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 whereof 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 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
and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Conse 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 carp 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 Theol. 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 virt 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 Christianam 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 cemmonitorium 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. Whâ—t 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 upon the Veracity of God
as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadoeia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeiam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sute Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest require But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lueifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. cont Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defenseres salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius bâ—e autem unde nune agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidel or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a Gâ—neral Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in enpounding these terms they go by the 〈◊〉 among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion thâ—n a meer agreement in the formaliâ— ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3.11 Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitely and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib. 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. 3. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects
vitals and kills the person And so much of this Argument 3. Argument 4. If there be an infallible visible Judge he must proceed in giving definitions 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 iudibrious 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. Bec. tract 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 semper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de scipso 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
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 celtemuna 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 similaehrum quodâ—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 Book 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 notwithstanding 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 Esthius 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 fense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to clude 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 Justification 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 esseconvincitur si districtè 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
Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me â—r any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who miantained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists If their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denias But takes no leafure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lom bard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church If we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Martyr which Revâ—rend and worthy Mr. Pâ—ait hath reprinted before his late book what the consonancy bâ—t wixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christiâ—nog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the conâ—utor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4. viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so 〈◊〉 to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sâ—â—se But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacuisice in the Mass then as S. Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayem for less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Non 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them libeâ—tion from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cent Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238.239 Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Uncâ—ion as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D. Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will seriously consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Ottoman empire and their want of means of Instruction which other Christians enjoy together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire Learned Voetius in desper Causa Pap.
Purgatory he must fight not only with Protestants but also with Fathers yea and with others Popish authors But it seems this Noble disputant who snatches up any thing that came next to hand hath never examined what is brought by learned Protestants to enervate all inferences from it for the Popish Purgatory as first that the Apostle doesnot say he shall be saved by fire but as it were by fire now though the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as be not alwayes a Note of similitude yet surely its most frequently so taken and that is its most proper signification who then can infer that a real fire is here meant 2. the gold hay and stuble of which the Apostle speakes in that context are metaphorical must not then likewise the fire be metaphorical 3dly of the word fire be taken in that same sense vers 15. in which it s used vers 13. when it is said that the fire shall try every mans work as it ought saith Esthius in 1 Cor. 3.13 Yea Chamier Panstrat tom 3. lib. 26. Cap. 14. Sect. 6. sayes that this was never questioned before Bellarmines time then sure this fire cannot be the Popish Purgatory fire for that fire vers 13. Is not Purgatory fire as Bellarmine himself proves by many arguments cap. 5. Sect. alii intelligunt the fire vers 13. tryes every mans work but Papists do not say that every mans work is tryed by Purgatory fire And therefore Bell. to inforce this Scripture to speak for Purgatory kindles in it three fires two in vers 13. and a third distinct from both in vers 15. First a fire of conflagration of the world 2dly the fire of Gods severe judgment and 3dly their imaginary fire of Purgatory in vers 15. But this groundless fancy of Bellarmines triple fire is confuted to our hand by Esthius loc cit though he suppress the Cardinals name I appeal all Bellarmines favorites to produce me one testimony of a Father or one solid reason for this triple fire in that Scripture Leaving therefore for Brevity other arguments and the different opinions of Fathers and latter interpreters concerning that difficult place albeit their exposition who by the day vers 13. understand a time in this Life and by the fire the word and spirit of the Lord which are compared to fire Jer. 23.29 Matth. 3.11 by which all doctrines yea and works also shall be examined albeit I say this exposition might be maintained against all the cavils of Romanists and is maintained by Chamier-lib 26. cap. 11 12 13 14. yet I shall choose with learned Dallaeus lib. 1. de paenis satisfact cap 16. to come a little nearer to the Cardinal I grant therefore Not only that by the builders the Apostle understands the teachers of the Church and by the Hay and Stuble superfluous and unedifying doctrine But also that by the day may be understood the day of the great and general Judgement which Bellarmine confirms by sundry probable arguments and sayes that it was the sense of all the Fathers of many I confess but I will not say all and therefore Esthius shews more ingenuity with his Fere almost then the Cardinal with his omnes all Nay I further grant to him that by the fire trying every mans work may well be undeestood the severe Judgement of God at the Great day Hitherto Bellarmine and I have gone along in expounding this Scripture but now when it comes to the push we divide at the last For Bellarmine that he may say something for the Papal interest would have these words vers 15. he shall be saved as by fire understood thus he shall be saved having passed thorow the fire of Purgatory But this is repugnant to Bellarmines former concessions for this saving as by fire falls out the day when the fire shall try every mans work as is clear from the context but that is by Bellarmines confession at the day of Judgement consequently this cannot be by the fire of Purgatory for then the fire of Purgatory according to Romanists will be extinct I suppose therefore the learned Dallaeus has hit upon the right sense of the words thus he shall be saved yet with loss he shall loose the comfort of his work and the additional reward of grace which he might have expected had he been more faithful Nay it will be a miracle of mercy that himself is saved he shall be saved with difficulty So strict and sever will the Judgment be that he must undergoe that he shall be according to the phrase Amos. 4.11 as a fire brand pluckt out of the burning By this time I hope it will appear that Romanists travel in vain when they would beat some sparks out of this Scripture to kindle their Imaginary fire of Purgatory 15. Ibid. He sayes We protest against the eternal Priest-hoâ—d of Jesus Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck by rejecting the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass contrary to Mal. 1.16 We most firmly believe Christs eternal Priest-hood according to the order of Melchisedeck But the abomination of an unbloody and propitiatory sacrifice in the mass as derogatory and repugnant to the perfect sacrifice offered on the cross we justly reject Can there be a propitiatory sacrifice without shedding of Blood Heb. 9.22 Can there be a proper sacrifice without the destruction of the thing sacrificed if the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was perfect why then must it be repeated if it was especially in regard of the Mass-sacrifice that Melchisedeck did prefigure Christ why did not the author to the Hebrews who is so punctuall in enumerating the resemblances betwixt Melchisedeck and Christ once mention that yea doth he not purposely as seems exclude it when he affirms if he be often offered then must he often suffer Will the oblation of the Mass be eternal Do not Popish authors acknowledge that it will be interrupted when their supposed Antichrist shall come And will Christ then cease to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck Can their authors agree upon a proper sacrificing act in the mass what one sayes does not another confute ye may try if ye can condescend to me on that sacrificing act and the thing sacrificed that can expiate the sins of living and dead If you ponder these hints I suppose you may find ground to look upon your Idol sacrifice of the Mass as an abomination of desolation set up in the holy place But how then is Christ a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck if he but once offered himself I wonder that Jesuits who pretend to so much acuteness do not advert that there are more Sacerdotal acts then the actual oblation of the sacrifice Was not the high Priests intercession in the holy of holies a sacerdotal act does not our Lord Christ live for ever to make intercession Heb. 7.25 In the perrennant virtue of that one bloody sacrifice once offered on the cross by which he has for ever perfected them
love one another But neither is that an affirmative proposition de praesenti producing its object I hope the Disciples were bound to love one another before that consequently the command of mutual love had a previous existence If therefore it be asked what Christ meant by hoc This in that proposition I do not say with the Pamphleter that he meant nothing determinately till the whole proposition was uttered but he meant the command of loving one another which was in force before he uttered that proposition and that the following words that ye love one another are added but exegetically that the Disciples might understand what was the particular command he meant And truly the Disciples had as much need of this explication after the prolation of the predicate as of the subject For when he had said This is my Commandment they had yet been at a loss what the command was unless he had subjoyned this explication If it be enquired may not an affirmative proposition de praesenti be a command quoad primum suum esse and have its self for its object Answ Though that were yet would it not follow that an affirmative proposition de praesenti is productive of its object I suppose Philosophers sufficiently demonstrate that it is repugnant to reason that a thing should produce it self at least as to its first being In that case it would only follow that the proposition were a formal command or a signification of the will of God obliging to obedience but not that the proposition should be a command and yet produce the command that I suppose were still a contradiction As there is no solidity in his retortion so neither in his positive answer which thus he delivers The proposition of Christ saith he is true in the instant of Nature sed non pro instanti Naturae but not for the instant of Nature even as to day I may truly affirm what will be to morrow If I mistake not he still involves himself in contradictions As to day he cannot truly affirm de praesenti what shall only be to morrow so neither can he in this instant of Nature truly affirm de praesenti what shall only be in the next When a proposition for any instant whether of time or nature affirms that to be de praesenti which is not in that instant that proposition is surely disconform to its object and consequently false If therefore that may truly be affirmed de presenti which is not de praesenti then the proposition should be both true and false true and not true at once Nor do Idestroy all practical knowledge as he ignorantly affirms by denying that an affirmative proposition de praesenti can be productive of its object Who beside him ever affirmed that all practical knowledge affirms its object to be before it is Were not this indeed to make all practical knowledge to imply a contradiction Now whether he or I deserve his civil Complements of a Don Quick-Sott and whether their figment of Transubstantiation or the Doctrine of reformed Churches concerning the sense of this proposition of Christ be the Chymer and Wind-mill of giddy brains is remitted to the Judgment of unbyassed persons SECT II. The Pamphleters Superficial reflexions on the number and Nature of Sacraments examined COncerning the number of Sacraments I had the more largely insisted in my Tenth Paper because Mr. Dempster had Solemnly appealed me to prove the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as to that thing But how Scabrous a Reply is given by the Pamphleter from p. 115. they who indifferently compare both may judge The enumeration of the pamphleters omissions in this one question would draw long I mention but one though each of the five Romish Sacraments Confirmation Pennance Marriage extream Unction and Orders were severally confuted yet this Ghost of Mr. Dempsters had not the confidence to examin what was objected against any of them To Supply those defects he betakes himself as his custome is to some jmpertient clamours As 1. That this tenet of two Sacraments and no more is a fundamental of the Protestant Religion 2. that this is peculiar to us all the rest of our Tenets being derived from other Hereticks 3. That it was a year before this answeer to Mr. Dempsters query did appear To begin with the last of these I answer that my Reply to Mr. Dempsters tenth paper was inreadiness within a moneth and communicated to some friends but could not be delivered through Mr. Dempsters disappearing To the first of the other two I answer it s a manifest falshood did I not prolixly shew that if there be any controversy in Divinity wherein an adversary may wrap himself up in Logomachies this is it And that as the word Sacrament is explained more or fewer may be asserted Ought not protestants to know what are the fandamentalls of their one Religion better then a Romanist Doth not learned Whittaker praelect de Sac. q. 6. cap. 2. declare that any errour in this matter non est capitalis Indeed the precise septenary of Sacraments is a fundamentall of the Romish Religion and therefore the Council of Trent Ses 7. Can. 1. hath anathematized all that hold any otherwise yet I hope this foundation was Sufficiently overthrown in my last To the second I answer that Papists Simbolizing with Hereticks hath been demonstrated in many particulars but our concurrence with them in one reall Heresy hath not been proved nor can be by all the Caball of Jesuits As to the Doctrine of two Sacrements the Magdeburgians Cent. 12. Cap. 6. Col. 1206. from an ancient manuscript shew that it was one of the Positions of the Waldenses Duo esse Ecclesiae Sacramenta Baptismum caenam Domini either then the Waldenses wer Protestants which is contrary to what he said before or it is falls that this is peculiar to protestants Were not justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Chrysost Anstin c. of the same mind He may remember Anstins numero Paucissima Epist 118. and his Gemina lib. 2. de Symbol ad Catech. cap. 6. and other touches of Antiquity to this purpose in my tenth which yet wait for his examination His gloss upon Austins gemina that he meant only two chief Sacraments is to dilute he might as well say there are but two Planets or that Jacob had but two Sons meaning two chief ones But why should these only be called the two chief Sacraments seeing according to Romanists Pennance is more necessary to Salvation then the Eucharist I appealled my adversary to Instance so much as one Father that affirmed a precise septenary of Sacraments should we not heard of it if it could have been given It 's true that p. 122. He hath some insignificant hints at Denys and Austin and first he begins in Luther de cap. Bab. granting that Denys the Disciple of Paul stood for seven Sacraments I have not that Book of Luther by me to try the Citation But though the Pope would
confuted by our controversists When I consider the deceitful pretexts of Antiquity whereby Romanists do Varnish over their inventions my heart cannot but bleed for the people who are implicitely given up to such notorious Cheats It s pure compassion to misled Souls which drawes this freedom from me and not any choler or prejudice against persons A Second APPENDIX to CHAP. VII The Pamphleters impertinent Citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of Heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discused THe Pamphleter Pag. 156. pitches on Justin Martyr as if from him he could prove the present Romish Religion yet cannot find a vestige in him of their infallible visible Judge of their Popes supremacy of their adoration of Images or Relicts of the half communion of their Purgatory canonical Authority of Apocryphal Books c. Indeed Justin gives an account of the Christian Religion in his days in opposition both to Heathens and Jews Seeing therefore the Pamphleter hath pitched upon him particularly I appeale not only such an ignorant Plagiary as this person but all the industrious Antiquaries of the Romish Party to try if in Justin Martyr the complex of the present Tridentin Faith can be found If they can demonstrate it I faith fully promise to turn a Herauld of their Religion If not which themselves know to be impossible for them to do let them cease to abuse simple Souls as if their Religion were the Religion of Justin Martyr and of Ancient Fathers But hath the Pamphleter made any new discoveries from Justin Martyr Not at all Only he has filched four trivial objections from Bell. which conclude nothing against Protestants The First is concerning free-will All that Justin Martyr says as to this we do admit for he neither asserts that man does that which is spiritually good without grace nor that the efficacy of grace does depend on mans will Of this I have spoken sufficiently cap. 7. in the examination of the Pamphleters eighth Instance The second is concerning merit but Justin only asserts their is a reward for the Righteous from which an argment to proper merit is wholly inconsequent seeing their is a reward of grace as well as of debt Concerning this also see what hath been said cap. 7. Instance 9. The third is of the efficacy of Baptism concerning which we likewise grant Sacraments to be exhibitive signs and seals but Justin hath nothing of the Popish opus operatum The fourth is of the Eucharist concerning which we likewise admit all that Justin Martyr says viz. that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are not common bread and wine being consecrated by Divine institution and so may be truly called the body and blood of Christ as signs usually receive the denomination of the thing signified But does Justin Martyr say as Romanists that the substance of bread and wine is destroyed and the physical body and blood of Christ substituted under those accidents of bread and wine The fiction of Transubstantiation was not hatched in Justin Martyrs days Thus the Pamphleters boasts concerning Justin Martyr have soon evanished into Froath Yet though Justin had dogmatized in all these particulars as do Romanists it would not follow that he had approven the whole System of the present Romish Faith In which many more errors are engrossed Pag. 158.159 he patches up again a Catalogue of Heresies which he charges on Protestants wherein he discovers so much ignorance unfaithfullness and indiscretion that I shall pass them with an overly touch And first he charges us with the error of Simon Magus saying that men are not saved by good works apud Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. Answer Simon Magus denyed the necessity of good works which we constantly affirm only we deny good works to be properly meritorious of eternal Life which was never condemned as Heresy by any but late Romanists Secondly he charges us as saying with Cerimhus that Children may be saved without Baptism apud Epiph. haeres 8. But Epiph. in haeres 8. hath no such thing for there he treats de Epicur Indeed haeres 28. he treats of the Cerinthians but is so far from imputing that error to them that when any of their number dyed they Baptized a living person for the dead Justifying that practise from 1 Cor. 15.29 There be other Hereticks who deny Baptism to be a standing ordinance of Christ as Manichees Seleucians and Henricians apud Aug. haeres 16. haeres 59. with whom Socinians and Quakers joyn issue who are all condemned by Protestants as may be seen in Voss de Bapt. disp 7. Thes 4. 5. Had the Ancient Church held Baptism absolutely necessary to Salvation would they have delayed it so long would they in many places limited it to Easter and Pentecost could it be but in the intervals many behoved to dye without Baptism See Socrates Hist Eccles lib. 5.21 Would the Church have exposed them to such necessity of perishing Eternally yea many Popish Authors deny the absolute necessity of it of whom Dr. Morton giveth a large account appeal lib. 2. cap. 13. Sect. 5. Thirdly says he with Plotinians we affirm that God hath commanded somethings impossible apud Epiph. But tells not where I find one Plotinus noted by a Castro de haeres lib. 14. tit virginitas for Heterodoxy concerning the state of virginity but as to a possibility of keeping the commands of God he speaks nothing of him In what sense God commands things impossible I have expounded cap. 7. in the examination of the Pamphleters Instance 10. and shew the conformity of our Doctrine herein with the Ancient Church and the oposite Doctrine of Romanists to be Pelagianism Fourthly he says with Manichees apud Aug. lib. 2. cont Faustum Manichaeum we pull down Altars Answ the Altars against which Fauâ—us exclaimes are Communion Tables which we allow But St. Austin takes occasion thereby to clear two truths which Romanists oppose one that they in the Holy Communion celebrate no proper Sacrifice sed memoriam peracti Sacrificii Another that they worship departed Saints only with that worship of Love and Society quo coluntur in hoc vita sancti Homines wherewith Saints in this Life are Honoured Fifthly he says with Donatists we hold the Baptism of Christ and John were the same in Aug. lib. 2. cont lit Petil. cap. 32. and 34. Answ Petilian said John only gave water Christ the Spirit and the Holy Ghost fire he denyed that by Johns Baptism the Holy Ghost was given at all the contrary whereof is maintained by Protestants It was really exhibitive of grace though the grace was not Originally from John What sixthly he objects of our denying with the Aerians the Fasts of the Church and Prayers for the dead he had said before Sect. 5. Pag. 99. and accordingly was confuted cap. 4. Sect. 2. Sevently he says we with Julian forbid the use of Images and sign of the cross apud Sozom. lib. 5. cap. 20. and Euseb lib. 7. cap.
as if he had been the ancient S. Ambrose B. of Millan whereas by looking on the Errata where S. is appointed to be expunged the Reader may understand that the Epithet Saint was not in the Authors Copy By the same means diverse other mistaks of the impression may be cleared especially seeing it is hoped that these which are not set down may easily be observed by the judicious Reader It is likewise granted that many trespasses are committed in the punctation but there was necessity to leave these to the Correction of the intelligent Reader Where the Printer found in the Coppy this figure She ordinarily hath printed Sect. and so hath sometimes put twice Sect. in one place Some of those escapes are noted amongst the Errata that by them the Reader might easily pass judgment on the rest And if he would be at pains to correct the errours with his pen he would oblige the Author and ease those of trouble who afterwards should make use of his book If either Jesuit or other Reader impute any of these or such like escapes unto the Author he will discover more prejudice against the cause or person of the Author than either judgment or discretion However the Errata is subjoyned for the use of ingenuous lovers of truth It is to be noted that whereas cap. 3. Sect. 3. page 94. Lyranus Paulus Burgensis Valla Cajetan are joyned with Erasmus Pagnin Arias Montanus c. the meaning is not that the first four Authors had translated entire books of Scripture as the latter had done but that those also in their Expositions of Scripture did frequently recede from the Vulgar Latin and corrected it Likwise where as it is said cap. 3. Sect. 3. pag 95. that Romanists can only object against our translations of Scripture some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no authority that is to be understood of Castalio Broughton Carolus Molinaeus and others of that quality cited by the Pamphleter But there a touch should have been given how the Pampheter had abused an expression of King James in the conference at Hampton Court viz. that the Geneva translation is the worst of all English translations This expression of the King the Pamphleter abuses to impugne the Scriptures being the rule of Faith which his Majesty never intended nor was his meaning that the Geneva translation composed Anno. 1560. By the English Exiles who fled thither in the Reign of Queen Mary or that the other English translations the faillours whereof were likewise briefly hinted at by the King did not contain all things necessary to Salvation Yea the particular trespases noted by his Majesty in the Geneva bible were in the Marginal annotations not in the translation it self The real design of the King was to hold forth that no English translation then extant had arrived at the perfection which were not only to be wished but also by more industry might be attained whereupon his Majesty gave special order to compose the English translation which we now by the mercy of God do enjoy It were good that Romanists had as much ingenuity to acknowledge the errors of their vulgar latin as lastly corrected by Clement the eight a specimen whereof hath been exhibited by Francisus Lucas Brugensis If any be not satisfied with the touch given of the Keri and Chetib pag. 102. 103. they are remitted to Sixtinus Amama his dissertation de Keri Chetib in coronide ad Grammaticam Martinio Buxtorfianam where though that learned Author seem to make large concessions concerning the Keri and Chetib and the various lections yet neither do they overthrow the doctrine of the reformed Church concerning Scriptures being the rule of faith as Amama himself in the Answer of some objections endeavours to clear It is also to be noted that whereas in page 472. Clements Epist 1. is pronounced spurious The Authors designe was not to censure Clements first Epistle to the Corinthians lately published by Mr. Patrick Young which Rivet Crit. sac lib. 1. cap. 8. Commends as savouring of primitive simplicity and Hottinger in Elencho librorum supposititiorum saith de ea Nostri nihil durius pronunciarunt for that is not the Epistle cited by the Pamphleter but another passing under the name of Clements first Epistle to S. James which is justly concluded spurious And albeit the Epistle were genuine yet the testimony adduced from it is impertinent seeing it speaks not of the Popes supremacy but partly of that which was common to S. Peter with the rest of the Apostles namely that he was called Fundamentum Ecclesiae which is also attributed to the rest Eph. 2.20 Rev. 21.14 and partly of his personal prerogatives and indowments in regard whereof he is said to be potentior omnium which might well consist with equality of jurisdiction Dedic pag. 3. li. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 35. r. lib. 13. p. 12. l. 39. r. Rom. 8.3.8 p. 14. l. 19. r. twelve years p 23. l. 21 r. diffusive p 24. l. 14. r. diffasive l 28. r. Donatists might have p. 51. l. 31. r. those Fathers do only compare p. 52. l. 20. r. against F. Johnson p. 53. l. 22. r. 18 Mat 28.20 p. 57. l. 7. r. Exod. 32. p 62. l. 10. r. Evangelium p. 65. l 30. r. lib. 2. de Concilâ—â—â— p. 67. l. 35. r. contra Epist Fundemenâ—â— p 72. l. 34. in place of Isidor Clarius r. Lucas Brugensis l. 38 r. diffic 4 Sect 2. p. 73 l. 21. r. disparâ—â—senses l. 39. r. Quâ— roga p. 75 l. 30. r. breaching p. 76. l. 33. art 10. ad primum p. 77. l. 3. r. Sect. 2. N. 5. l. 24. â— Qui regr p. 85. l. 33. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 88. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 91. l. 34. r. 321. p. 93. l. 9. r. Tom. 3. p. 135. p. 95. 22. l. r. summam l 33. r errour destroying an Article of Faith p. 96. l. 12 13. r. justifie nkown faulis p. 100. l. 7. r. Calovius l. 22. r. falsatas p. 103. l. 4. r. to confute him p. 104 l. 1. r. Buxtorf fil p. 106. l. 28. r. Masora l. 31. r. veteriâ— p. 112. l. 19. r. atque adeo l. 20. r. iâ—stâ—ctâ— p. 114 l 30. r. conciliis p 115. l. 32. r. Sect. 12 N 39. p. 120. l. 19. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 122. l. 10. r. therewith p. 125. l. 7. r. Luke 7.34.35 l 19. r. faith only p. 128. l. 19. r. Consubstantiality per 32. l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 folly p. 135. l. 6 7. r. Pinedâ— p 139 l. 31. r Isthmiacae pinis p. 142 l. 20 21. r. seeming diversities l. 22. r. summam p. 145 l. 18. r. Pompeium p. 150 l. 23. r. sense of hearing p. 154. l. 5. r. hom 9. l. 16. r. Ecclesiam p. 155. l. 2. r. in caâ—ech quest 9. p. 157. l. 35 36. r. Hist Eccles lib. 4. cap. 7. and the