 9.) and with the same reason, shewing that God made Angels our fellow-servants and Brethren, and that we may not by our Religious worship make them God: Therefore Confounded be they that make them Idols, saith David, since God made them Angels; and yet your Position makes them twice idols; once in themselves, whiles it bestows Religious worship on them; a second time in their images, whiles it bestows that worship on them through their Pictures: And that's your fourth and last Position, which concerns ‘the Religious worship of Gods glorious [Page 213] Servants, Saints and Angels, through their pictures.’

15. In which case if you are not to be convinced of idolatry, sure tis for want of will, not of means of conviction; for the Commandement expresly forbiddeth to make the likeness of any thing in hea­ven or in earth with intent to worship it; and I believe you will not deny the Saints and Angels to be in heaven; or if so (be­cause for ought you know, who believe the Purging of souls after death, some Saints may be in Purgatory to be tor­mented, some good Angels there to tor­ment them) yet you cannot deny God to be in heaven, unless you will discard your Pater Noster, which teacheth you to say, Our Father which art in heaven: But it is a sufficient proof that your Priests are convinced of their Idolatry in worshipping of Images, because they are so willing to shuffle off the second Com­mandement which forbids it, least that should also convince the common people; wherein a late German Bishop and Clergy of yours shewed too much fraud to be accounted men of conscience, and too little Art to be accounted men of cunning; for commanding that the Lords Prayer, the [Page 214] Angelical salutation, the Creed and Ten Commandements should be distinctly and leisurably repeated in the German tongue every Lords day by the Parish Priests, that the people might be able to repeat, understand, and learn them (Distinctè ac tractatim, ut populus legentem repetitio­ne subsequi, ea discere, & memoriae man­dare possit. Synod. Augustensis cap. 25.) yet left not so much as any blind footsteps of the second Commandement in their German translation, which they appointed the Priests to read: There was little con­science in leaving out one of Gods Com­mandements, and as little cunning in com­manding the Parish Priests to read them All, when they themselves had left out One; for they could not think by their false copy which quite left out the second Commandement, and called the third the second, to blind their Priests, though they did think by it to blind the people: They would be thought very zealous in teaching those committed to their charge, all the Fundamentals of salvati­on, yet purposely concealed one main practical fundamental, because they had formerly mis-taught, or at least mis­practised the same; finding it more agree­able [Page 215] with their honour, though less with their honesty, to let the people continue still in ignorance, then to recall their own errour: The like was the tender care and conscience of your Trent Fa­thers to instruct the people in their pray­ers, (Sess. 22. cap. 8.) Etsi Missa mag­nam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem, non tamen expedire visum est Patribus ut vulgari linguâ passim celebraretur; Ne tamen oves Christi esuriant, Pastores fre­quenter aliquid in Missâ exponant; Though the Mass contain in it very great and necessary instructions for faithful people, yet we do not think fit to put it in a language they can understand; notwithstanding least Christs sheep should be bunger-starved, the Pastors are required often to expound some parts of it. A great seeming Fatherly care of souls, to fear they might perish for want of food; but no Fatherly kind­ness nor resolution, rather to let them perish then make them able to feed them­selves; But the cause was the same in both; The peoples ignorance was to keep them in their sinful obedience; For the less they knew, the more they would obey in things so plainly against the Law of God; Therefore these two Synods had [Page 216] rather the common people should wor­ship God without their Reason, then with their Conscience; though they could not worship as men, without their Reason, nor as Christians, but with their Conscience: But so it is, Reason and Conscience must both be laid aside or lulled asleep, when men are to act upon false Principles, as in this particular, The Commandment was to be thrown down, that the Images might be k [...]pt up; For that is so plain in its Prohibition, and so powerful in its Commination, that if the people had understood it, they would not have committed so gross Idolatry, or would full soon have become very peni­tent Idolators: And good reason; for Images are but a relick of Paganism; Ex Gentili consuetudine, as saith Eusibius, Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 18. [...], out of a Paganish custom; and therefore long kept out of the Churches of Chri­stians, and longer kept out of their Reli­gion, though now they so abound in your Churches and Religion, as if you meant that even in your most populous Cities, these your new Gods should exceed and out-vie the number of their worshippers: so that I might justly hint at your pictures [Page 217] and Images; all my fault was, I did only hint at them; I will now make some part of amends, and down-right strike at them, though by other mens hands, not mine own: For in this case I have the primest Champions of Christendom to prove that Images were long kept out of the Churches of Christians, and longer kept out of their Religion; and either of these is enough to break them in pieces.

16. First that Images were long kept out of the Churches of Christians; and for this we have the testimony of Epipha­nius for the Greek, and of Saint Hierom for the Latine Church, both in one Epistle to John of Hierusalem, which was indicted or composed by Epiphanius, translated and approved by Saint Hierom. The testimony is in these words, Cùm ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi con­tra authoritatem Scripturarum, hominis pendere Imaginem, scidi illud, & magis dedi consilum custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperem mortuum eo obvolverent & efferent: Precor ut jubeas Presbyteros ejusdem loci deinceps praecipere in Eccle­siâ Christi ejusmodi vela, quae contra Religionem nostram veniunt, non appen­di: [Page 218] The story is this, Epiphanius going to say his prayers in a Church at Ana­baltha, there spied a vail or curtain which had in it the picture of Christ or of some Saint, at which he was so offended, That he cut down the said veil or curtain, and wished the Keepers of the Church to bury a dead man therewith, alledging it was against the authority of the holy Scri­ptures, and the purity of Christian Re­ligion, that such Images should be set up in Churches; and desiring the Bishop of Hierusalem (in whose Diocess it was) to require the Clergy there to admit no more such pictures or images into that Church: Contra authoritatem Scriptu­rarum, contra Religionem nostram; No Christian Bishop can have stronger argu­ments or rather adjurations, either for the casting out or the keeping out of Images from his Church, then that the retaining or the receiving of them, is against the authority of the Scriptures, the custom of the Church, and the conscience of Re­ligion; All which are here alledged by Epiphanius; For he that saith, Contra Religionem nostram, against our Religion, doth appeal to the custom of Christians, as well as to the conscience of Christianity: [Page 219] And this quotation is such a Gordian not to your Cardinal, that after all his pains to loosen and untie it, at last Alexander like, he cuts it off, saying, Verior solutio, haec verba esse supposititia, (Bell. lib. 2. de sanct. cap. 9.) The truest answer is, The words are supposititious; But words entailed upon the Church for so many hundred years together, are not so easily cut off; The same Authority had before troubled Waldensis; yet he denies not the truth of the story, only saith, That Epiphanius did this thing in hatred of the Anthropomor­phites, and out of zeal not according to knowledge; (Wald. de Sacramental. Tit. 19. c. 157.) So likewise Alphonsus a Castro (lib. de Haer. voce Imago) denies not the storie, only dislikes it, excusing Epiphanius from the Imputation of He­resie, because the thing at that time had not been defined by the Church: And in­deed this storie is to be found in all the editions of Saint Hieroms works, not on­ly in that of Basil by Erasmus, who saith in the argument thereof, Hanc Epistolam Hieronymus in odium Johannis & Rufini Latinam fecit; But also in that of Ant­werp, 1579. where this is the argument, Epiphanius intimus D. Hieronymi, à quo [Page 220] epistola versa est, amicus, excusat se Jo­hanniquod Presbyterum ordinarat in ipsi­us diocaesi ipso inconsulto; postremò cur velum ad Ecclesiae fores pendens, in quo hominis imago depicta erat, sciderit, ra­tionem reddit. This Edition no more doubts that Epiphanius excused the cut­ting of the vail, then the ordination of the Priest to John Bishop of Hierusalem; Nay yet moreover, The edition of Mari­anus Victorius at Rome, which Bellarm. confesseth to be purged from Erasmus his errours, (ab erroribus Erasmi pur­gata est;) hath not this part of the Epistle purged out of it; but Victorius in his Annotation confesseth it to be as undoubted as the rest, in that he seeks to elude it by this gloss, That the storie was to be understod of the image of some pro­fane man, de Imagine hominis profani; He is very bold in calling that the Image of a profane man, which Epiphanius said was the Image of Christ or some Saint, (for so Saint Hierom from him, Habens imaginem quasi Christi vel Sancti cujus­dam) yet not so bold as to deny that Epiphanius had thus dealt with that im­age.

Nay this story is also in Epiphanius his [Page 221] works Printed at Paris, 1622. with Peta­vius his notes; yet he makes not the least objection against it, but by his silence rather seems to allow it as unquestion­able, because he was so well able, yet not willing to question it: But tis no wonder if Petavius in this dissent from Bellarmine, (one Jesuit from another) for in it Bel­larmine dissenteth from himself: For whereas (lib. de Script. Ecclesiasticis) in his Chapter of Saint Epiphanius he said; Ad finem epistolae ad Johannem Hieroso­lymitanum videtur aliquid additum ab Iconoclastis; At the end of his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem, something seems to have been added by the haters of Images; In his Chapter of Saint Hierom, he in effect denyeth any such addition; for he saith concerning the second Tome of Saint Hieroms works, In hoc etiam tomo nihil est dubium vel supposititium; Also in this tome nothing is doubtful or suppositi­tious; and this Epistle of Epiphanius con­cerning the Image at Anablatha, is in that very second tome of Saint Hieroms works: By all which it appears that this passage concerning the Image at Anabla­tha may not be excluded out of Epiphani­us his Epistle, nor out of Saint Hieroms [Page 222] translation, and that alone is enough to prove that in their daies Images were excluded out of all Christian Chur­ches.

17. But some very good men are not troubled that Pictures have got into Churches; for the Lutherans still keep them there; the main trouble is, That they have got into Religion, and therefore in the last place, I am to prove, That though they had (with much ado) got into the Churches of Christians, yet they were a long time after kept out of their Religi­on; For Image-worship was not dogma­tized till the second Council of Nice, (which was not till the year 787. after Christ) nor was it practised as soon as it was dogmatized, but rejected presently after in the Councils of Frankefort, under Charles the great, and at Paris under his son Lodowick; the one saying, The deter­minations of those at Nice smelt of dreams and dotage; (Penè nihil est ibi quod non somnii vanitatem aut deliramenti hebe­tudinem redoleat, Act. Conc. Franc. in lib. Carol. 3. c. 26.) The other saying, That Pope Adrian the first had done very indiscretly, by whose importunity they at Nice had passed those determinations: [Page 223] (Hadrianus indiscretè noscitur fecisse, in eo quod superstitiosè imagines adorari jussit, Concil. Paris. tempore Ludovici, in princip.) And Engilbertus an Abbot, Chaplain to Charles the great, was so bold as to send a full confutation of the Nicene Council concerning this Image­worship, unto Pope Hadrian, which he endeavoured to answer, but had clearly the worst of the cause, as well as of the Religion: And tis worth our notice, That though that part of the Greek Church assembled at Nice, had yielded to the Pope in this particular, (being over­mastered by the impetuousness of Irene their Empress, and overborn by the Au­thority of Theranus their Patriarch) yet the Latine Church did long after stoutly oppose him, (for the Pope at that time was not Omnipotent in his own Diocess, though now he would be so in all the world;) For besides the fore-named op­positions, Jon is Bishop of Orleans in the year 820, though he writ of purpose in defence of Images, yet he writ against their Religious worship, following ex­actly the doctrine of the Council of Frankefort, which chose the middle be­twixt two extreams, defining against the [Page 224] Iconoclasts, that Images should be retained, and against the Idolators, That they should not be worshipped: So Baronius hath re­gistred his opinion, (An. 825. nu. 62.) Jonas ita non confringendas esse praedi­cavit Imagines, ut tamen eas non esse ve­nerandas asseruerit; Wherein he agreed with his adversarie, Claudius Bishop of Turine, whom he would be thought to write against; for though the Title of his Book was de cultu imaginum, concerning the worship of Images, yer the doctrine of his Book was against it; for which cause (saith Bellarm.) He is to be warily read, because he was in the same errour with Ago­bardus and the rest of the French divines of that age, who denyed any religious worship to be due to Images; So that not only Jo­nas, but also all the other French divines in his time, though they allowed Images to be in their Churches, yet they would not allow them to be in their Religion; Hic auctor cautè legendus est, quoniam laborateodē errore quo Agobardus, & re­liqui ejus aetatis Galli, qui negabant Sacris Imaginibus ullum deferri cultum religio­sum; (Bellar. de. Scr. Eccl. in cap. de Jonâ Aur.) which I have declared the more at large, because the same Bellarm. lib. de [Page 225] Imag. cap. 12.) reckons this very Jonas amongst those holy men who worshipped images; Sanctorum virorum qui imagi­nes coluerunt; shewing to all the world that he was not so candid a Divine as he was an Historian, and that he pen'd mens Lives more faithfully then Gods Truths; For this Jonas was so great an opposer of Image-worship, that Baronius saith plain­ly of him and of Walafridus Sirab [...], That they both receded from the common opi­nion of the Catholick Church, and did shoot their bolts both against her practice and her doctrine; Eos à Communi Ca­tholicae Ecclesiae sententiâ resiliisse, atque adversus ejus usum atque doctrinam scri­psisse, & spicula intorsisse: (Bar. An. 794. nu. 62.) So little could the second Council of Nice prevail at that time with the Latine Church, for admitting images into their Religion: And though of late years that Council hath been accounted the seventh Oecumenical by a faction amongst the Latines, yet the Greeks themselves did not antiently so account it, your own Baronius being my witness, An. 863. nu. 6. In reliquis omnibus Ec­clesiis Patriarchalibus exceptâ Constanti­nopolitanâ, sex tantum Oecumenicae Sy­nodi [Page 226] in publicis confessionibus & profes­sionibus nominari consuêrunt, In all the other Patriarchal Churches that of Con­stantinople only excepted, The Grecians did usually make mention of no more then six General Councils, in all their Confessions and Professions: So it is plain they accounted not the second of Nice as the seventh General Council; and if not they, why should we? who know that though the Bishop of Rome consented to it, yet all the other Bishops of the Latine Church gene­rally opposed it: And truly it deserved to be generally opposed not only for set­ting up a false worship, this of images, but also for setting it up by egregious fal­sities, and yet more egregious falsificati­ons. First I will give you a short view of their falsities; our blessed Saviour had said, Mat. 4. 10. [...]. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him on­ly shalt thou serve, They thus qualifie the Greek Text, [...], (Act. 4.) He doth put this Only to the word Serve, not to the word Worship; by false Logick distinguishing between two Sy­nonomaes which signified one & the same [Page 227] Religious worship, unless we will blasphe­mously say That our Saviour did not ful­ly confute the Devil, who had used the word [...] not [...], in his tem­ptation, saying, All these things will I give thee, [...], if thou wilt fall down and worship me; or unless we will add to this blasphemy yet another much more execrable saying, That so as we do reserve our [...], our Divine worship for God, we may allow our [...], our Religious worship to the Devil; be not startled at the infe­rence; for if any may have Religious worship but God alone, the Devil will quickly have his share of it; for he can transform himself into an Angel of light, 2 Cor. 11. 14. and therefore if we will give Religious worship to Angels, we may soon be so deluded, as to give it unto Devils, and whiles we pretend to wor­ship God, may in truth be brought to worship the Devil; Therefore this was so very false a device (though it were in­tended for a distinction) That no Divine: can be in love with it, but he that is con­tented to venter Gods glory and mans salvation, and much more his own soul upon a piece of Sophistry: Again [...] [Page 228] [...], (Act. 4.) Those that call pi­ctures or images Idols, let them be accursed; A false authority assumed, to counte­nance a false divice, taking to themselves power of cursing those whom God had blessed; even the Apostles and Prophets, and many holy men who have promiscu­ously used these two words Images and Idols: However no Christian Divine can justly be condemned for disowning those who could find in their hearts to deliver men over to the Devil, meerly for a Grammatical notion, and that a false one too in the case for which it was alledged; For though there may be a Grammatical difference betwixt an Image and an Idol, yet a Theological difference there is not, since he that worships an Image, doth without all peradventures make that Im­age an Idol to himself.

Thirdly, whereas the Council of Con­stantinople had made men take an Oath against images, These infatuated Zealots determine, it is better for a man to break then to keep that Oath, [...], Act. 4. Tis better you should be perjured then keep your Oath [Page 229] for throwing down of images; strange be­sotted Divines to make so much of an im­age, so little of an Oath; yet more strange besotted Casuists, to advise a man rather to break his Oath, then to break an Image; for an Oath is sacred by Gods institution, but an image is sacred only by mans ima­gination; The one doth not only reach the conscience but also bind it; the other though it doth reach the eye, yet cannot reach the conscience.

Fourthly, They define that Angels and separated souls are corporeal, (which is another falsity) [...], (Act. 5.) They are not quite without bodies, though they have but thin bodies, for only God is wholly without a body; They were so afraid of losing their pictures, that they had rather lose the Truth, and not allow Angels and blessed Spirits to be incorporeal, then not allow them to be pictured; But Binius, though not over modest, yet is ashamed of this gross as­sertion, saying, Angelos & Animas esse corporeas falsum est, sed pingi posse judicio Ecclesiae receptum est; Tis false That Angels and souls are corporeal, yet the judgement of the Church is, That they [Page 230] may be pictured; He hath mended the matter well, by taking a falsity from a Council to put it upon the Church; for the Church cannot judge that may be pictu­red which is not corporeal, since linea­ments must first be in the substance repre­sented, before they can truly be in the re­presentation; Therefore the picturing of Angels and immaterial Spirits is more fitly assigned to the practice of some men in the Church, then to the Judgement of the Church; and yet these men intended not an essential but an historical represen­tation of those Spirits; not to describe them in their substances, but in their actions or performances, or appearan­ces.

Fifthly and lastly, (not but that more might be alledged, but that I have already alledged too much of such absurdities) when as a Jew had objected in his Dispu­tation, [...], I am scandalized orgrievously offended at you Christians, be­cause you w [...]rship Images; Their answer is, The Scriptures do not forbid us to worship Images, but to worship [...] as God, [...], (Act. 5.) As if they intended to be so false, as to put a lye into [Page 231] the mouth of Truth it self, making the same Commandement to speak contradi­ctions, whereof it is impossible both parts should be true: For to limit an univer­sal negative, it to make it a particular af­firmative, and consequently so to deny or forbid in one thing, as to affirm and com­mand in another, that is in truth to make it speak contradictions: As for ex­ample, Thou shalt do no murther, limit you this universal negative, by saying, Murder not a Roman Catholick, and it will follow that you may murder a Pro­testant, whom you call an Heretick; and so the same Precept shall forbid and al­low murder, that is, shall speak contradi­ctions: So, Thou shalt not steal, add this limitation, not from a Brother, not from one of the family of Love, and you will make it lawful to steal, so it be from a stranger or from an enemy: The reason is, because an Universal is not capable of Addition, (for who can add to All?) and where nothing can be added, nothing can be distinguished (for who can di­stinguish upon nothing?) Therefore to distinguish upon an universal, is to sup­pose it a particular, to which something may be added, and that is in truth to de­ny [Page 232] it to be an universal: (For every di­stinction is a kind of limitation, and every limitation is a kind of negation:) Thus, Drink ye All of this, is an universal; and therefore as we cannot add to All, so we may not distinguish upon All, and say, Omnes conficientes, All that consecrate; for that is to suppose the Universal a par­ticular, nay to make it so by adding to it; and consequently to include its con­tradictory in the same Precept, making that to say not All, instead of All; and so, Drink ye All of this, and Drink not All of this, will be the sense of one and the same Precept; which being impossible, we must look upon that Trent Declarati­on as more peremptory then true, Ec­clesia declarat nullo divino praecepto Lai­cos vel clericos non conficientes ad biben­dum obligari, (Concil. Trid. sess. 21.) The Church declareth that no divine Pre­cept obligeth the Laity and not consecrating Clergy to drink of the cup: For Drink ye all of this, is a divine Precept, and can­not but oblige all that receive the holy Sa­crament, because it is a Precept concern­ing the receiving it: So in the particular case of Image-worship, The Text saith, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven [Page 233] image or likeness to worship it; if you will limit this universal negative by confining the graven image to this or that kind of image, then the contradictory will be true Divinity; as, Thou shalt not make nor worship the graven image of Venus, or Bacchus, or Jupiter; that is, any image of the Heathen Gods, which are meer fictions: But thou maist make and wor­ship the Image of Christ, and of the Saints and Angels, which have a real be­ing; So then, Thou shalt not worship an Image, and Thon shalt worship an Image, being contradictories, will be both true divinity, and both commanded in the same Precept, and God must be said to Command, and men must be made to Obey contradictions: And yet this is the slight by which your two great Champions Ba­ronius and Bellarmine have endeavoured to elude this very Commandement: Surely I think your Catechist Laurence Vaux much more ingenuous, who goes to prove by this very Commandement, that it is not only lawful, but also necessary, to worship the Images of the Saints: For so in his Catechism Printed at Antwerp, 1574. in the sixt Chapter of his first seven Queries upon the first Commande­ment, [Page 234] he asketh this question, Who break­eth the first Commandement of God, by ir­reverence of God? (you may be sure he means the first with the second joyned to it, because he speaketh of outward irre­verence) to which himself thus answers, They that do not give due reverence to God and his Saints, or to their reliques and im­ages: An excellent Catechist, who makes the second Commandemement say, Thou shalt make, thou shalt worship graven Images; yet this man said no more then your two great Cardinals have in effect, though more covertly, said after him; only he tells us, He writes for the use of children and ignorant men, but your Cardinals write for the use of the great­er and most learned Scholars: But as unsuccessfully as they of Nice before them; The Scripture doth not forbid us to worship Images, but to worship them as God, say the one; The Scripture doth not forbid us to worship true but false Images, say the other: Both distinguish upon Gods universal Precept, the one upon the act of worship, the other upon the object or the image worshipped; so both deny the precept to be universal, and make it particular though God made it universal, [Page 235] and by so doing, give us the contradiction of the Precept, for the exposition of it; For Thou shalt not worship an Image, is, Thou shalt worship an Image, according to both their expositions: But which is very remarkable, As they both contra­dict God, so they also contradict one another; That tis not easie for a sensible man to discern, how far this Image-wor­ship hath been dogmatized; For, Thou shalt not worship Images as God, say they of Nice, Thou shalt worship Images as God, (if they be his images) say your men now, whereby they have in truth forsaken the Council, though they still cleave to the Images; and we have done no more, who have forsaken the Images; And indeed we have been constrained thereto out of our bounden duty to God, and his truth, not only for the many fal­sities, which shew it to have been a facti­ous Council, but also for the many falsifi­cations therein, which in effect shew it to have been no Council; For they bring not Scripture but Revelation and Miracle (the two principles of Enthusiasts not of Divines) for the establishment of their new doctrine; They talk of an Image of our blessed Saviour at Berytus, which [Page 236] being pierced by the Jews, there immedi­ately gushed out of it, Blood and Water; which when the Synod heard, They shew­ed their fond belief by their sad lamenta­tions, [...], They were much troubled and wept; yet upon this and such like fabulous stories which sup­posed a stranger kind of Transubstantia­tion then you have since invented, not changing the substance of bread into Christs Body, but changing the substance of Christs body into Wood or Stone, they were pleased to vote [...], The Relative worshipping of Im­ages, and so call those Jews and Atheists, and enemies to the Truth, ( [...]) who were op­posers of that worship.

But these and the like particular falsifi­cations do chiefly cast a dis-repute upon their doctrine. I now come to a general falsification which will cast a disrepute upon the Council it self: For that fre­quently speaks of letters from the three Patriarcks of Antiech, Alexandria and Hierusalem to Tharasius; And of Thomas and John two Presbyters, as the Legates of those Patriarcks to subscribe in their names, when your own Baronius confes­seth, [Page 237] That they could not then have any entercourse either by message or letter, with those three Patriarcks, because they were wholly under the power of the Sa­razens; and that one of them, namely the Patriarck of Hierusalem, was at that time dead in exile: So that if you cannot take off this forgerie and falsification from these grand voters of Images, you may not allow them the repute of a Council; and you cannot take it off from them, but you must cast it upon your own Baronius: For these are his words, An. 785. nu. 40. Non fuit facultas tribus Patriarchis Ori­entis ad Tharasium rescribendi; neque etiam legatis missis à Tharasio facultas data fuit eosdem conveniendi, cum reg­naret Aaron princeps Saracenicus in Chri­stianos infensissimus: Cùm autem duo qui Constantinopoli missi fuerant ad eos Legati, in Palaestinam pervenissent, audi­entes Theodorum Patriarcham Hiero­solymorum exulem jam desunctum, di­verterunt ad Monachos quosdam, à qui­bus acerbissimam quam paterentur Chri­stiani orientales servitutem intellexerunt, quodque periculosissimum esset adire sive Antiochenum sive Alexandrinum Patriar­cham; nimirum si detecti essent, fore ut [Page 238] non ipsi tantum Legati extremum subi­rent periculum, sed in illud ipsum omnes Orientis fideles conjicerent; quamobrem eos à proposito revocârunt illuc profici­scendi: There was at that time no conveni­ence for those three Patriarchs of the East to write back again to Tharasius, nor indeed for his Legates to deliver Letters to those Patriarcks, because Aaron a Prince of the Saracens, and a great persecutor of the Christians, had the sole power of those Con­tries; Therefore the two Legates who had been sent from Constantinople with Thara­sius his Letters, as soon as they came to Pa­laestine, and there heard that Theodorus Patriarck of Hierusalem was dead in ex­ile, they turned aside to some Monks there, who informed them of the great bondage of the Oriental Christians, and that it was very dangerous for them to go to either of the two Patriarcks of Antioch or Alexandria; for if they were discovered, they would not only endanger themselves, but also all those East­ern Christians; By which means they de­horted them from their purpose of going fur­ther; thus saith Ba [...]onius. Therefore pray expunge that Synodical Epistle out of the third action of this Council, which hath this title, [...], [Page 239] We the high Priests and Priests of the East, framed in answer to that from Tharasius, with this inscription, [...]: To the high Priests and Priests of Antioch, Alexandria, and of the holy City; For it is evident by your own Baronius, that neither was Tharasius his Epistle delivered to any of these Pa­triarcks, not was this answer sent from any of them; Nay indeed it is evident from the answer it self, That it was sent from some Hermites of Palestine, [...], We your humble servants, and the meanest of those who desire to live in the desart; which cannot be made good of any that lived in Antioch, Alexandria, and Hierusalem, their great and populous Cities: Nay in the sequele of the Epistle, the Monks or Hermits themselves disco­ver this forgerie, saying, They would not let the Legates or Messengers sent from the Council go any further, [...]: We therefore knowing the deadly hatred of those cursed Nations against us, [Page 240] resolved with one consent to detain your Mes­sengers, and not let them go to those to whom you had sent them; that is, To the fore­named Patriarcks; And again a little af­ter, We knowing two of our own Brethren, John and Thomas, adorned with the zeal of the Orthodox Faith, said unto them, Go ye along with these men, and make their Apolo­gie, and signifie by word of mouth, what we dare not signifie by letter; and when they ex­cused themselves as private and ignorant men, ( [...]) we reply­ed, That he who opened the mouth of his Apostles enabling them to instruct all the world, is able to open your mouths and make you speak the sense of those (Patriarchs) who neither can now receive the Councils Letters, nor dare answer them; [...]. Potens est dare vobis sermonem in apertione oris vestri ad supplendum intentionem & sensus eorum, qui neque literas quivêrunt suscipere, neque ausi sunt scribere, vel super talibus quolibet modo mutire: See here what Patriarchs they were who sent these two Presbyters, [Page 241] John and Thomas for their Legates to the second Council of Nice, even a few Monks of Palestine, and seeing this, you cannot but abominate that damnable [...]orgerie and falsification of that Council, which reckons these two Presbyters as the Legates of the three Patriarcks of the East, and so takes their Subscriptions; Thus it is said in the beginning of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh actions; That this John and Thomas supplyed the places of the Apostolical Thrones of the Eastern Churches, [...], (a title often afterwards given to that John, with this variation, [...], That he supplyed the place of the Eastern high Priests) and at last at the end of the fourth Action, they both subscribe after this manner, I John supplying the place of the three Apostolical Thrones of Alexandria, Antioch and Hie­rusalem, do agree to all things contained in this Action. The like is also the Subscri­ption of Thomas; and yet one of those Patriarchs was dead, and neither of the other two had sent or could send to this Council; The words of the subscripti­on are these, [...] [Page 242] [...]. Joannes misericordiâ Dei Presbyter, & Patriarchicus Syncellus locum retinens trium Apostolicarum se­dium Alexandriae, Antiochiae & Hieroso­lymorum, omnibus quae praeferuntur in hoc textu consentio, & conveniens sub­scripsi manu meâ: This subscription doubtless was intended for the greater confirmation of this Council, (that it might be thought to have the consent of all the five Patriarchs,) but it is the greatest conf [...]tation of i [...]; for it appears by the very letter which they brought with them, that they came not from any one of those Patriarchs as his Substitutes, but on­ly from some private Monks of Palestine [...] Thus the wisdom of this world is foolis [...]ness with God, (and much more against God) for it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness, 1 Cor. 3. 19. And I think you can scarce shew me in all your Le­gend any one Table which so grosly con­tradicts it self, and so openly bespeaks the Readers dis-belief.

18. What should I say more to dis­prove [Page 243] a false worship, then (which were enough to discountenance a true) even that it was at first set up by falsities and [...]alsifications, and is still upheld by them? Look to your Council that first set it up, look to your Champions that still uphold it, and tell me if they do not proceed in such a course as is fitter for Juglers then [...]or Divines; as if God had given them the Key of knowledge not to open but to lock up his Commandements, and the power of jurisdiction, not to guide his people in the right way of salvation, but to drive and force them out of it; yet thus far notwithstanding so great sins, and so little Repentance, I will gratifie you in leaving the second Commande­ment out of your Confessional Interro­gatories as to say, you may the more se­curely leave it out at the Peoples, if you put it in at your Priests Confession; For to the one this Image-worship is a sin of Ignorance, to the other a sin of Presumpti­on; In the one it is a personal, in the other it is a doctrinal sin; and therefore is ra­ther to be confessed by your Clergy then by your Laity; rather by your Ministers, then by your People; [...]or whereas your People are but single, your Priests are [Page 244] double Idolaters, that is to say, not only in their practice, but also in their doctrine, in that they have set up the Inventions of men, instead of the Commandement of God, and magnified the authority of men not only against, but also above the autho­rity of God, in Gods own worship: So that your Priests had need doubly ask God forgiveness concerning this second Commandement; first for the Idoloatry of their Images, and next for the Idolatry of their Imaginations.

The Answer.

1. I Will not spend words with you like a Sophister, but sense like a Divine; nor will I wonder with what face you made this Exception, but see with what Head, Heart and Hand I can answer it; for all will be little enough to vindicate Gods glory, which you have taken from him to give unto his servants; so little cause have you to be troubled that we will not joyn with you in the same theft, and agree altogether to rob God: For you say, Against praying to Saints, I alledge Job 4. 18. It seems I might have alledged twenty texts more impertinently for pray­ing to Saints, and no exception would have been taken at my allegations; For so your late Dogmatist hath done, most unconscionably, because to the abuse of Christian Religion, most uncharitably, because to the breach of Christian Com­munion; and yet neither you, nor any of [Page 251] your party have sought to reclaim his errour, or to repair Gods truth; But you have laid a task upon me, That I must [...]rit vindicate mine own, before I may oppose his Allegations; Mine own allegation was this, Behold he put no trust in his servants, and his Angels he charged with [...]olly; This [...] used as an argument to confute that strange, I might have said that blasphe­mous Invocation, which you are pleased to teach poor mis-believing souls, (though its rythm being above its reason, shews in what unhappy age it stole into your pray­ers;) O Thoma Didyme, succurre nobis miseris, ne damnemur cum impi [...]s, in ad­ventu Judicis, Help us O good Saint Thomas that we be not condemned with the wi [...]ked in the last Iudgement; ‘For, said I, those mighty helpers the blessed Saints, will not in that day be able to help them­selves, much less will they be able to help others: Therefore all of us had reed rely upon that helper, which alone is able to stand himself, and to support us in the Judgement; and he is no other but only the eternal Son of God.’ For saying this, two great sins are laid to my ch [...]ge (by the cons [...]quence of your ex­ception which concerns Divines, though [Page 252] not by the words of it which concern Grammarians.)

The first is, That I look upon the day of Judgement with too fearful an eye, and seek to get my self an helper or a sup­porter against that day.

The second is, That I look upon my Saviour with too faithful an eye, and seek to get him for my helper and supporter.

Come Sir, let us not triste away our souls, though we do our words, but ac­knowledge the terrour and the scrutinie of that day will be both alike unsupport­able; That the Justice of God will shew it self indispensable: That our conviction will be made indisputable, and why not our condemnation undenyable? That all flesh must then keep silence, and no flesh will be able to keep station before him, but such as have the eternal Iustice to satisfie for their sins, and the eternal Word to plead on their behalf that satisfaction. Therefore in this unimaginable, unexpre [...], inextri­cable exigency and di [...]tress of [...]ouls, there can be but one common Sanctuary for all mankind to she un [...]o, and consequently in vain do any of us [...]lie to other Sanctua­ries before it; For if we must chang our other Sanctuaries then, why should we [Page 253] choose them now? If the Saints then can­not be our Helpers, why should we now pray unto them for help, since all our Prayers tend to this, That we may be ac­quitted in the last Judgement, and not so gain the world as to lose our own souls? My help cometh from the Lord, (saith holy David) which made heaven and earth, Psalm 121. 2. not saying what help, be­cause he meant all help; not saying ae what time, because he meant at all times: not saying in what exigencies because he meant in all exigencies; so then this is his mean­ing, All my help, at all times and in all ex­gencies, cometh from the Lord which made heaven and earth; As no Saint helped him to make them, so no Saint can help me when he will destroy them; Therefore if I would not be helpless in that day when I shall most want help, even in the day of Destruction, I must beseech him to be my Helper which made heaven and earth; For only he that made them out of no­thing, is able to keep me from being wor [...]e then nothing: [...]or though the Heavens shall then pass away with a great noise, and the earth shall be burned up, (2 Pet. 3. 10.) yet his help shall not pass away, but shall preserve me, and all those [Page 254] that heartily Pray unto him, from the everlasting Burnings; which is more then he hath promised to do for those who pray to Saints, and tis to be feared that such prayers will make him do less: Therefore give me such an Helper as will not leave me nor forsake me till he hath saved me, and sure that can be no other but the God of my salvation; so saith the same holy Supplicant, Thou hast been my help, leave me not neither forsake me O God of my salvation, Psal. 27. 9. May I say to any Saint in the Day of thanks giving, (when I shall be in heaven) Thou hast been my help. 2. And how then shall I say to any Saint in the day of supplication, (whiles I am on earth) Make speed to save me, make haste to help me; since what is Prayer on earth, will be Prayer in Heaven; for we shall not there learn unthankful­ness: How can I leave out O Lord, and say, O Mother of God save me and help me? For in this case your learned Cardi­nal supplies me with a reason to the con­trary, Nam ea quibus indigen [...]us superant vires creaturae, ac proinde etiam Sancto­rum, (Bell de [...]anct. Beat. lib. 1. c. 17.) Those things which we [...], are above the power of the Saints to give us; And if [Page 255] our wants be above their Power, how are our Prayers for the supply of those wants not above their Glory? for we are taught to say at the end of our Pray­ers, For thine is the Kingdom, the power and the glory; nor can we pray in faith to any, to whom we cannot say so at the end of our Prayers; therefore not to any but to God the Father, Son and holy Ghost; And it is the great scandal and greater sin of your Prayers to the blessed Virgin and other Saints, That you ask those blessings and that protection from them, which he alone can give, whose is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory; But to return to your Cardinals Reason, (which alone is enough to keep me from turning to his Religion) If those things which we want be not in the power of the Saints to give us, why should they be in our Prayers to the Saints, as if they could give them? [...]or be that hath said, Ask and it shall be given you, Mat. 7. 7. hath in effect said, Ask not of those who cannot give; For that is either to ask in vain, or to ask in sin; tis to ask vain if without the Gift; tis to ask in sin if against the Precept: So then I asking not that help of the Saints which they cannot give, am acquitted by your [Page 256] own Doctor from asking in vain; But you asking from them that help which God alone doth give, are not so easily acquitted by our blessed Saviour from asking in sin.

3. If then there be no stedfastness in the Saints to stand before God, how can they make me so stedfast as to stand be­fore him? Or, If God put no trust in his servants to save themselves, why should I put my trust in them, to save me? Both interpretations agree in sense, though they differ in words; He found no stedfastness in his servants, or He put no trust in his servants; The Hebrew word will bear both, as Saint Hierom hath rendered it, Ecce qui serviunt e [...] non sunt stabiles; so Pagnin hath rendered it, Servis suis non credet; The one saith, He found no stedfastness in his servants; The other saith, He put no trust in his servants; Nay more, He will put no trust in his ser­vants; He hath, he doth, he will put no trust in his servants; The Proposition is of eternal Truth, not to be made [...] in any Tence, because not subject to Time; Take it then of the Angels, his first and best servants, you must take this for the mean­ing of it, He did put no tru [...]t in them wh [...]n [Page 257] he first made them; he doth put no trust in them since he hath confirmed them; he will put no trust in them when he shall glorifie them, that of themselves or through their own stedfastness, they should be able to stand either in nature, or in grace, or in glory; For these words, He put no trust in his ser­vants, are not to be understood, in re­gard of other things (as you strangely imagine) but in regard of themselves: God doth trust one creature with ano­ther, (the inferiour creature with the superiour) Non propter defectum virtu­tis, sed propter abundantiam bonitatis (as Aquinas speaks) not for the defect of his vertue, but for the abundance of his good­ness, Ut dignitatem causalitatis creaturae communicet; that he may communicate to the creature the honour of causality, making one creature the instrumental or subordinate cause of good unto another, whiles himself alone is the efficient and supreme cause of good to All; But this partial or respective Trust is not here meant, which is only in regard of some particular effects, or operations, but that absolute and universal Trust which no less concerns the very Being of the creature, then its working: In this sense God puts [Page 258] no trust in his servants, that is, he trusts them not with themselves, he leaves them not to themselves; for it he did, they would soon lose themselves; according to that of Saint Augustine, Solus Deus immutabilis est; quae autem fecit, quia ex nihilo sunt, mutabilia sunt; God only is un­changeable, but all things that he hath made are changeable, because he hath made them out of nothing; q. d. There was a change in their very making (a change from no­thing to what they are) and therefore they must needs still be subject to change now they are made; For whatsoever is made out of nothing, would soon return to its first nothing, did not the same hand which first made it, still preserve and up­hold it: But because you have lately made your selves new Fathers, from whom you had rather take your Divinity then from the Old, I will alledge unto you one of those new Fathers, and that is your Father Pineda, who gives us this Para­phrase upon the Place, [Ecce qui servi­unt ei non sunt stabiles] Certè supremi ipsi spiritus & Dei ministri, quorum prae­stans atque praeclara natura & constitutio est, nihil ex se boni habent, nullam viven­di, nullam consistendi stabilitatem, neque [Page 259] firmitatem nisi à Deo creatore & bono­rum omnium authore fulciantur, & con­firmentur; Surely those very supream spi­rits and Ministers of God, who have a most excellent nature and constitution, have no good of themselves, no stedfastness of living or of subsisting from themselves, but as they are upheld and confi [...]med from God their maker, the fountain of all goodness; So in that other parallel place to this, Job 15. 15. Iterum videtur repetere illam propositionem capitis quarti, ecce qui ser­viunt ei non sunt stabiles; & argumento à majori probat hominem carneum & luteum non posse merito Sanctitatis con­stantiam & firmitatem sibi arrogare; He again repeats the Proposition, saith Pineda, [...]rged in the fourth Chapter, v. 18. and by an argument from the greater to the less, proveth that man cannot arrogate to himself any stedf [...]stness or constancy in righteousness; You here divert me from Divinity, and make me turn Grammarian, for you say here our old repea [...]s, He found no stedfastness in his Saints, though our new, He putteth no trust in his Saints: If you are angry with our old translation for being constant to it self, you are angry with it for a vertue, for constancy is so: If with our new, for [Page 260] dissenting from our old, you are angry with your own Pagnine, for our new fol­lows him, as our old followed your old, in its sense, though not in its inconstancy; For that saith, Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles, cap. 4. v. 18. But Ecce inter Sanctos ejus nemo immutabilis, cap. 15. v. 15. And yet the Hebrew Text is ex­actly the same in every point and Tittle, in both places, save that in the fourth Chap­ter tis said [...] in his servants, in the 15. [...] in his Saints, but [...] is the same in both places, Though your old or Vulgar say, Non sunt stabiles, He found not stedfastness, in the fourth Chapter, and Nemo immutabilis, none is unchangeable, in the fifteenth: But your new, (that is Pagnines translation) saith in both places alike, Non credet, He put no trust, whom our new had reason to follow, not only because he more agreed with the He­brew, but also because he disagreed not from himself: So that for your own translations sake, you should have spared this fond cavil, more then for ours.

4. But I return to your Pineda, who like a judicious Divine looks upon words as they are in their sense, not in their sound, and takes that for their sense [Page 261] which is not only positively true by Gram­matical construction, but also compara­tively true by real connexion, and illative­ly true by rational deduction, which is the only way not to be mistaken in a Text that, like this, is liable to so many divers and different interpretations, as himself asserteth, Admodum varie hoc ab aliis vertitur; Pagninus, In Angelis suis ponet lumen; Tygurina, Angelis suis in did it ve­saniam; Vatablus, nec in Angelis suis po­suit lucem exactissimam; Regia, In An­gelis suis ponet gloriationem; Symmachus, In Angelis suis reperit Vanitatem; Sept. cum nostra, Adversus Angelos suos pra­vum quid advertit; quae tanta varietas or­ta est ex faecunditate radicis Halal, &c. He finding the positive or proper sense so diverse and repugnant, according to Grammatical construction, took that for the most proper, which was most agree­able with the comparative and with the illative sence; and that was this, He put no trust in his servants, and his Angels he charged with folly; For this is his exposi­tion, Melius in communi accipitur pro Sanctis, sive Angelis sive hominibus; nam nemo fit tàm inconcussae constantisque naturae, qui mutari non possit: This place [Page 262] is best taken of the Saints in general, whether they be Angels or men; for none of them all is of so unshaken a temper but he may be changed; Comparing both places toge­ther, and sinding in the fourth Chapter first servants, then Angels; in the fifteenth first Saints, then heavens (which Targum expounds Angels) and weighing the in­tent and purpose of both places, was to beat Job from an opinion of his own rightousness, and to make him humble himself before his Maker, He gives this for the most proper Grammatical or po­sitive sense o [...] the words, [He put no trust in his servants, and his Angels he charged with folly] because this interpretation was most agreeable to the comparative sense of the words as they were compared with themselves, or with their parallel place, according to the connexion of the thing spoken; And also because it was most agreeable to the illative sense of the words, according to rational deduction from the intent of the Speaker: So that the comparative and the illative senses did here shew which among so many was to be taken for the true positive sense.

A thing much to be observed to keep illiterate men from turning Inter­preters [Page 263] of the Text, (who have not Grammer enough to understand the li­teral or positive sense of any one place of Scripture in the language it was written, much less Logick enough to find out the comparative or the illative sense from other places) yet more to be observed to keep learned men from quarreling with such interpretations, which though seem­ingly different in words, yet do really agree in all these three senses, as doth our new English Translation, though you are pleased to say, It is contrary to it self, and to all divine Scripture; For Pineda had observed a greater difference in your old Latine translation both from it self, (saying in one place Non sunt stabiles; in another, Nemo immutabilis) and from the new, which said in both places, Non cre­det, yet finding the Difference to be ver­bal, not real; in words only, not in [...]rse, joyns all together in his Exposition, be­cause all this varitie did unanimously tend to one and the same Truth, even to shew the instability and unstead [...]ness of Gods best Saints and Servants, whether Angels or men, whether in heaven or in earth.

5. For, saith he, Job. 15. 15. Pagninus [Page 264] ex Hebraeo, & Septuaginta, Sanctis suis non credet, i. Nemo est qui fidelis servus ex naturae suae merito & ratione haberi usquequaque possit. A verbo Aman, quod est credere tanquam rei fi­deli & constant [...], aut fidele esse & constans, cui credi debeat; Pagnine from the He­b [...]ew, and the Septuagint renders the place thus, He putteth no trust in his Saints, that is, He hath none that of himself, or by the merit of his nature, ought to be accounted in all respects his true and faithful servant, from the word Aman, which is to put trust as to a thing faithful and constant, or to be faithful and constant, such as ought to be trusted; And again, Yea the heavens are not clean in his sight; In re igitur clarissi­mâ & perfectissimâ, videt Deus maculas, quae nos praetereunt: Sic igitur de nostri ani [...]i maculis existimare oportet: There­fore God see [...] some [...] and blemishes which we cannot see, in the most clear and perfect substances: And so ought we to think of the spots and b [...]emishes of our souls. Surely the Saints cannot be more quick-sighted to see further into our souls then we our selves, and as sure that we shall be judged for those blemishes of our souls, which neither they nor we our selves do see [Page 265] (For God seeth them and will condemn them, and us for them, unless his Son ex­empt us from the condemnation) How then can we reasonably, (much less Re­ligiously) pray to Saints, to prepare us for Judgement, by discovering to us our sins which they cannot see, and much less to support us in Judgement, by taking from us those sins which they cannot ex­piate? So fully convincing is this Text, against praying to Saints, as it is expound­ed by a great Author of your own.

6. And now Sir, I hope, our new trans­lation, He put no trust in his servants, (though in outward appearance it recede from our old and from your vulgar La­tine) may pass for current, since it is avowed and attested not only by the He­brew and the Greek, but also by your own Pineda; But your exposition of the old, may not pass for current, He found no steafastness in his servants, that is, in the bad Angels; For how were they his ser­vants after they had disclaimed and re­nounced his service, and were become his enemies? How were they his Saints, when they were in actual Rebellion against their King? How were they his Saints, (as the parallel place calls them) after [Page 266] they were become obstinate sinners? But I suppose you will little regard my argu­ments, (for you generally have a deaf ear for us Protestants, though you will not have a dumb mouth) Therefore again I produce your own Pineda against you, who will either find acceptance with you as a Divine, or force it from you as a Je­suite; And he telling us that some under­stand this Text in particular of good, others of bad Angels, concludes in effect it is best understood in general of All Angels; for so are his words, Sensus uterque ad rem facit; nam quicquid lucis, laudis, gloriationis in Angelis reperiri po­test, à Deo datum, constitutum & inditum est; ex se nihil habent nisi insaniam ne­gative, i. nullam ex se sapientiam, nullam virtutem, bonitatem nullam; Both inter­pretations make to one and the same purpose; for whatsoever light, or praise, or exultation is in the good Angels, it is all from God; (there's [...] in its primary significati­on, Laudare, gloriari, vocem attollere;) From themselves they have nothing but madness negatively, that is, no wisdom, no vertue, no goodness; (there's [...] in its secundarie signification, by way of Anti­phrasis, Nequam & pravum esse, gloriâ & [Page 267] nominis splendore indignum:) Here is then very much, (though you say here is nothing) aga [...]nst praying to Angels and Saints confirmed in grace and glory; For what is their confirmation to my Re­ligion? or how comes my Religion, which is the homage I owe to my Creator, made communicable to a creature? Be he ne­ver so glorious, yet he is as far from God as my self; for betwixt finite and infinite the distance is infinite, whether the finite be glorious or inglorious; for be he never so glorious, yet he and his glory both are nothing in comparison of him to whom Cherubins and Seraphins continually do cry, Heaven and earth are full of the maje­sty of thy Glory.

7. Having vindicated mine own alle­gation against praying to Saints, I come to oppose your Cardinals allegations for it, which though they savour much more of learning & authority, yet not one jot less of impertinency: And yet you and all yours swallow them as glib, as once you swallowed the holy league and Covenant; or as still you are desirous to swallow up all other Churches into your own pre­tended mother Church that is, as that Behemoth swalloweth waters, of whom it [Page 268] is said, Behold he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not; he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth, Job 4. 23. A large swallow you have, to let down your own Camels, whiles you strain at our gnats; not considering the advice of the first Bi­shop of Hierusalem to his Clergy, My Brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, Jam. 2. 1. If you had not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with re­spect of persons more then of causes, you would rather be exceptious against your own writers, for most shamefully misap­plying the holy Scriptures to set up your false worship, then with ours for rightly applying them, to pull it down; since it is so much to the dishonour of Christ our Redeemer, and to the danger of those Christian souls which he hath redeemed: And yet your late writers seeing the un­written word so unequal a match to grapple with the written word (for the Protestants have opened their eyes, though God alone can open their hearts, and we pray him to open them) do labour to prove all your false adorations, and false invocations, out of the holy Scri­ptures, notwithstanding they are so [Page 269] plainly and so directly against the express letter of the Law of Moses, and there­fore cannot be according to the letter of the Prophets, which are no other then [...] [...]aw: But I will confine my self to your mo [...] [...] ­ed Dogmatist, and desire you with me to consider the strange impertinency, and (if wilful) the stranger imprety of his allegations out of the Text, to maintain your invocation of Saints: And amongst them all, two only shall serve my turn.

8. The first is that of Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads; Hic apertè sanctus Jacob A [...] ­gelum invocavit, (saith Bellarm.) Here holy Jacob did manifestly invocate an An­gel. If he did, 'tis manifest he took that Angel for the God of his Fathers Abra­ham and Isaac; for the God which fed him all his life long, and redeemed him from all evil; for he invocateth none other to bless the lads but only that God; so saith the Text, God before whom my Fathers. Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which [...]ed me all my life long to this day; The An­gel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the [...]ads: 'Tis palpable all these particulars do concern but one, and him Jacob desi­reth [Page 270] to bless the children: If that one were an Angel, he did not pray for Gods blessing upon them, so the lads were little beholding to him: If that one were God, he did not pray to an Angel to bles [...] them: so [...] [...]olding to your Car­ [...]. Nay indeed all that are con­cerned in this Text (for the Angel though named, yet is not concerned in it) are lit [...]le beholding to him; for all are losers by this interpretation. 1 ^o God loseth his honour of accepting, feeding, redeeming and blessing his servants. 2 ^o Abraham and Isaac lose their God; For it was the Almighty God (not an Angel) that said to Abraham, Walk before me and be thou perfect, Gen. 17. 1. and God. before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, saith this Text. 3 ^o The poor infants lose their blessing; for tis clear, an Angel could not bless them, but only ministerially from God. 4 ^o Jacob loseth his Religion, for he calleth upon a false God, if upon an Angel instead of God. All these cannot lose by this interpretation, & the Interpre­ter himself be no loser; therefore though I will not say he lost his honesty by seeking to wrest a text, yet I must say he hath lost his authority by seeking to oppose it; For it [Page 271] is not an exposition but an opposition of the Text, when words are taken Grammati­cally in their own sense, that should be ta­ken Theologically in Gods sense: The Grammatical sense of a word is according to its own signification: But the Theological sense of a word is according to Gods use of it, or Gods application; As Genesis 18. 2. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, but v, 2. Lo three men stood by him; And again v. 16. The men rose up from thence, yet v. 17. And the Lord said; and 'tis evident by all Abrahams prayer, that it was the Lord appeared un­to him, for he calleth him the Judge of all the earth, v. 25. and v. 33. 'tis said, The Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham. If you take this word men Grammatically, as 'tis in its own signification, you must say Abra­ham prayed to a man; But if you take it Theologically, as 'tis in Gods use or ap­plication, 'tis no less then the Lord ap­pearing in the likeness of a Man; and you must say That Abraham prayed only to the Lord; So in this Text (mis-inter­preted by your great Doctor) if you take the word Angel Grammatically as it sig­nifies in it self, 'tis plain Iacob invocated [Page 272] an Angel, but if you take it Theological­ly as God useth it, 'tis no less then the Lord in the likeness of an Angel, and so 'tis plain Iacob invocated none but God; And truly the one Text might as well have been urged to prove that Abraham invocated a man, as the other to prove that Iacob invocated an Angel; Both good proofs Grammatically, but neither a good proof Theologically; For Gramma­rians look upon words as they signifie in themselves, but Divines look upon words as they signifie in their use; the reason is, because the work of the one is to under­stand the Thing, but the work of the other is to understand the Truth; there­fore as doubtful Propositions in the New Testament are to be expounded according to the Analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed, that we may have Truth in our Belief: So doubtful Propositions in the Old Testament are to be expounded ac­cording to the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue, that we may have Truth in our Obedience: And as that Proposition, This is my body, must be ta­ken Theologically, that is, in the sense of the speaker, because taken Grammatical­ly, that is, in the bare sense of the words, it [Page 273] overthrows the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed concerning Christs natu­ral body; for that was conceived by the ho­ly Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried, ascended into heaven, and now sitteth on the right hand of God, which cannot be truly said of Christs Sacramen­tal Body in the blessed Eucharist; So this Proposition, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, must be ta­ken Theologically, that is, in the sense of the speaker; because taken Grammatically, that is, in the bare sense of the words, it overthrows the analogy of righteousness in M [...]ses his Decalogue, ascribing that to an Angel, which is proper and peculiar to God alone, by vertue of the first Com­mandement, as to be the God before whom Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which had fed Jacob all his life, and had redeem­ed him from all evil, and could bless the lads by his own authority, both with tem­poral and with spiritual blessings: [...]or he that saith Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, saith, Thou shalt not have an An­gel instead of me, as if thy Fathers had walked before him, thou wert to be fed from him, to be redeemed by him, to [...] [Page 274] blessed through him; The analogie o Righteousness or of Religion in the first Commandement admits not this inter­pretation; therefore though it be Gram­matically true in the sense of the words, yet 'tis Theologically false in the sense of the speaker; for Gods Spirit speaketh not contradictorily to himself. And being proved to be Theologically false, because it is against the analogy of righteousness or of Religion, it is easie to prove it Logi­cally false, because it is against the analo­gy of reason: And truly so it is in three respects.

1. In respect of the Proposition, The Predicate not agreeing with the Subject; and therefore though an Angel be named, yet he is not intended, because he is named with such a property or attribute as be­longs only to God, viz Redeeeming from all evil, and Blessing with all good.

2. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the connexion, the Proposi­tion not agreeing with the Antecedents and Consequents; For an Angel cannot be the God before whom Iacobs Fathers walked, by whom Iacob himself was fed and redeemed, from whom Iacobs children could be blessed.

[Page 275] 3. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the deduction, because if an Angel be here meant as he is named, it will follow that an Angel hath the King­dome and Power, may have the Glory and worship of God.

And now pray Sir consider how distant are your proceedings from that love of truth, that candor of Ingenuity, that care of conscience which should be among Christian Divines, both in rejecting those interpretations of the holy Scriptures against praying to Saints (whether An­gels or Men) which are undoubtedly true, not only Grammatically, but also Theolo­gically and Logically, and in embracing those interpretations for praying to Saints, which are undoubtily false, if not Grammatically, yet at least both Thelo­gically and Logically in all these respects: And such will be found all the interpreta­tions of the Text alledged by your late Di­vines in this argument, if they be diligently examined either according to the analogy of Religion, or according to the analogy of Reason: But I return to this, which can­not be made true in the judgement of the most eminent Divines both of Greek and Latine Church; I will name you two, [Page 276] St. Chrysostome for the Greek, and St. Thomas of Aquine for the Latine Church. 1. St. Chryst. for the Greek Church, who upon these words, The Angel which re­deemed me from all evils bless the lads, gives us this gloss, ( [...] 66. in Genesin) [...]: O thankful re­solution, O Soul loving of God, how doth the remembrance of his benefit dwell and lodge in his heart! That God (saith he) whom my Fathers pleased, who sed me from my youth until now, who from the beginning de­livered me from all evil, He who hath shew­ed such signal providence towards me, He bless these Children; See here in St. Chry­sostomes gloss, Jacob prayed to God, not to the Angel to bless his grand Children; And He was the mouth of the Greek Church. 2. St. Thomas of Aquine saith the same, but much more perspicuously as to the Confutation of Bellarmines er­rour, though not as to the confirmation of Gods truth; For whereas Bellarmine [Page 277] saith, Jacob invocated an Angel; The An­gelical Dr. saith, he did not, but that he called the God of his Fathers His Angel; for these are his words upon the place, Videtur quod Deum Patrum suorum su­um vocat Angelum, & sui protectorem & salvatorem, unde & postea in singulari dicit, Benedicat pueris istis: It seems that he calleth the God of his Fathers his Angel, and his Protector and saviour, whence it is that afterward he saith in the singular num­ber, (though he had named two, sc. God and the Angel) He bless the lads: nisi forte Angelicam benedictionem divinae benedictioni tanquam comministram sive subministrā adjungat, sed modus loquen­di quem tenet si benè advertatur, magis sapit primum modum; Unless you will say that He annexeth the Angelical bene­diction as ministerial to the Divine; But the manner of his speech if it be well observed, rather calleth for the first interpretation; This was Aquinas his judgement, after his most serious deliberation upon the words, and we may well look upon it as the judge­ment of the Latine Church, the rather be­cause He was the chief Captain of the Schoolemen, and though he laboured to prove the same conclusion with Bellar­mine, [Page 278] yet not by the same praemisses, but he leaves out this, as not thinking it a fit proof, and is contented only with that of Job 5. 1. Voca si est qui tibi respondeat, & ad aliquem sanctorum convertere, which is another of your Cardinals allegations out of the Text, to prove the Invocation of Saints.

9. And He is so over zealous for this proof, (lib. 2. de Verbo Dei, cap. 12.) That when Chemnitius had said the Text was corruptly interpreted in the Vulgar translation; His answer is, Fortè fuisse ebri­um, quum hoc scripsit, Chemnitium; Per­chance Chemnitius was drunk when he writ this: Bad words are seldom signs of a good cause; but often more then signs, they are proofs of a bad temper; And we know that there is a sort of men which are drunken, but not with wine; that stagger, but not with strong drink, Isa. 29. 9. Those upon whom the Lord hath poured out the spirit of deep sleep and hath closed their eyes, v. 10. and that this judgement is chiefly denounced against them who teach the fear of God by the precept of men, v. 13. (or who teach for Doctrines the Commandements of men, as our blessed Saviour hath explained those words, Mat. 15. 9.) for concerning those [Page 279] it is said, The wisedome of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid, v. 14. There is a spi­ritual, as well as a carnal drunkenness; and God keep all Christians, (especially the Ministers of Christ) from them both, for either is enough to make them scanda­lous Ministers in Gods, if not in mans ac­count: But of the two the spiritual drun­kenness is the more sinful, though the carnal drunkenness be the more shameful; The carnal drunkard is a beast, but the spiritual drunkard is a Devil; Noah re­pented and recovered of his carnal; but Ham (that mocked his Father) never re­pented nor recovered of his spiritual drunkenness: I would to God our proud malitious self-justitiaries, but others Censors, would seriously consider this undeniable, though perhaps unwelcome Truth, who in this particular follow the example, as in other, the doctrine of the Jesuites, and deal with sober, grave, learned, Religious Divines their Brethren at least, if not their Fathers, as Bellarmine did with Chemnitius, reproaching their persons, instead of answering their Argu­ments or reverencing their Functions; That by perswading the common rout [Page 280] they are scandalons Ministers, they may deprive Gods Church of the office, Gods people of the benefit, and God himself of the glory of their ministry: This is such a kind of spiritual intoxication as besotteth not only the Head, but also the Heart; destroying all true temperance and so­briety, which is therefore called [...], because it guards and preserves and keeps entire the very mind, the Heart and the Soul:

For I pray, was that Synagogue of the Libertins to be reputed a company of sober Ecclesiasticks, who not being able to resist the wisedome and the Spirit by which St. Stephen spake, suborned men, stirred up the people, and set up false wit­nessess, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words, Act. 7. as if they had said in our new stile, (for it is sharp, and cuts deep,) He is a common swearer: Or were not those Jews worse then drunk, who because St. John Baptist ob­served a secure course of life, said He had a Divil; and because our blessed Saviour came eating and drinking said, He was a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners l. Matt. 11. That is, say our new Merchants, (for they ma [...] [Page 281] sale of Gods glory, mens innocency and their own consciences) He is a Papist, or He is a common drunkard. They who thus unjustly and unconscionably, asperse Orthodox Ministers, that by taking away their Innocency, they may also take away not only their Patrimony, but also their Authority and their Ministry, are spiri­tual drunkards besotted either with pride or with malice, or with coveteousness; And the Holy Ghost speaks against them as drunkards, saying of them, Behold they Belch out with their mouth, Swords are in their lips; for who, say they, doth hear? Psal. 59. 7. Behold they Belch out with their mouth; what can drunkards do more? and they say, Who doth hear? what do such ar­rant sots say less? But thou O Lord shall laugh at them, (though they laugh at all the World besides) Thou shall have all the Heathen in derision; thou accountest them no better them Heathen, though they account themselves the only good Christians; or if you please, the only true Jesuites, as if no other but themselves did truly know, or love, or Preach Jesus Christ; he that is of this proud perswa­sion, or rather of this perverse and poy­sonsome disposition, may be called a Je­suite, [Page 282] whether he pretend to be a Papist or a Protestant: But 'tis not bad language can make any man a bad Divine, save him that speaks it; Bene facere & malè audire Regium est, To do well and to hear ill is the part of a good King; And by the same rea­son, To say well, (that is boldly to rebuke vice, and constantly to preach the truth) and to hear ill, is the part of a good Divine; Black-mouthed calumnies stick a very lit­tle while upon their names that patiently bear them, but a long time (nay for ever, unless they be washed away by the tears of repentance) upon their souls that ma­litiously use them; such arguments sud­denly confute themselves, but eternally condemne their Authors.

10. Therefore Bellarmine relyes not upon this argument, but findeth out ano­ther, saying, Nam apertissimè Hebraea sic se habent, Voca nunc si est respondens tibi, & ad aliquem de sanctis respice; & sanè si quaeritur verbum expressum, hic expressissimum est; (Bell. lib. 2. de Ver­bo Dei, cap. 12.) The sense of the Hebrew is plainly this, Call now if any will answer thee, and look to some one among the Saints: If we would have an express Text (to prove the Invocation of Saints) this is most ex­press: [Page 283] There's no calumny in this asser­tion concerning the Person, but sure there is concerning the cause; For if this Text in the Hebrew be so express for the Invo­cation of Saints, how comes it to pass that [...] of the Hebrew Doctors did so understand it? (for Ezra and Jarchi ex­plain it of Holy men here on earth) and none of the Hebrew nation did so pra­ctise it? For all the world cannot prove that the Jews did Invocate Saints, or Angels; so that either the Jews were in­excusable for not performing this express duty of the Text, or Bellarmine is inex­cusable for calling it so. And indeed himselves gives us two strong presumpti­ons to say, that though he did call, yet he did not believe it to be an express duty of the Text; The one is taken from him as a Critick, for in his Hebrew Grammar (Par. 2. cap. 4.) He reckons the pro­noune [...] (used in this place) among the Interrogatives, and consequently, [...] cannot here be rightly interpreted, ad aliquem, by way of command or con­cession, but ad quem? by way of question or of Interrogation; not to one of the Saints, but to which of the Saints? The other is taken from him as a Divine; For [Page 284] in his first book de Beat. Sanct. c. 19. v. 2. he saith plainly there was no invocation of Saints before Christs ascension into Heaven; Quia ante id tempus sancti non videbant Deum, non fuit consuetum in veteri Testamento ut diceretu [...], [...] Abraham ora pro me. Because before that time the Saints did not see God, it was not usual under the Old Testament for any to say, O Saint Abraham pray for me: As a Critick he tells us the Hebrew words were properly to be interpreted by way of Interrogation; As a Divine he tells us the Jews did not take them for a com­mand or injunction; for then whether the Saints did see God or not, they must have been invocated; Therefore 'tis only as a Disputant that he tells, This was a most express Text for the Invocation of Saints; sure Pineda his fellow-Jesuit thought it not so; for he saith these words had as many several interpretations, as thy had several interpreters, Tot interpre­tationes quot interpretum capita; and by cleaving to Aquinas his exposition of them, which was for praying to Saints, He falls into this absurdity to say that at that time this Invocation was both in the custome and in the faith of the Church, [Page 285] Tum in consuetudine, tum in fide fuisse re­ceptam; which though Bellarmine be zea­lous to affirm concerning the Invocation of Angels, yet he is not so hardy as to affirm concerning the Invocation of Saints: A Tenent that creates their con­tradictions, cannot invite our assent, may not have our belief: And the rather be­cause Hieronymus Osorius a Bishop (but not a Jesuit) of their own Religion, (if at least the Religion of Jesuits may be cal­led the same with the Religion of the Bishops in the Church of Rome) in his Paraphrase upon Job gives us a quite con­trary exposition of these words, saying, Denuntia quaeso alicui praestanti viro te­stimonium, & animadverte an sit aliquis qui tecum sentiat: Ad quem enim ex Sanctis hominibus adibis, qui tuae senten­tiae suffragari audeat? Declare now to some excellent men your testimony, and observe if there be any that hath the same thoughts with you; For unto whom amongst all the Holy men can you go that will dare to be of your opinion? This man was trained up in the Invocation of Saints as well as Bel­larmine, yet could not see how to ground it upon this Text; For he expounds it not of Saints in Heaven, but of Saints [Page 286] on Earth, as Abenezra had expounded it before him, Ex cujus ore sanctorum qui in terrâ sunt talia unquam audisti? [...] of the Saints which are on earth out of whose mouth among all the Saints which are on the Earth did you ever hear such things! But we may very well grant the words are rather to be understood of Holy Angels, then of Holy men, because he had spoken of the An­gels a little before; yet even so Bellarmines inference will not be made good, that it was then the custome to call upon the Holy Angels for their Patronage, (tunc fuisse consuetudinem invocandi patroci­nium Sanctorum Angelorum) For the context will then require this sense as it is delivered by the most judicious and learned Mercerus, Voca Angelorum ali­quem & eum inclama, an vero eorum vel minimus tibi respondebit, te suo sermone & alloquio dignabitur? Nullum sanè re­peries: Vides quantum à Deo distes, quum ne Angeli quidem longè Deo infe­riores, te sint allocuturi, si ad eos clames, ob distantiam quae inter te est & illos: Call any one of the Angels and cry unto him, and see if the meanest of them will answer thee, or vouchsafe thee one word of discourse; [Page 287] Thou will find none; Thou seest then how far thou art distant from God, when not so much as his Angels who are so far below him, will answer thee if thou call to them, because of the distance which is betwixt them and thee. This is most probably the mean­ing of the words from the context; for Eliphaz had a little before debased the excellencies of the Angels in regard of God, and now comes to debase the ex­cellencies of men in regard of the Angels, all the scope and intent of his discourse tending to shew the emptiness and vanity of the Creature, that so he might make Job humble himself before his Creator, as hath been shewed a little before, sc. Paragraph 3. 4, 5, 6. out of your own Pineda.

11. But we must take to us the whole Armour of God, that we may be able to withstand the assaults of men so furiously assaulting us, and so watchfully besetting us; To the Law and to the Testimony, if others speak not according to that word, 'tis because there is no light, no truth in them; I ask then, Doth this Invocation of Saints agree with the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed? or with the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue? [Page 288] I trow not: For the one teacheth me to believe in one God; the other not to call upon him in whom I have not believed, and can­not believe; And 'tis clear that Invocation of Saints is against the whole current of de­votions derived to us by the Spirit of God through the channel either of the Old or of the New Testament, For there is scarce any prayer in either, which our Saviour Christ, who hath taught it us, doth not pray with us; for if he do not, 'tis in vain for us to pray, since God heareth not our prayers, but for his Intercession; And therefore the Invocations that are used in the Psalms (a peculiar Book of Prayers, and Praises made by Gods own Holy Spi­rit for the use of his Church, and con­stantly used by it in all ages,) are general­ly first spoken in the Person of Christ, (as appears in that he applied to himself very many of them; as, my God, my God, why hast thou for saken me! Psal. 22. 1. and, Into thy hands I commit my spirit, Psal. 31. 6.) and being first spoken in the Person of Christ, are the more strongly recommended to all good Christians, as composed by his Spirit, sanctified by his lips, and impower­ed and strengthned by his Intercession; For Christus realis, and Christus mysticus, [Page 289] Christ personally and Christ mystically con­sidered, do constitute but one Commu­nion of Saints; He is the Head, they are his Body; and therefore they must pray in sin (for in Schisme) if they pray not to him as their Head, for that is not to pray in Christs Communion; as also in vain, (be­cause in sin) if they pray without their Head, for that is not to pray in Christs Intercession: Wherefore it being an un­doubted truth that Christ was made obe­dient to the whole Law for man, it necessa­rily follows that praying to Saints can­not be a duty of the Law, but we must say That Christ the eternal Son of God prayd to Saints, that is, the Creator to the Creature. And if it be not a duty of the Law, how can it be command in the Pro­phets, since they are but expounders, not enlargers of the Law? How in this Pro­phet Job? whose book was penned in Hebrew by the Law-giver himself (and only in Arabick by Job as saith your own Bellarmine, (de Script. Eccl. cap. de Job) because it is the judgement of the Catho­lick Church that Moses was the first Ec­clesiastical Writer, or the first Amanuensis and penneman of the Holy Ghost: which by the way is another argument to prove [Page 290] that Bellarmine did not, could not be­lieve this Text of Holy Job was to be in­terpreted as a command, Ad aliquem San­ctorū respice, Look to one of the Saints, but as a question or expostulation, Ad quem sanctorum respicies, To which of the Saints wilt thou look? for without doubt so great a Scholar could not believe, That Moses did bid us to do that in Job, which he did forbid us to do in Exodus: For the Commandement which saith Thou shall have no other Gods but me, doth likewise say, Thou shall invocate no other but me, be­cause invocation is the most proper and the most publick acknowledgement and wor­ship of God: For Invocation is required by the first, though it is regulated by the third commandement; That enjoyns the object and internal affection, this only enjoyns the manner and the external ex­pression; Therefore Call upon me in the day of trouble, Psal. 50. 15.) belonging to the affirmative; Call not upon any besides me, doth belong to the negative precept in the first Commandement, since these two are contraries, and contraria sunt sub eodem genere posita, contraries must be ranked or reckoned under one and the same Head; For in vain doth your Car­dinal [Page 291] seek to excuse bad words in prayers, from the good sense or meaning of him that prays (non agitur de verbis, sed de sen­su verborum, Bell. l. 1. de sanct. Beat. c. 17.) because as a right intention in our prayers, is required by the first; so also a right expression in our prayers, is re­quired by the third Commandement; God requirlng us no less to honour his Name by right words and professions in the One, then to honour his Nature by right in­tentions and affections in the other:

For as we may not honour God with our lips whiles our hearts are far from him; So neither may we dishonour him with our lips whiles our hearts are near him; For as the one makes us Hypocritical, so the other makes us blasphemous worshippers; As the one is directly against the internal, so the other is directly against the external Act of Religion; as the one is against the morality of the first, so the other is against the morality of the third Commande­ment: But of this I have spoken else­where, of purpose to justifie the Religion established and professed amongst us (for which so many Orthodox Divines have lately lost their livelyhoods by Prote­stants, and pray they may not come [Page 292] to lose their lives by Papists) because I was there bound to shew the irreligion that I found not only in Faction, which hath no Liturgie, but also in superstition, which hath corrupt Liturgie, (Justif. of the Church of England, cap. 3. sec. 3.) there you might have seen more work made for you upon the grounds of consci­ence, then you have here made for me on­ly upon the grounds of contention: Thi­ther if you please you may go for more of this argument; but before you go, take this Question along with you, not Where was this your Religion of praying to Saints before Luther, but where is it now? For it is not in any of Gods Commandements concerning Religion, nay 'tis plainly against them all; 'Tis against the first in having a false Object, and false internal acts of Religion; against the second, in having a false external act or manner of Religion, by way of adoration; against the third, in having a false external act or manner of Religion, by way of invocati­on, or of Praise and Profession: As it is not according to Gods Commandements, so it cannot be Piety or Religion: as 'tis against Gods Commandements, so 'tis moreover impiety and irreligion: There­fore [Page 293] boast not any longer of the general profession and practice of this or any other corrupt part of your Religion, which you cannot justifie in its substance; For 'tis a miserable Religion which is to be found only in its exercise according to the purport of the fourth, and not also in its substance according to the purport of the three first Commandements: A Re­ligion in its Name, not in its Nature; in its solemnity, not in its purity; in its followers, not in it self: That is, in one word, A Religion not of Gods, but of mans making.

12. To such a Religion belongs [...]hat Prayer, Maria mater gratiae, mater mi­sericordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege, & horâ mortis suscipe; which yet your Cardinal boldly imputeth to the univer­sal Church, (sic loquitur ecclesia univer­sa, lib. 1. de Sanct. Beat. cap. 19.) though its language speak only the Church of Rome, and its rythme speaks only the late and corrupt ages of that Church, and its irreligion doth in truth speak no Church; For that is no Church whereof Christ is not the Head: And he is not the Head of that Church which prayeth to such as he did not pray; And he did ne­ver pray to his Mother, but only to his [Page 294] Father; teaching us o say, Our Father, not Our Mother, wh [...]ch art in Heaven: We cannot say the words of this Prayer in his Communion, we cannot obtain the blessing o [...] it by his intercession, therefore if we w [...]l [...]e his Church, we must put this prayer o [...] of our meut [...]es, because we dare not put it into His: We have no pattern [...] s [...]ch prayers in all the Book of God; and [...] we can find better Pat­terns then God hath given, we are bound to [...]ollow those of his giving, or we shall leave his [...] [...]oly Communion, and lose his So [...]s blessed [...]ntercession in our pray­ers: [...]or as we are sure the eternal Son of God hath [...]ot taught us thus to pray, so we may be assured he will not, he can­not [...] us in this Prayer: Esto mihi in Deum Protectorem, (Psal. 31. 4.) will not agree with this, Tu nos ab hoste pro­tege [...], In māus tuas cōmendo spiritū meū, will not agree with this, Et horâ mortis suscipe: why should I leave the Communi­on of Gods eternal Son, either in not say­ing the one, or in saying the other? For I may no more now venter to have Religi­on, then I may hereafter hope to have a salvation out of his Communion? And though it be more like a Heathen then a [Page 295] Christian to say, If it be a question of words and of names, and of your Law, (Acts 18. 15.) for words are to be regulated in the exercise of Religion, according to Gods Law, by vertue of the third Com­mandement, no less then thoughts by ver­tue of the first: Gestures by vertue of the second, and Deeds by vertue of the fourth; yet is that saying very unfitly applyed in the defence of this Prayer: For this is as formal an Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, as if she were God; Calling her the Mother of Grace and Mercy, and praying her to protect us in our life, and to rece [...]ve us at our death; And who can say more then this to God, (putting but Father instead of Mother) who can ask more then this of God? This is in effect to say, Mater de coels Dea, instead of, Pa­ter de coelis Deus, miserere nobis miseris peccatoribus; O blessed Mother of God, instead of O God the Father of Heaven, have mercy upon us miserable sinners; And we ought to say, Libera nos Domi­ne, Good Lord deliver us, not so much in regard of any other evil and mischief, as in regard of such Letanies: Therefore this Invocation of the Mother of God, is faulty in Objecto cultus, & in modo co­lendi; [Page 296] both in the object of worship, and in the manner of worshipping; I [...] the object of worship, for the Mother of God is not God; (there's the breach of the first Commandement) In the manner of worshipping, for she is called upon with such titles, and for such blessings, as if she were God; there's the breach of the third Commandement; Add to these the man­ner of Adoration, which also generally accompanieth this Invocation, and you will see in it likewise the breach of the se­cond Commandement; and so cannot but shew your selves strangely Religious in breaking at once all the three Com­mandements that concern the substance of Religion: Here is a false worship ma­terially or extrinsecally in gesture and words, and a false worship formally or in­trinsecally in a Religious affection to the creature which is due only to the Creator; So that you see I did not ag­gravate b [...]t diminish the defects of your penance, when I said, your Confessional Interrogatories were defective as to one; for I might have said they were defective as to three Commandements: And will you still boast of your uncontroled and uninterrupted exercise of this corrupt [Page 297] Religion: Do you think that Gods Church can outweigh Gods Word in the ballance of the Sanctuary? or will you avow that for the practice of Gods Church, which is disavowed by the Pre­cept of Gods Word? Say then, you be­lieve the Communion of sinners, instead of the Communion of Saints; For that is sin which is directly against Gods Law; and to communicate in sin, belongs to the Communion of sinners, not to the Com­munion of Saints; Therefore pray let the Lords Psalter, which was composed by the Spirit of God, and not the Ladies Psalter, which was impiously devised by the phansies of men, be accounted the ge­neral rule and square of Devotions for Gods Church; And when the Spirit of God hath said, Rejoyce in the Lord O ye righteous, and give thanks for a remembe­rance of his holiness, Psal. 97. 12. setting forth, 1 ^o the Communion of Saints, O ye Righteous; 2 ^o the Religion of Saints, wherein they Communicate, Rejoyce in the Lord, and give thanks for a remembrance of his holiness; (where we have the ob­ject of their Religion, the Lord; and the internal act thereof, Rejoyce; and the ex­ternal act thereof, Give thanks; and the end or intention of both, for a remem­brance [Page 298] of his h [...]liness;) Do not you per­sw [...]de the world, that his Church (truly so called) hath taught the people to say, Rejoyce in the Lady O ye Righteous, and give thanks for a remembrance of her holiness, for that were to say, that the Church hath both corrupted the Religion, and forsa­ken the Communion of Saints, which is little better then to set up the Devils Chappel, instead of Gods Church; For these abominable kind of prayers are most unconscio [...]able, because to the abuse of Christian Religion; and most uncharitable, because to the breach of Christian Com­munion; and 'tis for the Devils Chappel, not for Gods Church to be guilty of un­conscionableness and of uncharitableness.

13. Therefore let the men, not the Church bear the blame of such corrupt invocations; For the Church of Israel did continue and fulfill Joshua's Protestation, A [...] for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, (Josh. 24. 15.) when the men of Israel did for sake it, and served Baal; and God owns those for his Church which had served him alone, saying, I have reserved to my self seven thousand men who have not bo [...]ed the knee to Baal, (Rom. 11. 4.) They who had bowed the knee to Baal, were not G [...]ds reserve; they were of the men, [Page 299] they were not of the Church of Israel; God himself accounting those only for his Church, who in that general defecti­on and apostacy, had reserved themselves for him, and consequently who had in their hearts a secret detestation of the false worship then generally followed, if not in their mouthes an open Protestation against it; They were all of them either private or publick Protestants, privately or pub­lickly protesting against that Religion which served not the Lord; and they had no worse a Precedent then I [...]shua, (the very type of Christ, the author and fi­nisher of our faith) for that their Pro­testation: If the true Religion did consti­tute Gods Church then, why not now? (though the false made a [...] greater noise and shew then the tru [...], the Prophets of God being driven into caves, whiles the Prophets of the groves did eat at Iezabels table) For an agreement in falsity and irreligion, though never so great, both shews and makes rather a conspiracy o [...] sin­ners, then a Communion of Saints. There­fore since this Invocation is indeed [...] Religion, it must [...]ds be [...] a [...]ribu­ted to the true Church of God, for [...]hat is constituted and established by the true [Page 300] Religion; and is no more a true Church from its falsities, then the Moon is a true Moon from its spots, or a man is a true man from his Diseases: And the Church of Rome is not a true Church from the false Invocation of Saints, or any other acts of false worship, but from the true Invocation of God, and other such acts of true worship, which are still main­tained, professed and practised in that Church; And we Protestants justly say, That your Religion is the same with our Religion, but our Religion is not the same with your susperstition: As far as as you pray to God, we pray with you, (at least in vote and desire) As far as you pray to Saints, we can only pray for you, we dare not pray with you: And though we may all justly be destroyed for our manifold and grievous offences (par­ticularly for serving our selves of God, more then serving him, in the prosecuti­on of our reformation) yet in this respect we may be sure God will never want a Protestant Church, because he will never want a true Church: If all the world should turn Papists, Papists themselves should in this turn Protestants, if not openly yet secretly, Protesting against the [Page 301] worship which is against the Law of God, and forsaking it either explicitly by a new obedience, or at least implicitly by an earnest Repentance: This kind of Pro­testantism hath hitherto preserved a true Church in the midst of Poperie, and will preserve it to the worlds end, if that should continue so long: For he that is able out of stones to raise up children unto Abraham, is both able and willing out of Papists to raise up children unto himself: Dutiful children, such as will obey their Fathers commands, and there­fore will not embrace such a practice of Religion, as breaks no less then three of the chiefest of his Commandements; or will repent that they have embraced it.

14. Therefore we dare not say with your Trent Catechist, That the Catholick Church alwaies invocated Saints, and worshipped their Reliques; Invocationem Sanctorum sanctorumque cinerum cul­tum, quem semper Catholica Ecclesia ad­hibuit, huic legi non repugnare, cap. 3.) because we cannot but say that such In­vocation is repugnant not only to the first and second (which are there joyned in one) but also to the third Commande­ment; [Page 302] and we think it very unjust, that a few Italian Bishops and Priests should endeavour to lay those sins upon the Ca­tholick Church, which they ought to lay to and upon their own consciences, be­cause they have not only suffered, but al­so maintained them in their own Chur­ches: For it is not crying out, Templum Domini, Templum Domini; the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, that can acquit us from any act of sin against the Lord; 'Tis not the noise of Gods Church in our ears, can expell the knowledge or fear of Gods Commande­ments out of our hearts: God hath en­trusted his Church with the Keeping, not with the Making of Religion; she is the Guide to it, and in it, not the Author of it; That Power and Trust he communi­cated only to his Son and to his Holy Spirit, because indeed it was incommuni­cable to any other: For who can know the mind of God but God, who can de­clare the council of his heart, [...]ut only he that came out of his b [...]m? Shall not God have that privile [...]e over his ser­vants, which men have ov [...]r theirs, to prescribe the way and [...] of his own service? or [...]all we al [...]ow that dis­order [Page 303] in Gods Family, which we will not admit into our own? There was no King in Israel when every man did that which was right in his own eyes, (Jud. 17. 6.) If the Church may do what she pleaseth in matters of Religion, 'tis either because there is no King in Gods Israel; or be­cause Truth and Righteousness are not the establishment of his Kingdom: For Truth and Righteousness come not from man but from God; and therefore none can be the author of Religion, but only God, since that is nothing else but Truth and Righteousness; Truth in Articles of Faith, Righteousness in duties of life. Truth in what we are bound to believe, Righteousness in what we are bound to practise: Therefore 'tis vain to set up the Church which is only the Judge, against the Law which is the Rule of Righteousness: For we can go to the Church only for the Practice, but we [...] go to the Law for the Purity of Re­ligion.

The question is here concerning the Purity of Religion, [...] of Saints be not [...] Law of God? but the [...] is made only concerning the Practice [...] Religion; for they tell us [Page 304] it was alwayes used in the Catholick Church! We look upon this answer as faulty for its impertinency, because the question is matter of Right, but the an­swer is matter of Fact; and much more faulty for its Calumny, because the Ro­manists thereby so labour to excuse their own, as to accuse the Catholick Church: For 'tis plain that Christ and his Apostles never used it; and we must look upon him as the Head, upon them as the chief members of the Catholick Church; since we can have no Catholick Church with­out them, that is, which doth not persist in their doctrine, nor continue in their Communion: And 'tis as plain that no particular Church since them can justify the using it; and consequently tis unjust as well as untrue, to ascribe the use of it to the Catholick Church, although it hath of late years been used in some particular Churches: For even Nicephorus himself saith expresly (Hest. Eccl. lib. 15. cap. 28. ad finem) That Petrus Crapheus (who lived neer 500 years after Christ) was the first that brought the Invocation of the blessed Virgin into the prayers of the Church; and doubtless she was invo­cated before the other Saints, who is now [Page 305] (and hath been for some ages) so much invocated above them: [ [...]: Ut in precatione omni Dei genitrix nominaretur, & divi­num ejus nomen invocaretur:] That this Invocation was not till then in any Church, is a clear proof it was not of the Apostolick, and therefore though it hath been since in some Churches, cannot be a proof that it is of the Catholick Church. For the Apostolick & the Catholick are not two Churches: But let us suppose (which we may not grant) that the Catholick Church, as far as 'tis visible, hath of late years used it, yet that is not a sufficient ground for us still to continue the use of it; For we are to serve God, not out of Custome, but out of Conscience; and there­fore in vain do any pretend Custome in Gods service against Conscience; in vain do any alledge the Churches usage, which calls for Custome, against Gods Law which calls for Conscience: If an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel then what ye have received, let him be accursed, saith St. Paul, Gal. 1. 8. The same reason is for the Law received in the Old, as for the Gospel received in the New Testa­ment; [Page 306] Gods truth and righteousness are above the Church Triumphant in heaven, much more above the Church militant on Earth; not that either Church hath opposed, or will oppose them, (for the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the Truth. 1 Tim. 3. 15.) but that they are above the Churches opposi­tion; For no creature can be to it [...]eli the rule of working, no more then the cause of being; and therefore its work of righteousness cannot depend upon its own, but upon its makers will; And Reli­gion being the principal work of Righ­teousness, cannot depend upon the will of the Church, but upon the will of God; This sublime truth is admirably delivered by the master of subtilties, and sublimites (Scotus in 1. lib. sent. dist. 44.) in these words, In omni liberè agente, quod po­test agere secundum, praeter, vel contra dictamen legis rectae, est distinguere po­tentiam ordinatam & absolutam; Ordi­nata quidem, conformiter agendo legi rectae; absoluta verò, agendo praeter illam legem, vel contra eam; sic dicunt Juristae, aliquis potest facere de facto, hoc est de poten tiâ suàtabsolutâ; vel de jure, hoc est de potenia ordinatâ secundum jura: [Page 307] Quando autem lex ista secundum quam recte agendum est, non est in potestate agentis, tunc agendo secundum potentiam absolutam, inordina [...]è agit & non rectè; Q [...]ùm enim subsit tali legi, tenetur agere [...] legem: sed quando in pote [...]ate age [...]s est lex & rectitudo legis, po [...]est tale agens ordinatè & rectè agere aliter quàm lex illa dictat, quia non subest illi legi, & sic ejus po [...]entia absoluta non est inordinata: In every free agent which can act according, besides, or against the dictate of law and righteousness we must distinguish betwixt his orderly and his absolute power; his orderly power is shewed in acting conformably to the Law; his absolute power inacting either besides it or against it: so the Civilians tell us, a man may do a thing as a matter of fact, that is by his absolute power, (ac­cording to his will) or as a matter of right, that is by his orderly power, (according to the Laws:) when the Law, according to which a man is to act righteously, is not in the power of the Agent, then by acting according to his absolute power he acts disorderly and not righteously; for being subject to a Law, he is bound to act according to that Law: But when [Page 308] the Law and the Righteousness of the Law is in the power of the Agent, such an Agent may act orderly and righte­ously, and yet act otherwise then accord­ing to the dictate of that Law, because he is not subject to that Law, and so his abso­lute power is not disorderly. To apply this to our present case; The Church is this free Agent in the exercise of Religi­on, and having a Law given her to act by, she may not act therein by an absolute power, either besides or against that Law given her; but by an orderly power, ac­cording to it; For being subject to the Law of Religion, she is bound in the exercise of Religion, to act according to that Law: For there only the Agent may act orderly and righteously, not according to the dictate of Law, where the Law and the righteousness of the Law is in his own power. So that either we must say, That the Law and the righteousness of Religion is under the Power and Authori­ty of the Church, or we must confine the Church in the exercise of Religion, to act according to the Law of God: And therefore though your wit, learning and numbers may invite you to that unsuffer­able insolency of seeking to domineer [Page 309] over other mens reasons, yet pray let your own hearts and consciences deter you from that unpardonable impiety of seeking to domineer over Gods Com­mandements: For what his Law hath made sin, your practice cannot make righteousness; what he hath made irreli­gion, you cannot make Religion, though you were, as you say you are, (but shew you are not) his Catholick Church; For the Church is to depend upon God, much more then the People are to depend upon the Church, not only for the substance, but also for the exercise of Religion; Gods commands must be obyed for the substance of Religion according to the three first Commandements, for the order and exercise of Religion according to the fourth; Invocations, Adorations, Con­fessions, Consecrations, all must be for the honour of God (for he only is nam­ed in the Commandements that require them) that the Church may not make a Schism from God in the substance and in the exercise of Religion: And then we must all with one heart and mouth unani­mously and magnanimously joyn toge­ther in the defence and obedience of such Invocations, Adorations, Confessions [Page 310] and Consecrations; That the people may not make a Schism from the Church in the outward Profession and Practice of Religion: The Laws of the first Table are not only in the order of place or si­tuation, but also in the very order of na­ture and of Justice, before the Laws of the second Table.

God must first have his right, before the Church can lay claim to hers; As in the Creed, we are first taught to believe in God, and after that to believe the ho­ly Catholick Church; so in the Deca­logue it is first said, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; and after that, Honour thy Father and thy Mother; This Protestation was un­der Moses his hand, before it was in the Apostles mouthes, We ought to obey God rather then man, Acts 5. 29. And this Protestation alone will justifie all Prote­stants to the worlds end that shall depart from your Church in those points of Re­ligion wherein you have plainly and pal­pably departed from the Law of God; For God first requires Verity i [...] the Reli­gion, before he requires Unity in the Com­munion of his Church; and after these, and for these, he requireth obedience to [Page 311] her Authority: She is first holy by her Verity, then Catholick by her Unity; That Church that is [...] (sub [...]) our mother in the Lord, by her Authority: This we believe, in believing the holy Ca­tholick Church: And according to the method of our faith, must be the method of our obedience; First obeying the Churches Verity, then her Unity, then her Authority.

For God founded the Religion, before he founded the Communion, as he found­ed the Communion, before he founded the Authority of his Church; at least ac­cording to the Priority of nature, though not of time; For he founded the Religi­on of his Church in the three first Com­mandements, The Communion of his Church in the fourth, and the Authority of his Church in the fifth Commande­ment: So that Gods Church hath in truth a threefold foundation; one in re­spect of her Religion, another in respect of her Communion, a third in respect of her Authority: The first concerneth the Being, the second the well-Being, the third the splendid Being of the Church. In regard of the first, The Church is the pillar and ground of True worship, in [Page 312] regard of the second, she is the Pillar and ground of solemn or of publick wor­ship; in regard of the third she is the Pil­lar and ground of orderly or uniform wor­ship; First we have Truth in the ser­vice of God from her Religion; Then so­lemnity from her Communion; Then Uniformity from her Command. These are the inestimable blessings God hath conveyed unto this wicked world by his Catholick Church, and by every particu­lar member thereof, if we consider the goodness of God in offering these bles­sings, rather then the wickedness of men in rejecting his offers, or in abusing his goodness; For by Gods holy appoint­ment and institution, his Church in every Nation is intrinsically Catholick from her Religion, extrinsecally Catholick from her Communion, and potentially Catholick from her Authority; and 'tis only by mens perversness and undutiful­ness That she loseth her Potential, whiles she retaineth her intrinsecal and extrins [...] ­cal Catholicism: For having her Religi­on according to the three first, and ha­ving her Communion according to the fourth, she ought also to have her Au­thority according to the fift Commande­ment; [Page 313] But if she forsake her Religion, or corrupt her Communion, she cannot justly claim her authority, if it be denied; and doth unjustly use it, if it be granted, for she useth it against the honour and glory of Gods and for the distraction and the destruction of men; whereas St. Paul saith expresly concerning his own, and the Authority of all the other Apo­stles, (for he saith our authority, which the Lord hath given us) that it was only for edification, not for destruction, 2 Cor. 10. 8. and having said this for the Apostles themselves, He hath much more said it for their successors: Let it be gran­ted, which cannot reasonably be denied, That every Christian Priest-hood or Mi­nistry is the grand Apostle of that Nati­on wherein is an Apostolical Church. I hope you will say the Apostle ought to be true to his God, no less then the People ought to be true to their Apostle: I will instance in St. Paul, (who was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles, 2 Cor. 11. 5. though you now attribute all to Saint Peter) we read that certain of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under a curse, saying, That they would neither eat nor drink, till they had killed Paul, Act. 23. 12. This banding against an Apostle [Page 314] was fighting against God, in the judge­ment of a Jew, (Act. 15. 39.) how much more should it be in the judgement of Christians? For we cannot but look upon St. Paul in this case, as upon God [...] Trustee both for the Christian Religion, and for the Christian Communion, an [...] accordingly invested with authority fro [...] God for the discharge of that Trust: an doubt not but He looked upon himself a [...] one that ought to be more zealous fo [...] Christs Religion, and for Christs Com­munion, than for his own Authority And so doubtless ought the Priest-hood [...] all Churches after him; and why not all in your Church? For the Churches fou [...] ­dation or being is much more excelle [...] and glorious in regard of her Religio [...] and of her Communion, then in regard [...] her Authority.

15. This I fear comes neerer your [...] then I am willing to urge it; sure I am comes very neer my position, That formali [...] vocation of Saints, such as is now co [...] ­monly used in your Devotions, being p [...] ­vately used, is against the three first Co [...] ­mandements which concern the Religio [...] and being publickly used, is against [...] fourth Commandement, which conce [...] the Communion of Gods Church; a [...] [Page 315] therefore in vain do you pretend, in sin do you imploy the Authority of your Church to uphold either the private or the publicke use of it; And this difference I cannot but observe betwixt your Trent Catechist, and your Rome dogmatist. The one goes to prove that Invocation of Saints is not against the Commandement, because it is according to the use of the Church. The other goes to prove that tis not according to the use of the Church, because it is against the Commandement; For so Bellarmine proves that the Saints are not to be invocated as the Authors of any blessing appertaining either to grace or glory, but only as the impetrators or procurers of it; and his two proofs are, one from the Command of the Holy Scri­ptures; probatur primo ex Scriptura; The other from the Custome of the Church; Secundo probatur ex usu Eccle­siae; Bell. l. 1. de Sanct. beat. cap. 17. though to make good his second proof. He maintains this Unlogical and Un­theological position, That tis no matter for the words, so as it be the sense of our Prayers: which is Unlogical, because it is against the very nature and institution of speech; and Untheological because it is against that [Page 316] very Commandement which ordereth our Speech in our Prayers, and therefore ordereth our Prayers only as they are Vocal, and may be spoken, not as they are Mental, and may be thought; and that is the third Commandement; whereby God hath set a watch only before the doores of our Lips, & not of our Hearts. He had or­dered our Hearts in the first Commande­ment, and ordereth our mouths only in the third, when he saith, Thou shalt not take the Name of thy Lord thy God in vain: And in this respect the Psalmist prayeth. Accept I beseech thee the free-wil offering [...] my mouth O Lord, Psal. 119. 10. Here is then very much (in the Judgement of your own Cardinal) though you say Here is nothing against Praying to Saint [...] and Angels confirmed in grace and glory. For (to let pass that their bless in Heaven doth not make them God for Neighbour) we may not pray to them for any bles­sing that tends either to Grace or Glory; and all good Prayers are for bles­sings that do tend to one of these: And tis a poor shift to talk of sense, not o [...] words, when the question is only o [...] words; and to say you mean the Saint [...] but as Procurers, when you speak to then [Page 317] as Authors of the blessings you pray for: For He that hath bid his Church daily to pray And lead us not into temptation, hath above all forbid his Church daily to lead his people (committed to her charge) into Temptation, by their very Prayers: Therefore in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text in Montanus his interlineary Bible of 1572. putting [...] instead of [...], (though by Gods special providence the Press strang­ly miscarried, for it is printed [...] in all that edition, which word is a meer Tra­gelaphus in the Hebrew; That since you were not contented with Gods Text, you should be ashamed of your own;) And this discovery we owe to your own L. B [...]ogensis in his notations upon Genesis, where he saith, Gu. Fabritius Pici Mirandulani Prin­cipis autoritate nixus in Hebraicis illis Bi­bliis Regio operi adjunctis, quibus Latina interpretatio inter contextus lineas in­serta est, excudi curavit [...] quanquam errore positum sit [...]:) I say in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text, putting [...] instead of [...], Gen. 3. 15. Ipsa for Ipse, to make good your Vulgar Translation, Ipsa con­teret caput Tuum; For if it had been said [Page 318] See shall bruise thy head, yet you had not found a sufficient warrant to Invocate the blessed Virgin, because you cannot possibly bring Her into the first Table of the Decalogue, to make Her a God or the Object of Religion, Let my Prayer be set forth in thy sight as the Incense, saith the Prophet, Psal. 141. 2. Prayer is the Incense of the Soul, and must be set forth only in his sight who seeth the secret re­cesses and sighs of the heart; When the Jews went to burn incense and to serve other Gods whom they knew not, (where Note, Burning incense is put for serving of God) the Lord said to them, O do not this abominable thing which I hate, Jer. 44. 3, 4. And doth he not still say the same to Christians! is it less hateful now, then it was then for any man to perform v [...]ws or to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven! may not God as justly swear against us if we do so, as he did against them, That his Name shall be no more named in our mouths? v. 26. Are not all but himself as well to us as to them Gods whom we know not? Is not this intruding into those things which we have not seen? Col. 2. 18. Surely none but God alone is to be known or seen throughout the whole Bible, in all the [Page 319] precepts and precedents of Religious worship: Therefore Invocation being an elicite and proper act of Religion, cannot be applied to any that is not the proper object of Religion; The Jews might as well have offered their corporal Sacrifice to Abraham, as the Christians can offer this spiritual Sacrifice to St. Peter; For to Him they do really offer it, who do say Sancte Petre miserere mei, aperi mihi adi­tum caeli. O St. Peter have mercy upon me, open to me the Gate of Heaven; and not in words to Him, but in sense to God; Nay Bellarmine himself would have them offer this spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer to St. Peter not only in words but also in sense; or else why doth he say, Potest erigi basilica Sancto Petro, ut qui ingrediuntur, ipso templi nomine, recordentur Sancti Petri, eumque in eo loco tanquam Patronum Colant & deprecentur, lib. 3. de Sanct. c [...]lt. cap. 4. 9. Respondeo. It is lawful to build a Church to St. Peter, That they who enter therein from the very name of the Church was remember St. Peter, and in that very place worship him as their Patron, and deprecate his displeasure; So it seems God hath said, My House shall be called the House of Prayer, in regard of St. Peter, [Page 320] not in regard of himself; that we should pray to the Saints, not to him.

Baronius is as stiffe as Bellarmine for the worship and Invocation of St. Peter. For he saith concerning the payment of the Peter-pence heretofore by Ina King of this Nation, Quem (sc. Petrum) scien­tes omnes Dominum esse suum, propen­siore studio colerent, & in opportunitati­bus invocarent; (Bar. An. 740. nu. 14.) Whom they all knowing to be their Lord, should worship with the greater earnestness, and invocate him in their necessities: Who can but stand amazed at the conscience of such Divines, that dare obtend to the People such Divinity? teaching them plain Idolatry instead of Religion, and consequently gross Infidelity instead of Faith; For he that is an Idolater, must also be an Infidel; he that is faulty in the pro­per act of worship, must also be faulty in the proper act of faith; for worship pro­ceeds from Faith, according to that of St. Paul, Rom. 10. 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And as the formal nature of Idolatry con­sisteth in disowing the true God, either for God, or for our God, or for our only God; so the formal nature of infidelity consist­eth [Page 321] in disowning Christ either for Lord, or for our Lord, or for our only Lord and Sa­viour; can any Saint be religiously wor­shipped or invocated without a suspition, if not a spice of this Idolatry in disowning God for God, for our God, for our only God? or be acknowledged as our Lord and Patron without a suspition, if not a spice of this infidelity in disowning Christ as Lord, as our Lord, as our only Lord? And in this case in which God hath de­clared himself to be a jealous God, the very least suspition is to be carefully avoided, because that alone may be a ground of jealousie: Yet this hath been the Jesuites Doctrine and practice ever since. I will alledge but one Sanchez for the proof of both; He in his opus morale de Praecep. decalogi, lib. 2. c. 43. saith plainly that the first Commandement is concerning the worship of God and the Saints; In hoc primo praecepto, quod de Dei & Sanctorum cultu est; making the first Commandement require the worship of Saints no less then the worship of God; as if Thou shall have no other Gods but me, were all one with its contradictory, Thou shall have other Gods but me: This was his Doctrine; And agreeable to this Doctrine [Page 322] was his practice; for when by reason of his stammering he could not be admitted into the Jesuites Colledge at Granada, He fell a praying to the blessed Virgin to take away from him that impediment, pro­fessing that he would never return home again, unless she granted him his request; Neque irritae sûere preces, Annuit ado­lescentuli votis misericordiae mater, suumque alumnum balbutie liberavit (saith his own Colledge in their praeface to his works) Nor were his prayers in vain; For the Mother of mercy hearkend to the de­sire of the young man, and freed this her pu­pill or petitioner from his stammering: These men have now left others nothing to do but to correct the Prayers of the Holy Ghost, and of the Catholick Church, and to perswade the World not to say here­after Domine, but Domina labia mea aperies, & os meum annunciabit laudem tuam, Not O Lord, but O Lady open thou my lips, and my mouth shall shew forth thy Praise.

Nay this is not all, But they farther tell us (out of Binius) That Damascens Hand which had writ for the worship of Images, being cut off by a Saracene Prince, was again restored through his [Page 323] Prayers to the Image of the blessed Vir­gin; Sic dextra Damasceni, quae pro re­ligio so Imaginum cultu scripserat, à Sa­raceno Principe praecisa, quam Divinitus restituit clementissima Dei mater, ad cujus ille Imaginem velut ad sacram anchoram, piis fletibus & supplice fide confugerat; And shall we yet doubt whether they do make their Prayers to Saints as to the Authors of those blessings which they pray for? when they plainly tell us that the blessed Virgin alone did as much for Sanchez, as God the Father had done for Moses, by curing his stammering Tongue; and more for Damascence then God the Son had done for Malchus, by curing not his maimed ear, but his maimed hand; And that she did both by her own power, because they both had made their Pray­ers unto Her; what remains then but that she be Invocated immediatly as God, ac­cording to these mens Divinity; for ha­ving Gods Power, why should she not also have Gods glory? Thus is Biels Spi­ritual Dalliance (for I am willing to call it no more) turned by you into a meer Carnal Dotage; for he saith, The Father of Heaven hath given half his Kingdome to the blessed Virgin, (which was prefigured [Page 324] before in Esther, to whom King Ahasuerus promised the like) for whereas there are two principal goods of the Kingdome of Heaven, to wit Justice and Mercy, God hath reserved the Justice to himself, but the Mercy He hath passed by Grant or by Deed of Gift to the blessed Virgin: Sibi reservavit Justi­tiam, Virgini Mariae concessit miseri­cordiam; Bielin Can. Missae. lect. 8. What he fondly teacheth, that you more fond­ly believe, and most impiously practise; putting more confidence in, and making more addresses to the blessed Virgin for mercy, then to the Eternal Son of God; Hence our Lady with you is above our Lord, in the number of her Devotes, in the statiliness of her Churches, in the multitude of her endowments, nay in the very power of exorcisme; Her day is above His, Her Salutation above his Prayer; you teach that nothing passeth in Heaven without her express consent, That the stile of that Court is Placet Do­minae, It pleaseth our Lady; That matters of Justice come more properly from Christ, but expeditions of Grace from Her; So that 'tis no marvail (saith an unquestionable Author) if this Doctrin [...] and practice have div [...]rted the principal [Page 325] streams of affiance and love from Him who had the only right unto them, and turned them upon those unto whom neither so great honour is due, nor so undue honour can be ac­ceptable: (Sands Survey of Religion, cap. 4.)

Jesu God, heal their Tongues that preach such Blaphemy instead of Divinity, heal their Hands that write it, heal their Ears that hear it, and much more heal their Hearts that believe it, and their Lifes that practise it; that though thy Truth hath been outfaced by their Lyes, yet their mi­racles may be outvied by thy Power, and their Souls saved by thy Grace and Mer­cy: For all the miracles they can falsly attribute to thy Saints, as if by their own power and holiness they could heal the Body, (to make us go to thy Servants for help, when we should go only to Thy self) are nothing in comparison of that great miracle of thy power, and greater mira­cle of thy mercy, whereby thou art plea­sed to heal the Soul.

I have been the longer upon this Argu­ment, (as I was upon the former,) be­cause the false Invocations and Adora­tions used by you, have given others just occasion to depart from you, even those [Page 326] who were under your own jurisdiction, and much more those who were not; For as he that kicks against Heaven, stricks up his own Heels; so a faction in your Church of late years kicking against Gods authority, could not stand so fast as to keep their own: nor is it any reason you should expect others to be dutiful to you according to the fift, contrary to that duty which they ow to God, according to the four first Commandements.

16. But though others of your party argue much in this case from Authority, yet you think fit to argue from reason, saying, Now since God puts this great Trust in them with us, ought not we to put them in Trust by reverently commending our selves unto them? no, saith Reason, to which you have appealed; much more no, saith Religion, from which you have started: First, no, saith Reason; For that teacheth us to invocate none that is not All-pre­sent to hear our request, All-merciful to receive it, All-sufficient to grant it, and Almighty to fullfil it; and therefore to Invocate no creature, which hath none, much less all of these:

Secondly, no, saith Religion; And first the Religion that is in Heaven; I heard [Page 327] the voyce of many Angels round about the Throne, and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voyce, Worthy is the Lamb which was slain to receive power and riches, and wisedome, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing, Revel. 5. 11, 12. This is the Religion you must practise in Hea­ven; and why should you practise any other in Earth, since you are taught to pray, Thy will be done in Earth as it is in Heaven? you may safely take the crowns of the Saints and Angels, and cast them before the Throne, giving glory and ho­nour and thanks to Him who was dead but now liveth for ever and ever; for so they do themselves, Revel. 4. 9, 10. But never was it seen in Heaven, That any Saint or Angel did make so bold as to take the Crown off from our Saviours Head, to place it upon his own: There this is the only dialect, Thou art worthy O Lord to receive glory and honour, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy plea­sure they are and were created, v. 11. And the dialect should be here as 'tis there; so saith the Psalmist, O come let us worship and fall down and kneel before the Lord our Ma­ker; as if he had said before no other but only Him to whom we can truly say, For [Page 328] thou hast created all things, and for thy plea­sure they are and were created; Therefore secondly, no, saith the Religion that is in Earth; that likewise answers no to your quaere, Ought we not to put them in trust by reverently commending our selves into them? And surely we ought not; For that very Apostle, who hath written most concern­ing the benefit and the assistance which the heirs of Salvation have by the Angels, (Hebr. 1. 14.) forbids them to worship Angels for fear of endangering their in­heritance, Col. 2. 18, 19. Let no man be­guil you of your reward, in a voluntary hu­mility and worshipping of Angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puft up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, &c. where the Apostles full intent and scope is to dehort the Co­lossians from the worshipping of Angels; first from the dangerous effect of it, no less then the loss of eternal life, [Let no man beguil you of your reward] 2. from the vain pretences for it, viz. the obe­dience or submission we owe to them as to our Patrons, and the need we have of their Patronage; the first hath a shew of humility, but 'tis such as God never com­mended [in a voluntary humility.] The [Page 329] second hath a real guilt of curiosity, for 'tis such as God never taught, [intruding into those things which he hath not seen.] 3. From the wicked and ungodly causes of it; and they are two; Pride of heart, [vainly puft up by his fleshly mind] and Ignorance of Christ as Head of the Church, And not holding the Head from which all the Body by joynts and bands ha­ving nourishment ministred and knit toge­ther, increaseth with the increase of God: Angels are a part of this Body as well as men; and this Head gives life to them as to us: As all is Neighbour that is not God in the Law; so all is Body that is not Head in the Gospel: The question is as unan­swerable, if asked of St. Michael or St. Gabriel, as of St. Peter or St. Paul, Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Cor. 1. 13. Is Christ divided from him­self that He should not be the Head of Angels as well as of men? or is Christ divided from his Body on Earth, more then from his Body in Heaven? Hath he put that part of his Body to convey life and motion, and nourishment to this? or doth he not convey life and motion, and nourishment to both parts immediately [Page 330] by Himself? Was any Angel crucified for us, or were we baptized in the name of any Angel? Was St. Paul a lover of Christ ( [...] saith Chrys.) in denying this honour to the Apostles; and can we be lovers of Christ in giving this honour to the Angels? Is it more lawful for us then it was for him, to give the honour of the Head to any part of the Body? or can we look for a reward of our service, if we serve any of the Body instead of the Head? Let no men beguil you (saith He) of your reward; [...], Let no man make you so run as not to receive the Prize, or so run that you may not obtain; you may lose the Prize by running out of the race, as well as by not running it: And you most needs run out of the race, if you cannot see the mark or scope to which you run; This mark or scope in it self is more visible then the Sun in the Firmament; for it is the Sun of righteous­ness; why should you allow the interposi­tion of any Body betwixt Him and you, to remove him out of your sight, who cannot be removed out of his own Sphaere? your sins as a cloud will obscure him more then enough; Oh let not even your [Page 331] Righteousness obscure him more; If you will needs put in a solid body betwixt him and you when you pray; how can the eye of your Faith look upon him in your Prayer? You will here by Eclipse his light from your selves, and bring darkeness upon your Souls: For will you look with the Eye of your Faith upon Angels? then say they were delivered for your offences, and rose again for your justification, and now sit at the right hand of God, making inter­cession for you; will you look with the eye of your Faith upon your blessed Saviour? then let not the Angels in betwixt Him and you; for they will but hinder your sight, and keep you from seeing Him; Or if you could with the eye of Faith, look on Christ through the Angels, yet were it a piece of Infidelity so to do, because it is but intruding into those things which you have not seen, (sc. in the Law and the Go­spel,) and so being matter of Religion cannot be Divine either in the evidence or in the assurance of Faith: Your own Angelical Doctor speaks of this kind of Infidelity, Infidelis non ut habens malam voluntatem circa finem, sc. Christum, sed ut habens malam electionem circa me­dia, quia non eligit quae sunt à Christo [Page 332] tradita; And from thence say I, such a Worshipper is an Infidel, if not as having a bad will or affection towards the end of his worship, which is Christ, yet sure as having a bad choice or election of the means tending to that end, because he choseth such means to worship Christ, as Christ hath not appointed him: Nay indeed St. Chrysostome in effect said so, long agoe in his Comment upon this Text, [...]: There were some that said [...] we ought not to come to God immediately by Christ, but mediately by the Angels, for the other address was too high for us: Here's the choice of such means in Gods wor­ship as God hath not appointed; (for Saint Peter saith expresly, that we are to offer up spiritual Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ; 1 Pet. 2. 5. If the Sacrifice of Prayer may be Spiritual, yet it cannot be acceptable but by Christ:) And it follows [...] little after, [...]: why do you let go the Head to lay hold on the members? (that is let go Christ, to lay hold on the Angels) If you fall from the Head, you are utterly lost: [Page 333] Here's the reproof of such a choice as befitting Infidels, who know not Christ to be the Head, nor the dangers and mise­ries of those men who fall from this Head, rather then Christians, who do know him to be the Head, as well of Angels as of men; and that both would alike perish, were it not for the influence of life and motion derived to them, by being im­mediatly joyned unto him. The like is the Judgement of Photius (as indeed he ge­nerally follows St. Chrysostome;) But Theodoret not only condemns the Heresy, but also declares the Hereticks after this manner, Those who stood for the Law, stood for the worshipping of Angels, saying, The Law was given by them: And this mistake remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisi­dia, which made the Fathers in the Council of Laodicea, the chief City of Phrygia, for­bid the worshipping of Angels: And (saith he) to this day we may see amonst them, and their Neighbours, the Oratories of St. Mi­chael: And this they pretended to do out of Humility, For that the great God of Heaven and Earth was invisible, incomprehensible, inaccessible by men, and therefore they ought to go to Him by the mediation of Angels: Thus far Theodoret, and this held for un­questionable [Page 334] Truth above a thousand years amongst all Greek and Latine Di­vines, till your great Annalist thought fi [...] to question it; and therefore I crave you [...] pardon if I make bold to question him. For I had much rather say with Theodoret. That they were hereticks, then with Baro­nius, That they were Catholicks, who worshipped Angels, since next the holi­ness of the Holy Ghost, I believe the holiness of the Holy Catholick Church and sure I am, such a grievous sin as this, is inconsistent with true Holiness: For it is [...] rule of common reason, approved both i [...] the Ecclesiastical and in the Civil Law Paria esse, aliquid omnino non facere, & non rectè facere, They are both equal sin [...] not to do a thing at all, and not to do it righ [...] ­ly; not to worship God at all, and not to worship him rightly, or as he hath com­manded; and consequently 'tis in effe [...] as great a Calumny to say the Catholic [...] Church hath had no Religion, as to say she hath had a false Religion: Since therefore the worshipping of Angels is convince [...] to be false Religion, we may safely infe [...] it hath not been, it cannot be the Reli­gion of the Catholick Church; And S [...] Paul here proves it to be false Religion. [Page 335] Per omnia genera causarum, in regard of all four causes; that is to say, 1. False originally or efficiently, because it came not from God, but from men presumptu­ously intruding into things not seen, and vainly puffed up in their fleshly mind; 2. False formally, because it is not with God, it holds not the Head; and therefore withdraws us from God, instead of uni­ting us to him; whereas the very formal cause of devotion is the Union of the Soul with God; 3. False materially, for it is a Voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels, instead of God; 4. False finally, because it ends not in God, tends not to salvation but to damnation, or to the be­guiling us of our reward; whereas what is formally Religion in the Union with God, is of it self finally salvation in the fruition of God: Yet saith Baronius, Theodore­tum haud foeliciter assequutum esse Pauli verborum sensum, quùm in Commentariis dicit haec à Paulo esse scripta, qùod tùm grassarentur Haeretici qui Angelos ado­randos esse jactarent; Theodoret was mistaken in St. Pauls meaning, when he said that St. Paul writ this against those Here­ticks who then worshipped Angels: He might as well have said that St. Chryso­stome [Page 336] and Photius were also mistaken; for they agree with Theodoret in the same sense of St. Pauls words; And he might moreover to these have added St. A [...] ­brose, to shew that the mistake was no only in the Greek but also in the Lati [...] Church; For though his Gloss name star instead of Angels, yet the reason of [...] condemns the worshipping of Angels Ut harum detentae culturis animae sub fi [...] mamento obligatae teneantur, ne sc, ten­dant ad suporiores caelos ad Deum omn [...] ­um adorandum; That such kind of wor­ship, (place it upon what creature yo [...] will) detains the Soul here below, and keep it from ascending into the highest Heaven that it may there worship the ever livi [...] God; Quod operâ efficitur inimici, [...] semper animas super terram humilia [...] detineat—Religionem simulans quù [...] fit maximum sacrilegium, which is t [...] Divels chiefest Policy, to keep mens So [...] still groveling on the Earth; and therefo [...] such a kind of worship, though it may prete [...] to Religion, yet is it in truth no better th [...] sacrilege; Maximum sacrilegium, it is sa­criledge in the highest degree, because [...] robs God immediately in himself, not me­diately in his tithes and offerings; it robs [Page 337] him in his Glory, and not only in his Patri­mony: And that you may not think the Latine Church had forgotten this Truth in her doctrine, when many of her mem­bers had forsaken it in their practice, I will here give you the Gloss of a very late Interpreter, and that is of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, who saith thus upon the same Text: Vocant hujus modi superstitiosi ad Religionem Angelorum, privatas pre­ces, ritus & sacrificia, & ea adoriuntur quae ipsi non viderunt, & quae ipsi non cognoscunt; At quae monet Paulus & vidit & cognoscit; Haec figurae, haec Pro­phetae, haec omnes Sancti, & Spiritus San­ctus manifestat; proinde dat Colossensi­bus generale documentum, abstinendi ab omnibus elementis mundi, sive Gentibus tradita fuerint ad cultum daemonum; sive Judaeis ad antiquas ceremonias, sive su­perstitiosis ad dementationes magicas, & animarum ludificamenta, quae universa corruptionem operantur: His general meaning is this, They who call us to su­perstition, or to any false worship of An­gels or the like, call us to they know not what themselves; But St. Paul who calls us to the true Religion, or to the worship of God in Christ, calls us to what he hath [Page 338] seen and known. For all the Types and Fi­gures & Prophets in the Old Testament, and all the Saints and the Holy Spirit both in the Old & New, lead us to this worship: Therefore St. Paul gives a general rule to the Colossians, (and in them to all Christians) of abstaining from all the rudi­ments of the World in matters of Religion, [...] from so many cheats and delusions and cor­ruptions of their Souls; and since the wor­ship of Angels is not according to the Commandement of God, it must come under the rudiments of the World, o [...] (as St. Paul speaketh) of a fleshly mind This interpreter doth in effect agree with the rest, & they all agree in this interpre­tation, That St. Pauls main drift and pur­pose is to dehort us from all manner o [...] superstition, and to exhort us to [...] Religion in the worship of God: Ye [...] your great Champion enters the lists onl [...] against Theodoret, challenging him of [...] multiplicity of errors and mistakes, (an [...] that justly, saith his great admirer, and [...] he were a Saint, his great Idolater, Bini [...] in his notes in Conc. Rom. 2. sub. Syl [...] Justam illust. Card Baronis censuram no [...] evadit:) but thus Baronius proceeds, S [...] ergo errore semel lapsus, in alium gravio­rem [Page 339] impegit, ut diceret Canonem 35 Concil. Laod. de his haereticis esse intelli­gendum, qui Angelos colendos esse doce­rent, quique in eadem regione Asiae, Ora­toria erexissent St. Michaeli Archangelo; incautè nimis quae à Catholicis essent an­tiquitus instituta, Haereticis, quorum nul­la est memoria, tribuens: (Baron. An. 60. num. 20.) But so he passeth from one errour to another, saying, That the Canon of Laodicea was to be understood of those Here­ticks who taught that Angels were to be worshipped, and who had in that Countrey erected Oratories or Churches to St. Michael the Archangel, very unadvisedly ascribing that to Hereticks whose memorial was perish­ed with themselves, which had been ancient­ly instituted by Catholicks: Alas poor Theodoret, what ill luck had he to be a Protestant, to protest against the worship of Angels, as taught and practised by Haereticks, which (saith this new Doctor) was anciently taught and practised by Catholicks: But St. Paul had as ill luck as he, who had protested against the same worship long before; And as long as that Protestation stands good, we may very well claim him, and own our selves in this case for very good Protestants, and for [Page 340] better Christians; And because it is im­possible for any to be good Catholicks who willfully contradict St. Paul, (for such men are rather enemies then Ser­van [...]s of Christ, who reject his Autho­rity) we must say, not that Theodoret unadvisedly ascribed that to Hereticks, which had been anciently instituted by Catholicks, (for what Catholick did ever take upon him to institute the Truth, and much less the false Religion?) but that Baronius unadvisedly ascribed that to Catholicks, which had been fondly instituted by Haereticks: But let us see by what arguments he confutes Theodoret. Sanè quidem nullum à Cerinthianis Hae­reticis erectum fuisse in honorem St. Mi­chaelis Archangeli Oratorium, ex nuper dictis satis superque liquet, We have al­ready proved that the Cerinthian Haereticks did erect no Oratory to St. Michael the Archangel; Had he quoted any Scripture, Fathers, or Council, Theodorete might have stood confuted; but sure his own Ipse dixit may not stand against Scri­pture, Father, and Council, as a good Confutation; For all his proof, to which he annexeth his satis superque liquet, is only his own conjectural argumentation [Page 341] in these words, Cherinthum & Haereticos qui mundi creationem Angelis tribue­bant, non tamen sensisse eos adorandos; Nam super Angelos virtutem esse divi­nam omnium supremam quam Deum di­cerent, omnes affirmabant; Chernthius, and those Haereticks who did attribute the creati­on of the world to Augels, did not think the Angels were to be worshipped, for they did all affirm that there was a supreme Divine Vir­tue which they called God, above the Angels, The whole proof consisteth of these two Propositions. 1 ^o That the Cherinthian He­reticks did not erect Oratories to Saint Michael the Archangel, because they did not worship him. 2 ^o That they did not worship him or any of his fellow Angels, because they did acknowledge a God above him and them; This Advocate pleads well for the Cherinthians (most abominable Haereticks) but ill for his own clients; For he would perswade us, that the Papists are more stupid and more im­pious then were the Cherinthians; more impious in that they worship Angels, which the others did not; more stupid in that not thinking the Angels made the World (as the others did) they have less reason to worship them: But if he [Page 342] [...]ath not betrayed his Clients, yet sure he [...]ath betrayed his cause, For what do Pro­testants say more, but that Oratories may not be erected to Angels, because they may not be worshipped? And what do Papists say less, but that there is a God above the Angels, although they worship them; so that if the acknowledgement of a God above the Angels be a good proof, that the Cherinthians did not, 'tis as good a proof, that the Papists do not or at least should not worship Angels; and in this par­ticular, we may all joyn hands and hearts together as fellow Protestants; and our poor ejected Ministers may say to your great Triumphant Doctors, We would to God that not only you, but also all that hear you and us this day, were both al­most and altogether such as we are, ex­cept these Bond [...]: For if you would turn Protestants with us in the True worship, we should not need turn Papists with you in the Publick worship of Almighty God; But till you have a True worship accord­ing to the three first Commandements, we cannot envy your publick worship, ac­cording to the fourth.

Thus you see Baronius his Proof, is not so great as his clamor against Theodoret, [Page 343] yet upon this proof alone doth he infer this Conclusion, Angelos venerari, non Haereticorum, sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit; The worshipping of Angels was a Cu­stom, not of Haereticks, but of the Catholick Church; Sure if it had been so, the Greek and Latine Interpreters upon St. Paul to the Colossians would not so unanimously have condemned it; For if this false worship had gotten generally into their practice, it would also have gotten into their Doctrine, as it hath since into yours; which makes all your late writers so zea­lous for it, and so copious in it, particu­larly Baronius who had not the patience to stay longer then the sixtyeth year after our blessed Saviours Incarnation, to find out this Custome, and had the confidence as soon as he had found it, to foist it upon the Catholick Church, because he saw it was practised in his own: And the like fa­vour hath he shewed to all your other present corruptions, whether in Doctrine or in Practice, bringing them all into the first century of years after Christ, that what their own grosseness diminished from their native Verity, his wit and learning might add to their pretended Antiquity: But concerning this your pre­sent [Page 344] corruption in Practice, (I mean the worshipping of Angels,) he concludes thus; Id verò quàm purè, Sanctè, reli­giosè, &c. How purely, how holily, how re­ligiously it hath been alwayes practised in the Church, I have shewed in my annotations upon the Roman Martyrologie, on the 8. of May: I was big with expectation of some invincible arguments in his Martyrology, till I had consulted it; but there I found only some several Apparitions of St. Michael the Archangel, no proof at all that the Church had worshipped him, save only Baronius his own word, authen­tical enough perchance with some of you (as it was with Binius) to bear down poor Theodorete; but I hope not authenti­cal enough with any to bear down St. Paul; Therefore in vain doth your Go­liah speak of Purity in that which St. Paul imputes to a fleshly mind, (then which nothing is more impure;) and of Holiness in that, which St. Paul saith be­guils us of our reward, (for unholiness, it all can do [...]o more;) And of Religion in that, of which St. Paul saith, And holding not the Head, (for we cannot well say more of the greatest Irreligion:) And as vainly doth he impute that to the Catho­lick [Page 345] Church, which is so full of Impurity, Unholiness and Irreligion; And this man­ner; of arguing is without doubt good in it self; for it makes humane reason subor­dinate to Divine Authority, as to an In­finitly higher Reason, labouring to prove what God hath commanded us to believe, even that his Catholick Church is pure and Holy, and because it is so, admits not any such gross practice of Impurity & un­holiness; For what is made sin in it self by Gods Word, cannot by the wit o [...] men be made holiness in Gods Church: But if this manner of arguing were not good in its own nature, yet it were good against Baronius, who useth no other ar­gument to confute Theodorets Authority, but only his own deductions, confound­ing those two Topicks, which are so di­stinct in themselves, even Humane Reason, and Humane Authority; proving the Che­rinthian Haereticks did not worship An­gels, because he had found a reason, why they should not; whereas if he would in­deed have acted the part of a true Histo­r [...]an, or of a good Divine, he should have con [...]uted Theodorets Authority by some greater and better Authority; But that he saw was impossible for him to do, for [Page 346] the whole stream of Ecclesiastical writers run with a full torrent and tide against him; and we may well guess he was very much put to his shifts, when he was for­ced to put so strange a gloss as he did upon the Council of Laodicea; for where­as the Fathers there said, (Can. 35.) It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God, [...], And to name the Angels, (sc. in their prayers, as calling upon them, instead of calling upon God) for that were to be guilty of a secret Idolatry, ( [...]) and to forsake the Lord Jesus Christ, ( [...],) (which in St. Pauls language was [...], not holding the Head;) Baro­nius is pleased to say, That the Canon is to be interpreted of those false Angels which the Heathen worshipped; (falsorum Angelorum, eorum nimirum quos venera­rentur idololatrae, venerationem prohi­buit, alludens fortasse ad Genii cultū, &c. Bar. an. 60. nu. 23.) He might as well have said that the Council made Canons for Heathens and not for Christians, though they expresly say, [...], It be­comes not Christians to leave the Church [Page 347] of God; And that they had forbid such men to leave the Church, who were ne­ver of the Chuch; had called them secret Idolaters, who were most open Idolaters; had required them not to forsake Christ, who had never come near Christ; and in one word, had called that worshipping of Angels, which was indeed worshipping of Divels: Such dangerous Rocks are skill­full Pilots cast upon, who will not stear by the Card of Gods Word, but let their own phansie fill their Sailes, for that is little better then a tempestuous wind called Euroclidon, which will drive them up and down, either in Adria or in Tiber till they have made Shipwrack of the Truth; And if you think me overlavish in th [...]s expression, pray consider its a less immodesty in me to put a fancy upon your Baronius, then twas in him to put a frenzy upon the Council: Is not this [...], To be a slave to a received opinion? & why should that man think to overmaster anothers judgement, who can be contented to enslave his own?

18. I now come to your last argument for praying to Angels, which is this, least we should ungratefully slight them, contrary to Gods command, Exod. 23. 21. Observa [...]um, & andi v [...]m ejus, nec contem­nendum [Page 348] putes: This argument is a strain higher then that of the Trent Catechist; For he only saith, That the Invocation of Angels is not repugnant to the first Com­mandement, huic legi non repugnare; (Catech. Trid. de primo praecepto, cap. 3.) but you are not contented there­with; you say farther, That Invocation of Angels is commanded in the first Com­mandement; for you quote a Text for it which must be reduced to that Com­mandement or to none, and so be ac­counted as no part of Gods Law, if it be­long not to that Commandement: But indeed the Text you quote is to be redu­ced to the first Commandement, & conse­quently cannot concern any Angel, but must concern only God; for though your Cardinal was so bold with the Laodicean Council as to say, when that named Angels, it meaned D [...]vels; yet I hope, you wil not be so bold with the Holy Scripture as to say, When that nameth God, it meaneth Angels:

Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, saith the Text. Do not you say, we may have none of the Heathens Gods, Bacchus, or Venus or Jupiter, which were evil An­gels; but we may have some of the Chri­stians Gods, St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. [Page 349] Raphael, which were Holy Angels; Or if you must needs say it in obedience to your great Master, (for you seem all as sworn homagers to your two Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius) yet a greater then he will confute your saying; For the Holy Ghost calleth the Angel you men­tion no less then God, yea then Jehovah the everliving God, Exod. 13. 21. And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them the way, and by [...]ight in a pillar of fire; This is the Angel con­cerning whom its said, Observa eum, &c. Beware of him and obey his Voyce, and pro­voke er conte [...]n him not, as the context plainly sheweth, For he will not pardon your trangressions, for my name is in him; and again v. 22. If thou shall indeed obey his Voyce, and do all that I speak; and v. 23. For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and I will cut them off: Here are two persons indeed named, for he saith mine Angel and I [...], but one and the same God, one and the same Lord, who requireth their Obe­dience, and promiseth his own gracious presence and Protection; Wherefore all that this Text will afford you, is that the Eternal Son of God is called an Angel, [Page 350] (as He was before, Gen. 48. 16.) not that an Angel is made a God, or ought to be religiously worshipped: For though the Law was delivered by Angels, and God might send a Guardian Angel with his People, yet here God and the Angel are in effect made terms convertible, and therefore most signifie one and the same thing: If the Jews had interpreted these and the like Texts of the Angels properly so called, it had been scarce possible for so great a number of them to have turned Sadduces, and to have said There are no Angels; yet if the Christians will needs in­terpret the same Texts of the Angels pro­perly so called, it will not be impossible for them to turn worse Sadduces, and to say, There is no God; for they will have no Honour, no worship left for him; being bound by these Texts so interpreted, to bestow it all upon the Angels; As the mistaken Jew had no Angel in his Faith, so the mistaken Christian may have no­thing but Angel, (that is, no God,) in his Religion; and by this means come to be the worser Sadducee: For he that will say Angels are to be religiously worship­ped, must go for that worship to the first Table, since that only treats of the elicite [Page 351] acts of Religion, and consequently either must leave out God, or joyn the Angels with God in all the four first Com­mandements, making them Gods Copart­ners in all Adorations, Invocations, De­dications, consecrating to them Liturgies, Churches, Priests, Sabbaths, and what not? and in effect say, There is no God, whiles in his Religion he saith, there are so many Gods.

But you are afraid of ungratefully slighting the Angels; why not more afraid of ungratefully slighting the God that made them, and of whose command they minister unto you? For even in this very place where it is said, Behold I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the Place which I have prepared, v. 20. it is also said, And ye shall serve the Lord your God, v. 25. You may acknowledge that God sends a Guardian Angel before you to keep you in your way, and to bring you into the Place which he hath prepared for your Soul, even to Abrahams Bosome; yet you may not worship or invocate that Angel; for it is said expresly, ye shall serve the Lord your God; and surely Invocation is the highest act of Religious service. Angele [Page 352] Dei qui custos es mei, me tibi commissum pietate supernâ hodiè illumina custodi, rege, & guberna, Amen. This is your daily Invocation of your Guardian An­gel; can you suppose him to do all this and not suppose him to be God? if you can, pray shew me what can the Son of God, or the Spirit of God do more? why not rather say Fili Dei, or Spiritus Dei, O thou Son of God, or O thou Spirit of God, then O thou Angel of God, enlight­en, keep, rule and govern me this day and ever: Is not this indeed to ask grace of an Angel, which yet your own Car­dinal proveth (from that of the Psalmist, Gratiam & gloriam dabit Dominus,) is to be asked only of God? For what can grace or the Spirit of grace do more then enlighten the understanding, then keep rule and govern the will and affections? Can any but God alone have an imme­diate influence or operation upon the Soul of man, who alone as he is omnipo­tent to make it, so he is omnipresent to possess and keep it, and omniscient to guide and govern it? If a good Angel can immediately by himself illuminate my understanding, may not also an evil An­gel transform himself into an Angel of [Page 353] Light, and deceive me with false Illumi­nations? And what would become of my Soul, if any Angel had such a power over it? for how should I then exclude the Di­vel from having the same power? I can­not but say that I know mine own heart little, and yet sure my Guardian Angel knows it less: If God alone be the Search­er of hearts, then he alone must be the infallible guide and Governour of Souls: Therefore as I dare not say, O Angel of the Lord, but O Lord, thou hast searched me out and known me; thou knowest my down-sitting and mine uprising, thou under­standest my thoughts long before; Thou art about my path and about my bed, and spiest out all my wayes; So I dare not say, Try me O Angel of God, but Try me O God, and seek the ground of my heart, prove me and examine my thoughts; look well if there be any way of wickedness in me, and lead me (this day and ever) in the way ever la­sting, Ps. 139.

'Tis an excellent observation of Abu­len [...]is, Dicitur quod loquutus est Deus, ne tantum beneficium vel tantus actus, quantus est dare legem, attribueretur Angelo, ne crederent se Judaei obligatos Angelis, (Tost, in Exod. 20. q. 1.) It is [Page 353] said God spake all these words at the giving of the Law, least if such a great blessing had been attributed to an Angel, The Jews might think themselves obliged to the Angels: The Jews might not think themselves obliged to the Angels for giving the Law, and may Christians pray to them for assi­stance in keeping it? If so, how will you answer your own Baronius, An. 60. n. 19. Quòd praecipuos Episcopos appellet An­gelos, planè significat instar hominum Angelos hominibus ministrare, nec tantae esse excellentiae, ut quae divina sunt, iis­dem tribuantur; The Spirit of God in gi­ving the Title of Angels to the chiefest Bi­shops, doth plainly shew that as men so An­gels do minister unto men, and are not of so great excellency, as that we should ascribe to them those things which belong to God; All the world cannot say more against your daily prayer to your Guardian Angel. He ministers to you no otherwise then your Bishop enlightning you Instrumentally by propounding, directing, applying hea­venly thoughts to your understanding, not efficiently by infusing or increasing them; And by this reason you may no more invocate him for Illumination then you may your Bishop; for he is not of so [Page 355] great excellency that you should ascribe to him those things which belong to God: Till you can say of him that he hath opened the eyes of your body to re­ceive the Light of nature, how can you say to him, Open the eyes of my Soul to rereive the light of Grace? Till you can say of him, he hath enlightned the dark­ness of the night, how can you say to him, Enlighten the darkness of mine un­derstanding? The Centurion had many servants under him, and they all did come and go as he bade them, to do any Acts of favourable assistance to the Jews; should therefore the servants have the thanks and honour that was due unto their master? I find that when Lazarus died he was carried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome; yet I do not find that Lazarus said to his Guardian Angel, (who doubt­less was one of them,) that carried him, Into thy hands do I commend my spirit; nor do I see how you can say so to yours, un­less you can also say unto him, For thou hast redeemed me O Lord thou God of truth; and if you cannot commend your Soul to your Guardian Angel when you die, how can you commend your Soul to him whiles you live? You may say with St. Stephen, [Page 356] Lord Jesus receive my Spirit, when it is to be carried to him by the Angels, for they minister to this Lord; But you cannot say, Lord Jesus receive my Prayers, when they are given or offered to his Angels, for they are not fellow-sharers in his Lordship: And this instance alone is enough to answer all your objections which you have gathered out of my eja­culations; but if not, you may take ano­ther; The Psalmist saith, The Angel of the Lord tarrieth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them, yet he saith not, O Taste and see how gracious the An­gel of the Lord is, But O Tast and see how gracious the Lord is, blessed is the man that trusteth in him, Ps. 34. 7, 8. My Guardian Angel is a ministring Spirit for my com­fort; but my God alone is an al-sufficient Spirit for my content: None but he can give the Spiritual gust & taste of a blessed immortality to my Soul, who hath made it immortal; and since my prayers are the chiefest means to procure this spiritual gust or Taste to my Soul, how shall I pray to them who cannot give it? I desire my Religion may be to me the beginning of my Salvation, (for so is Grace the inchoa­tion of Glory) and therefore cannot de­light [Page 357] in such prayers as will not give my Soul the Antipast of eternity, that is in such prayers as do not bid me say unto my self, O Taste and see how gracious the Lord is, because they do not ascend up so high as the Lord: For prayer being a spiritual colloquy with him to whom we pray, why should I pray to an Angel, which probably may not be present to partake of this colloquy, and indeed can­not partake of it, if it be meerly spi­ritual (that is only in the heart) or if he could, why should my heart leave con­versing with God, to converse with his Servant? Is not this to undervalue that happiness which I can not deserve, should not desert? nay is it not to undervalue prayer to make it the depression of the Soul to the Creature, which God hath appointed for the elevation of the Soul unto himself? What though one Angel destroyed 185000. Assyrans, may we therefore say unto him, Remember not our iniquities, nor the iniquities of our fore­fathers, neither take thou vengeance of our sins? And if we may not pray to Angels for the averting of Judgements, then sure not for the obtaining of mercies, since God useth them as his instruments for [Page 358] the one as well as for the other: If we may (as you infer) humbly pray them to do those good offices for us, which God hath appointed them, we may also humbly pray God, to give us leave to sin against Him in our Prayers; for to break his Commandement is to sin against Him, and he hath expresly commanded, saying, Call upon me in the day of trouble, Psal. 50. 15. In that he hath said Call upon me, he hath also in effect said, Call not upon any of my Angels, for that is not to call upon me; Therefore dare I not pray to Angels, for fear of bringing Judas his curse upon my prayers, of whom it was said, Let his prayer be turned into sin, Ps. 109. v. 7. For if my prayer be turned into sin, how will my sin be turned into Repentance? or my repentance be turned into mercy and for­giveness; If my prayer end in sin, how will my sin not end in damnation? your own Clement the 8. that corrected your Latine Translation, (which was of much longer standing in your Church, then any of your corrupt devotions) will rise up against you in Judgement if you will needs continue still in these corrupti­ons; For if he reformed your Bibles, why should not you reform your Breviaries?

The Answer.

1. HE that walks on battlements, had need take a special care of his footing, because if he slip he must fall; and if he fall he must be dashed to pieces; And such is now the walk of all Orthodox Di­vines in the way of Gods Truth, especial­ly [Page 364] this of justification, the main Gospel-Truth; 'tis as if they walked upon battle­ments; every step is slippery, and every slip threatens ruin; not that God hath left his way either dangerous or slippery, but that some men have made it so; their debates have made it dangerous, their de­vices have made it slippery: For some men have turneth Devotion it self into Debate, to make Gods way dangerous; and Doctrine it self into Devices, to make Gods way slippery; And concerning such men it is the Apostle hath said, Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the Truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith, (2 Tim. 3. 8.) They that use tricks and devices to elude the sense, when they can­not evade the sentence of the Law, [Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are w [...]itten in the book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10.] do like Jannes and Jambres withstand Moses by enchant­ments making themselves Aegyptians, when God made them Israelites, or ma­king themselves Magicians, when God made them Divines only; they seldome cry out Digitus Dei, This is the finger of God, though they be shewed never so [Page 365] plainly his own very hand writing to con­vence them ōf their resistance against the Truth: For the same corrupt minds that make them resist the Truth, do also make them reprobate, or of no Judgement concerning the faith; For who can be judicious in the Faith but from the Truth? and therefore he that resists the Truth, must needs be of no Judgement concern­ing the faith; And since we find among all the multitudes of factious men so lit­tle Judgement concerning the Faith, we cannot but feat that they have all (more or less) resisted the Truth; I am the way and the Truth, saith Christ; So that if the Christian look directly and constantly on Him, he shall not walk out of the right way, nor erre from the saving Truth; Surely then tis because we have not look­ed on our Saviour, but on our selves, on our own Interests, that our strayings have been so many from this right way, our errours have been so many against this Soul-saving Truth; How far this may concern the grand factions of Chri­stendome I will not determine, but sure I am they whose Religion is rebellion, and whose faith is faction, have no other Truth but their own phansies or imagina­tions, [Page 366] and consequently can have no other God but their own Perverseness; Yet we doubt not but as Aarons Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians, so will Religion at last swallow up rebel­lion, and Faith will swallow up Faction, and Truth will swallow up Phansie, and Wisedome will swallow up Folly, if not so as to be acknowledged of her enemies, yet so as to be justified of her Children; For the Apostle hath said most positively, though more comfortably, But they shall proceed no further; for their folly shall be manifest to all: And he that hath promi­sed concerning the Preachers of his truth, hath much more promised con­cerning the Truths they are to Preach, (especially those which so nearly concern the salvation of Souls) They shall not be removed into a Corner any more; But thine eyes shall see thy teachers, and thine ears shall hear a word behind thee saying, This is the way, walk [...]e in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left, Isa. 30. 20, 21. 2. But if the Lovers of Gods Truth will hope to obtain this pro­mise of a word saying, This is the way, they must endeavour to obey that com­mand, see that ye walk circumspectly, [Page 367] Eph. 5. 15. [...] (saith the Latine Church in the Text of Sixtus 5.) See therefore how circumspectly ye walk, [...] (saith the Greek Church in the Text of St. Chrysostome) See therefore circumspect­ly how ye walk; Men that will not wan­der in the by-paths of errour, must have their eyes in their heads to look about them to see which is the way of Truth, and they must keep their eyes open in their heads to look before them to walk in that way; If they want a good circumspection to look about them, they may chance never come into the right way; if they want a good Prospection to look before them, they may soon go out of it; self-conceit is a great enemy to circumspection; self-in­terest is a great enemy to prospection; and 'tis commonly one of these two (if not both) that makes so many Christians not walk in the way of Truth, but choose faction or phansie instead of Faith: This may seem to be far fetcht, but it comes very neer my purpose, and I pray God it may yet come neerer some mens conscien­ces: For they who licentiously abuse this Doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, choose phansie instead of Faith, and turn [Page 368] the Grace of God into wantonness; They who wilfully oppose it, to set up their own righteousness, choose faction instead of Faith, and turn the Grace of God in­to nothing: for as mans age, so his righteousness is as nothing in respect of God, All my goods are nothing unto thee, Psal. 16. 2. Both alike with Elymas the Sorcerer, seek to turn away others from the Faith, and may justly expect the hand of God upon them selves to make them so blind, as not to see the Sun of Righteousness for ever. God of his infinite mercy take away this mist and dark [...]ess from before the eyes of all his servants, but especially of all his Seers; for if the light of the world be darkness, how great will be the darkness thereof? If we delight in the inner darkness here, how shall we escape the outer darkness hereafter? If they were a rebellious peo­ple, lying children, children that would not hear the law of the Lord, who said to the Seers, See not, (Isa. 30. 9, 10.) then what are those See [...]s, who say to themselves See not, who shut their eyes against the light, and shut their hearts against the Power of this Truth? [But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is [Page 369] evident; for the just shall live by Faith, Gal. 3. 11. See the light of this Truth, for it is evident; see we the Power of this Truth; for even the just shall not live by his works, but by his Faith. The just shall live by Faith: q. d. The justest must, that is, hath that justice whereby he shall live eternally, from his Faith, not from his works, from his Saviours righteous­ness, not from his own: God speaking this soul-saving Truth so plainly to the understanding, and pressing it so power­fully upon the Conscience, bids all Chri­stian Divines admire his goodness, in shew­ing the great need and benefit of Christ, not discover their own wickedness in seek­ing to undermine the very foundation of Christianity: Accordingly St. Chrys. ex­pounds that precept, [see ye walk circum­spectly,] of the Ministers of the Gospel. Observe, saith he, how the Apostle doth forewarn (and forearm) the Preachers of Gods Truth, againg all the oppositi­ons of their and its enemies, [...], whole Towns and Cities waged war against them, (which the Canonist signally expressed after this manner, Laici clericis Oppidò sunt infe­sti,) yet they are furnished with no other [Page 370] armour but this to defend themselves, see that ye walk ci [...]rcumspectly: [...]: That is, Give your enemies no other occasion of their enmity, but onely from your Preaching (which is an occasion rather taken, then given) [...], let that alone be the ground of their enmity, [...], Let no man be able to accuse you of any thing else, (and then your adversaries will accuse God, not you.) An admirable gloss, and seasonable for this Atheistical Age, wherein men will not believe the Truth, because they have pleasure in unrighteousness, though St. Paul tell them plainly, that they shall be damned for their unbelief: That they all m [...]ght be damned who believe not the Truth, but [...]ad pleasure in unrighteousness, 2 Thes. 2. 12. 4. It is the pleasure in unrighteousness which makes either the people not rightly believe Gods Truth, or the Priests not rightly preach it, and particularly this Truth of Justification by Faith, which some of your Priests care not to preach, because it will spoil their markets; and some of our Priests had need preach more warily, for fear it [Page 371] should spoil our people. It is onely plea­sure in unrighteousness that hath hitherto opposed this Truth in its doctrine, or poi­soned this Truth in its belief; For why should a Truth so clearly revealed in the word of Christ, so neerly concerning the glory of Christ, so highly cond [...]ce­ing to the salvation of Christians, be so violently opposed by some of your Priests in its doctrine, but that it pulleth down the prices of Masses and Indul­gences, stopping the hands of silly and simple, but yet liberal and munificent votaries? Hence it is that Demetrius-like for love of gain, they raise an up­roar against St. Paul (for it is not against us; it is against him, or rather Gods Spi­rit in him, the main Preacher of this Truth,) taking this for their chiefest To­picks, for Maxima & locus Maximae, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth, Acts 19. 25. For no other reason but covetousness can easily be alledged why the same men should so mainly cry up the Imputation of their own and their Saints imaginary merits and righteous­ness to the maintaining and filling the supposed Treasure of the Church, and yet so mainly cry down the imputation of [Page 372] our blessed Saviour's real and allsuffici­ent merits and righteousness, to the ex­hausting and emptying the Treasures of the people; Thus it is clear, that plea­sure in unrighteousness hath hitherto op­posed the Truth in its doctrine, making Mammons Chaplains not over zealous to serve God in searching out his Truth that they may believe it, or over zealous to serve themselves in not preaching a Truth which they do believe.

Again, why should so many other for­midable Truths and reasonings concern­ing righteousness, temperance, and judg­ment to come, in and from the mouth of the same St. Paul, make a Heathen trem­ble, and not once move so many con­fident Christians, but that this heavenly Truth of Justification by Faith, hath been hitherto amongst them not rightly be­lieved, or poisoned in its belief? and what venome can poison the operations of the soul, but onely that of the Ser­pent, the venome of sin, turning the grace of our God into w [...]n onness, [...], into petulancy, insolency, and unsuffer­able contentiousness, (for so the Greek Orator hath joyned these together [...], Isocr. in Panath.) [Page 373] contending against, not for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, or which is all one, denying the onely Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, Jud. 4. Such men do falsely pretend Faith in Christ, who do not deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, who do not live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; for they cannot look for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; The Grace of God which bringeth salvation to others, will bring the great damnation upon them, because they resist that grace, betray that Saviour, and belye their own Souls: For most certainly the greatest mis­creants that are would break off their sins by repentance, and their iniquities by shew­ing mercy to the poor, if they did with the eye of Faith see a watcher and an Holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the Tree down, and destroy it, Dan. 4. Or if they did hear with an honest and good heart, (and Faith cometh by no other hearing) that word of Christs forerunner in his first coming to save us, which is therefore the fittest to put us in mind of his second coming to judge us, O generation of Vipers, who hath warned [Page 374] you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the Tree; Therefore every tree which bring­eth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire, Matth. 3. For surely that Faith cannot justifie the sinner which cannot justifie it self, a Faith that hath eyes and seeth not the watcher, the Ho­ly one coming down from heaven, that hath ears and heareth not the crier, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, pre­pare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths strait; A Faith that lets men profess Chri­st [...]ans, but live and act Infidels, hardning their hearts, stopping their ears, closing their eyes, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their eares, and understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and their Sa­viour, the Physitian of Souls, should heal them. Thus it is also clear, That pleasure in unrighteousness hath hitherto poisoned this Truth in its belief, making men take phansie for Faith, and think themselves in Heaven by their perswasion, whiles they are even in H [...]ll, by theit af­fections and by their actions, not regard­ing that word which they cannot deny, [Page 375] dare not gainsay; If ye were Abraham's children (who is the Father of the faith­ful) ye would do the works of Abraham, Joh. 8. 39.

5. For God gave us not the Articles of our Faith to be like Pharaohs lean kine, to eat up the rules of his Com­mandments, the fat-fleshed and well-fa­voured kine, such as were fit for Sacri­fices for himself, much less such as were offered to himself for Sacrifices; There­fore those can be no Gospel Instructi­ons which teach men to devour widows houses, nay, to devour Gods own house, and not onely his house, but also his glo­ry and worship, under pretence of Faith; for of these starveliug Docu­ments, we may justly say now, and others will be able to say to the worlds end, what is said of the starveling kine, And when they had eaten them up, (even all the fat Kine, that came up out of the ri­ver, and fed in the medow, This is all the fatness of Sea and Land, which their Forefathers had consecrated to the Ser­vice and Honour of God) it could not be known that they had eaten them, but they were still ill-favoured as at the beginning, Gen. 41. 21. He that hath commanded us [Page 376] to sanctifie publick Persons, (as Mini­nisters) publick times (as Sabbaths or Festivals) publick places (as Churches) to his own worship, will not, cannot ju­stifie those who sacrilegiously rob and persecute his Ministers, mock and sup­press his Sabbaths, revile and profane his Churches: For it were very strange if such men who are angerly reproved, and openly branded for sacrilegious, profane, blasphemous persons, by the Spirit of God, should (if they still persist in their Sacriledge, profaneness and blas­phemy) be acquitted and absolved for righteous and innocent persons, by the Son of God; The Spirit of God calleth them enemies, adversaries, and such as hate him, Psal. 14. Therefore surely the Son of God will not make them Saints, accept them as friends, reward them as servants: Such a devouring Gospel as this was never of Gods teaching, though it hath been of mens practising, to the discountenanceing of Gods Truth, and to their own shame and destruction that have practised it; For God will never uphold those men in his Truth, who dis­courage others from embracing it.

6. Yet as long as Gods Truths are in­finitely [Page 377] above all mens discouragements, neither are your Priests excusable if they will not embrace them, nor ours, if they do forsake them, notwithstanding both be as much discouraged, as either open enemies or false friends and brethren can discourage them. What? shall the Sons of God come no more to present them­selves before their Father, because Sa­tan will co [...]e also among them to pre­sent himself before the Lord? Shall the the Holy Angels be out of love with their own light, because the Devil him­self can, and doth also appear an Angel of light? no more may we be out of love with this heavenly Truth, of being righteous by the righteousness of our blessed Redeemer, because Hypocrites and Atheists have made it an occasion of, or a pretence for their abominable un­righteousness; For even immediately af­ter the first clear preaching of Justifica­tion by Faith, we find a strange genera­tion of licentious and ungodly men, who did boast of Faith in Christ without good works, committing all manner of sin with greediness and without remorse. This gave occasion to St. Peter, St. John, St. James, and St. Jude, (who all writ [Page 378] after St. Paul,) to direct their stiles chiefly against such vain boasters of this empty Faith, and their Epistles were af­terwatds peculiarly called Catholick, for this reason amongst others, That they were all written in Vindication of the true Catholick Faith, which did teach a man so to believe in Christ as to have his life answerable to his belief. This ac­count doth St. Peter give for himself, say­ing, I have written briefly, exhorting and testifying, That this is the true Grace of God wherein ye stand, 1 Pet. 5. 12. As if he had said, These two things I have chiefly proposed to my self in my writ­ing; 1. To testifie the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Grace of God in Christ, to be the onely doctrine to bring you to eternal Salvation. 2. To Perswade you to stand fast and persevere in that doctrine, by leading your lives answerable to your profession. And this account may we give concerning the rest of the Authors of the Catholick Epi­stles; for thus the whole Argument of St. Johns first Epistle consists of those two principal parts of the Christian Religion, The Promises, and the Precepts of the Gospel; For to the Promises we must [Page 379] refer all that he speaks of Communion with God, of the expiation of our sins by the blood of Christ, and of the hope of eternal life. To the Precepts we must refer all that he speaks of true Faith in Christ, of living godly and righteously according to that Faith, and of loving God sincerely, or not loving the world, that we may live godly, and of loving our Bretheren sincerely not hypocriti­cally, That we may live righteously: The like may we say for St. James, and St. Jude, that their Epistles are chiefly against the Solifidean Hereticks, and are there­fore filled with divers exhortations to several Christian Virtues which they had deserted, and with Dehortations from the the contrary vices, which they had com­mitted. And we may be Catholicks in this doctrine of Justification, according to these Catholick Epistles, and yet still deny Justification by works; For it is only the Faith in Christ that is justified by its works, but the man is still justified only by his Faith.

7. You are as zealous for Justification by works, as St. Paul is against it; with what good Conscience I cannot say; but sure upon no good ground; yet you [Page 380] have appealed to St. Paul himself, as the Judge of this controversie, to decide on your side; and accordingly to St. Paul you shall go, who sure will very little be­friend you by his decision: For I pray what works can any man do which are not comprised under The works of the Law? But it is St. Paul's most absolute Deter­mination, Therefore by the deeds or works of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified, Rom. 3. 20. He that looks upon the fore­going words setting forth the abomina­ble sins that were in the best of men then living, the Jews, and in those times wherein they lived best, even the times of David and Hezekiah, (for all the proofs here concerning their wickedness are taken out of the Psalms and the Pro­phesie of Isaiah) will easily acknowledge that the words though particular in their occasion, yet are universal in their In­struction, and do set forth the general corruption of all men whatsoever, whereby they are most grievous trans­gressours of the Law, and most odious in the sight, most obnoxious to the Justice of God for their transgressions. This considered, He must be led by the spirit of errour, who will not see the evidence; [Page 381] and by the spirit of contradiction, who will gainsay the power of St. Paul's con­clusion, Therefore by the works of the Law there shal no flesh be justified: for it follow­eth upon these Premises, No Transgres­sour of the Law can be justified by the works of the Law; But all men whatso­ever are transgressours of the Law; Therefore no man whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law; which is as much as to say, That no man what­soever can be justified by works; for all works whatsoever are reducible to the works of the Law, as being done through obedience to its authority; and not rightly done, but through compliance with, and conformity to its righteousness.

And to this Argument he adds an­other, v. 27. which may be put into this Syllogism.

The Law of works doth not wholly exclude mans boasting in his Justification.

But, God will have mans boasting wholly excluded in his Justification. Therefore, The Law of works doth not justifie.

The Major is further proved by Rom. 4. 2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherof to glory. The Minor [Page 382] by Eph. 2. 8, 9. For by Grace ye are saved through Faith, not of works, lest any man should boast; what remains then for the conclusion, but that the Law of works doth not justify? For if it justified not Abraham, who had so good works, as to be called the friend of God, much less will it justify me, who by my wicked deeds am become Gods enemy. We have yet a third argument in this very place, v. 29, & 30. which concludes thus, If Justifi­cation were by the works of the Law, then onely the Jews, who alone had the Law written in tables, could be justified, and God should regard the salvation of no other people save of the Jews: But these consequents are directly against the goodness of God, and the whole scope or Tenor of his Word; Therefore so is that Antecedent, that Justification is by works of [...]e Law. These are St. Paul's three arguments in this place for his Ne­gative conclusion, which is against Justi­fication by works. And he is not content­ed with this, but he gives us also an af­firmative conclusion, which is for Justifi­cation by Faith. v. 24. Being justified free­ly by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, which he fully explain­eth [Page 383] and confirmeth from all the causes of our Justification. The principal efficient cause, is God, of whom it is said, v. 30. It is one God that shall justify by Faith and through Faith; and this needs no other proof, because no other could give us our blessed Jesus for a Saviour, nor can give us Faith to be made partakers of his salvation. The meritorious cause is Christ the Mediator betwixt God and man, v. 25. Whom God h [...]th set forth to be a pro­pitiation. The instrumental cause is Faith, v. 22. The [...] of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ upon all that be [...]eve, (for there is no apprehending of Christ without [...], as there is no righteous­ness and salvation without Christ) and again, v. 25. through Faith in his blood, not excluding any other act of his Medi­atorship, though instancing onely in the shedding of his blood, which was the chiefest act of his passive obedience, whereby he merited for us the remission of sins. The formal cause (for Justifi­cation being an action, and therefore an accident, cannot properly have a mate­rial cause, though you by your inherent righteousness do a little intrench upon this Rule of Logick) I say the formal [Page 384] cause of Justification is expressed, v. 25. to wit, The remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; not ex­cluding sins present and to come, as if they were not also remitted, but onely name­ing sins past, that we might not think Ju­stification doth give us a liberty of future sininng. The formal cause then of Justi­fication is the remission of sins: For God doth so far justify us, or accept and account us for just and righteous, as far as he doth pardon our sins, and absolve and acquit us from condemnation for Christs righteousness. Thus it was God be merciful to me a sinner, which made the Publican go away justified, St. Luke 18. 13, 14. not his own merit, but Gods mercy. And this is that doctrine which St. Paul preacheth with a Notum sit omnibus et singulis, B [...] it known unto you therefore men and brethren, that through this man is preached un [...]o you the forgiveness of sins; And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses, Acts 13. 38, 39. If forgiveness of sins and justification be not one and the same, how is this a good consequence, [Through Christ is preach­ed unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by [Page 385] him all that beleeve are justified] For this cannot follow, if to be forgiven and to be justified be not one and the same; for then one thing is preached, another performed; one thing promised, and another granted; But if they be the same, then we are sure this is good Divinity, that the formal justice or righteousness for which God absolves us sinners in the judgement, is not in and from our selves, but in and from our Saviour, as it is said, [By him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses;] whereas if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness (whether Habitual or Actual,) it were not by him, but by our selves; nor to be gotten by be­lieving, but by doing; nor could we be ju­stified from all things at once and toge­ther, but from one thing after another; not in an instant, but successively (for so we get our inherent righteousness;) not by the grace and mercy of God cast­ing all our sins upon our Saviour, that he may forgive them all at once and toge­ther, (for active Justification which re­spects God absolving the sinners, is a for­giveing of all sins at once and together for Christs sake; though passive Justi­fication, [Page 386] which respects the sinner to be ab­solved, is a forgiveing of sins so often as the sinner earnestly repenting, doth by a lively Faith flee unto God the Son for his merit, and to God the Father for his mercy;) In a word, if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness, whether habitual or actual, we could not be justified by the grace and mercy of God, casting all our sins upon our Saviour, that he may forgive them all; but by the Law of Moses, casting us into a mould of righteousness, that we may not commit any sin, norstand in need of forgiveness. And if this be so, we may bid farewel, i [...] not [...] to the whole Gospel of Christ, which is thus briefly but fully summed up by St. Paul, That God was in Christ re [...]nciling the world unto himself, (so by a Potential though only true be­lievers by an actual reconciliation) not imputing their trespasses unto them; 2 Cor. 5, 19. No man can be reconciled to God, who is not justified before God; for all sinners are odious to God as his en [...]mies, not reconciled unto him as his frien [...]s; therefore God looks upon a ma [...] as no [...] (w [...]ch can [...]ot be as he is i [...] himself, but as he is in his Saviour) when [Page 387] he is reconciled unto him; and according­ly to be reconciled is to be justified, that is, to be accounted righteous; for as the formal cause of our reconciliation con­sisteth in the remssion or not imputation of our sins, (not imputing their trespasse [...] unto them) so doth also the formal cause of our Justification; for that is no other but an absolution from the guilt of sin; For Justification is not a Physi [...]al but a Moral action of God, absolving the sinner for the merit of Christ, even as Sanctification is not a Moral but a Phy­sical Action of God, cleansing and purg­ing the sinner by the Spirit of Christ: The one makes the sinner righteous, but the other only accounts him righteous: And therefore Justification and Sanctifi­cation are as improperly confounded as Moral and Physical or real Actions, For Moral actions work a change only in re­gard of the mans relation, (as He that is adopted or acquitted, is changed only in his relation, that instead of being guilty he is made not guilty; instead of be [...]g a stranger, he is made a Son) But real or Physical actions do work a change also in regard of a mans person, (as He that is instructed or converted, hath a real [Page 388] change wrought upon his understanding and his will, and consequently is really changed in his person:) So that if to ju­stifie be not meerly a moral action, that is, To account as just, by acquitting from the condemnation of the Law, (as we say) but be also a real action, that is, to make just by a conformity to the Law, (as you affirm) then it must needs work a real change in the Patient, making him righteous from unrighteous, and from righteous more righteous, and by conse­quent Justification will be one and the same thing with Sanctification, and so it will follow, that the whole Tenor of the Text hath hitherto misinformed us, and doth still misguide us; for therein these two are reckoned up as two several and distinct mercies of Almighty God to­wards our sinful souls, and these wrought by several means, God justifying us by the righteousness of his Son, and sanctify­ing us by the power of his Holy Spirit; And from this ill consequence will yet follow a much worse, That Sanctificati­on will be supposed to be nothing; for it will have nothing left to do, Justificati­on having done its work before; and if it have nothing to do, it cannot be an [Page 389] Action; and if it be not an action, it must be nothing.

These Logical absurdities (besides others that are Theological) cannot well be avoided by those who make inherent righteousness the formal cause of our Justification; And therefore though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness, (which your insolent Dog­matist blasphemously calls Putative, as if it were meerly fict [...]tious, when as in truth all our righteousness is so in respect of it) I say, though we separate not in­herent and imputative righteousness from one another, in the man that is ju­stified, (for true Faith alwaies worketh obedience, and God will not, cannot justifie the disobedient) yet we must se­parate them from one another in the do­ctrine of Justification; For 'tis only the Imputative righteousness which we have from our Saviour, not the Inherent righteousness which we have in our selves, which can acquit us at God's Judgement seat, or absolve us as righte­ous, and consequently which may be ac­counted the formal cause of our Justifi­cation.

Lastly, the final cause of our Justifica­tion [Page 390] is set down, first explicitly, that it is the declaration of Gods Righteousness, vers. 25, & 26. [To declare his righte­ousness] not onely that this way of justi­fying a sinner, is according to Gods Pro­mise, both in words and Types in all the Old Testament, but also that this promise was according to the rule of righteous­ness, because it acquitteth not a sinner without a due satisfaction for his sin, nor without a true and serious aversion from himself, and conversion to his Savi­our: Secondly, the final cause of our justification is set down implicitly, That it is our glorying or boasting in God alone; For whereas v. 27. he excludeth all other boasting, tis necessary he must include this, as himself saith more large­ly, 1 Cor. 1. 30, 31. Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and san­ctification, and redemption. There is our Justification set forth in it self, in its an­tecedents, and in its consequents; In it self; for Ch [...]st Jesus is our righteousness to deliver us from the guilt of sin, by ac­quitting and discharging us. In its ante­cedents, for he is our wisdom, to free us from the blindness and darkness of sin, by enlighting and instructing us. In [Page 391] its consequents; for he is our Sanctificati­on in this life, to free us from the pollu­tion of sin, by renewing and cleansing us: and our Redemption in the life ever­lasting, to free us from the miseries of sin, by receiving and by glorifying us; That according as it is written, he that glo­rieth, let him glory in the Lord; There is the final cause of our Justification. Christ Jesus doth therefore instruct us by his most holy Word, justifie us by his allsuf­ficient merit, sanctifie us by his most ho­ly Spirit, glorifie us by his all saving Mer­cy, that we may not glory in our selves, but onely in our Saviour, from whom we have both the Knowledg, and the Pur­chase, and the Procurement, and the En­joyment of our salvation.

The Apostle having thus severally proved, first his negative conclusion which is against justification by works, and after that his affirmative conclusion which is for justification by Faith, he at length joyns them both together in one Dog­matical determination, Therefore we con­clude that a man is justified by Faith w [...]th­out the deeds of the Law, v. 28. And this conclusion he again repeateth, Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the [Page 392] works of the Law, but by the Faith of Je­sus Christ; which he immediately con­firms with no less then Ten several argu­ments in the next Chapter, all alledged to confute their foolishness in falling from Christ to the Law, from Faith to works in the doctrine of Justification; And being alledged by the Apostle to confute their foolishness, they will either the more easily prevent, or the more acceptably reform and redress Ours.

The first Argument is this; You have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, not by the works of the Law, but by the hearing of Faith, v. 2. but the gift of the Holy Spirit is the best pledge of your Justification or Reconciliation with God, (for he giveth not his Spirit to his ene­mies) Therefore you are justified not by the Law, but by the Gospel, or by the Hearing of Faith.

The second Argument is this: The same way that Abraham was justified, who is the [...]ather of the faithful, and to whom the Promise was made, The same way must you be justified; But He was justified onely by Faith: v. 6, 7, 8, 9.

The Third this: As many as are of the works of the Law, are under the curse, [Page 393] ver. 10. but none that are under the curse, are justified.

The fourth this, The just shall live by Faith; but the Law is not of Faith, ver. 11. 12. that is, The just obtaineth life and salvation by the free grace of God apprehended by Faith in Christ; but the Law alloweth no such free grace; for that promiseth life only upon the (now im­possible) condition of perfect obedience; The man that doth them, shall live in them.

The fifth this, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, ver. 13. Therefore the Law could not justifie us, for it did curse us; and if it could, in vaine was Christ made a curse for us; in vaine did he do and suffer so much for our Redemption.

The sixth this, To whom the Promises were made, to him they were perform­ed; but the Promises of spiritual bles­sings (and consequently of justification) were made to Abrahams seed, not seeds, that is to Christ and his members; not to them that should be under the Law, but only to them that should be in Christ.

The seventh is this, The Promise of [Page 394] spiritual blessednesse was made to Abra­ham long before the giving of the Law; therefore neither to be accomplished from the observation, nor to be abolished by the obligation of the Law, ver. 17. which is further argued, ver. 18. If the inheri­tance be of the Law, 'tis no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise; therefore 'tis not of the Law.

The eighth this, That which was a sign of enmitie, cannot be a means of re­conciliation; but the Law was a sign of enmitie betwixt God and man, as ap­pears in that it was ordained by Angels, not immediately by God himself, who being offended had withdrawn his pre­sence, which shews that men were at a distance from, and at enmitie with God; ver. 19, 20. Therefore the Law cannot be the means of our accesse to, or of our reconciliation with God.

The ninth is this, The Law cannot give life to any man by exempting him from the punishment of sin, nor give righteousnesse by exempting him from the guilt of sin. ver. 21. 22. Therefore both righteousnesse and life are given only by Faith in Christ.

The tenth and last argument is this, [Page 395] The office of the Law was to be our School-master to bring us unto Christ, to shew us the imperfection of our own, and to make us desire the imputation of his righteousnesse, that we might be justified by Faith, ver. 24. but the Law cannot go beyond its own office; therefore no man can be justified either in whole or in part by the works of the Law.

8. Thus have I mustred up S. Pauls Artille­ry to batter down our own, but to keep up our Saviours righteousness in the doctrine of Justification, which being a doctrine that came down from Heaven, is best maintained by arguments from Heaven; For as humane reason could not teach it, so humane reason cannot so well defend it; and doth so much the worse oppose it; nor do I see how these arguments can be answered, unlesse they can be de­nyed; nor how they can be denyed, [...]ince they are so exactly agreeable with the Analogy of the text, and therefore can­not disagree from the Analogy of Faith. Many arguments have been used by ex­cellent Divines drawn out of several places of the holy Scriptures, which have been agreeable with the Analogy of Faith, though not with the Analogy of [Page 396] the text, and they have passed for good Theological arguments, because they have been agreeable only with the Analogy of Faith; how much rather should those arguments be taken for Theological, which are agreeable not only with the Analogy of faith in the doctrine they prove, but also with the Analogy of the Text in the manner of their proof? And surely if all Divines did more use this way of arguing, they would have much lesse of Contention, and much more of Conscience in their arguments: you have here shewed me this good way, and I was very glad to see it, and as willing to fol­low it; for in all this Paragraph you have quoted nothing but Scripture; all the fault is, you have made unwarrantable inferences from your quotations.

9. For first you say, Here are works requir­ed to justifie as well as Faith, because St. Paul saith, we wait for righteousnesse by Faith which worketh by love, Gal. 5. 5, 6. He saith, the Faith by which we are justified is a Faith working by love; you thence inferre, that we are justified by our works as well as by our Faith: you may as well say, because our eyes wherewith we see, are in our heads; we see with or by our [Page 397] heads, as well as with or by our eyes: or because our hands wherewith we handle are joyned to our armes, we handle with our armes as well as with our hands; for as the eye that is out of the head seeth not, and as the hand that is parted from the arme handleth not; so Faith that is without works justifieth not; yet have works no more to do in justifying than the head hath in seeing, or the arme hath in handling.

10. Again you say, Charity is greater than faith, and must therefore needs have the greater influence in our justification. I can­not see the reason of this consequence, no more than of that; a lyon is greater than a Hare, therefore he must needs run faster. If the Apostle had spoken of justi­fication, and had said Charity was great­er than Faith, your consequent would have been good; but speaking not at all of justification, your consequence cannot be good concerning that, but must be made good concerning somewhat else, viz. concerning those other things whereof he speaketh, as particularly con­cerning those admirable acts of suffer­ing, not envying, not vaunting, bearing all things, beleeving all things, hoping all [Page 398] things, enduring all things, to which the soul is disposed by Faith, but in which it is confirmed and perfected by charity: or concerning the everlasting duration and continuance of Charity; for that shall ne­ver fail, but shall go with us into heaven, and abide there with us for ever, because that very motion of the soul in the fru­ition of God wherein consisteth eternal blessednesse, is an act of Charity. But Faith being of things not seen, must needs vanish when we come to see God face to face, by a clear vision; and Hope being of things not enjoyed, must needs vanish when we come to enjoy him by a full and immediate comprehension; only Chari­ty which in this life outpasseth Faith and Hope by more immediately uniting the soul to God, shall in the next life out­passe it selfe, when it shall taste the in­comparable sweetnesse, and enjoy the immortal comforts, and feel the incom­prehensible delights and joyes of that union. In these respects which are named, 'tis most true that Charity is greater than Faith, but not in respect of justification, which is not named, unlesse you will say the Apostle put more in the Conclusion than in the Premises: nay, [Page 399] though it should be granted, that the A­postle doth not here speak comparatively but positively, or else that Charity is greater than Faith, yet will it not follow, that Faith may not be greater than Cha­rity in some one respect, as particularly in this of justification; for though Cha­rity be the more noble in it selfe, yet Faith is the more needful for us: Charity may have the absolute preeminence in regard of its excellency, and yet Faith may have a comparative preeminence in regard of its use. Charitie may be the greater in regard of innocent men, who can sted­fastly and comfortably see God as he is in himselfe; but Faith must be the greater in regard of sinful men, who cannot see God as he is in himself, either stedfastly because of their weaknesse, or comfortably because of their sinfulnesse; and there­fore must look on him as he is in his Son, who took upon him our weaknesse to give us his strength, and our sin to give us his righteousnesse: so far is it from a true consequence, ‘Charitie is greater than Faith, & must needs therefore have the greater influence in our justification.’

11. You have yet one more Quotati­on to prove justification by works, and [Page 400] that is, Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the law, [there is Faith,] are just before God, but the doers of the law [there are good works] shall be justified; here I cannot question your inference which you do not make, but I must question your interpre­tation which you have made. For this place only sheweth that both Jewes and Gentiles might justly be condemned, be­cause both had sinned against the know­ledge which God had given them of his law; but it doth not shew how either might be justified: yet you have inter­preted it of Justification and by your in­terpretation have laid a kind of slurre and reproach upon Faith, saying, Not the hearers of the law, [there is Faith] as if Faith were placed in the ear, busied only in the hearing of the law, not considering that Faith is the gift of God, (the most precious gift that ever he gave to sin­ful man, excepting his Son, in and for whom he gives it) and that the gifts of God are to be received with our thank­fulnesse, unlesse we would have them re­called and reversed with his repentance; for since we cannot deserve them, if we will not highly prize them, we shew our selves unworthy of what we have, and [Page 401] make our selves uncapable of having more: Come sir I will speak plainly, that I may speak honourably of so great a gift. If Faith be not in our hearts, Christ is not there, (for he dwelleth in the heart by Faith, Ephes. 3. 17.) and if Christ be not in our hearts, we can neither have good words in our mouths, nor good works in our hands; for out of the abun­dance of the heart as the tongue speak­eth, so also the hand acteth; therefore pray lets have no more of this Divinitie, [not the hearers of the law, there is Faith] for what can any sacrilegious Enthusiast say more, who robs God of mens hearts in regular and sound prayers, to place all Religion in the ear? sure there were many hearers of St. Pauls Sermon, for it was preached on the Sabbath, and in a place where prayer was wont to be made, Act. 16. 13. who heard more than the law, (for they also heard the Gospel) yet only one Lydia (for ought we know) was judged faithful unto the Lord; and the text gives this reason of her Faith, whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul: Therefore the hearers of the law have not Faith, but the doers of it, (at least in [Page 402] vote and desire, i. e. those who labour to do it,) yet they when they have done all are taught to say, we are unprofitable ser­vants, we have done that which was our du­ty to do, Luk. 17. 10. Their doings can­not fully reach the obligation of their duty, and how can they be a satisfaction for their undutifulnesse? All their works of righteousnesse, when they have la­boured to do all those things which are commanded, and as they are commanded them, will leave them unprofitable; and much more must their works of unrighteousnesse make them unaccepta­ble: so that you have only supposed a false Faith in the hearers of the Law, not dis­prov'd Justification by Faith in the doers of it; for he that saith, not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified, doth not thereby suppose (much less averre,) any men to be so compleat doers of the Law, as to rely up­on their good deeds for their justification.

12. You might happily better have appealed to St. James, than to St. Paul for justification by works; and yet nei­ther would he have befriended this your appeal, much lesse have justified that your position: for St. James doth not contra­dict [Page 403] the doctrine of St. Paul, but doth only correct those who had misunder­stood, or at least misapplied it; bidding them add to their Faith Vertue, (as St. Peter had done before, 2 Pet. 3. 5.) or not expect to be justified by it: wherefore those two Apostles may very well be said to have delivered but one and the same doctrine concerning justification, if we take their words not as we please, but as they intended them: for St. Paul writing against proud Justitiaries among the Jews, who sought for righteousness from their own works according to the Law of Moses, and rejected the righte­ousnesse of God by Faith in Christ, strongly denyed Justification by works, meaning works properly so called, that is to say, a perfect and perpetual observati­on of the whole Law, because all men whatsoever (Christ only excepted,) had many wayes transgressed the Law: But St. James writing against licentious and profane Hypocrites among the Christi­ans, who pretending to Faith in Christ, lived not according to the Rule of the Christian Faith, but altogether neglected the study and practice of good works, af­firmed Justification by works, meaning by [Page 404] works the very obedience of Faith, or a working by love and obedience: The one writ against the proud opposers, the other against the fond Pretenders of Faith in Christ; therefore the one tells the proud Jews that their works were not answerable to the Law in which they trusted, that he might teach them the necessity of Faith in Christ: The other tell the hypocritical Christians, that their works were not answerable to the Gospel of which they boasted, that he might teach them the obedience of that Faith; accordingly as often as St. Paul affirmeth, (in sense at least, if not in words,) That we are justified only by Faith, so often he understandeth a Faith working by love, Gal. 5. 6. or an unfained unhypocritical Faith, [...], such a Faith as be­longs not to hypocrites, 1 Tim. 1. 5. And as often as St. James denieth that we are justified only by Faith, so often he un­derstandeth a Faith not working by love, a Faith only in profession or in perswa­sion, not in obedience or in affection; a Faith belonging to hypocrities, not to good Christians, a Faith in noise and in word, but not in truth and in deed: as ap­peares from the manner of his expressi­on, [Page 405] ver. 14. If a man say he hath Faith; for the Apostle would not say it for him, because he had only a dead Faith; A Faith without works, and therefore with­out life (operari sequitur esse) the Faith of devils, from the evidence or power of truth convincing the understanding; not the Faith of Abraham or Rahab, from the acceptance and love of truth con­verting the will; therefore these two positions are not contrary, A man is ju­stified before God, not by the works of the Law, (which he cannot have,) but only by Faith in Christ, (which alwaies work­eth by love;) and A man is justified be­fore God, not only by Faith, (that is an hi­storical knowledge of the Gospel, and an emptie profession of Faith,) but also by works, that is an affectionate love of the Gospel, and a sincere obedience of Faith; The former position is maintained by St. Paul against those Jews who rejected the Gospel of Christ: the latter position is maintained by St. James against those Christians who profaned the same Go­spel: Both Apostles teach one and the same Justification by Faith in Christ; on­ly St. Paul speaks of Faith more in rela­tion to its proper object, (even to Christ) [Page 406] because he went to convince gainsaying Jews, and to make them Christians; St. James speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper effect, (even good works) be­cause he went to convert revolting Chri­stians, and to make them good Christians: For so himself saith concerning Abraham, Seest then how Faith wrought with his works, and by work was Faith made perfect? ver. 23. He saith not By works was his justification made perfect, but only his Faith whereby he was justified, requiring works only to the Faith that justifieth, but not to the act of justification: And af­ter the same manner are we to under­stand his conclusion, ver. 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by Faith only: as if he had said, From this example of Abraham you may gather, that 'tis not the wording but the working, not the professing but the performing Faith that justifies a man before God; requir­ing works in that man which is justified, but not denying to Faith the power and prerogative of justifying.

13. You have well reconciled St. Paul with St. James in your question, [But what Faith?] which intima [...]eth, that a just [...]fying Faith is such a [...] as worke [...]h [Page 407] by love; but you have ill reconciled your selfe with St. Paul in your position, That works are required to Justification as well as Faith; which plainly asserteth the con­tradictory of St. Pauls doctrine: And surely 'tis not safe for any Divine to dif­fer in this Doctrine of Justification from St. Paul, no more than it is safe for him to differ from the whole scope of the Law and of the Gospel, since it is undeniable that Christ with his righteousnesse is the end of the Law, and the subject of the Gospel; This is St. Peters Divinitie, Act. 10. 43. To Him give all the Prophets wit­nesse, that through his name whosoever be­lieveth in him, shall receive remission of sins, i. e. in one word shall be justified: And in­deed what were all the propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices of the Law, but so many types of Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse, who is the Propitiation for our sins? 1 John 2. 2. so that in truth this part of the Ceremonial Law was little other than a dark representation of the Gospel, foreshewing in shadows what the Gospel was to declare in substance, that the Lamb of God should t [...]ke away the sinnes of the world; whence St. Paul ascribeth the Justification of the Jew and of the Gen­tile [Page 408] to one and the same sacrifice, A [...] Christ hath given himself for us, an offer­ing and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smel­ling savour, Eph. 5. 2. Their sacrifices did expiate sin only by vertue of this sa­crifice; And this is that which the same Apostle proves to the Jews in his Epistle which he peculiarly sent to them, the sum whereof is briefly this, That Jesus Christ (whom he did preach to them in that Epistle,) being the eternal Sonne of God, coessential and coequal with his Father, perfect God and perfect man in one and the same person, was that Messi­ah which God from the beginning of time had promised, and in the fulnesse of time had sent into the world, as the only King to Govern, as the only Priest to re­concile, as the only Prophet to instruct his Church, according to the Covenant made before the Law; to the types and figures given under the Law; and all the predictions, explications, additions and confirmations by the Prophets: so that unlesse they would reject all the docu­ments given to them in their own Law, and by their own Prophets throughout all the Old Testament, they must thank­fully acknowledge, heartily embrace, and [Page 409] dutifully obey Jesus Christ as the sole Author of their redemption and salvati­on, or (to speak yet neerer to our de­bate, though not to Gods Truth,) as the sole author of Justification, to redeem them from the guilt; and of sanctifica­tion, to redeem them from the bondage of their sins: This is the Doctrine of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, which is briefly delivered in the first words, and confirmed and enlarged in the sequele of that Epistle; God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son; There's our blessed Saviour as Prophet to instruct the Church. Whom he appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; There he is as King to govern the Church, which is his inheritance as man, his workmanship as God. When he had by himself purged our sins; There he is as Priest to offer himself for a Sacrifice to reconcile the Church; And all the Epi­stle after this, (in the doctrinal part of it) is nothing else but an enlargement upon these Three Heads, shewing the necessity of Christs three Offices and the excellency of his Person according to [Page 410] each Office; viz. according to his King­ly Office in the first and second; accord­ing to his Prophetical Office in the third and fourth Chapters; and according to his Priestly Office in the rest, till the nineteenth Verse of the tenth Chapter; After which He treateth of those Offices and Duties which belong to Christians, and that in the same method or manner as he had before of the Offices belong­ing unto Christ, first briefly summing them up together, and then fully and largely explaining them; For so cap. 10. v. 22. He exhorts us to Faith and a good Con­science; v. 23. To a firm hope and un­daunted profession; v. 24. To charity and to good works; v. 25. To the pub­like exercise of all those duties of Pie­ty, which God had appointed for the nourishment and the increase of Faith, Hope, and Charity; and the rest of the Epistle afterwards is but an enlargement upon these. Will you say because he speaks so much for good works in the latter part of his Epistle, He therefore re­quires them to Justification, as well as Faith? Look on the tenth Chapter, you will soon recall that saying; For there it is proved, That the Law Sacrifices could [Page 411] not take away sin, (that is, could not justifie those who offered them,) by two irresistible Topicks, ab absurdo, ab impos­sibili.

First, From the command of the Law enjoyning those Sacrifices to be repeated every year, which had been needless (and therefore absurd) if the worshippers could have been purged by them, so as to have had no more Conscience of sin, vers. 23.

Secondly, From the nature of the Sa­crifices that were offered, which were not of so great an efficacy as to purge sin, much less of so great an excellency as to expiate it; For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins; v. 4. And surely he that makes it his work to shew the weakness of the Law-Sacrifices to take away sin, could not make it his intent to set up the Gospel-Sacrifices, (whether of the Heart by Meditation, or the Lips by Prayer, or of the Hand by Alms-deeds) as expiati­ons for our sins: For the same Objections still hold against the one, which were made against the other. The necessity of their repetion is as great; the proof of their imperfection is far greater; I ask the [Page 412] soul of the most religious Votary that now lives, whether he dare say, that he ever prayed so devoutly, but that either for want of firmness in his attention, or of zeal in his affection, he needed to ask forgiveness for his Prayers. There was nothing of sin in the worst of Legal; there is something of sin in the best of Evangelical Sacrifices; and how then can it make an atonement for another sin? 14. Therefore what ever be the excellency of good works as to Gods ac­ceptance, or the efficacy of them as to mans salvation; yet they cannot be so ex­cellent as to deserve, nor so efficacious as to procure the Justification of a sinner; no, it cost more to redeem a soul, so that He (even the most righteous man that is) must let that alone for ever. Non dabit Deo placationem suam, & pretium redempti­onis animae suae; He can give to God what may please his goodness, not what may appease his anger, or satisfie his Justice; He can offer up the homage, he cannot offer up the price of his soul; Ac­cordingly we are bound to interpret all these and the like Texts concerning good works, as declaring their indispensable ne­cessity, not as declaring their meritorious [Page 413] efficacy to our salvation; as shewing them ot be consequents of the Faith that justifi­eth, not Causes of Justification: That honour must be reserved only to the Eternal Son of God, who alone had a righteousness able to hold weight in the ballance of the Sanctuary, and conse­quently who alone had a righteousness able to make a sinner righteous; If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me, Joh. 13. 8. being spoken to a man of infirmity, better merit than I can hope for, notwithstanding all that I can do or suffer for my Saviour, makes me say, That unlesse his blood wash me I shall never be so clean as to have a part with him; Therefore will I rely only upon his blood to make and keep me a true member of his Body; for I see that St. Paul, who ex­celled all others in his Doings, and in his sufferings for Christ (in labours more abundant) there was the excellency of his doings, In stripes above measure, in pri­sons more frequent, in deaths oft, there was the excellency of his sufferings, 2 Cor. 11. 23. yet dares not plead either for acquitment or acceptance with God from his own, but only from his Saviours obed ence; And do cou [...]t them but [Page 414] dung, (sc. all things whatsoever, not the righteousness of the Law excepted) that I may win Christ; And be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousness, which is of God by Faith; Phil. 3. 9. A righteous­ness which is most truly called the righte­ousness of God, for it is of God the Fa­thers giving, of God the Sons purcha­sing. For none but God can take away sin, appease the wrath of God, abolish the power of death and the tyranny of the Devil; therefore no righteousness but the righteousness of God can have any thing to do in our Justification, whereby sin is taken away, Gods wrath is appea­sed, and the power of death and the De­vil is abolished; If men alone can do this great work of our redemption, what need we any more then man alone in the person of our Redeemer? where­fore to admit any but the Son of Gods righteousness as the cause of mans Justi­fication, is to set open, if not to set up an inlet for Arrianism, which forceth Chri­stian Divines to bring St. James to St. Paul in this doctrine of Justification, that they may set up, not mans, but Gods [Page 415] righteousness; for if we need a God to redeem us, why not also to justifie us, since Justification is the main work of our redemption; And indeed if men would be so ingenuous, as to allow the Spirit of God the same constancy to him­self, under the hands of several Pen-men, as of One, They would no more oppose St. James against St. Paul, in this do­ctrine, then St. Paul against himself; For St. Paul hath as palpably rejected a Faith without works, as St. James; Though I have all Faith, so as to remove mountains, and have no charity, I am no­thing; 1. Cor. 13. 2. And yet by so say­ing did never intend, and was never thought to thwart his own doctrine con­cerning Justification by Faith in Christ, or to ascribe any share of it to works, (which proceed from charity) or to make man a fellow-sharer with God, by allowing our own righteousness to be (in the least respect) a Partial cause of our Justification: And herein St. Augustin shews himself St. Pauls Scholar, and therefore may justly challenge to be our Master; For though he writ a Book of purpose to confute the Solifidean Heresie, which looked only after Faith, yet hath [Page 416] he not let fall any one passage to per­swade us That works are required to Justi­fication as well as Faith; This himself professeth, lib. 2. Retr. cap. 38. Inte­rea missa sunt mihi à quibusdam fratribus laicis quidem, sed divinorum eloquiorum studiosis, scripta nonnulla quae ita di­stinguerent à bonis operibus Christianam fidem, ut sine hâc non posse, sine illis autem posse perveniri suaderetur ad ae­ [...]ernam vitam; quibus respondens librum scripsi, cujus nomen est de Fide & Ope­ribus: When I had received certain wri­tings from some Lay-brethren indeed, but studious of the holy Scripture, (mark the distinction of Lay-men and Clergy-men in those daies, but withal the free use of the Scriptures not denied to Lay-men) which did so divide and separate Faith from Works, as to say without the one we might not be saved, but without the other we might; I thought to answer them in a Trea­tise of purpose, which entitled of Faith and Works; And in this Treatise, though by many Texts he proveth that men are bound to work out their own salvation, yet doth he nowhere avow that they shall be justified or saved by their works:

Thus himself declareth the whole intent [Page 417] and scope of his Book, (as to this argu­ment) Quare illud jam videamus quod excutiendum est à cordibus religiosis, ne malâ securitate salutem suam perdant, si ad eam obtinendam sufficere solam fi­dem putaverint, berè autem vivere & bonis operibus viam Dei tenere neglexe­rint; (lib. de Fide & Oper. cap. 14.) Now let us consider that Tenent which is to be kept or driven out of religious hearts, lest by an evil security they should lose their own sal­vation, while they think to obtain it only by faith, and neglect to live righteously, and by works of righteousness to keep themselves in the way of Godliness; Here's his whole scope and intention, To keep religious hearts from carnal security in neglecting good works, not to fill them with spiri­tual Pride in relying on them; and surely they must rely on them very much, (to the dishonour of their Saviour, and to the danger of their salvation) if they look to be justified by them; nay a little after He plainly excludes good works from Justification, though he require them in the Faith that justifieth; Quùm ergo dicit Apostolus arbitrari se justi­ficari hominem per fidem sine operi­bus Legis, non hoc agit ut praeceptâ ac [Page 418] professâ fide opera Justitiae contemnan­tur, sed ut sciat se quisque per fidem posse justificari, etiamsi legis opera non praecesserint; sequuntur enim justifica­tum, non praecedunt justificandum: When therefore the Apostle saith, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law, his intent is not, that because we have known and do profess the faith, we should contemn the works of the Law, but only that every man should know he may be justified by his faith, though he hath not performed the works of the Law; For those works do follow him that already is, not go before him that hereafter shall be ju­stified: If good works do not go before him that is justified, then the work of Justification is done before they come; and if done before them, then most surely done also without them.

Yet still the same Father reviles their opinion, who did think [That Faith with­out works was available to salvation,] say­ing plainly, that to confute this opinion, St. Peter, St. John, St. James and St. Jude did write their several Epistles; That St. Peter speaketh concerning this same opi­nion [of being saved by Faith without works,] when he saith, that some un­earned [Page 419] and unstable men did wrest St. Pauls Epistles to their own destruction, and therefore exhorteth Christians to all holy conversation and godliness upon this account, that such men did at last most miserably perish in their sins: Sic itaque Petrus; his ergo (i [...]quit) hominibus pereuntibus, quales oportet vos esse in sanctis conversationibus et pietatibus? so saith S. Peter, therefore since these men perish, (for that application St. Aug. makes of his words, though not that Lection) what manner of persons ought ye to be in all con­versation and godliness? ye therefore be­loved, seeing ye know these things before, be­ware least ye also being led away with the errour of the wicked, [sc. this errour of being saved by Faith without works] fall from your own stedfastness; but grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. 3. 11, 17. But St. James (saith he) is yet much more offended with such men, Jacobus autem tam vehementer infestus est eis qui sapiunt fidem sine operibus valere ad salutem, ut illos etiam Daemonibus comparet, &c. St. James is so displeased with those men who supposed Faith could save them without works, that he down-right compares them [Page 420] to devils, saying, the devils also believe and tremble; and tells them plainly their Faith was dead, and that they were strangely be­sotted, who thought that such a faith which had not life in it selfe, could be a means of procuring them everlasting life; (quousqu [...] igitur falluntur, qui fide mortuâ sibi vitam aeternam pollicentur) And St. Aug. further assures us; that S. Paul himself had exact­ly taught the very same Doctrine before. Sicut etiam ipse Paulus non quamlibet fidem quae in Deum credat, sed eam sa­lubrem planéque Evangelicam definivit, cujus opera ex dilectione procedunt, & fides (inquit) quae per dilectionem ope­ratur; Unde illam fidem quae sufficere ad salutem quibusdam videtur, ita nihil prodesse asseverat, ut dicat, si habeam om­nem fidem, ita ut montes transferam, charitatem autem non habeam, nihil sum; Ubi autem haec fidelis charitas operatur, sine dubio benè vivitur: (Aug. lib. de fide et o [...]er. cap. 14.) Even as also St. Paul himself speaking of Justifica [...]ion and Salva­tion by Faith, did not mean every Faith which believed in God, but a saving and a [...]rue Evangelical Faith, whose works pro­ceeded from love; a Faith (saith he) which worketh by love; whence that Faith with­out [Page 421] works, which some thought sufficient to Salvation, he so flatly avoweth to be no­thing worth, that he plainly saith, though he had all Faith, so as to remove mountains, and had not charity, he should be nothing; But wheresoever is this Faith working by love, there without doubt the whole life is fraight with good works: All his businesse is to distinguish a true and false Faith, by re­quiring works to the Faith that justifieth; not to confound Faith with works in the act of Justification: Againe in the fifteenth Chapter, Illud quoque non vi­deo cur Dominus dixerit, Si vis venire ad vitam, serva mandata, & commemoravit ea quae ad bonos mores pertinent, si etiam his non servatis ad vitam veniri potest per solam fidem, quae sine operibus mor­tua est; Illud deinde quomodo verum erit, quod eis quos ad sinistram positurus est, dicat, Ite in ignem aeternum qui para­tus est Diabolo & Angelis ejus; nec incre­pat quia in eum non crediderint, sed quia bona opera non fecerint, cap. 15. Nor do I see why our Lord said, If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandements, reckoning up those moral duties whereby they were to be kept, if without keeping them, more might go to Heaven by a dead Faith; nor how he [Page 422] will say to them on his left hand, go into everlasting fire; condemning them, not be­cause they had not believed, but because they had not done good works answerable to their belief.

He tells the false believer, he should be condemned for want of works; he tells not the true believer he should be ac­quitted for his works: where by the way our Solifidians may take notice, that he [...] is not like to be so full of moral honest men who want Faith, (for how could their hearts sanctifie their hands, if Faith did not first sanctifie their hearts?) as of be­lieving men who want moral honesty, having only such a Faith as to sanctifie their mouths for holy professions, but not their hearts by holy affections, nor their lives by holy conversation. For so the same St. Aug. in the next Chapter; Si autem Christus fundamentum, proculdu­bio fides Christi, per fidem quippe habitat Christus in cordibus nostris: Porro fides Christi illa est utique quam definivit Apo­stolus, quae per dilectionem operatur: Non enim fides illa Daemonum, quum & ipsi credant & contremiscant, & fil [...]um Dei confiteantur Jesum, potest [...] in fundamentum; Quare nisi quia non est [Page 423] fides quae operatur per dilectionem; sed quae exprimitur per timorem? fides ita­que Christi, fides gratiae Christianae. i. e. ea fides quae per dilectionem operatur, posi­ta in fundamento, neminem perire per­mittit, cap. 16. If Christ be the foundation of our righteousnesse, then without doubt the Faith of Christ is so too; for Christ dwelleth in our hearts by Faith; but 'tis that Faith which the Apostle defineth to be a Faith working by love; for it is not possible that the Faith of devils, who do beleeve and trem­ble, and confesse Jesus to be the Son of God, should be taken into this foundation; because it is not a Faith which worketh by love, but which is extorted by fear: whereas the true Faith of Christ which proceedeth from the grace of Christ, that is a Faith which worketh by love, being put in the foundation, will not let any man perish everlastingly: What can be said more of a justifying Faith, but that it maketh Christ to dwell in the heart for the foundation of righte­ousnesse, and that it passeth from the heart to the hand for the operation of righteousnesse? In that this Faith giveth us Christ, it delivereth us from the con­demnation of sin; for where Christ is, there can be no condemnation, Rom. 8. [Page 424] II. In that it giveth us good works, it delivereth us from the conversation of sinners, that we may live as becometh Christians: This Faith cannot let us pe­rish, because it will not let us depart from Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life; the Way that we should walk in, the Truth to direct us in our journey, and the Life to reward us at our jour­neys end; But the Faith which doth not this, as it proceedeth not from the grace of Christ, (but from the strength of our own conviction) and tendeth not to the glory of Christ; So it is rather the Faith of Devils than of good Christians, and may well let a man go to hell; for it may go thither along with him; and there­fore as it is not the foundation of righte­ousnesse, so it cannot be the foundation of blessednesse: Again the same Father tells us, That though our blessed Saviour had at first in effect called the woman of Canaan a Dog, (it is not lawful to take the childrens bread and give it unto Dogs) yet when he saw in her soul [...]he fruit of that reproof, he changed his dialect, and said, not O Dog, but O Woman, great is thy Faith; Non ait O canis, sed O mulier, magna est fides tua; mutavit vocabulum, [Page 425] quia mutatum vidit affectum: That Faith which Christ approved in her, had changed the affection; and 'tis not possi­ble but the Affection should change the Action: and therefore St. James feared not to call an actionless Faith, or a Faith not working by love, a Faith not of Chri­stians but of Devils; Fidem non Christi­anorum sed Daemonum; For they are not Christians, but Dogs and Devils who persist in ungodly affections, and in un­righteous actions: nay indeed they are Infidels, so farre from having true Faith in Christ, that they do not know what is true Faith; They rightly affirme (saith he) that whosoever will not believe in Christ, doth in some sort sin against the Holy Ghost, and put himself under a necessity of damnation; but they do not rightly under­stand what it is to believe in Christ; for that is not to believe as Devils, but as Chri­stians; not to have a dead Faith, but a Faith living and working by love; Illud sane non absurde intelligunt, eum peccare in spiri­tum sanctum, & esse sine veniâ reum aeterni peccati, qui usque in finem vitae noluerit credere in Christum; sed si rectè intelligerent quid sit credere in Christum; non enim hoc est habere Daemonum [Page 426] fidem, quae rectè mortua perhibetur, sed fidem quae per dilectionem operatur; Aug. ibid. cap. 16.

I have of purpose alledged many quo­tations out of St. Augustine, (indeed most of them which concerned this argument) that all the world may see, that his intent in confuting those mistaken brethren who thought to be saved by Faith with­out works, was only to shew out of [...]t James and the other Catholick Ep [...]stles, what Faith it is that justifieth; sc. a Faith working by love; but not to ascribe the glory of Justification either to works or love, because they hold of mansrigh­teousness; but only to Faith, which hold­eth of the righteousness of the Son of God: I will now to St. Augustine further add St. Ambrose, who in his Comment upon the Romans, cap. 3. hath these words, Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes, solâ fide justifi­cati sunt, They are justified freely by his grace, because working nothing (sc. worth Gods acceptance, and their own acquit­ment) and making no recompence, they are justified only by Faith through the gift of God; And again upon those words, cap. 4. Credenti autem in eum, But to him that [Page 427] worketh not, but believeth on him that justi­fieth the ungodly, he saith thus, Sic decre­tum dicit à Deo, ut cessante lege, solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem; The Apostle tells us it was so decreed of God, that the Law ceasing, (sc. as to that male dicti­on, Cursed is he that continueth not in all things to do them) The grace of God should require only Faith to our salvation: we find no mention of a Decree in the Text, either in the Greek Original, or in the Latine Translation; yet St. Ambrose sets down the words thus, Ei vere qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum qui justificat impium, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam secundum Propositum Gratiae Dei, To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is accounted for righteousness, according to the Purpose of the Grace of God, not intending by the addition of these words, according to the Purpose of the Grace of God, that any should cavil against the true reading of the Truth (as of late some Criticks have taught us to do) but that all should un­derstand the true meaning of it, and no more question that in justification of the ungodly Faith is accounted for righte­ousness, then they dare question the [Page 428] Purpose of the Grace of God: This is palbably St. Ambrose his Doctrine; and therefore he asks him, Is it possible the Jews should think themselves justified by the works of the Law, according to the justification of Abraham, when they saw that Abraham himself was justified, not by the works of the Law, but only by Faith? Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae, quum vident Abrahamum non ex operibus legis, sed solâ fide justifica­tum? He saith moreover, That our Apo­stle proved this from the Psalmist, pro­nouncing them blessed unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works; Beatos dicit quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labore & aliquâ observati­one, solâ fide justificentur apud Deum; He calleth those blessed concerning whom the Lord hath determined, that without their own labour and any observation (of the Law) by Faith alone they should be justified before Him; which are so clear and high expressions for Justification by Faith a­lone, that for any Divine now to say, works are required to Justification as well as Faith, is either to suppose the Apostles and Prophets not to have known Gods [Page 429] intent and meaning, or to suppose St. Ambrose and St. Augustine not to have known the intent and meaning of the Apostles.

I must yet further add one more Testi­mony, (that in the mouth of two or three witnesses this so heavenly Word of Truth may be firmely established) And that shall be the Testimony of St. Chry­sostome, who upon the two first Verses of the fourth Chapter to the Romans, (where the Apostle speaketh of Abrahams Justi­fication,) giveth us this Exposition; [...]: For as much as the Jews did turn this point of Divinity upside down, because their Patriarch the friend of God, was first circumcised, (sc. before he was accepted as a friend) The Apostle is resolved to shew them that even Abraham himself was justified by Faith: [...]: For that a [Page 430] man should be justified by Faith who had no works, were nothing strange; But for one that flourished in deeds of righteousness, not to be made just from them, but from his Faith, was very wounderful, and doth ex­ceedingly declare the power of Faith; There­fore passing by all others, he maketh mention only of him, (that is of Abraham) Chrys. Aug. 11. in Rom. in principio: what should I add more witnesses? here are enough to shew the unanimous consent of Greek and Latine Church in this doctrine of Justification by Faith without works; so it is not of our Invention; And they are con­senting with the Prophets and Apostles in this Doctrine; so it may not be of your rejection; For you know who hath said, If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be perswaded, though one rose from the dead, Luk. 16. 31. That is to say, in this present case they will not be per­swaded, though one that hath passed un­der the Judgement of God should come from the dead to tell them, That he had not been acquitted for his own, but for his Saviours righteousness: I was the more desirous to insist the long­er upon the Fathers, because some late Protestants (to make their own writings [Page 431] the more acceptable) have not stuck to say, That the Fathers did write either defectively or obscurely of this point, whereas if they had written with a pen of Iron, or of a diamond, they could not have written more Fully; and with a Sun­beam, they could not have written more clearly; And because some Papists on the other side (to make their Tenent the more passible) have not stuck to say that the Fathers writ all fully and clearly for Justification by works; Let any unpre­judicate man judge, from these few quota­tions, whether all their fulness and plain­ness be not to enlarge and explain this very doctrine of St. Paul, which you have blamed in me, Therefore being justi­fied by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; Rom. 5. 1. Whereby he attributes not only our Justification from the guilt of sin, but also our peace for the deliverance from the terrour of that guilt, only to Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ: But because men of the contrary opinion do pretend to be wholly for the Church, it shall not suffice me to have shewed what the Ca­tholick Church did believe and profess in the daies of St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, [Page 432] and St. Chrysostom, but what the present Roman Church doth believe and profess at this very day; for that still teaching all her Communicants to pray on this wise, Effunde super nos misericordiam tuam, ut dimittas quae conscientia metu­it, & adjicias quod oratio non praesumit, per dominum nostrum; Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy, forgiveing us those things whereof our Conscience is afraid, and giving unto us that that our Prayers dare not presume to ask, through Jesus Christ our Lord, 12. Sunday after Trinity, doth plainly shew and declare, That forgiveness of sins and quietation of our Consciences are among those blessings which our prayers dare not presume to ask, (and much less may hope to attain) by any of our own but only by our Savi­ours righteousness; and what is Justifica­tion but the forgiveness of sins? and what is the immediate effect of it, but the quietation of our Consciences? God hath made Remission of sins an Article of our Faith, not a duty of our life, and his Church accounteth them Infidels who do not believe it. But if we can pur­chase it by our own works, tis rather to be merited or to be deserved then believed. [Page 433] Let us then change the daily Hymne of the Church and say, When we had over­come the wickednesse of life, we did open the Kingdom of Heaven to our selves that were workers; not, when Thou hadst overcome the sharpnesse of death, Thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers: The Church owns the opening of Heaven to Christs death, not denying true belie­vers to be workers, but denying Heaven to be opened by their works: And shall we say that Heaven is opened by our Savi­ours merits, but entred by our own? 15. But see first if by saying so, we do not only forsake Christs Church but also de­stroy it; For none can shut the gates of Hell, but He that hath opened the gate of Heaven; The same righteousness shuts Them (for they are many and wide) and opens This, (for it is but one and very narrow) If mans righteous­nesse can do so, let not Hierusalem be any longer called by this name, The Lord our righteousnesse, Jer. 23. 16. But if she be no longer so called, How will she be Gods Church? for withoubt dout the gates of Hell will easily be able to prevail against Her righteousness, though not against Her Saviours: Therefore [Page 434] the Church that Hell shall not prevail a­gainst, must be founded on the Rock of Christs righteousnesse, not on the Sand of mans righteousness; for then God may soon come to have no Church, be­cause the Church may soon come to have no righteousness; surely it can have no such righteousness as either to vanquish Hell, or to challenge Heaven: no such righteousnesse as not for ever to say most justly what now she saith, si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine quis su­stinebit! If thou Lord wil [...] be ex [...]ream to mark what is done amisse, O Lord who may abide it? That man would be very despe­rate who should answer this question and say, I may abide it; and consequently that Divinity must needs be very dange­rous, which must put him upon such an answer for his Justification. This is for Christians to have a worse opinion of Christ then had the Jews; for even Rab­bi David upon these words of Jeremy, The Lord our Righteousnesse, gives us this glosse, Israel shall call the Messias by this name (The Lord our righteousnesse) be­cause in his daies the Justice of God shall be firmly established for ever; acknowledg­ing that a Justice which is to be establish­ed [Page 435] in us for ever, is not to be obtained, may not be expected by and from our selves, but by and from the Messias, by and from him who is here called The Lord our righteousnesse: 16. Yet your Bellarmine lib. 2. de Just. useth no less then ten Arguments to prove that the imputation of Christs righteousness in our justification, is little other then a fi­ction or a vain and empty opinion; Ju­stificationem non consistere in Imputati­one justitiae Christi; He saith positively That Justificatoin doth not consist in the im­putation of Christs righteousnesse; Sure St. Paul taught him not to say so; for he plainly rejecteth his own inherent righte­ousnesse; and cleaved only to the impu­ted righteousnesse of Christ, when he de­sired to be justified; Phil. 3. 9.— That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousnesse which is of God by Faith; He desired not to be found in his Own, but in his Saviours righteousnesse, when he was to pass un­der Gods sentence; and he could not be found in that, unless it might be im­puted to Him; for being Anothers, it [Page 436] could not be inherent in Him; There­fore if your Cardinals contradistincti­ons stand for good in your account, (Vera mundities non Imputativa, arg. 9.) non verè sed imputativè tantum suum Christus sanctificavit populum (Arg. 10.) True righteousnesse, not Imputative; and, If Christ sanctified his people not truly but Imputatively, whereby He supposes Im­putative to be not True; Then say that St. Paul did forsake a True for a false righteousness, because he forsooke an in­herent righteousnesse for an imputative; But take heed that in saying so, you do not only injuriously callumniate St. Paul chosing to be justified by an Imaginary righteousness, but also impiously blas­pheme your Saviour, by supposing all that he did and suffered for sinners, to be made theirs only by Imagination; And consequently, That Justification is but matter of phansie not of reality, which the holy Scripture ascribes only to Impu­ted righteousnesse; For the Text doth plainly say, Abraham believed God, and it was counted or imputed to him for righte­ousness. Rom. 4. 3. And again v. 5. His Faith is counted for righteousnesse; an [...] v. 6. David describeth the blessednesse [Page 437] of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works; and again, v. 22. It was imputed to him for righte­ousnesse: He that shall consider these Texts, and say Imputed righteousnesse is a meer fiction, will scarce be able to wash his hands from charging the Holy Ghost with teaching a Fiction, and may easily keep the Holy Ghost from washing his heart from the guilt of that charge: Pe­re [...]ius durst not so thwart the Text, (cap. 4. ad Rom. disp. 2.) but saith of Abraham (as St. Paul had taught him,) That though he was just and holy; yet his faith, not his holinesse, was imputed to him for righteousnesse; Abraham licet is justus jam esset & sanctus, propter fidem ta­men, non propter opera, Justitia dicitur esse imputata.

What a vast difference is here betwixt Two men, not only of the same Church, I mean of Rome, but also of the same or­der? I mean of Jesuits; Bellarmine being a zealous Disputant strives to bring the Holy Ghost to his Position; Pererius be­ing a judicious Commentator, strives to bring his exposition to the Holy Ghost: For doubtlesse he had observed the He­brew words, Gen. 15. 6. (to which St. [Page 438] Paul here related,) to be these, [...] & Imputavit illud ei in justitiam, And he, (that is the Lord) imputed it to him for righteousnesse,) So the Jewish Do­ctor Solemon Jarchi (who best understood his own dialect,) glosseth those words, He that is [...]oly and blessed, imputed it t [...] Abraham for purity and Justice, (or righ­teousnesse,) because of the Faith through which he had believed him: If Abraham were made just by imputed righteousnesse; then so also are the sons of Abraham; therefore said the Prophet, Look unt [...] Abraham your Father Isa. 51. 2. ex­horting all the sons of Abraham after the pattern of their Father to trust in Christ, as saith our Church in the contents, nay as saith Gods holy Spirit in the Text; Fo [...] St. Paul argueth from Abrahams Justifi­cation to ours, That as he was not, so we cannot be justified by inherent, but by imputed righteousnesse; For God is al­waies like himself; not one to Abraham, another to us; therefore as He justified Abraham, so He justifieth us: And Aqui­nas gives a demonstrative reason for it, saying, Tota Ecclesia quae est mysticum corpus Christi, computatur quasi una persona cum suo capite, quod est Chri­stus, [Page 439] (3. par. q. 41. art. 1. c.) The whole Church which is the mystical body of Christ, is computed but as one person with its Head which is Christ; Abraham the Father of the faithful and all his children are mem­bers of one and the same mystical body; therefore they have all but one and the same righteousnesse whereby to be ju­stified; And Christ is the Head of that mysticall body; therefore they all have His righteousness imputed to them for their Justification; To set up another righteousness for this, is to set up another Head; and to set up another Head, is to destroy the Body; The righteousnesse of the Head is communicated and may be imputed to all the members of his Bo­dy, because Head and Body make but one Person; But the righteousnesse of one member is not communicable, and may not be imputed to another member, be­cause all the members make several per­sons; forasmuch as the Body whereof they are members is not natural, but mystical; so we have (in the judgment of Aquinas) great reason to believe the imputed righteousnesse of Christ; but none at all to believe the imputed righteousnesse of the Saints: For the Head hath, but [Page 440] the members have not a communicable righteousnesse: For though the Head and all the members make but one Per­son mystical, yet the members make se­veral distinct persons naturall; and se­veral distinct persons, as they have their subsistencies, so they have their proper­ties and operations both alike incommuni­cable: Each member hath its own righte­ousness not possibly to be communicated to another, because it is confined to its own subject, and therefore not truly im­puted to another, because it is not com­municated; This is a kind of imputed righteousness, which is a meer figment or a fiction, but 'tis a righteousnesse both taught and imputed by man, not by God; even in the superfluous or superabunant righteousness of the Saints, put into the treasure of the Church (if we may be­lieve your Authors) to be communica­ted to those that want merits or satisfa­ction of their own; either merits of their own working, or satisfaction of their own making: This imputed rightous­nesse of man is in truth a meer fiction, both in regard of the imputation and in regard of the righteousnesse.

First, In regard of the imputation; for [Page 441] it is againg the nature of Justice, that one mans righteousness should be imputed for the satisfaction of another mans unrighteousnesse, without his con­sent that is to be satisfied; but God hath nowhere declared, much less promised his consent to receive such satisfaction; So that the imputing one mans righteous­nesse to another, must needs be vain, because God may be thought not to ac­cept it; nay more, it must needs be sin­full, because man may be thought to prescribe, (if not to extort) Gods accep­tance; And if there be vanity and sin in the imputation, we must say there is fi­ction in it; for having its very being in Vanity and sin, it cannot have a real but a meer imaginary or fictitious being.

Secondly, This imputed righteousness of men is a meer fiction in regard of the righteousnesse it self: For it supposeth the righteousness of the creature to make condigne satisfaction to the Justice of the Creator, which is impossible, be­cause the one is finite, the other is infi­nite; Nay yet farther to heighthen this impossibility (at least in our conception, though not in truth) it supposeth the righteousness of the creature, not only [Page 442] to satisfie for its own, but also for an­others unrighteousnes; whereas it is the opinion of some of the best Scholemen, even of Bernard, Scotus, and Gabriel, (if we may believe Vasques) That no crea­ture can have a righteousnesse adequate, or exactly proportionable to the Justice of the Creator, (for it self, much less for another,) from its own worthinesse; but only from Gods acceptance; And that Christ himself, as man, could not have merited forgivenesse of our sins at the hands of God, as having satisfied his of­fended Justice, if God had not been mer­cifully pleased of his own free grace and goodnesse, to accept of his satisfa­ction: Nullius creaturae neque adeò Christi apud Deum esse meritum & sa­tisfactionem simpliciter condignam, sed ex acceptatione ipsius Dei, qui sponte suâ eâ satisfactione & merito vol [...]it esse contentus: Vasques in 3. Thom. Disp. 5. c. 1. So that if the eternal Son of God did by his most condigne and compleat righteousnesse, purchase for us forgive­nesse of sins and eternal life, merito ex compacto non autem absoluto; only by compact or covenant, not by absolute Justice, then what a vain imagination is [Page 443] it to think, what an unwarrantable ficti­on is it to say, that one mans righteous­ness can be meritorious to make another righteous which hath no condignity, to challenge acceptance for it self, and much less hath any compact or covenant to be accepted for another? And if it be not meritorious to exempt him from guilt, how can it be satisfactory to ex­empt him from punishment? For satis­faction is an act of Justice; but Justice will have the sin expiated, before it will have the punishment remitted; where­fore though your great Doctor spoke without book (surely without Gods book) when he said, That the least drop of Christs blood was a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and consequently that all the other passions of Christ were meerly su­perfluous as to our redemption from eternal death, [Bellar. de Jndulg. l. 1. c. 4.] (For this assertion makes God delight in Unnecessaries, which even nature ab­horres, meerly by instinct from him; nay it makes him delight in some kind cruelty if not as injustice, punishing our blessed Saviour more then was needful for the satisfaction of Justice;) yet if we should gratify him with the allowance though not the approbation of this unwar­rantable [Page 444] asserion, it would not do his work, by laying a firm foundation of his surposed Treasury of th [...] Church, built up­on the superfluous merits and passions of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the other Saints. 1. Because the Passions of Christ, though they were all infinite in value from the dignity of the sufferer; yet were none of them superfluous for the cause and ground of his suffering. 2. Because there it is not the same reason of merit in the Saints as was in Christ; For even those actions of Christ which proceeded from his humane nature, had their merit from his Divine nature; as the flesh of Christ is said to give life, the obedience of Christ to give righteous­ness, the blood of Christ to have re­deemed the Church, not in it self, but as the flesh, and the obedience, and the blood of the Son of God; The Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood, Acts 20. 28. He shed his blood as man; but he purchased the Church with it as God; Those doings and suffer­ings of Christ which had their original from his Humanity, had their excellen­cy from his Divinity; not so the doings and sufferings of the Saints; for though [Page 445] they proceeded from the spirit of God, yet were they the doings and sufferings only of men, not of God; because the Spirit of God dwelled in them, not by a Per­sonal Union, but only by a powerful Com­munion. 3. Because there is not the same reason of the acceptance of the Saints merits as of Christs; For Gods pro­mise of accepting the sufferings of his Son for the expiation of our sins is most evi­dent; not so of accepting the sufferings of his servants, were they more then enough for themselves; There is not in all the written word the least contract or Co­venant of Gods making That he would accept superfluous merits, or sufferings, or satisfaction from some, when for defects and demerits and dissatisfaction from others: Besides what a strange insolency is it for a Divine to deny to Christian souls the Imputation of that part of Christs suf­ferings, which is absolutely necessary both for Gods satisfaction, and for their own salvation; and at the same time to avow the imputation of that Part of Christs sufferings which he professeth to be su­perfluous? For if necessary sufferings or doings may not, how should unnecessary be imputed? But above all it is a most [Page 446] abominable insolency to deny the impu­tation of Christs righteousnesse, which is both substantial and satisfactory, and to allow the imputation of the Saints righ­teousnesse, which is not substantial (as to its supposed superfluity,) and cannot be satisfactory if it could be superfluous; tis not sufficient to justifie them that have it, much less them that have it not; The blessed Virgin her self did say, My soul doth magnifie the Lord, and my Spirit hath rejoyced in God my Saviour: Ascribing to her God, not to her self, the honour of her salvation; Therefore though she had a vast stock of oile in her Vessel for her own lamp, yet I fear if any foolish Vir­gin, which had not so, should say unto her, Give me of your oyl, for my lamp is gone out, she would turn the parable into a history and say, not so, lest there be not enough for me and for you; Matth. 25. 9. This answer the Text in effect gives for her as for the wisest of all Virgins; and therefore 'tis most probable she would give it for her self; and if so, (To let pass other absurdities,) Tis certain you egregiously affront the mother of God in taking away her oile without her con­sent, if you do not egregiously delude [Page 447] the sons of men, in saying that her oyl will serve to feed their lamps; you may as well say that her good works will serve to nourish and sustain their Faith; or that her Faith will serve to purge and save their souls.

And as for the other Saints, they can­not satisfie the Justice of God for them­selves, and much less for others, because there are two impediments of their per­fection in righteousnesse; (and an im­perfect righteousness, if it could be spa­red, would in vain be communicated) The first is, the impediment of their Origi­nal, the second is the impediment of their Actual sin: They are both affirmed together by the Holy Ghost, Prov. 20, 9, Who can say I have made my heart clean? sc. from my original corruption, I am pure from my sin, sc. from my actual transgression: He that cleanseth the heart, knoweth best how far he hath cleansed it; we cannot cleanse our hearts but by his help and assistance, (if we can, let us say no longer, Make me a clean heart O God) and he owneth no such cleansing in this world, but which still leaveth some uncleannesse behind it; He that hath made no use of his assistance, is not [Page 448] at all concerned in this Interrogatory, Who can say I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? He that hath made the best use thereof, is most concerned in it, and comprehended under it; therefore he cannot say I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sins, but he must lye to the Holy Ghost, and be so far from cleansing his heart, as immediatly to let in many unclean spirits the more to de­file it. For those two which God hath joyned together, all the wit and power of man, cannot put asunder, even Sa­tans filling the heart, and lying to the Holy Ghost; why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to the Holy Ghost? Acts 5. 3. And if Satan filleth the heart of those who make this lye, then sure he also filleth the mouth of those who tell it: And there­fore the Church of God, which is the pillar and ground of the Truth, very much abhorreth this lye, making this confession of her natural corruptions, But we are all as an unclean thing; (Facti sumus ut Immundus omnes nos; so the Hebrew and Chaldee in the singular num­ber,) we are all but as one unclean man, to shew the Uncleanness was from na­ture which was as equally derived to All, [Page 449] as if all had been but one; and making this confession of her personal corrupti­ons, which proceeded from the natural, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, Isa. 64. 6. Wherefore since Protestants and Papists both agree together in the former part of this confession, as a Prin­ciple of Divinity, 'tis irrational in the Papists to disagree from Protestants in the latter part of it, which is but a con­clusion proceeding from this Principle; For the natural corruption is the cause of the personal, and therefore all our righte­ousnesses are as filthy rags, because we are all as an unclean thing; This being the full argumentation, All who are unclean, have an unclean righteousnesse; but we all are unclean, therefore we all have an un­clean righteousnesse; Quia opus justitiae immundatur inquinamento, as saith Aquinas, because our righteousnesse is de­filed by our unrighteousnesse; and by this we may fully understand that other text, If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us, 1 Joh. 1. 8. For we are clearly guilty of a double lye; one against our own souls, we deceive our selves; another against the Holy Ghost, (the Spirit of truth) and the truth is not [Page 450] in us. Both are such pernicious lyes as to bring upon us inevitable destruction; for he that willingly deceives his own soul, cares not for knowing the truth; he that strives to deceive the Holy Ghost, cannot come to know it; For as he hath not the truth in him, in that he deceiveth himself; so he keepeth the Spirit of truth away from him, that he may deceive him­self for ever: Nor can we possibly use any evasion upon this text, as if some men might say they have no sin, though others cannot; for he must think himselfe better than the best of Saints, the Disciple whom Jesus loved, (and questionlesse he had a very good reason of his love,) who will needs say he hath no sin, though by saying so, he is sure to prove himself worse than the worst of sinners; for he maketh him a lyar, who hath promised forgiveness of sins; and he maketh his Word a lye; which hath shewed our need (or want of that forgiveness, for in many things we offend all, Jam. 3. 2.) and he putteth himself out of their communion, who alone ob­tain forgiveness, even the communion of true penitents, of whom it is said, If we confesse our sins, he is faithful and just to for­give us our sins, 1 Joh. 1. 9. he that de­nyes [Page 451] himself to be one of this number, denyes himself to be one of the communi­on of Saints (unless St. John and St. James were no Saints) and consequently makes himself uncapable of the forgiveness of sins: Thus doth the second Milevitane Council gloss the words of St. John, that they were not spoken out of humility, but out of necessity, and that the greatest, the ne­cessity of Truth; Satis apparet hoc non tantum humiliter sed etiam veraciter dici: Poterat enim Apostolus dicere, Si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum, nos ipsos extollimus, & humilitas in nobis non est; sed quùm ait, nos ipsos decipimus, & veritas in nobis non est, satis ostendit eum qui se dixerit non habere peccatum, non verum loqui sed falsum: It is evident that this was spoken, not only out of modesty, but also out of truth; for the Apostle might have said, If we say that we have no sin we extol our selves, and there is no humility in us; But when he saith we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us, he suffici­ently sheweth, that whosoever saith there is no sin in him, doth not speak truly but falsly: And thus also doth the same Council gloss the words of St. James, saying, The A­postle was holy and just when he said, in [Page 452] many things we offend All; for why did he add this particle All, but to shew that he a­greed with the Psalmist, who had said, Enter not into judgement with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified? Psal. 142. 2. and with Solomon, who had said, There is no man that sinneth not, 1 King. 8. 46. And with Daniel, who had said, We have sinned and have committed iniquity, Dan. 9. 5. and afterwards added (ver. 20.) whiles I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people; he would not say Our sins, but My sins and the sins of my people, because he did foresee by the Spirit of Prophecy, that some in after ages would be ready to put him and such as he, (nay indeed much worse transgressours) out of the catalogue or number of sinners: Quia futuros istos qui tam malè intelligerent, tanquam Pro­pheta praevidit:—And at last upon these and the like proofes, the same Council denounceth a terrible curse a­gainst those who should dare affirme, that forgive us our trespasses was said by the Saints rather humbly than truly; quis enim ferat orantem & non hominibus sed ipsi Domino mentientem, qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle, & corde dicit, quae sibi dimittantur, se debita non habere: For [Page 453] (say those Fathers) who can endure, that a man in his prayers should tell a lye not to man but to God, saying with his mouth, For­give us our trespasses, and saying in his heart, he had no trespasses to be forgiven him: Thus we have the authority of the Scripture and the authority of the Church, both agreeing together in this doctrine, That all men are sinners; And though this was but a particular National Council in it self, yet was it Universal and Oecumenical in its authority, as consisting of Catholick Bishops, amongst the rest Ali­pius and St. Augustine, (as appeares by the Synodical Epistle to Innocent the first) and having been approved by the Catholick Church, as appeares in that these words which are the 6, 7, 8. Canons of the se­cond Milevitane Council (in Binnius) for the Western, are the 115, 116, 117. Ca­nons of the Council of Carthage (in Balsa­mon) for the Eastern Churches.

17. Wherefore this being an un­doubted Principle among all Christians (for who can doubt that which comes to us Originally from the Scriptures, and derivatively from the Catholick Church?) That all men have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, (Rom. 3. 23.) we can­not [Page 454] reasonably but only perversely deny this conclusion, That no man can be justi­fied by his own righteousnesse: For having sinned, he must needs be under the con­demnation of sin, and coming short of the glory of God in his duty or obliga­tion, he must also come short of his own glory in his merit of justification: for his sin which makes him come short of righ­teousness, must needs also make him come short of being reputed righteous; For shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? how then shall he acquit that man for righteous, whom he knows to be a sinner? we find he hath in effect given a contrary judgment already, Hag. 2. 12, 13. where this is the summe of his deter­mination concerning two questions which neerly concerne this case; 1. Whe­ther a man that is unclean may contract purity from the touch of h [...]ly things? which he denies. 2. Whether Holy things do not contract impurity from the touch of a man that is unclean? which he affirmes, and then makes this inference, ver. 14. So is this People, and so is this Nation before me, saith the Lord, and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there, is un­clean: The same reason holds in us as in [Page 455] them: The Jew was unclean by the touch of a dead body, and so is the Christian. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death! Rom. 7. 24. The Jew by his uncleanness did pollute the holy things; so doth the Christian, even those holy works that proceed from Gods Holy Spirit and Grace; The holy things by their Purity, did not make him pure among the Jews, who was unclean in himself; so is it also among the Chri­stians; The best inherent righteousness we have from Gods Grace, doth not purge away the impurity of that sin which we have from our selves; therefore we must confesse that because of our Original and actual uncleanness, every work of our hands, and that which we offer to our God is unclean; and consequently our works cannot justifie themselves, much less can they justifie us: And we find the same judgment of God confirmed likewise in the New Testament, Luk. 17. where the Lepers pray heartily, Jesus Master have mercy on us; there's one good work of piety and devotion; they obey readily in going to shew themselves to the Priests as they had been commanded; there's another good work better than [Page 456] the former, (for obedience is better than sacrifice) And one of them when he saw that he was cleansed, turned back and with a loud voyce glorified God, and fell down on his face, at our Saviours feet, and gave him thanks; there's many good works together, one of devotion, he glorified God; another of zeal, with a loud voyce; a third of reverence, he fell down on his face; a fourth of humility, at our Saviours feet; a fifth of praise and thanksgiving, he gave him thanks; here is soul and body and all the powers and faculties of both, wholly set upon good works; yet our Saviour saith, Arise, go thy way, thy Faith hath made thee whole, v. 19. So is it also in the leprosie of our souls; we are bound to pray heartily, Jesus Master have mercy on us, and to shew our selves to the Priests, that is, to use all the means of salvation which God hath appointed in the communion, and by the Ministers of his Church, yet when all is done, if we will speak with our Savi­our, we must say to the Leper, thy Faith hath made thee whole; The good works may be acknowledged as adjunct [...], but not as causes of the cure,; that must be attributed only to Faith in him who is the [Page 457] Physician of our souls; For without doubt that holy ejaculation, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, though he be not clean ac­cording to the purification of the sanctuary, is a prayer as needful now as it was in the dayes of Hezekiah, or it would not have been left upon record for us, 2 C [...]ron. 30. 19 It is the Lords Pardon, not the mans preparation, that makes him clean according to the purification of the San­ctuary; and so Kimchi confesseth in his gloss upon those words, ver. 20. And the Lord healed the people, that is (saith he,) The Lord forgave their sin, according to that of the Psalmist, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee: The Lord pardoned their sins that he might accept them; and why should not we say that pardon and forgivenesse of our sins is the best ground and means of our acceptance with God? For this is the only way to be clean ac­cording to the purification of the San­ctuary, that is, to be clean from all sin, even to be made clean, of which it is said, The blood of Jesus Christ his Son [...] us from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. If I ha [...] but one sin left upon my soul (not washed a­way by Faith in his blood and the tears [Page 458] of my own repentance) I shall not be clean enough to appear before the Throne of his Grace, much lesse to appear at the bar of his justice: I shall not be innocent enough to serve him, much lesse to be judged by him; I shall not be able to stand comfortably before his mercy, and much less to stand confidently against his Judge­ment: Therefore can I not hope to be saved by the first innocency, that of obedi­ence or of righteousness, but only by the second innocency, that of Faith and repen­tance; And if any other man hath a better hope, I pray God he may not find a worse salvation: But surely God himself in his consultation how to save the Israelites, concludes to do it, not by their obedi­ence, but by their Faith and repentance, Jer. 3. 19. But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage? There's his con­sultation how to save them; And I said, thou shalt call me My Father, and shalt not turn away from me; there's his conclusion to save them by their Faith, and by their repentance; By their Faith, Thou shalt call me My Father; and by their repe [...] ­tance, Thou shalt no [...] tu [...]n away from me; that is, not so turn away, but thou shalt [Page 459] return again; and therefore this promise is not to be interpreted of their obedience, but of their repentance; he that is most obedient in some cases, cannot say he doth not turn away from God in other; but he that is truly penitent, can say it; for he is cordially turning to him in all; Thus was it with St. Peter; look upon the course of his obedience, you find him after his great­est undertakings, grievously turning a­way from our blessed Saviour; but look upon his repentance, you find him earnestly turning to him; Christ assured him his Faith should not fail, and yet he should deny him thrice; But we are sure his works failed, and may be as sure our own works will fail; so we must trust to our faith, not to our works, if we desire not to fail of our Justification.

18. And I would gladly know how your doctrine of justification by works can agree with these three Scripture ex­pressions, justified by his free grace, Rom. 3. 24. justified by Faith, Rom. 5. 1. and justified by his blood, Rom. 5. 9. For grace and works are set down as contra­ries mutually expelling one the other in the matter of Justification, Rom. 11. 6. If by Grace, then is it no more of works; [Page 460] otherwise Grace is no more Grace; But if it be of Works, then is it no more Grace; other­wise Work is no more Work; So also Christ and Works, Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness [...] come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vaine; So also Faith and Works, Rom. 3. 28. A man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law; so that to be justified by Works, is to be justified without Grace, without Christ, without Faith, unless we will make contraries not only abide but also agree one with another; whereas in the doctrine of Justification by Faith, all these expressions are as admirably recon­ciled among themselves, as they are powerfully and plainly used to set forth our reconciliation with God, For to be justified by Grace, and by Christ, and by Faith, are so far from being contraries, that they all speak one and the same truth; namely this, That we are justified through the free grace of Go [...], for the m [...]rit and b [...]ood of Christ, by a lively Faith ap­plying that blood unto our souls, and our souls un [...] our God: [...] a lively Faith is not wi [...]out works in the man [...] just [...]fi­eth, though it be in the act of jus [...]ificati­on; And therein it must be without [...]ks, that it may be with Christ; for if [Page 461] righteousnesse come by works, it cannot come by Christ.

19. And what a madnesse is it for frail and weak flesh, what a wickednesse is it for corrupt and sinful flesh, to set up its own instead of its Saviours righteousnesse? For though this doctrine may pretend to be most zealous for obedience, yet is it in truth most averse from it, nay most oppo­site against it; so saith the Apostle, Rom. 103. For they being ignorant of Gods righ­teousnesse, and going about to establish their own righteousnesse, have not submitted them­selves to the righteousnesse of God; This was a great disobedience in the Jews, but a greater in the Christians; for they might be ignorant of the righteousnesse of God, who knew not Christ; not so we who know him; Therefore if they in go­ing about to establish their own righte­ousness, did not submit unto the righte­ousness of God; then we by going about to establish our righteousness, must needs moreover wilfully resist and disobey Gods righteousness; And in vaine do we talk of any other obedience, whiles we are guilty of this resistance. Yet I fear he came very near this guilt who said that justification by Faith alone, was a [Page 460] [...] [Page 461] [...] [Page 462] most pestilent doctrine, (pestilentissimum dogma. Stap [...]eton qu. quodl. 3. c. 9. cum itaque) forgetting sure that St. Paul had fi st taught it; And they who de­nounced Anathema against those who maintain this doctrine, (si quis dixerit solâ fide impium justificari, Anathema sit, Concil. Trid. ses. 6. can. 9.) forgetting sure that St. Paul still maintained it; for their expurgatory Criticks durst not ex­punge this Position out of his Epistles, though they durst out of the Index made upon them; And this guilt must needs be very dangerous, if not fully damnable, because it labours to establish our own in­stead of our Saviours righteousness; for so the same Council, can. 11. si quis dixe­rit justificari homines solâ imputatione justitiae Christi, Anathema [...]it: If any say that men are justified only by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, let him be accurs­ed; Jesu God, didst thou give us thy righteousness to be imputed to us, to bless us by taking away the guilt of our sins, that in thee all the Nations of the earth might be blessed: (Gen. 22. 18.) and shall any Ministers of thy Gospel dare to curse us, for relying upon the imputation of thy righteousness? was [Page 463] not our sin made thine, that thy righte­ousness might be made ours? and how can it be made ours but by impu­tation? or why is it made ours by impu­tation but only for our Justification? so saith the Text expressely, 2 Cor. 5. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righ­teousnesse of God in him; As Christ was made sin for us, so we are made righte­ousnesse in Christ; neither the one nor the other by inherence; therefore both alike by imputation; for a third way is unimaginable; Therefore St. Au­gustine thus glosses the forecited text, Ipse peccatum, & nos justitia; nec nostra, sed Dei; nec in nobis, sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum, nec in se sed in nobis: He was made sin, and we were made righte­ousnesse, not our own but Gods righteousnesse, nor in our selves but in our Saviour; as he was made sin, not his own but our sin, nor in himself but in us: That is, in one word, we are so made the righteousnesse of God in him, as he was made sin for us, to wit by imputation: Therefore neither St. Paul nor St. Augustine, neither Scripture nor Church were much regarded by [Page 464] him, who made a meer scoffe of this im­putation, as if it were a phansied Chimera of mans invention, and not a real mercy of Gods Donation; And what else doth that argumentation import, urged by your great Doctor, si concupiscentia est verum peccatum, tum Christus non verè sed imputativè redemit nos a peccatis; (Bellar. de am. gr. lib. 5. c. 9.) If concu­piscence be a sin, then Christ hath not t [...]uely, bu [...] imputatively redeemed us from our sins: why did he say imputativè for putativè, imputatively for putatively, but only to perswade the world that im­putation is but a meer imagination? This seems to be the drift of his argument, to make good mans righteousnesse, as that which is not at all infected by original, and therefore may not be at all impaired by actual sin; and this is little lesse in the bu­siness of Justification, than to make void the righteousnesse of Christ. It was a wretchednesse to say Concupiscence is no sin in the regenerate, which St. Paul cal­led a sin in himself, above ten times to­gether, Rom. 7. But it was moreover a wickednesse, to say that Redemption by Christ might upon any pretence be called imputative, that is imaginary, (for so he [Page 465] is pleased to make the word signifie) which is the whole scope of Gods most holy word, and the only support and comfort of mens sinful souls: By the first assertion he did overmuch exalt our own righteousnesse, and took the ready course to bring us to presumption; But by the second he did much more depresse the righteousnesse of Christ, and so took the readie course to bring us to de­spair; (for if our redemption be ima­ginary, our Salvation must be desperate) And betwixt these two rocks of pre­sumption and despair, it is hard for any man to sail so warily as not to make shipwrack of his soul, it being equally dangerous for him to rely upon his own, and not to rely upon his Saviours righte­ousnesse: Without doubt holy David though he had served God with all his might, yet prayed to his dying day, En­ter not into Judgement with thy servant, and hath accordingly bequeathed this Prayer as a legacy to all Gods servants ever since (not excepting the most dili­gent and the most dutifull) thus to pray for their Justification; and then to pray most earnestly for it, when they are drawing neerest Judgement; That the [Page 466] Justification which they have now in title or sense of the Law, they may also then have in the sentence of the Judge, for that the one is not compleated without the other; and upon what ground can any man pray to God not to enter into Judgement with him, who knoweth him­self still under the Accusation and Con­demnation of the Law? (for the Judge must proceed according to the Law,) and how can he be exempted from the accu­sation and condemnation of the Law, who hath broken it himself, but by the satisfaction of his surety? according to that of the Apostle, Who is he that con­demneth? it is Christ that died, Rom. 8. 34. No other satifaction but the death of Christ could consist with the Justice of God; for that was indispen [...]a­ble and required it, no other could con­sist with the Truth of God; for that was infallible and had promised it; no other could consist with the Office of Christ, who took upon him the nature of man, that he might expiate the sins of men: no other could consist with our salvation, who could not be saved unless our sins had been exp [...]ated: This was a [...]urthen not to be taken from off our shoulders, [Page 467] a yoke not to be taken from off our necks, but only by the hand of the Mes­sias, in the Judgement of the Jews them­selves: for so the Chaldee Paraphrase in­terprets those words, Isa. 10, 27. The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Anoixt­ing, A facie Messiae, vel propter Mes­siam, [...] The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Messias; or by the power of Christ: Our own hands which brought it, cannot remove it; our own hands which made it, cannot destroy it; we may struggle till we break our necks, nay yet more our hearts, but we cannot break our yoke; The Spiritual Assyrian that so easily brought us down, can more easily keep us under; none can break his Army, but He that hath bruised his Head; none can rescue us from his captivity, but he that hath led captivity captive; even the Captain of our salvation: This is the Justification God promiseth to Is­rael, (and I hope you will not say he fails in promise, by giving another, or rather by giving none; for what is me­rited or purchased by us, is not given us) saying, O [...]srael trust in the Lord, for with the Lord there is mercy, and with him is [...] redemption; And he shall re­deem [Page 468] Israel from all his sins; Psal. 130. 7, 8. Say not you, he shall redeem Israel from some sins, when God saith from All: Say not you, From sins before re­generation, by the first, but not from sins after it by the second Justification; For as to such sins, the plenteous re­demption is not with the Lord but with Israel, and so you will quite contradict the Text. 1. In its exhortation, O Is­rael trust in the Lord; For Israel may trust in the Lord to be redeemed from his sins only till his regeneration, but in himself after it. 2. In its assertion, For with the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption; whereas tis rather to be said, (according to this suppositi­on) For with your selves there is merit, and with him is plenteous renumerati­on; or, with your selves is plenteous re­demption, to redeem you from your greatest sins, those committed against the greater light and with the greater unthankfulness, (for such are the sins after Regeneration,) But with the Lord is onely a [...]cantie redemp [...]ion to redeem you from sins before your Regeneration, when you neither had light to know them, nor power to resist them; By which [Page 469] means you do in effect bid Israel Trust in himself all his life long, and in God only some sew daies (or perchance hours,) sc. no longer then till he is Baptzed, or cleansed by the laver of Regeneration, since very few sober Christians, and no one National Church doth now defer the Baptism of Infants longer then their ve­ry first Infancy; and most Divines do think That Infants are regenerated when they are baptized. 3. You will contra­dict the text in its promise, And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins; for you in effect say That Israel shall redeem him­self from the greatest part of his own sins: Therefore pray let this Redempti­on continue till the last minute of your lives, till it be perfected by Glorificati­on, that it may redeem Israel from All his sins; And since it is a Redemption from all sin, pray let it be called Justifi­cation, unless you can teach us what else it is that redeemeth us from the guilt of sin: I will conclude this point with that prayer wherewith our blessed Saviour concludes his life, and hath taught us to conclude Ours, Into thy hands Lord I com­mend my Spirit; This is certainly the best & the last good work you can do, To com­mend [Page 470] your soul to God: Will you do this in your own righteousnesse? then say not, For thou hast redeemed me; but For I have served thee O God thou God of Truth. Will you do this in your Saviours righteousnesse? then be ashamed of that doctrine which doth undervalue this Re­demption: But do what you will, and say what you can, These three Truths are irresistible, and should be undeniable. 1. He only can absolve guiltinesse, whose Justice makes us Guilty. 2. He only can pronounce us Just, whose will is the rule of Justice. 3. He only can acquit in Judgement, who only is the supreme Judge; And therefore since to be absol­ved from guiltiness, to be pronounced Just, and to be acquitted in the Jugement, are all three comprised in this one word Justifi­cari, To be justified, we may not rely upon our selves but upon our God; not upon our own works and righteousnesse, but upon our Saviours merits and mer­cies for our Justification.

The Answer.

1. TIs unwarantable in Divines to make new work, but tis unsufferable, (if not unpardonable) in them to make new Divinity; They make new work when they raise needless contentions and strifes about words; They make new Di­vinity, when they contend for those Things which God hath not taught, or against those Things which God hath taught in his most holy Word: This last and worst Age of the world hath been guilty of both; and this your last excep­tion may justly seem to come under the suspicion of the same Guilt; For the first part of it makes new work, by raising a needlesse contention about words, Te­stament and Covenant, which in common Scripture use are meer Synonyma, signi­fying the same Thing; And the latter part of it would faine make new D [...]vinity, contending for such a new Covenant as is not, whiles it labours to set up the Old, instead of the New Covenant. 2. But what though Testament and Covenant are promiscuously taken in their common use, and have one and the same significa­tion? [Page 477] yet I hope in some peculiar respects they may have distinct notions, and so come under several considerations.

[...] and [...] P [...]esbyter and Bishop are promiscuously used in the New Testament; will you therefore turn Presbyte [...]ian and deny the distinct Of­fice and Function of Episcopacy?

[...] and [...] are promiscuous­ly used in the Monuments of the Church, this being in the first Ephesin Council the inscription of Ne [...]orius his Epistle to Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria [...], The Co­pie of the Epistle of Nestorius to Pope Cy­ril, (for Patriach) will you therefore turn Protestant, and deny the Supreme Jurisdiction now arrogantly challenged, and as insolently exercised in the Papacy? I hope though you cannot gainsay the promiscuous and common use, yet you will still maintain the distinct and pecu­liar considerations of these two words; And I ask no more about the [...]ow words Covenant and Testament, to vindicate this my observation from domestick imperti­nencie, and from forrein calum [...]e, which takes notice That Christ is called [...]he Me­diator of the New Testament, Heb. 9. 15. [Page 478] not the Mediator of the New Covenant as in other places. 3. For even your own Latin Interpreter though in the Books of Moses he commonly say Faedus orpactum, (as Gen. 17.) yet after them He doth much more delight in the word Testa­ment, then in the word Covenant; as Psal. 50. v. 5. Qui ordinant Testamentum ejus super sacrificia, not those who have made a Covenant, but those who have made a Testament with me by Sacrifice; looking through the Sacrifices of the Law, upon the Sacrifice of Christ, and in his death seeing that made a Testament, which was before but a Covenant; so again v. 16. Why takest thou my Covenant in thy mouth? Pactum meum, saith Pag­nine, and faedus meum, saith the Hebrew as before [...] my Compact or Cove­nant, but your Latin, Testamentum me­um, my Testament; And though Exod. 24. 7. he saith Volumen Faederis, the Book of the Covenant, yet Heb. 9. 4. he saith, Arcam Testamenti, The Ark of the Testament, notwithstanding the Ark was so called from the Book that was kept in it; therefore either he should have said the Book of the Testament, or he should not have said the Arke of the [Page 479] Testament; but as in Exodus he said The Book of the Covenant, so in the Hebrews, he should have said the Arke of the Co­venant, using the same word in both places, (as the Seventy Interpreters and ours do,) since both relate to the same Thing; I say not this to blame your In­terpreters, but to shew you upon what slight grounds you have blamed ours, and more particularly B [...]za for using the words Covenant and Testament promiscu­ously; for he did no more then your own Latin Translators had done before Him; Therefore since you have respect to the man with a gold ring in goodly apparel, that in your account weareth the rich clothing of Authority, equally with the Original Text it self, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place, (which how­ever the Ancient Fathers did vouch safe only to the Original Text, placing the Greek Testament, but not any Transla­tion of it on a Throne in the midst of their assembly in the four first general Councils) you may not justly say to the poor man in the vile raiment, (for such is Beza in your account, as being a Protestant Interpreter, though you put the Master upon him, that he may be [Page 480] thought a Gentleman rather then a Di­vine) stand thou here, or sit here under my footstool, unless you will be Partial in your self, and become a Judge of evil thoughts, James 2. 4. And yet even Beza himself prefers Testament before Covenant, in the Title to his Translation, saying Te­stamentum Novum, The New Testament, though he also adde, sive Novum faedus Domini nostri Jesu Christi, or the New Covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ, hap­ly to shew that Jews and Christians had but one and the same Covenant to be saved by, one and the same way of salva­tion, though under defferent forms of administration, and that was through our Saviour Christ, who was to them no less then to us, The way, the Truth, and the Life.

But to return again to your Interpre­ter, (for I left B [...]za to follow him, that [...] might say of Christ he was the Mediatour of the New Testament, not of the new Co­venant, Heb. 9. 15.) 'tis very observable that Exod 24. 8. he saith Hic est sanguis Faederis, This is the blood of the Covenant. But Mat. 26. 28. Hic (for Hoc) est san­guis Novi Testamenti, Tb [...] is the blood of the New Testament; Nay those very [Page 481] words of Moses which in Exodus he in­terprets sanguis faederis, The blood of the Covenant, Exod. 24. 8. in the Epistle to the Hebrews he interprets, sanguis Testa­menti, The blood of the Testament, Heb. 9. 20. Sure he saw either more efficacy or more comfort in the word Testament than in the word Covenant, or he would not have exchanged the one for the other in the Interpretation of the very same He­brew Text.

4. But why should I mention one sin­gle Interpreter (for so he is accounted, though he be made up of two interpreta­tions; the old Vulgar and St. Hieroms) when the whole Catholick Church re­cording the Books which contain the mysteries of our salvation, had rather call them the Old and the New Testament, ( [...]) Then the Old and New Covenant, ( [...],) seeking rather to bring the Law to be cal­led the Testament in compliance with the Gospel, then to permit the Gospel to be called the Covenant, in compliance with the Law: And indeed, though the He­brew word [...] be rather [...] a Co­venant between two parties both living, then [...] a Testament, which sup­poseth [Page 482] one party to be dead, yet the Sept. never interpret it by [...] a Co­venant, but by [...] a Testament; Sym­machus renders it [...] Psal. 44. 18. but the Sept. there also hold to [...] surely by some special Providence, and for some special reason; happily to shew us, That as all the Promises of God were Truth in Christ, so they were also Mer­cies in him; as in Christ Jesus every Pro­mise was Yea and Amen, so also in him alone it was such, as to make us say of it, Amen, so be it; even the Covenant of not drowning Noah with the world; Gen. 6. 18. (where this word is first used) and of not drowning the world any more, (Gen. 9.) was no mercy but in Christ, the promised seed, the Saviour of the world; For what mercy is it, not to perish by water, to be reserved to everlasting fire? to be suffered to prolong the pleasures of a sinful life, that we may encrease the torments of an eternal death? There­fore I conceive the seventy Interpreters in rendring the Hebrew Berith did make choyce of the word [...] which signi­fies a Testament, rather then of [...] which signifies a Covenant, that they might direct all mens thoughts and de­sires [Page 483] only to Christ, and fix all their hopes and delights upon him, for that the word Testament doth as expressely point at our Saviour Christs passion, as St. John Baptists finger did point at his Person, and doth in effect say what he said, Ecce Ag­nus Dei, Behold the Lamb of God that tak­eth away the sins of the world! for he took away ous sins, by his death, plainly presig­nified, and necessarily included in the word Testament, because that could not be ratified and confirmed without his death; For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Te­stator, Heb. 9. 16. But where a Covenant is, there must of necessity be the life of the Covenanter; Therefore if I will have the full comfort of the death of Christ, overcoming for me the sharpness of death, and opening to me the gates of everlasting life, and rescuing me from the guilt of sin, the terrors of hell, and the tyranny of the Devil; I must go to the Testament which tells me of Christs death, not to the Covenant which threatens mine own by shewing me the multiplyed offences of my sinful life: And in truth he that will deny this to be the proper signification of the word Testament, must [Page 484] also deny St. Pauls argument, which here depends wholly upon the proper signifi­cation of that word; And for this cause (saith the Apostle) He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the Promise of eternal inheritance; For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator, Heb. 9. 15, 16. He saith not the Mediator of the New Covenant, which supposeth the life of the Covenanter, but of the New Testament which supposeth the death of the Testator; and accordingly he placeth all the strength of his argu­ment in the word Testament, which by vertue of Christs death gave us redem­ption from transgressions, and admission to an eternal inheritance; So that we had need go to the Testament, not to the Covenant both for our Redemption and for our Inheritance: For the transgressions which were under the Old Covenant, that of works (here called the First Testament, because as it was repeated by Moses, it was not dedicated without blood, v. 18; 19.) could not be expiated, but by the Redemption that was under the New [Page 485] Testament; wherefore the Covenant puts us in fear of captivity and death, and 'tis only the Testament gives us hopes of li­berty and life; And accordingly the A­postle useth the word Testament of pur­pose to proclaime the abundant Grace and Goodnesse of God to mankind, that (after our fall) he was pleased to give us, not a Covenant, but a Testament; For a Covenant is a matter of strict Justice, having mutual conditions between both parties, which if either fail, the agree­ment is of none effect; But a Testament is a matter of more Grace, as being the conveyance of an inheritance without any harsh conditions imposed upon the Heires, and before any obliging offices performed by them; And such was the Act of God to us sinful men, when we had disabled our selves to performe the conditions of his Covenant; It was a Testament, to instate us in the right of Salvation by the death of our Redeemer; and therefore the Apostle sets it forth with the adjuncts and properties, not of a Covenant, but of a Testament; For the proper adjuncts of a Covenant are not Blood, and the Death of the Covenant-Maker, (which two alone are here men­tioned, [Page 486] since a Covenant is rather voided than established by death; but both these are the proper adjuncts of a Testament, which though made before the death of the Testator, yet is not established till after it, wherefore since our blessed Sa­viour did presignifie and promise his own death, and the effusion of his own blood by Typical Sacrifices, till he verified that Promise by the real Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross; the Spirit of God in this place, thought fit to make choice of the word Testament, whereby to express this Act of his free Grace and favour to­wards us; and sure no Minister of Gods Church may justly be questioned for speaking after the dialect of Gods Spirit.

5. For what should a sinful soul do but gaspe after Gods free Grace, ac­knowledging it to be Grace, because she is [...]worthy; and to be free Grace that she may not be uncapable of it; For as she may easily perish by opposing it, so she must necessarily perish by not obtaining it: And the desire of opposing Grace, must needs be a great impediment in ob­taining Grace; for God that gives Grace above our deserts, wil not give it against our desires: since it is expressely said, That God [Page 487] resisteth the proud, and therefore most re­sisteth those that are most proud, even the proud in spirit who dare capitulate with his Justice; but giveth Grace to the humble, and therefore most Grace to those who are most humble, even to the meek and lowly in heart, who rely whol­ly upon his mercy: And this conside­ration alone, (though you see it is not a­lone) was enough to make me say, and is enough to justifie my saying, I am afraid of the Covenant, and fly to the Testament; for by the Covenant I can look only for Justice, which I am afraid to find; but by the Testament I can look for mercy, which I desire to find here for the Comfort, hereafter for the Salvation of my soul; And if any be so hardy as to venter his soul upon the terms of Justice, I may al­low him to have the greater confidence; but I cannot allow him to have the greater Comfort, and I wish he may not have the lesser Salvation.

6. And whereas you tell me, Nay you your self are not afraid of the Covenant, but fly to it; for in your ejaculation 20. using S. Pauls words, Heb. 12. you say I am de­sirous to come to mount Sion, and to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant; I [Page 488] crave leave to tell you, that this objecti­on was farre fetcht, to shew you were willing to make it, and may be as deare bought, if I can shew you are not able to maintain it; For I was bound to alledge St. Pauls words as I found them transla­ted, that none might be mistaken in my allegation; and I found them thus tran­slated, To Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant; Therefore in that I alledged them so, I only shewed my self not afraid of the translation, but I might still for all that be afraid of the Covenant; For custome that ought to regulate speech, which is established by it, ought not to regulate conscience which it cannot esta­blish; The Word may be confined, where the Thought is at liberty; I speak for others, but I Think for my self; there­fore I must speak according to Custome, and yet may still think according to Con­science; But I will not plead Custome when I may justly plead Comfort; for in these words is nothing at all to terrifie my soul, but very much to comfort and to settle it; For it is said, The Mediatour of the New Covenant, which is every jot as comfortable as the Mediatour of the New Testament; for it directs our hearts [Page 489] as immediately to our blessed Saviour; since as the New Testament was confirmed, so the New Covenant was signed and sealed with his Blood, the only Balme to heal wounded Spirits, the only Anchor to set­tle floating consciences; Nay yet more, here is Jesus expressely named, To Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant; so that if I were afraid of the New Covenant (as you may justly be, who seem to make it all one with the Old) yet I ought not to be afraid of Jesus the only Author, Preserver and Redeemer of my life, the only joy and blessing and comfort of my death; You say I am not afraid of the Covenant; I know I am not afraid of Je­sus; nor do I say, I am desirous to come to Mount Sinai, where the Covenant properly so called was repeated, but to Mount Sion, where the Testament pro­perly so called is really fulfilled, and the inheritance conveyed thereby is actually possessed; And the words that I quoted, import no lesse, I am desirous to come to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant; For the reason of my desire is, because He is the Mediatour of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, not of the Old Co­venant, the Covenant of Justice, or of [Page 490] works, for Moses was the Mediatour of that, at least as it was renewed on Mount Sinai,) but of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, whereof Jesus was the Maker, to put Mercy in it; and is the Mediatour, to put me into that Mercy: Thus you see it is a threefold Cord, twisted with Custome, Conscience and Truth, as with three twists; which la­bours to pull down this your Objection, the Custome of speech, the Comfort of conscience, and the Truth of the Gospel, all three concurring together to make me say, I am desirous to come to Jesus the Me­diatour of the New Covenant; and seeing, this, I suppose you will no longer seek to maintain such an Objection; for 'tis not ingenuous to stand against Custome, not Religious to stand against Conscience, not Honest to stand against Truth.

7. And thus much in answer to the Verbal part of your exception, whereby you have made me some new Work; I now come to the real part of it, whereby you seem very willing to make some new Divinity; for if it be not True, it must be called New, by that infallible Rule, Id verum quod primum, That is Trust which is Oldest, as coming immediately from the [Page 491] Ancient of dayes, or from the first Truth: ‘For in very deed (say you,) Christs New Testament is no other than a new conditional Covenant with us, by which we are bound, cooperating with his Grace, to do very many things our selves, for the obtaining of the promi­sed inheritance, wherein if we fail, we shall never attain thereto:’ which seems to me a very strange Assertion, for so you have vented it; and yet a more strange definition, for so you seem to in­tend it: The Assertion is strange, be­cause it is Authentical, and yet withal Ambiguous, such as may be much admired, but little approved; For he that will speak positively, ought not to speak doubtfully, as you are positive in denoun­cing the irrecoverable losse of Heaven, but doubtful in declaring by what means we may prevent that losse; you speak with authority enough to terrifie us, but not with perspicuity enough to instruct us: You say plainly, ‘We are bound to do very many things for the obtaining of the promised inheritance, wherein if we fail we shall never attain thereto:’ But you say not one word concerning any of those things wherein we are bound [Page 492] not to faile; So you put our Salvation upon unknown conditions, which is the way to fill our souls with perplexity in­stead of piety; and since what is not known, cannot be done, you may also put our Salvation upon impossible condi­tions, which is the way to turne our per­plexity into desperation, our desperation into damnation.

8. And I think this is enough to prove it a strange Assertion; for it doth not ex­plaine, but rather obscure the thing defin­ed, as agreeing more with the Old than with the New Covenant; For put Moses his Old Testament, instead of Christs New Testament, and you shall not need change any one particle of the whole definition; but it will all agree with the one as well as with the other, and so it may go after this manner, For in very deed, Moses his Old Testament is no other than an old con­ditional Covenant with us, by which we are bound, cooperating with Gods Grace, to do very many things our selves for the obtain­ing of the promised inheritance, wherein if we fail, we shall never attain thereto: So that you have given us a Definition that will fit the Old Covenant as well as the New, and therefore truly fit neither, [Page 493] since it cannot fit both, which must needs be a very strange definition, confound­ing that Covenant it should explaine, for which cause it is Unlogical, very strange to reason; and making that one Cove­nant which God hath made two Cove­nants, for which cause it is Untheological, very strange to Religion; For he which hath said, Those things which God hath joyned together let not man put asunder, Mat. 19. 6. hath thereby said (according to the rule of Contraries,) Those things which God hath put a sunder, let not man joyne together.

And God hath put the Old and the New Covenant as farre asunder, as he hath put Heaven and Hell: as he hath put Salvation and Damnation: For by the Old Covenant Do this and live, all man­kind after the Fall, must have perished; there's the Damnation; But by the new Covenant, Believe and thou shalt live; none that lay hold on Christ and keep with him, and stick to him, shall perish; there's the salvation: For S. Paul hath told us expressely, that God will judge the World, not by the Law which will condemn the most innocent and the most righteous, since the losse of our first in­nocen'cy [Page 492] [...] [Page 493] [...] [Page 494] and righteousness, but by the Gospel, which will condemn only the un­repenting and unbelieving sinner; In the day that God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel, Rom. 2. 16. never any yet, though he had a most innocent hand, had so innocent an heart that he durst say, his secret thoughts were innocent; wherefore he must needs be condemned in the Judgement, if God should Judge him according to the Law, and not according to the Gospel: Nor yet will the Gospel acquit him if he be not innocent, any more than the Law will acquit him, because it hath the same pre­cepts of innocency with the Moral Law, according to which precepts the last Judgement will be given and pro­nounced; only it will accept of his inno­cency by Faith and Repentance, whereas the Law will accept only of his innocency by perfect Obedience. The Judgement is not like to be the lesse righteous for be­ing according to the Gospel, but the more merciful; because though Jesus Christ in Judging us will proceed according to the Rule of the Law, (which is the same with the Rule of the Gospel) yet he will not proceed according to the Covenant of the [Page 495] Law, Do this and live, but according to the Covenant of the Gospel, Believe and thou shalt be saved.

10. For the Moral Law is to be consi­dered as a Rule of Righteousness, Do this; and as a Covenant of Life, Do this and live; (as if it said You shall not live un­less you do this:) The Law as a Rule of Righteousness, Do this, is repeated and reenforced in the Gospel; but as a Cove­nant of Life, intimating we shall not live unlesse we do this, it is abolished by the Gospel. And so much of the Gospel was revealed to the Jews even whiles they were detained under the Law, as to let them see they were not saved or deliver­ed, because they had performed the Duty, but because God would performe the Mercy of his Covenant; for this is the only reason that is given of their deliver­ance out of Egypt, God remembred his Co­venant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob, Exod. 2. 24. which is farther ex­plained and confirmed by the Prophet Ezekiel, in his story of their rebellions in Egypt, in the Wilderness, and in the land of Canaan, Ezek. 20. where all along the reason of Gods saving and de­livering them, is only his own unde­served [Page 496] goodness and mercy; For when he looked upon their breaking the Con­ditions, then it follows, I said I will pour out my fury upon them, ver. 8, 13, 21. But when he looks upon his own Promise in the Covenant, then it follows, But I wrought for my names sake, ver. 9, 14, 22. Throughout the whole Chapter there is a kind of dispute, betwixt Gods Justice and his Mercy; His Justice calling for their destruction, but his Mercy inter­ceding for their deliverance: And this God would have registred not only by way of doctrine for their instruction, but also by way of praise and thanksgiving for their Devotion; Hence we find it also recorded in the Psalmes, which were the chiefest part of their Liturgy, as Psal. 89. If they break my Statutes, and keep not my Commandements, ver. 32. Neverthelesse my Covenant will I not break, ver. 34. And again, Psal. 106. ver. 23. He said he would have destroyed them; why did he not performe his saying? Moses his chosen stood before him in the gap; and if we look into Exod. 30. we shall find that Moses stood in the gap and besought God by three arguments. 1. By his former benefits which would be lost, ver. 11. but that [Page 497] prevails not, because they had abused them. 2. By his own glorious Name, which would be dishonoured among the Egyptians, vers. 12. but niether doth that prevail; for better his Name be dis­honoured among his Enemies then among his Servants. 3. By his Promises made to the Fathers, ver. 13. and that alone prevailed; for after that it presently fol­lows, And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people, v. 14. The cause of their Salvation is wholly imputed to Gods goodnesse, which made him promise them mercy before they were his Servants, and shew them mer­cy after they had revolted from his Ser­vice: And though Christians are grown so wan'on as to dallie with Christ, or so bold as to contest with him about their Salvation; yet tis clear the Jews did look to be saved only by their Messias, which is the same with our Christ: For their Faith passed through the blood of all their own daily Sacrifices to the Blood of Christ, to which they had relation, and from which they had their virtue; as appears from the Title of the 22. Psalm, as 'tis explained in the Chaldee Paraphrast, A Psalm to praise God withall [Page 498] at or for the powerful and perpetual oblation of the morning; shewing that this Psalm was given to the Priests and Levites, that it should be sung by them every morning to direct all their thoughts unto, and fix all their hops upon the death and passion of Christ (whereof this Psalm was rather a History then a Prophecy) through whom alone all their oblations were powerfull, and for whom they were Perpetual; through whom they were accepted, and for whom they were continued.

11. And this the Jews themselves did know very well, or else their Priests and their Scribes could not so readily have answered, That Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, and have cited the Prophecie of Micah to justifie their answer, (Mat. 2.) For thus it is written by the Prophet, And thou Bethlehem in the Land of Judah art not the least; The Prophet had said, Thou art the least, sc. in thy self; but they said, and St. Matthew from them, Thou art not the least, sc. in relation to Christ, who was the Gouernour to come from thence, (for thus both sayings are true in several respects,) And since 'tis very pro­bable that the Priests and Scribes them­selves first made this change, and that [Page 499] St. Matthew only related the same as he found they had made it; Tis evident that even in those times of greatest blindness They had light enough to see Christ, though they had not Grace enough to re­ceive Him; Thus they looked unto Christ in all their worship which shews they hoped for Salvation more from their Faith then from their Obedience, even whiles they were held under the Law as the Covenant of Obedience; And therefore by the same reason they could not but also hope for salvation, more from their Repentance then from their Righteousnesse, because their Faith in Christ being commanded and accepted, did shew the relaxation of the Law as it was the Covenant of Obedience, and consequently did promise the acceptance of unfained repentance, instead of im­pe [...]able Righteousnesse; Hence that General Rule of one of their greatest Doctors (R. David Kimchi, upon Jo­nah 3. 9.) Omne verbum quod loquitur Deus malefacere filiis hominum, est sub conditione si non refipuerint, [...], Every word which God speaketh threatning to do hurt to the sons of men, is to be understood with this condition, [Page 500] If they do not repent; so that the curses for transgressing the Moral Law, which were incurred through default of Obedi­ence, were not inflicted but for defect of repentance, and that even under the Law, whiles it remained in its greatest force, as the Covenant of works and of Obedience; For even then was it a part of the Jews Faith to believe, and of their Religion to give thanks after this manner, Praise the Lord O my Soul, and all that is within me praise his holy name; Praise the Lord O my soul, and forget not all his benefits; which forgiveth all thy sin, and healeth all thine infirmities, which saveth thy life from de­struction, and crowneth thee with mercy and loving kindness; Psal. 103. What better Faith can any Christian have, then to believe that God (for Christs sake) forgiveth all the sins he hath committed, healeth all the infirmities he hath con­tracted, saveth his life from the destru­ction he hath deserved; And what bet­ter Thanks giving can any Christian use, then to say, Praise the Lord O my soul, and all that is within me praise his holy Name, Praise the Lord O my soul, and forget not all his benefits.

12. So that if Christians will not go to [Page 501] the Gospel, they may go to the Law; if they will not go to the New, they may go to the Old Testament for a mitigation of the Covenat of works; for even un­der the Law was a mixture of the Cove­nant of Grace, Teaching salvation by Faith and Repentance; For indeed pre­sently after the fall of Adam, whereby man had not onely broken the Covenant of works, made Gen. 2. 17. but had al­so disabled himself for ever keeping it, God was in mercy pleased to establish the Covenant of Grace, and with it a new hope of Salvation in the promised seed, Gen. 3. 15. though he thought fit afterwards again by Moses, to re­peat the Covenant of works, (Exod. 19. 5.) and to hold the Jews a long time under it, through the Pedagogie of the Law, that he might prepare the souls of men, by acknowledging their own sinful­nesse, to hunger and thirst after his righ­teousnesse, and by seeing how short they came of the Covenant of works, to fl [...]e for refuge to the Covenant of Grace; For neither did the Jews themselves ob­tain Salvation by the Covenant of works, which they did outwardly and openly professe in the Moral Law, but by the Co­venant [Page 502] of Grace which they did covertly profess in the Ceremonial Law, pointing directly at the death of Christ in its Sa­crifices: For God himself hath told us, That the Jews continued not in the Co­venant he made with their Fathers when he brought them out of Egypt, that is, the Covenant of works, and therefore he had Promised by his Prophet Jeremi [...] such a Covenant to the Christians where­in they should be able to continue, even the Covenant of Grace.

13. For this is the main scope and drift of the Holy Ghost, Heb. 8. to shew that Christ was the Mediator of a better Covenant or Testament then that whereof Moses had been the Mediator, because Christs Testament was establish­ed upon better Promises: v. 6. For the first or the old Covenant by Moses, had in it such dark promises as through man [...] ignorance could not well be uderstood, and such hard conditions as through mans infirmity were not possible to be kept; and this he proves, first from the effect, They continued not in my Cove­nant. 2. From the sad consequent there­of, and I regarded them not vers. 9. But the second or the New Covenant by [Page 503] Christ, had such plain and clear promises as might well be understood, and such easie conditions as might well be kept, which accordingly he proves from the manner of Gods giving the second Co­venant, and from the Covenant that was given. 1. From the manner of Gods giving the second Covenant, which was not outward according to the letter that killeth, but inward according to the Spi­rit that giveth life; I will put my Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, v. 10. that is, I will give them an understanding to know me, and a will to love me; so that this Covenant being not given without the Spirit of Grace, is very fitly called the Covenant of Grace, because there is Grace given with it enabling us to keep it; which is very well hinted in that expression of yours, cooperating with his Grace. 2. From the Covenant that was given, wherein the Promise was, I will be their God, The condition was, They shall be my people: which Covenant of Grace though it had been made with Adam, Gen. 3. and explained to Abraham, Gen. 17. and confirmed to Isaac and Jacob, long before the giving of the Law, yet was [Page 504] afterwards so obscured and darkned by the Repetition of the Covenant of works under the Law by Moses, That the Covenants of the Old and of the New Testament, are considered by St. Paul as Two several Covenants; and that first by Moses is looked on as the worser; this second by Christ as the better Covenant; for if that First Covenant had been fault­less, then should no place have been sought for the second; For finding fault with them, he saith, I will make a new Covenant; v. 7, & 8. A new Covenant, though not ab­solutely in it self, yet comparatively in re­gard of us; and that not only in the Ad­ministration, but also in the very Expres­sion; both according to its promise, and according to its condition; For though the substance of the Covenant be the same both to Jew and Christian, as to Gods intention, promising salvation to both alike, only in and through our most blessed Redeemer, yet because of its different expressions, it may nor be called the same in their apprehensions; for it was neither apprehended nor re­ceived by them as the same. For surely the Christian can not but think, that he hath both better Promises and better condi­tions, [Page 505] and consequently a better Cove­nant then the Jew, since these two are the parts of a Covenant; For all shall know me saith God, vers. 11. to comfort the Christian against his Ignorance; And I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesse; ver. 12. to comfort him against his In­firmities: whereas the Law did only shew the Jew his Ignorance and his Infirmity, but did remedy neither: And upon this account the Spirit of God saith of our blessed Saviour, That he is the Mediator of a better Covenant; better not only ac­cidentally or extrinsecally, for the burden that is taken from it, and for the Grace that is given with it; but also better for­mally and intrinsecally (after some sort) for the better promises and better con­ditions that are given in it; For to the Jew who had Moses his veil cast over his face, and Moses his yoke cast upon his neck, the promise of the Covenant was clouded with darknesse, and the Condi­tion of the Covenant was clogged with difficulties, nay indeed with impossibili­ties; But to the Christian, to whom that Veil is don away, and from whom that Yoke is taken away in Christ, both the Promise is clear and the Condition is [Page 506] easie; He hath told us so, who made it so, My yoke is easie and my burden is light; Matth. 11. 30. For the promise of a Re­deemer which was only foretold and pre­figured to the Jew, is verified to the Christian; and the condition of perfect Obedience which was enjoyned to them, is fulfilled for us; That Obedience which Moses required of the Jews, Christ hath performed for the Christians, accord­ing to that of the Apostle, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth, Rom. 10. 4. What is the end of the Law but righteousnesse? even perfect righteousnesse? And the true believer hath that both positively from the imputation of Christ righteousnesse, and negatively from the non-imputation, or from the remission of his own unrigh­teousnesse. Therefore it is no wonder that the Covenant under the Law and the Covenant under the Gospel are consi­dered as two several Covenants, and that under the Gospel is called the Bet­ter; for that Covenant must needs be better which promiseth Salvation upon a possible, then that which promiseth it up­on an impossible condition; And such i [...] the Covenant of the Gospel or the Co­venant [Page 507] of Grace, promising Salvation upon Faith and Repentance; whereas the Covenant of the Law or the Cove­nant of works did promise Salvation on­ly upon perfect Obedience.

14. And hence it is That St. Paul dis­putes so eagerly against the Law, calling it our Gaoler to shut us up in prison, Gal. 3. 23, Our Scholemaster to keep us under the Rod, Gal. 3. 24. Our Accuser to work wrath, Rom. 4. 15. nay our Executioner to minister death and con­demnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 9. not speaking of the Law materially as it is in it self, but Formally as it was then in its use; For the Law in it self is the rule of Justice and Holinesse, even an undefiled Law, con­verting the Souls both of Jews and Chri­stians, and in that respect the very end and scope of the Gospel. 1. And if we thus consider the Law, tis all one to be Anti­nomian and to be Antichristian: But the Law in its use to the Jew was a Covenant of life and Salvation, requiring of him perfect Obedience if he would be saved, and in that respect (besides that it en­gaged to ritual observances) the Law stood in opposition against the Gospel. 2. And if we thus consider the Law, we [Page 508] must be Antinomian, that we may not be Antichristian: wherefore the same Apostle St. Paul entring a comparison between the Ministers of the Law and of the Gospel, proveth that the Ministery of the Gospel is so far more excellent then the Ministery of the Law, as the Gospel of life and liberty is more glori­ous then the Law of death and condem­nation; 2 Cor. 3. For saith he, the Law or the Old Testament, was only exter­nal, of the letter that killeth; But the Gospel or the New Testament is internal, of the Spirit that giveth life, ver. 6. 3. The Law was of the letter, shewing us our duty, and killing us for not doing it: The Gospel is of the Spirit, giving us grace to do our duty, and life for do­ing it: So excellent is the New Testament above the Old, in its conditions: Again, The Law was obscure, as it were vailed with Types and shadows, with a kind of curtain before it, that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of it, because their minds were blinded, and even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart, v. 13, 14, 15. But the Gospel is clear and perspicuous, making us with open face behold a [...] in a [Page 509] glass, the glory of the Lord, v. 18. So ex­cellent also is the New Testament above the Old in its Promises; Therefore to confound the Gospel with the Law, or the New with the Old Testament, is to confound light with darknesse, life with death, liberty with bondage.

15. This made St. Paul so vehement­ly expostulate with, or rather exclaime against the Galathians, saying, Tell me ye that desire to be under the Law, do you not heare the Law? Gal. 4. 21. He justly up­braids them with desiring it (saith St. Chrys.) [...], For it was not a thing that had been of his Preaching, but only of their own phan­sying; not a thing that God required, but that themselves desired; not a matter of their Obligation, but only of their Con­tention, to be under the Law, as it was a Covenant of Life and Salvation; and ac­cordingly he confutes this their desire even by the Law it self; shewing that if they looked into the Allegory therein de­livered by Moses, they would find as great a difference betwixt the Old and the New Testament, as was betwixt Abra­hams two wives, Agar and Sarah; which [Page 510] represented the said two Testaments: For as Abraham had two wives, the one a bond woman, the other a free woman; so God had made two Covenants or Te­staments with mankind, the one under the Law which gendred unto bondage; the other under the Gospel, which hath free born children; These are the two Co­venants, ver. 24. And as Agar though accounted fruitful, yet brought but a small progeny to Abraham by Ishmael, whereas Sarah who was looked upon as barren, brought a great progeny to him by Isaac; So the Old Testament brought forth children to God only in the con­fines and precincts of Judea, but the New Testament is fruitful over the face of the whole Earth; Therefore it is said, Rejoyc [...] thou barren that bearest not; for the deso­late, that is, The Christian Church re­presented by Sarah, hath many more chil­dren than she which hath an husband, that is the Jewish Synagogue represented by Agar, ver. 27. And as Agar had children borne after the flesh, or according to the course of nature. But Sarah had children born after the Spirit, or by vertue of Gods Promise; So the Old Testament (for what appeared in the letter) had [Page 511] nothing but the ordinary strength of na­ture to bring forth children; but the New Testament hath the extraordinary Grace of God; Now we brethren as Isaac was, are the children of Promise, ver. 28. Again, as Ismael was of an unquiet and malicious disposition, hating and persecuting his brother Isaac; So those who look to be saved by the Old Testament, trusting to themselves and the endowments of na­ture, do scoffe and persecute those who look to be saved by t [...]e New Testament, trusting to their Saviour, and the endow­ments of his Grace; As then he that was borne after the flesh, persecuted him that was borne after the spirit, even so it is now, ver. 29. Lastly, As Ismael was at length cast out of his Fathers house, and Isaac was made his sole heire, so those that rely up­on Moses and look to be saved by the Old Testament, will be excluded out of Gods family; whereas those who rely upon Christ, and look to be saved by the New Testament, will without doubt be admitted to his heavenly iuheritance; Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heire with the son of the free-woman, ver. 30.

16. But why should I labour to add [Page 512] light to the Sun-beam, the most glorious beam of the Sun of Righteousness; for by the consent of all Christians, the very ground upon which Christianity is justi­fied against Judaisme, is this, That the Old Testament delivereth but the figure and the shadow of the New; wherefore we can go to the Old Testament only for the fi­gure and shadow, we must come to the New Testament for the body & substance both of our Religion and of our Salvation.

So vast a difference is there betwixt the Old and the New Testament, both in Gods and in his Churches account; yet you seem to confound these two Testa­ments by saying, The New Testament is a conditional Covenant by which we are bound to do very many things our selves for the obtaining of the promised inheritance, where­in if we fail, we shall never obtain the same; For this definition placeth the obtaining of our inheritance, not in Believing, but in Doing; whereas perfect obedience was the condition of Salvation in the Old, but Faith is the condition of Salvation in the New Testament; There the primum Praedicatum, the first thing Preached, was Do this and live; Here the primum Praedicatum, the first thing Preached, is [Page 513] Repent for not doing, and Believe in him that hath done it, and you shall live. There perfect obedience was not only the obligation of the persons Covenanting, but also the condition of the Covenant; here though it is still the obligation of the persons Covenanting, (for God hath not lost his right of cluiming, nor Gods Law her power of requiring perfect obe­dience) yet is it not the condition of the Covenant; for the New Testament pro­miseth life upon true Faith, which the Old. Testament promised only upon full and perfect obedience; and though it bids us obey as well as the Old, yet it an­nexes not the conveyance of life upon our Obeying, but upon our Believing, re­quiring our obedience as a duty of Right­teousness; but not making it the conditi­on of life; And whereas you say, The New Testament is a conditional Covenant, bind­ing us to do very many things our selves, for obtaining the promised inheritance, I chal­lenge you to name that one thing to which you dare annex your Fac & vives, Do this (as you ought to do it) and live, upon doing of which, (so exactly and perfectly as Gods Law requires,) you dare be so hardy as to venture your soul, or so easie as to hazard your Salvation; [Page 514] I doubt not but you will be glad to admit of a mitigation, and pray God to accept of your serious endeavour instead of your exact performance; and of your true Re­pentance instead of your due Obedience; and of your Saviours compleat doing it for you, instead of your incompleat doing it for your self; and then your Fac & Vives, will be but our Crede & Vives; your do this and live, will be but our Believe in him that hath done it and live; and you will become one of those Evangelical brethren whom your proud Justitiaries now so scoffe at; or having broken the condition of the Covenant, that is perfect Obedience, you must be contented to lose the Promise of the Covenant, that is, eternal Salvation; for your self have approved that saying, (which I think no Divine is able to dis­prove,) A Covenant doth wholly depend upon mutual conditions, which if either par­ty fa [...]l, the Covenant is broken and made of none effect: which was the reason as­signed by me, why I was afra [...]d of the Co­venant, and did fly to the Testament, because I found better Conditions in the Testa­ment (properly so called) than in the Covenant; and 'tis something strange, you should at the same time dislike my Do­ctrine [Page 515] about the Testament, and yet ap­prove the reason of it about the Cove­nant; For my part, I cannot but think it neerly concernes all Christian Divines, as the Trustees of Gods Truth and of their neighbours souls, (least they should betray them both together) not to clog Christs Covenant of Salvation with im­possible conditions, such as God hath not required, and man cannot performe, even with the conditions of impeccable righteousness, and perfect obedience in and from themselves, which have been fulfilled and are to be expected only in and from their Saviour: For he that said to his Apostles, Docentes eos servare omnia quaecunque mandavi vobis, Mat. 28. 20. did likewise say to one of them, and in him to all the rest, Testificans Judaeis atque gentibus, in Deum poeni­tentiam, & fidem in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Act. 20. 21. He that said by St. Matthew, Teaching them to ob­serve all things whatsoever I have com­manded, to make his people zealous of good works, did also say by St. Luke, te­stifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, to make his [Page 516] people see their works were not so good but that they needed Faith and Repen­tance to make them better; and there­fore God though in Justice he required their most perfect obedience, perfect in parts according to the Tenour of all his Commandements, and perfect in degrees, according to the rigour of them, yet he was pleased in mercy to accept the will for the deed, sincere obedience for per­fect obedience, the entire endeavour for the full performance, and had according­ly in this Covenant of Grace annexed their Salvation not to the condition of their perfect obedience as in the Cove­nant of works, but to the condition of their Faith in Christ who was made obe­dient to the death, even the death of the Crosse, to make an atonement for their disobedience: Both the Covenants were made with Adam for all mankind; the Covenant of Works before his fall, the Covenant of Grace soon after it; And though they were very neer joyned in time, (for Adam is generally thought not to have stood one full day in his in­nocency,) yet are they very farre sepa­rated in nature, even as farre as Justice and Mercy in God, or innocency and sin [Page 517] in man; the one Covenant being to save the Righteous by the Rules of Justice, the other being to save the sinner by the pleas of Mercy: The Covenant renewed to the Jews by Moses was that of Works, to keep them in bondage that they might gaspe and sigh and groan after their Re­deemer; The Covenant renewed to the Christians by our Saviour Christ, is that of Grace, to enstate them in libertie, that they may see the Mercy and enjoy the Comfort of their Redemption. What was of Grace or Mercy in the Covenant by Moses, was not from Moses but from Christ: Not from the Covenant, but from the Testament; and therefore that was properly called a Covenant, because it gave life only upon the strict Rules of Justice; But this is more properly called a Testament, because it gives life upon the relaxation of those strict Rules of Justice, and admits the condescensions and miti­gations of mercy: Each Covenant is Conditional, promising everlasting life only to those who keep its Conditions; Bur the Covenant of Works promiseth life upon the Condition of Doing, accept­ing only of perfect Righteousness and Obedience; The Covenant of Grace [Page 518] promiseth life upon the Condition of Believing, accepting of Righteousness and Obedience, if it be sincere, though it be not perfect; that is, Accepting of Repen­tance for Obedience, and of Faith for Righteousness: So that the New Testa­ment by Christ, though it be a conditi­onal Covenant as was the Old by Moses, yet hath it not the same Condition with that, (as your words import) but a Con­dition quite different from it; sc. the Condition of Believing, instead of doing: For so it is said, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities, Act. 3. 26. In that our Jesus came to bless us by turning us from our iniquities, 'tis evident we must turn from our sins, or we cannot have his blessing; But in that 'tis He that blesseth us, 'tis as evi­dent our blessing depends not upon our Obedience, but upon our Faith; not up­on our Own, but upon His Righteousness: Wherefore though we allow and affirme, that all things must be done by Christi­ans which Christ hath commanded, and that Christ hath commanded all the mo­ral duties, that were before commanded by Moses, (for, Be ye perfect even as your [Page 419] Father which is in heaven is perfect, Mat. 5. allows not a lesse, but rather requires a greater perfection under the Gospel than under the Law,) yet we dare not take our Personal doing, that is, our doing by our selves for the condition of the New Covenant, as if our Salvation de­pended upon that, but only our Virtual Doing, that is, our Doing by our blessed Sa­viour, whose obedience is made ours by the power of Faith; or our hearty desire of Doing, and sorrow for not Doing, which is accepted as Obedience by the power of Repentance; Bona opera per peccata mortificata reviviscunt per poenitentiam, is the general Tenent of the School, good works that have been buried by sin, are re­vived by Repentance; As our sins have power to bury our good works, so our Repentance hath power to raise them up again; which clearly shews it is not our Righteousnesse, but only our Repentance that is above our sins; For our Righte­ousnesse may be overcome and conquer­ed by our sins, but our sins cannot be overcome and conquered by our Righ­teousness, (we must go to our blessed Redeemer for that conquest,) but only by our Repentance. 17. Wherefore I will [Page 520] make bold to change your definition and say, Christs New Testament is a new con­ditional Covenant with us, by which we are bound to repent for not perfectly doing all those things our selves, which God hath com­manded us, and to believe in him that hath perfectly done them all for us, that we may obtain the promised inheritance; in which condition if we fail, (sc. of believing, but not of Doing) we shall never attain there­to, for to put Doing (properly so taken, and 'tis not for a Divine to speak impro­perly) as the Condition of life or Salva­tion, is to set up the Covenant of Works, not the Covenant of Grace, and that is to puzzle, not to Preach true Christianity: We find Adam had but one poor Com­mandement upon the first Covenant, viz. Not to eat of the fruit of one single Tree among so many, and he kept it not though he was endued with strength to keep it; he was to do but one thing whiles he had his perfect strength, and he did it not; And how can you say, that a better Covenant binds us to do many things, or else to forfeit our inheritance, now we have lost our strength, and are not able to do rightly and perfectly so much as one? Therefore pray let the Condition [Page 521] of life in the second Covenant, not be our Doing, but our Believing; not our entire Obedience, but our entire Repentance; And let him alone have the glory of per­fect Obedience, who came from Heaven to purchase it: and the rather because he purchased it, not for himself but for us, allowing the benefit of it to his Ser­vants, though he reserve the glory of it only to himself: we must do the best we can to keep off, and to east out the great Dragon, that old Serpent called the De­vil and Satan; but pray let it be only the seed of the Woman that shall break this Serpents Head; and let not us think we are able to break it. Nor have you made the condition of Salvation any whit lighter or easier by saying we are bound to do many things our selves, then if you had said we are boun [...] to do all things; For if Doing be the condition of life, it must reach to All Things that are to be done; else not Doing will be the Condition as well as Doing: And without doubt, if we can do any one thing so exactly and perfectly as fully to satisfie the Obligati­on of the Law, we may do many, and consequently All, and then what need we the seed of the Woman to break the [Page 522] Serpents Head, since we can break it our selves? for if we can take away his sting, we may easily break his Head; Now the sting of the Serpent is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law: Therefore if the Law be fully kept, sin can have no strength, and the Serpent can have no sting.

I do not think there is in all Christen­dom so religious a Votarie but will con­fesse that the old Serpent hath at some time or other by his sophistry beguiled him, with his venome defiled him, by his power overcome him, and that there­fore in himself he hath been captivated under Ignorance, guiltinesse, and infir­mity, even through his actual sins, and should still have been detained under that captivity, if God had not merciful­ly given him such a Redeemer who was pleased to be his Prophet to instruct his Ignorance, his Priest to expiate his guil­tiness, and his King to strengthen his In­firmities; If he confesse this, he hath great reason to mistrust his own doing: If he confesse it not, He hath the greater reason to instruct himself. For his igno­rance keeping him from the knowledge of what he is to do, his guiltiness keeping [Page 523] him from the desire, and his weaknesse keeping him from the power of doing it, he cannot hope to be saved by his Obedi­ence, but by his Faith; not by his Doing, but by his Believing, Thus St. Paul preached the Covenant of Grace, saying, He was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, accord­ing to the Faith of Gods Elect, and the ac­knowledgement of the Truth which is after Godlinesse; there's the Obligation to righ­teousness in the Covenant of Grace; But this righteousnesse is not the condition of life in that Covenant; for it follows, In hope of eternal life which God that can­not lye promised before the world began, Tit. 1. 1, 2. The eternal life is not annex­ed to mans performance, but to Gods pro­mise; not to mans duty, but to Gds mer­cy: For this promise of eternal life was made before man was created, and it was made to Christ, (the eternal Son of God,) on mans behalf, That all who should believe in him according to the Faith of Gods Elect, and the acknowledgement of the Truth which is after Godliness, should through that Faith come to eternal life: Upon this Promise did God seek us when we were lost, restore us when we were dead, reconcile us when we were his ene­mies, [Page 524] and upon this same promise will he save us now we are his Servants: For though all men are lyars and fail of their Godliness, yet God that cannot lye will not fail of his promise; Thus again saith the same St. Paul, For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son; much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life, Rom. 5. 10. There was first an Atone­ment to be made for our reconciliation, before there could be a Covenant made for our Salvation: And as mans righte­ousness did not make the Atonement, so neither doth mans righteousnesse fulfill the Covenant: we are eternally obliged (and should be wholy devoted) to our blessed Saviour for both alike; as That we have been reconciled, so also that we shall be saved; And therefore we must take that for the condition of Salvation in the Covenant of Grace, which sends us immediately to Him, to wit Our be­lieving; and not that which sends us to our selves (though it proceed from him) to wit Our Doing: Thus hath the com­mon mother of all Christians, the Ca­tholick Church, taught all her sons to pray, That in all our works begun; conti­nued [Page 525] and end [...]d in thee, we may glorifie thy Holy Name, and finally by thy mercy ob­tain ever lasting life; placing all the hopes of eternal life, not in mans Duty, but in Gods mercy; that is, not in Doing but in Believing: He that is constantly preven­ted in all his Doings by Gods most grati­ous favour, and as constantly furthered by his continual Help, must needs have the best confidence of his Doings, yet may not hope to obtain the promised Inhe­ritance of everlasting life by Doing, with­out being a Schismatick in receding from the Unity, and a Heretick in departing from the Verity of the Catholick Church in this excellent Prayer, unlesse we will say, which were impious once to think, That the Catholick Church teacheth such Devotions as are contrary to her own Doctrine.

18. Nor doth this assertion any whit lessen the Obligation, though it doth very much sweeten the condition of the new Testament; It is the same in effect with the old Covenant as to the Matter of its Command, though not as to the form of its promise; for it requires what we are bound, but it accepts what we are able to perform; It commends our entire Obe­dience, [Page 526] but it assures Life upon our un­feigned faith and repentance; And it is so far from diminishing or lessening any wilful sin, (either of omission or of com­mission) that it rather augments and ag­gravates the same; For whereas wilful offenders did before trample under foot the Word of God, whereby they should have been restrained; now they also tram­ple under foot the Blood of God, where­by they have been redeemed from their fins. Tell me what is wanting in their Obligation who are bound by promise and vow to these three things. 1. To fosake the Devil and all his works, the pomps and vanities of the wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh. 2. To believe all the Articles of the Chri­stian Faith. 3. To keep Gods holy will and Commandements, and to walk in the same all the daies of their life; And every childe that is trained up in our Church, knows he was bound to all these when he first received the Seal of the New Covenant, and therefore cannot but look upon all these as the material parts of his Obligation by that Cove­nant, and upon himself as a most perfi­dious wretch if He wilfully fail in any [Page 527] part of his Obligation, and as a most miserable wretch if he do not earnestly repent of his failings; But will you there­fore say, That because he hath failed in these, he hath forfeited his Salvation? Is Doing all these (as they ought to be done, for else 'tis not doing of them) the formal part of the Covenant of Grace, or the condition of life in that Covenant? May we not say That he for­sakes the world, the flesh and the Devil, who doth not follow and is not led by them? That he believes all the Articles of the Christian Faith, who cries out with tears, Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief; and that he keeps Gods Commandements, who prays with hearty sorrow, Lord have mercy upon me, and with hearty de­sire, Incline my heart to keep thy Law, or write all thy Laws in my heart I beseech thee: If we may say so, then this is that which God requires to our Salvation, and by this we perform the condition of that Covenant by which we hope to be saved: wherefore though Doing be de­rived into the Constitution, yet it is not derived into the Condition of the New Covenant: The Constitution of the New Covenant is, (as it was of the Old,) ac­cording [Page 528] to Justice, exacting the compleat performance of our Duty (as it is said, This day thou art become the People of the Lord thy God; Thou shalt therefore obey his voice and do his Commandements, Deut. 27. 9, 10.) and that is properly called Doing: But the condition of the N [...]w Covenant is meerly according to mercy, accepting our sincere resolution for our compleat performance, and that is pro­perly called Believing: This is the Con­dition which we must fulfil or we can have no right to the promised Inheri­tance; And since this is the only Condi­tion we can fulfil, we may not put in an­other instead of this, no more then we may put our selves out of the Hope and Right to Gods Promises; And we Prote­stants do conceive we have the greater reason to oppose your merit of works, because That hath been a means to make you oppose the grace and mercy of Gods New Covenant: yet to shew to you and to all the world, That we so stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made [...] free, as to abandon all manner of Li­bertinism, we acknowledge no other Faith to fulfil the Condition of the Co­venant of Grace, but such as teacheth [Page 529] us to fulfil all manner of righteousness; A Faith that devotes the whole man to God; In his understanding by knowing and believing; In his will, by loving and em­bracing; In his affections by desiring and prosecuting; In his Actions by conforming and obeying: A Faith that believes in whole Christ, even in Jesus Christ our Lord, receiving him in all his Offices, not only as a Priest to reconcile us by his death, there's Jesus; and as a Prophet to instruct us by his word, there's Christ; but also a King to rule and govern us by his Laws, there's Lord; A Faith that be­lieves not only speculatively to sanctifie the contemplation, but also Practically to sanctifie the conversation, having a firm resolution of obeying Christ in all things, and a serious repentance for its defects and wants of Obedience; And such a repentance that devotes the whole life to God by an entire aversion from all sin, and by an entire conversion to all righteousness, with the whole powers and faculties both of soul and bo­dy; of soul to detest sin, of body to de­cline it; of soul to hunger and thirst af­ter righteousness, of body to endeavour and to act it; He that is not thus quali­fied (in some degree,) doth falsly think [Page 530] himself in the state of Grace; and he that is not in the state of Grace, doth in vain hope to be saved by the Covenant of Grace; and concerning such a man the question is now as unanswerable (and will be to the worlds end) as it was at first making, Can Faith save him? Jam. 2. 14. For the Faith that fulfils the condition of the New Covenant, labours for our full conformity with our blessed Saviour, and laments and bewails all our failings and defects in the persuit and desire of that consormity; It layeth an absolute neces­sity upon us of loving what God com­mands, if we hope to attain what God hath promised; It requireth a sincere obe­dience of all, doth not allow a wilful dis­obedience of any one of Gods Com­mands: yet for all this if we will needs say, That Doing or Obedience and Righ­teousness is the condition upon which Salvation is pomised to Christians, we must take Sorrowing for Doing, Repen­tance for Obedience, and Faith for righ­teousness, or we must teach a new Co­venant of our own, not of Gods making: sure I am, the Holy Church hath taught us both to say, Deus qui conspicis quia ex nullâ nostrâ actione confidimus, Lord [Page 531] God which seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do; And she hath taught us to say so at that Time when we are to prepare for our strictest Doings, sc. those which accompany our Lenten Fast; for this is the collect of Sexagesima Sunday: So far is Holy Church (which is much holier then the best of her mem­bers) from placing the hope of life and Salvation in her Doings: wherefore in this doctrine (as in most others that we reject,) your late Church-men have si­ded against holy Church, and consequent­ly our Church-men can the better justifie their siding against them.