Image nor the likeness of any thing Thou shalt not bow down to them c. I know the Pamphleter says that this is a corrupt Version and that it should be rendred Idol not Image it being Pesel in the Hebrew But that is a corrupt evasion say I doth not the root Pasal signifie dolare sculpere Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma an Image Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus render it sculptile But whatever be of that is it not added in the Hebrew Ve coltemuna or any likeness of any thing Are not here then all Images in so far as they are made objects of Adoration prohibited But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol which before was not one Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est Idololatria and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similachrum quod humana effigie factum consecratum est according to the known Distich Qui sacros fingit auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit Yea so evident is this that their great School-man Vasq Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 104. cap. 2. confesses that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews whence I conclude therefore also to Christians the Moral Law standing still in force Rom. 3. 31. Do we by Faith make void the Law nay rather we establish it I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures Whereas he says these three Scriptures Mat. 26. 26. Jam. 2. 24. 2 Thes 2. 13. are flatly against Protestants he too flatly discovers either his own ignorance or impudency the harmony betwixt these and the Doctrine of Protestants hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Justification and Traditions Now shortly I say first that these words This is my Body make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ than these 1 Cor. 10. 4. the Rock was Christ for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ Yea their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted without falsifying the words of Christ as I demonstrated against M. Demster and shall shew in its own place that my Argument stands yet in force not withstanding the Pamphleters insignificant attempts to the contrary In evidence hereof after Consecration it 's frequently called Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26 27. I proceed therefore to the second Scripture Jam. 2. 24. Ye see that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only That this place is not so clear for them may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 4. 5 6. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly is Faith counted for righteousness even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi per fidem which Estbius upon the place acknowledges to be equivalent to sed tantum per fidem but only by Faith And he affirms that the most Learned both of Greek and Latin Interpreters do agree in that Exposition These and other Texts of the Apostle Paul seem to stand in so full contradiction to the sense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to elude those luculent testimonies of the Apostle S. Paul Some affirming that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel as is clear comparing Rom. 3. 28. with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law yet say that only these works as done before Conversion and without Grace are excluded Others say that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justification but not of the second But the Apostle S. Paul Rom. 4. to confirm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law brings in the instances of David and Abraham long after their Conversion and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justâ—fication I shall not digress to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification but surely in the Romish sense it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness or by works and so is a begging of the question Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words it would be considered that the chief question betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is concerning the meritorious cause of Justification what it is that purchases to us Remission of sin and right to Eternal Life Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons what else can do this but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ Can our good works either before or after Conversion satisfie Divine Justice or merit to us remission of sins and a right to eternal life Is there any proportion betwixt our works and that Eternal and far more exceeding weight of Glory or the wrath to the uttermost due to us for our sins Are we not bound Luke 17. 10. When we have done all that we are commanded to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants for we have but done that which was our duty to do Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects Eccles 7. 20. Esay 64. 6. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is not that saying of S. Greg. known lib. 9. Moral in Job cap 11. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esse convincitur si districté judicetur prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ex sola judicis pietate convalescat Does any man love God so well as he ought says not S. Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet in vitio est Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works Neh. 13. 22. Are they not made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. Can we then be pronounced by God perfectly just on the account of these or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ for which these are accepted and we our selves also Ephes 1. 6. He hath made us accepted in the beloved Is not that Scripture luculent Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous If any might have placed confidence on their works to be justified thereby then surely the Apostle S. Paul might have done it but he durst not adventure on it 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified It remains then to be expounded in what sense a man is said Jam. 2. 24. to be justified by works and not by Faith only Far be it from us to impose with Romanists a gloss upon S. James which upon the matter would make him contradict S. Paul The word of the Lord is not yea and nay many have taken excellent pains to clear the harmony of these two Apostles and to vindicate this place of S. James from the Cavils of Romanists I will not here digress to examine the new notions of some late Learned Writers touching this matter whose way should I imbrace I might perhaps easily expede my self from Romish Cavils and leave also some considerable differences betwixt the Romish Party and Protestants in this matter But I confess I am afraid of new Methods especially in a matter of so great importance as the point of Justification And therefore holding to the more received grounds I shall remit the Reader to Reverend Bishop Downam his learned Treatise of Justification lib. 7. cap. 8. where he both discusses Bellarmine's Quibbles as also illustrates that place in S. James by an Elegant Analytick Exposition from ver 14. to the end of the Chapter Let it suffice at present to advertise the Reader that S. James uses neither the word Faith nor the word Justifie in the same sense with S. Paul nor does he debate the question which S. Paul handled or which is at this day tossed betwixt Romanists and us For clearing these things briefly I say first when S. James says we are not justified by Faith only he takes not Faith for a saving Grace of the Spirit receiving whole Christ John 1. 12. purifying the heart Act. 15. 9. and working by love Gal. 5. 6. which is the only true Faith by which we are justified according to the Doctrine of S. Paul and the Reformed Churches But S. James takes Faith for a dogmatical assent to Divine Truths joyned with an outward profession but such as may be separated from good works as is evident from the series of his whole discourse particularly from ver 14. where the state of the question which S. James handles is propounded What doth it profit my Brethren though a man say he hath Faith and have not works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can that Faith save him by which it appears S. James whole discourse is concerning that Faith which a man saith he hath but may be void of good works Now that is not the Faith by which we according to the Apostle S. Paul's Doctrine affirm a man to be justified without the works of the Law for true justifying Faith is a living and working Faith But Jam. 2. 17. Faith if it have no works is dead being alone I add secondly that when S. James says that a man is justified by works he does not speak as S. Paul of the true proper Act of Justification which is a Judicial Act of God really acquitting the sinner of guiltiness and from the wrath of God to which he was lyable but of a declarative Justification or of that which evidences a man to be in a justified estate or to be acquitted from guilt and wrath Nor needs this seem strange to any it being a Rule among Interpreters of Scripture quandoque tunc dicitur aliquid esse aut fieri quum esse intelligitur aut declaratur A thing is said to be done when it becomes manifest that it is done So Levit. 13. 3. 13. The Priest is said to pollute or cleanse the Leper because he declared him clean or unclean So Act. 10. 15. What God hath cleansed defile thou not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declare thou not common or unclean And this word Justification is frequently taken in a like sense as Luk. 7. 24. 35. Rom. 3. 4. 1 Tim. 3. 16. c. That so it is taken here Learned Protestants have evicted from the Context I only desire the Reader to cast his eyes upon verse 18. A man may say thou hast Faith and I have Works shew me thy Faith without Works and I will shew thee my Faith by my Works Where it 's apparent that the Apostle is enquiring after the Evidences of a Justified Estate which he concludes to be good works The chief difficulty which here seems to arise is that if the Apostle James did here speak only of a declarative Justification then he would have ascribed this Justification only to good works and not at all to Faith whereas the Apostle gives good works and Faith a conjunct interest in the Justification where of he treats you see then how by Works a man is justified and not by Faith Answ This inference would perhaps have some strength had the Apostle been speaking only of the internal act of Faith but not at all when as hath been shewed the Faith spoken of is a professed Faith for the profession of Faith may concur with good works to declare and evidence a person to be in a Justified Estate Thirdly therefore and lastly for the full illustration of this whole matter we would carefully notice the different questions handled by the two Apostles S. Paul and S. James The Apostle S. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians having to do with persons who Pharisaically boasted of their good works and presumed as our Romanists do to this day to be justified thereby or at least joyned their good works with Faith in Christ as the ground of their Justification before God Therefore he disputes at length the same question which now is agitated betwixt Romanists and us what is the true ground upon which a sinner is accepted of God and pronounced by him Just as if he had perfectly kept the whole Law in his own person and to hammer down these proud Justitiaries he concludes that the only ground of this Justification of a sinner before God is the obedience of Christ laid hold upon by Faith and totally secludes good works from having any causal influence upon Justification which he proves besides many other Arguments by the most apposite examples of Abraham and David For if any could have been justified by works then surely Abraham and David persons of so Eminent Holiness had been justified thereby but not they as he shews Rom. 4. Ergo none at all But S. James on the other hand had to do with a kind of Epicures who abusing S. Paul's Doctrine of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law maintained there was no necessity of good works but only to profess Faith in Christ This is S. Austin's observe and not mine in Psal 31. Jacobus vult corrigere eos qui Paulum male intelligendo nolebant bene operari de sola fide praesumentes So that the
our present question is concerning the Credenda things to be believed but most of these instances are of the Aâ—enda things to be done by us Whether this proceeded from his inadvertency or were done purposely to cast a blind before an unwary Reader is remitted to his second thoughts Secondly it is a falsehood that Scripture makes sometimes only Prayer at other times only Alms-deeds at one time only Faith in the Son of God at another time only the feer of the Lord a Fundamental as the Pamphleter insinuates For no where is the promise of Salvation restricted to any one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mar. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the perfect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3. 9. had not his covetouâ—ness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Roynaudus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impâ—aches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which say she Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i.e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But what saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament as containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It
oppugne him 4. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the wisdome of God saying that God obliges us to things impossible whereas 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not heavy We do not say that God commands any things simply impossible Any impossibility that is we have contracted it sinfully in the loyns of our first Parents and so God is not to be blamed for it This accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly Scripture frequently holds out Rom. 8. 3. that which the Law could not doe in that it was weak through the flesh ver 8. they that are in the flesh cannot please God Joh. 12. 39. they could not believe Matth. 7. 8. a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles 7.20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodâ— impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7. 22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3. 2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veraeity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay inthis they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varaeity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He faith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasms ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1. 7. O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 7. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood frees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscenee remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7. 24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7. 25. thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Faith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2. 24. It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3. 28. That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as
Christendom an Infallible Judge defining contradictions and make the Divine Law a Nose of Wax a Church with many Heads Altars and Sacrifices without Divine Institution a Propitiatory Sacrifice without shedding of blood yea without a sacrificing act Image-worship Bread-worship Cross-worship Relick-worship Saint-worship if they may be believed without Idolatry Sacraments without visible Elements Sacraments so far from sanctifying that their most Religious persons are obliged to vow abstinence from them Specters of accidents without a subject they eat and devour their God they have devotion without understanding performing holy things in an unknown Language they have Pastors without Preaching Communion without Communicants they maintain a sinless perfection yet teach manifest violations of the Law of God they cannot only merit Heaven by their works but also supererrogate yet in many things they offend all the Satisfaction of Christ according to them needs a supply of penal satisfactions either in this life or in Purgatory the Efficacy of Grace depends on the beck of Free-will and Eternal Election must be founded on the prescience of mens good works Popes have Apostolical Function but no immediate Mission nor speak they with Tongues c. they obtrude lying signs and wonders yea ridiculous Fables for real Miracles the Enthusiasms of their Popes for Divine Oracles and bundles of Novelties under the Vizour of Antiquity many Books they hold for Canonical Scripture which neither the Jewish nor Primitive Christian Church did ever own In a word they set up a Religion built upon no Divine Authority but upon Humane Traditions and definitions of their Church repugnant to Scripture to Antiquity to Reason and to the senses of all the world teaching impious Idolatry against God and perfidiousness to men receiving addition or alteration as the Grandees of the Romish Faction find most to conduce for the Grandeur of the Pope and Interest of the Court of Rome But lest I should seem to say nothing to his Knacks I answer first we have both Faith and Vnity Faith grounded on holy Scripture and not only Unity in Fundamentals which is necessary to the being of the Church Militant but also in most of the Integrals of Religion as may appear by the harmony of Confessions whereas they have neither true Faith nor Unity for hardly do they disagree from us in any thing wherein they are not subdivided among themselves Secondly we have both a Law and a Judge a Law better nor the Canon Law the Divine Law of holy Scriptures a Judge both Celestial the Lord Jesus Christ and Terrestrial the Synods of the Church But Romanists to shoulder up their pretended infallible Judge whom yet they cannot agree upon throw intollerable indignities upon the Law of God as hath been demonstrated cap. 3. Thirdly we have an Altar and Sacrifices an Altar not like their Altars of Damascus but an Altar which sanctifies our Oblations the Lord Jesus Christ And thus Aquinas himself expounds that of the Apostle Heb. 13. 10. we have an Altar We have also a Sacrifice not only Eucharistick of prayers and praises but also certainly Propitiatory viz. of Christ on the Cross Fourthly our Sacraments are not bare signs as Romanists slander us but exhibitive of Grace which cannot be truly said of all theirs Fifthly Though the Worship of God with us be not clogged as in the Romish Church with a heap of Ceremonies partly Heathenish partly Judaical yet we have Religious Ceremonies viz. Sacramental Rites and these also of Divine Institution Sixthly the Mission of our Preachers hath been sustained against the cavils of Romanists but a Divine Warrant cannot be shewed for their Popes Universal Vicarship or the Princely Dignity of their Cardinals Seventhly Our Doctrine is infallible and the ground of our Faith sure unless Romanists like Infidels will question the Infallibility of the Scripture Eighthly Though we pretend not to a Pharisaical perfection with Romanists yet we acknowledge the Commandments of God so far as is absolutely necessary to Salvation through Grace may be kept Ninthly Eternal Life being a reward of Grace not of Debt does not presuppose any proper Merit of ours but Romanists by their Doctrine of Merit make Heaven Venial and derogate from the sufficiency of the sole Merits of Christ Tenthly Reprobation being an eternal and immanent Act of God and consequently God himself cannot properly be demerited but there is no damnation without the previous demerit of sin yea also the Eternal Decree of Reprobation in the judgment of the Council of Dort presupposes the Prescience of Mans Fall Eleventhly though lapsed man without Regenerating Grace cannot do that which is spiritually good yet be may freely sin none of us do question but the Jesuits Garnet Oldcorn c. acted freely in their accession to the Powder-Plot Twelfthly we pretend not to any new Apostles nor is there necessity of new Miracles our Doctrine having been fully confirmed by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Thirteenthly It 's more than Romanists can prove that particular Churches have not Authority to reform themselves when General Councils cannot be had to undertake the work Fourteenthly we leave private Spirits and new Lights against old revealed Verities to Quakers and Papists Fifteenthly Single mens Opinions against the common consent of Fathers have more affinity with Jesuits Probables than Protestants To justifie their boldness in broaching new Opinions Poza the Jesuit as cited in the Jesuits Morals Part. 1. Cap. 1. Art 1. pag. 167. brings a Testimony from a Council of Constantinople Beatus qui profert verbum inauditum as if the Council had said blessed is he that produces a word unheard of or some new thing whereas like a Jesuit he mutilates and perverts the words of the Council which are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium blessed is he who utters a word to obedient ears Sixteenthly We are not ashamed to maintain that the Apocryphal Books are no part of the Old Testament because the Jewish Church did never receive them being told Rom. 3. 2. that to them were committed the Oracles of God Seventeenthly there have been stedfast Pastors and Martyrs in the Protestant Churches who have sealed the Truth we profess with their blood Our Doctrine and the Substantials of Government being founded on Scriptural Authority must consequently be unalterable whereas Rome's changes as to dogmaticals Worship and Government from Ancient Rome are so many that we may take up that regrate of her Hei mihi qualis eras quantum mutaris ab illâ Româ The Author designed a peculiar Cap. in the close of this Treatise for his own vindication from the Criminations of the Pamphleter together with a plain Reparty to the Jesuit Tribe But finding that these Papers had swelled beyond his expectation he hath at this time superseded much of that labour and the rather seeing these things touch not the Cause and Jesuits are known to be persons of such malignity that their Invectives find little credit with
they know him to be such and there is none pretending to be that infallible Judge but either Pope or General Council or both joyntly The antecedent is proved by a threefold medium 1. From the case of Schism 2. Of Simony 3. Of the want of due intentions in the Ministry of Sacraments I say first from the case of Schism there have been many grievous Schismes in the Romish Church notwithstanding their vain pretence of Unity Onuphrius in Chronol Pontific reckons out no less than thirty one of which lasted from Vrban the sixth to the Council of Constance no fewer than fifty years if we believe Onuphrius There have been two or three Popes at once Alter in alterum saeviebat saith Genebrard All this while Bell. confesses lib. 4. de Pontific cap. 14. that it was an hard matter to know which of them was the lawful Pope Was all Christian Faith gone from the Church because of the uncertainty of this infallible Judge 2. The same is more luculently confirmed from the case of Simony It 's acknowledged by Romanists that Simony makes void the Election of a Pope as is held out by Gratian in the Canon Law Causa 1. q. 1. cap. 2. Now that there have been many Simoniacal intrusions into the Papal Chair is as evident as that any in those late times possessed it without Simony Hence Platina in vitae Sylvestri 3. eo tunc Pontificatus devener at ut qui plus largitione valeret is tantummodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis rejectis obtineret c. The Papacy in those days was come to that pass that he who by Bribery could do most alone obtained the dignity good men being oppressed and rejected which custom saith Platina would to God our times did not still retain And Spondanus ad Annum 1033. brings in Glaber thus complaining Heu sedes Apostolica Alass thou Apostolical See which in the days of old was the glory of the world art now oh shame become Simonis officina the Shop and Forge of Simon Magus and Hammers continually are beating on the Anvil to make hellish coyn You may have heard of Genebrards complaint that in the space of 150 years from John 8. to Leo the 9. the Papal Chair was possessed with Apostatick Popes who entered in non per ostium sed per posticam not by the Gate but by the Postern Once I thought upon the testimony of Cicarella in vita Sixti 5. that Sixtus 5. had come to the Papal Chair with as much innocency from Simoniacal Pensation as many of the late Popes but now I find that his entry also was both Simoniacal and perfidious whereof the Reader may receive a full account from Henry Foulis Hist of Romish Treasons lib. 3. cap. 2. from which that Author concludes the nullity of the Elections of sundry succeeding Popes not only of Vrban 7. Greg. 14. and Innocent 9. but also of Clement 8. to all whose Elections did concur a multitude of Cardinals who had been created by Sixtus 5. a Simoniacal Pope and consequently a non habente potestatem Is any thing more evident from History than the Simoniacal intrusion of Boniface 8. Alexander 6. c. Nay seeing these Simoniacal transactions may be so secretly conveyed that it is impossible to know who enters the Papacy without them therefore it cannot be infallibly known who truly is Pope The Simoniacal entry of Sixtus Quintus probably had never been discovered had not Sixtus violated his Simoniacal contract made with Aloysius Cardinal de Este which provoked the Cardinal to transmit the original contract subscribed by Sixtus own hand to Philip the Second King of Spain who being lately disobliged by the Pope threatned to accuse him of Simony in a Council at Andalusia but the speedy death of Sixtus prevented the Process 3. The same is yet further confirmed from the Popish Doctrine of suspending the efficacy of Sacraments from the intention of the Ministers thereof according to the Decrees of the Councils of Florence in Instruct Armen and of Trent Sess 14. cap. 6. and from the Bull of Leo the tenth against Luther therefore it 's impossible to know infallibly if these who pass for Popes or Bishops be Popes Bishops Priests yea or baptized consequently they cannot infallibly know whether any who were in the Council of Trent were capable to be constituent members of a Council The cavils of the Adversaries against this last instance were confuted cap. 1. Arg. 6. Both Pope and Council who only are pretended to be this infallible Judge may err in questions of Fact therefore also in questions of Faith the antecedent is confessed by Romanists themselves Hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. saith Conveniunt omnes Catholici posse Pontificem vel cum concilio generali err are in controversiis facti particularibus quae ex informatione testimoniisque hominum praecipue pendent that is all Romanists agree that not only the Pope as Pope but also with a General Council may err in matters of Fact If any will adopt that new notion of the Jesuits of Clermont that the Pope is infallible as to matters of Fact he must first answer the arguments brought in the contrary by those of their own party before I waste time in confuting so notorious a falshood and the rather seeing my Adversary yields pag. 43. that their infallible Judge may err in matters of fact The sequel is clear seeing the decisions of many questions of Faith with them have such dependance upon questions of Fact that if the Judge err in the question of Fact he cannot but err in the question of Faith To prove this I shall satisfie my self with these two instances ad hominem against Romanists First all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture according to them but some are only to be setched from Traditions When therefore this visible Judge is to determine a point not contained in Scripture to be an Article of Faith he can have no evidence thereof but from Tradition nor of the Tradition but by the testimonies of Histories and Records of Antiquity c. Now is it not a meer matter of Fact whether Records of Antiquity be genuine or corrupted whether the relation of Historians be true or false and therefore this visible Judge may be deceived as to these and consequently concerning the Article of Faith whose evidence depends thereupon But lest I should seem only to argue upon a rarely contingent supposition take a late example When the Pope and Council of Trent defined the number of the Books of holy Scripture and determined the Apocriphal Books to be Canonical they had no ground to walk on but Tradition and here undoubtedly their Errour in matter of Fact led them to an errour in matter of Faith for these Apocriphal Books were never received by Universal Tradition sure not by Melito Justin Martyr Athanasius Hierom the Council of Laodicea yea nor by Greg. 1. as D. Cosins hath fully demonstrated in
to be reduced to and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Consc praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15. 19. the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2. 2. q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in corp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Be an Theâ—l Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virl tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Cbristianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2 Enchirid cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset commonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whyt Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may
which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our assent to the Divine Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol. Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I must remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philosophia Scripturae Interpres and Vogelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Applicaâ—ion is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae inrespect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 16. say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18. 28. mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hom. 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon of all things Greg. Nyssen lib. 1. cont Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuit Gretser being Interpreter In omni d gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture iâ— the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanasius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stater as divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassiod lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quest 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vivendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or as in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Featly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a
our Translation was something concerning the question of the descent of the Soul of Christ to Hell I cannot examine whether Zuinglius be faithfully cited not having his Works But though Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exeges loc de script cap. 29. Sect. 122. gives an account of other of our Authors not so well satiâ—fied with Luthers German Translation yet he has no word of Zuinglius However they who know the animosities which the Sacramentarian Controversie did breed will not think strange though Zuinglius and Luther used more asperity in Censuring the Works of one another than was fitting The Censure of Carolus Molinoeus is not much to be regarded he being no Divine but an unsetled though Learned Lawyer first a Papist then a Protestant and afterwards with the Dog returning to his Vomit and re imbracing Popery he breathed forth invectives against worthy men as is usual with Apostates to be haters of their own Sect. This is testified of him by Lucas Osiander Epitom Hist Eccles cent 16. Anno 1566. pag. 802. As for the acknowledgment of Luther that he added the word Sola you may take the Answer of Gerard the Lutheran loc cit Sect. 525. Non verba numeravit sensum exprimere voluit And indeed though I would have Translators to be punctual in their Version of Scripture yet it 's a sure truth that we are justified by Faith alone or as the Apostle saith by Faith without the works of the Law But leaving further to canvase those unadvised expressions of some Protestants Authors which are nothing ad summa in rei I can press Romanists with contrary Verdicts of Popes concerning the Vulgar Latin Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. All they can object to us are but some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no Authority Secondly Therefore I answer that we ought carefully to distinguish betwixt smaller Grammatical Escapes and substantial Errours overturning Articles of Faith It 's not denied but the first may be incident to any Version made by humane industry but I appeal all the Romish Party to try if they can charge the English Translation which is made use of in this Church with any substantial Errour and Article of Faith that had been the most solid way of arguing against us As for the diversities betwixt the English Translation under Q. Elizabeth and K. James 6. I suppose it will be found that both the reading laid aside and that which is substituted are conform to the Analogy of Faith though the one may be more agreeable to the Original and Series of the Context and so is preferrable to the other by which the ingenuity of Protestant Churches may appear they being willing to correct the least failure It were easie to demonstrate that the Papists vulgar Version is often guilty of ill Latin and worse Divinity Who desire an account of the varieties contradictions errours and barbarisms of the Vulgar Latin I refer them to D. James bellum Papale Calov Crit. Sac de Vers Vulg. Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 14. cap. 11 12 13. and to Sixtinus Amama in Anti barbaro Biblic lib. 1. cap. 9 10 11. who also shews cap. 12 13. that Jesuit Serrarius Bellarmine Baptista Baudinus the Reviser of the Vatican Press Lucas Brugensis yea and the Prefacer to the Clementine Version do acknowledge that the Latin Version as lastly corrected by Clement 8. hath yet its own trespasses and deserves further emendation But this is the mischief of Rome's pretended Infallibility that she will rather justly know faults than by amending them humbly confess her self fallible In a word except Romanists can prove that in our Translations there be such Errours as destroy the substantials of Christianity which though the Conclaves of Rome and Hell do joyn forces cannot be done it cannot be concluded that our Bibles are not a sufficient Ground and Rule of Faith To shut up the Answer to this Objection Richard Cappell in his Remains pag. 30 31. presents this Notion to the consideration of the Godly Learned that seeing the Lord hath commanded his people to hear read and search the Scriptures which the multitude cannot do but in some Translation or other and God being in his Providence very careful that his Church shall not want sufficient provision for their Souls therefore he the said M. Cappell supposes that God ever hath doth and will so assist Translators that for the main they shall not err And indeed though the Vulgar Latin be but too faulty as I have already shewed yet we deny not but it is a Bible and contains the substantials of Religion Neither have I any doubt but many have been converted by it such as Peter Martyr Zanchius Luther Oecâ—lampadius c. I am not to adopt M. Cappell's Notion yet should it hold far less could there be ground to Cavil against our Translations as not being a sufficient ground of Faith they being much more pure and agreeable to the Originals than the Vulgar Latin as cannot but be clear to those who have any measure of skill to compare them Objection 2. The Pamphleter pag. 54 55 56. accuses the Original Texts of Scripture as corrupted in confirmation whereof be alledges that it 's doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written that Calvin and Luther questioned the purity of the Originals that there be various Lections in the Hebrew that the Jews Christs professed Enemies five hundred years after Christ invented the Hebrew Points or Vowels and corrupted the Text but that before this corruption their Vulgar Latin was made that Hereticks also particularly Arrians Macedonians Nestorians c. had their hand in adulterating Scripture for which he alledges Irenaeus Tertull. and Eusebius but cites no place in any of them that we have not the Autographies written by Prophets or Apostles and all Copies are subject to faults In the end he concludes that there is no remedy for these evils without an infallible visible Judge In all this he doth still behave himself like an Atheist Doth he not by concluding the Original Scriptures to be all corrupted raze with one stroak the Foundation of the Christian Religion Is not this a pregnant evidence of the impiety of the Romish Interest and truth of the Protestant Religion that Romanists cannot fight against us but with the Weapons of Infidels for supporting their Babel they will venture the ruine of all Religion ridente Turca nec dolente Judaeo For answer therefore to this Blasphemous Cavil let first the Pamphleters inconsistency with himself be noticed In his former Section he brought Scriptures to prove the necessity of an infallible visible Judge yet here he affirms we cannot know a line of pure Scripture that is not vitiated but by the sentence of this infallible Judge Is not this to intangle himself into a manifest Circle or contradiction Secondly Was this man compos mentis when he brings in Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Eusebius testifying that the Scriptures were
3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 1. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects pag. 92 93. many Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed S. Hierome lib. 3. cont Russin Nazianzen tract de fide S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de praescript as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter for Theod. lib. 4. hist cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil but only relates the Ordination of S. Ambrose But to pass this escape I answer that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn a Soul but not one in integrals especially when it 's maintained without pertinacy That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith may be apparent because they did accuse one another sometimes of errours in Religion as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr S. Austin lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith yet had so much charity to him that he said Absit ut arbitreris te haec opinando à Catholica fide recessisse quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catholicae therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius is only against those who deny any Article of that Creed Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are supposed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals as contra-distinguished from integrals That of Nazianzen tract de fide Orat 49. relates to Arrians against whom he there disputes who certainly erred fundamentally at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum seems to hint for their denying the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valentinus whom all know to have erred fundamentally so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this distinction yet I freely grant that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul namely when it is joyned with pertinacy but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man but his pertinacy But says the Pamphleter the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles ergo they hold all the 39 Articles to be Fundamentals Answ Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church concerning the 39 Articles by the writings of eminent Divines in that Church approved by the Church of England then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist Now Learned Stillingfleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles as being all Fundamentals of Faith and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall Primate of Ireland She excommunicates them for their pertinacy and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church not that she supposes them all Essentials of Religion To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny We acknowledge saith he that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws savours of Draco's severity who wrote all his Sanctions in blood and made every trespass Capital a fit President for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition Josephus lib. 2. cont Appion doth only say that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law for most part was death If this Romanist be so bloody that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Samaritans Luke 9.54.55 As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he callâ—d Sacramentarians it 's true of him what was said of Elias Jam. 5. 17. that he was a man subject to the like passions with others Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament Boxhornius lib. 3. de harm Eucharist proves by many testimonies from Melancthon Cruciger Alesius yea and out of Luthers own writings As for that heavy sentence Revel 22. 19. it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought thereto v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists who have added all the Apocryphal Books But it doth not say that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scripture shall de facto be damned if otherwise pious and penitent and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof were they satisfied in their Consciences thereannent Do Romanists conclude their famous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick who questioned the Canonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture To conclude this Section E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles that is Edward Worsley an English Jesuit at Antwerp discourse 3. cap. 4. c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Protestants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals as unreasonable and false I should but beat the Air to examine all Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity but an Infinite Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty Ergo all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance consequently one is as ponderous as another and equally Fundamental To this I briefly answer forbearing to reflect again upon the formality of a Jesuits Syllogism granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all divinely revealed Articles in a compounded sense with divine Revelation it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary
question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4 there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4. 5. I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceive it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuâ—t lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake nor may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simâ—lâ— And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsus à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1. 8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impâ—ous consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usuâ—â—ation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks oâ— persons erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be stâ—ll prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held a such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity
some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in â—he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devout persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brevic. collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i. e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Notab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession
his considerations of the Church of England Reformed cap. 4. Secondly according to the principles of both these not only of them who hold the Pope to be a Petit Antichrist and a Fore-runner of the Great One but also of them who affirm him to be the Grand Antichrist our Lord under the Papal Tyranny preserved a Church in these Western parts and consequently many great truths such as the Trinity and Incarnation and the substantials of many Ordinances particularly of Baptism and of Ordination albeit both of them were clogged with additional corruptions yet in evidence that the Reformed Churches held their Baptism and Ordination valid they did not rebaptize or reordain those who had been baptized or ordained by the Church of Rome Neither need any think strange at this who remember that it 's predicted of the Great Antichrist 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God From which it follows that though Popes be the Great Antichrist yet Orders being one of these remains which God had preserved under Antichrists Usurpation Ordination conferred by Antichristian Ministers not in so far as Antichristian but as retaining some of Christs goods might be valid Thirdly I add that in this the Wisdom and Goodness of God doth greatly appear that under the prevalency of the Tyranny of the Papal Faction he would preserve a Church and thereby transmit to Posterity the Holy Scriptures which did luculently discover the corruptions of that Apostatized Church and convey down orders to Ministers who by vertue of their Ordination were authorized and obliged to endeavour the Reformation of the Church Fourthly that our Reformers did not set up a new Church but did reform the old Apostatized Church so that there needed no new Ordination or immediate Call but only faithfully to improve the power given them in their Ordination to shake off and witness against the corruptions of that lapsed Church And fifthly and lastly this must be added though Ordination was clogged with corruptions at the time when our Reformers received Ordination in the Church of Rome yet was not Ordination in the Romish Church by far so corrupt as now it is for then Pope Pius the Fourth his impious Oath which he imposed upon all persons to be Ordained was not contrived By all this I hope it may appear that our Reformers Ordination was valid though received by Romish Ministers and yet the Romish Party not vindicated from Antichristianism It 's further objected that Protestants look upon Romanists as Hereticks and consequently ought to look upon Ordination from them as null Answ That sequel is null Do not Romanists maintain that Orders imprint an indeleble character on the Soul which neither Schism nor Heresie can extinguish and that Sacraments conferred by Hereticks are valid and particularly of this Sacrament of Orders Jesuit Connick Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp 20. dub 9. Num. 84. concludes Certum omnino est Episcopum Excommunicatum Haereticum degradatum validè conferre ordines i. e. It is altogether certain that Orders conferred by a Bishop Excommunicated Heretical and degraded are valid And though Protestants acknowledge no such Sacramental character impressed on the Soul yet they affirm that by Ordination a power is conferred which is not utterly made void by every Schism or Heresie so that though Schismaticks or Hereticks act irregularly in ordaining yet Orders conferred by them are not null and void Neither are they whom Schismaticks or Hereticks ordain bound in conscience to propagate the Schism or Heresies of those who ordained them yea by relinquishing the Schism and Heresies of their Ordainers what irregularity was in their Ordination is supplied and they come into a capacity of conferring Orders regularly which their Ordainers abiding in Schism or Heresie could not do Hence it apparently follows that though Romanists be both Schismatical and Heretical and act irregularly in conferring Orders yet the Orders conferred by them to our Reformers were not only valid but also the Reformers by relinquishing the Heretical Doctrines and Schismatical principles and practices of the Church of Rome and by owning the Catholick Truths oppugned by Romanists had the defects and irregularity of their Ordination supplied Thus Romanists themselves answer concerning the Bishops whom they own who had been ordained by Cranmer in the time of Schism as they call it saying they attained the regular use of their Orders by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Mary's time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome they ought not then offend at us for making use of the same Reply to them I shut up this Answer to this Objection with that saying of S. Austin Epist 165. Et si quisquam traditor subrepsisset albeit some Traytor had crept into the Church he means the Roman in which too too many Judasses have been seen since that time nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae aut Innocentibus Christianis it should nothing prejudice the Church or Innocent Christians From pag. 203. to 207. he breaks forth into a Flood of Thrasonick Clamours as void of truth as of sobriety as if Protestants acknowledged the Popish Church to be the most Ancient Church and ever to have possessed the greatest part of the Christian World converting Nations working Miracles and that the Church before Luther should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture and thereupon vainly misapplys to the Romish Church that word of Tertull. Olim possideo prior possideo The falshood of all these hath been already as copiously demonstrated as the nature of this Tractate would permit And particularly it hath been shewed that one of our great Exceptions against the Popish Church is her Novelty under a Mask of falsly pretended Antiquity That the Complex of their Trent Religion is latter than Luther and that the truly Catholick Church continued in all Ages having both the Letter and sense of holy Scripture and Substantials of Faith maintaining the same Religion which the Reformed Churches do to this day consequently the Reformed Churches are truly a part of that Catholick Church from which Romanists do Schismatically separate themselves Though Romanists had more Antiquity than they have yet that of Tertull. lib. de Veland Virg. Cap. 1. might stop their mouths Nec veritati praescribere potest Spatium temporum vel patrocinia personarum vel privilegia Regionum Neither length of time nor Patrociny of persons nor priviledges of Countries can prescribe against Truth SECT V. A Brief Reparty to his Conclusory Knacks THe vain Knacks where with he shuts up his Treatise pag. 207 208. are solidly confuted to my hand by Learned and Judicious Mr. Rait in his Vindication of the Protestant Religion pag. 268. for with the same froathy talk his Adversary also had concluded his Scriblings It shall be enough therefore to me to make this Retorsion on Romanists They have Faith without Verity Unity of Interest without Unity of Judgment a Catholick Church without Catholicism excluding the greatest part of