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
question which S. James agitates is whether there be a necessity of good works which he resolves affirmatively and withal attests that though they be not the causes of our Justification before God yet they are the inseparable effects of a Justifying Faith and the Evidences of a Justified Estate For this end he brings in not only the example of Abraham but also of Rahab who of an Infidel had been proselyted to the Faith yet she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquiuas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2. 13. which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articels of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alicujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians
of Faith either discursively or by Prophetical inspiration but by neither of these ways can he proceed ergo c. If any challenge the enumeration in the major it concerns him to assign another way of his procedure till which I proceed to confirm the minor And 1. Doth this Judge proceed by Prophetical Inspiration Are all the Popes of Rome Prophets Had Pope Pius the 4. Martin the 5. Eugenius the 4 Leo the 10. or the constituent Members of the Council of Constance Basil Florence Lateran or Trent Prophetical Inspirations Where are their extraordinary Credentials correspondent to such extraordinary Inspirations The Apostles spake with Tongues and wrought Miracles Had Pope Paul the 3. Julius the 3. Pius the 4. or the Trent Bishops such Seals of their Apostleship Is there not as good cause to believe the Divine Inspirations of deluded Quakers as of Popes or Papalings Must all be believed to be divinely inspired who say they are Hath not God left us a Rule by which to judge of Impostors And what else is that Rule but the holy Scripture Isai 8. 20. Is not this a goodly issue of Papal infallibility Papists and Quakers are not such Enemies as they would make the World believe Some may think perhaps I play upon Romanists when I charge them with Enthusiasms but I do them no wrong it 's the Doctrine of their own greatest Authors Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explicat Art Notab 4. saith That the Doctrine of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge is discursiva in mediis but Prophetica Divina in conclusionibus Divine and Prophetical in the conclusions though only discursive in the premises I doubt if more ludibrious non-sense concerning Enthusiasms ever dropt from a Quaker Justly doth Judicious Rivet in Isagog ad Scripturam cap. 20. Sect. 8. censure this Doctrine of Stapletons as repugnant to it self For to use discourse to infer a conclusion and yet to expect that the conclusion shall not be inferred by argumentation but only be suggested by Enthusiasm or Divine Inspiration est velle nolle argumentari Surely the definitions of this infallible Judge not depending upon the premises nor being inferred by them but being divinely inspired according to Stapleton they cannot properly be conclusions but must be Divine Oracles is not this to establish perfect Enthusiasm were this a truth ought not the definitions of this infallible Judge be joyned to the holy Scripture Neither want there Authors among Romanists who assert this as Testefort the Dominican cited by Rivet cap. cit Sect. 9. who affirmed Sacram Scripturam contineri partim in bibliis partim in decretalibus Pontificum Romanorum And Melchior Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. testifies that one of their Learned Doctors affirmed in his presence definitiones Conciliorum ad Sacram Scripturam pertinere May I not here use the word of the Prophet Jer. 23. 28. What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord it may be enough to prove the falshood of that way that many eminent Doctors of the Romish perswasion are ashamed of it particularly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 9. lib. 2. de Conciliis cap. 12. Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cap. 8. Bectract de fide cap. 2. q. 8. Sect. 4. who all are ashamed to assert that Popes and Councils pass out their definitions by immediate Revelations And the University of Paris Anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort as witnesses Rivet Isagog cap. 20. Sect. 9. who would have a more full account of the Fanaticism and Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I remit them to D Stillingfleet's late discourse of Romish Idolatry cap. 4. If therefore they say that this Judge proceeds discursively which was the other branch of the Assumption I argue against them thus 1. Then this infallible Judge must have a clear and infallible yea and a publick ground for now he proceeds not by secret Enthusiasm from which he deduces his definitions and if the Judge antecedently to his definitions have a clear ground to believe that which he is to define why may not others also believe upon the same clear grounds without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Certainly either the Judge defines an Article of Faith which himself does not believe but consequently to his own definition and because he says it himself or if he believe it before he define it then an infallible visible Judge is not necessary For that without which Faith may be had is not simply necessary to Faith but Faith may be had without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as appears in that antecedent Act of Faith which the Judge hath before his own sentence therefore the sentence of an infallible visible Judge is not simply necessary to Faith or if Romanists will needs still maintain it to be necessary it will be necessary and not necessary necessary ex Hypothesi not necessary because the Judge hath Faith antecedently to his sentence Is it not a Noble Position which drives the Asserters thereof either upon the Rock of Enthusiasm or else involves them in a contradiction But secondly this Judge proceeding discursively in his definition of Faith is fallible in the premises ergo he is fallible also in the conclusion The sequel is clear it being impossible to deduce a true conclusion from false premises Whatever may seem to follow ratione formae yet nothing can ratione materiae seeing as Philosophers demonstrate assensus conclusionis attingit objectum praemissarum if therefore the premises be false the conclusion must be likewise false The antecedent is acknowledged by Romanists themselves Hence Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explic art Notab 2. Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilitatem peculiarem S. Sancti directionem sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non emper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de seipso dixit August Epist 119. cap. 11. in Scripturis Sanctis multo interdum plura nesciunt quam sciunt nihilominus Ecclesia in conclusione fidei semper est certissima Let me now appeal all knowing persons if either Scripture or Fathers do testifie that God gifts any with infallibility in the conclusion and not also in the premises Were not the Apostles infallible in both Seeing therefore Popes succeed not to Peter in his infallibility in the premises neither do they succeed him in his infallibility in the conclusion Arg. 5. It 's impossible for Romanists especially the Jesuited party according to their Principle to know infallibly who is truly Pope or which is truly a lawful Council ergo it 's impossible that they can infallibly resolve their Faith upon the sentence of an infallible visible Judge The sequel is good because that they may resolve their Faith upon the testimony of an infallible Judge it is necessary that