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
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
many things directly contrary to the Command of Jesus Christ such as the Communion under one kind worshipping Images invocating Saints c. Lastly remains that place 1 Tim. 3. 15. Where the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth to which on all occasions they flee as the chief support of their infallibility but in vain For first were I disposed to Criticise I might remember him that their own Esthius on the place observes that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Pillar but also a writing Pensil so as the Church may be termed Stylus veritatis or the Pensil of Truth because by her the Lord writes in the hearts of men the Doctrines of Truth which may be done by the Ministry of the Word though she have no infallible visible Judge I might likewise advertise him that Heinsius as is noted by M. Leigh in his Critica Sacra affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies a Station or place wherein a person doâ—h stand or sit and that the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seat may be much of the same importance and then the sense will be the Church is the Seat of Divine Truth So as all truths necessary to Salvation are always to be found in her and in no other Society Yet hence it no more follows that in her is a visible Judge exempted from all Doctrinal Errour than because she is the Seat of true Holiness it can be concluded that there is in her a Judge exempted from all sin Perhaps secondly the Adversary will have difficulty to disprove them among whom is the Learned Camero in Myroth who joyn these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth not with the Church but with that which follows and so the meaning will be that the great Mystery of Godliness mentioned vers 16. is the Pillar and ground of Truth that is a chief Article of Faith and Religion as the Jews term the points of their Religion Fundamenta Radices Hence that famed Rabbin Maimonides as Camero observes begins his Book Fundamentum Fundamentorum columna sapientiae est cogn scere esse primum ens c Does it not appear a little harsh to use the arguings of Mares controv 5. cont Tirin num 3 that the Church be called the House of God and also a Pillar in one sentence A House may have Pillars but the House and the Pillar are not the same Seems it not probable that the Apostle having described the Church as the House of God should then point at these Foundation-Truths which he enumerates in v. 16. as the Pillar which supports the House Some I confess of our own Divines seem not so well pleased with that construction of Camero among whom are Gul. Rivet Son to the Famous Andreas Rivetus and Ravanel But with Reverence to these Learned men I must crave leave to say their Arguments against it seem at best but topical Thirdly May not Chillingworth's notion Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 76. have it's probability who by the Pillar and ground of Truth understands not the Church but Timothy and so there is an elepsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequent in Scripture as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning will be that thou mightest behave thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar And thus not only Apostles as Peter James and John Gal. 2.9 but also faithful zealous Ministers may be termed Pillars Nazianzen gives the like Titles Orat. 19 to Basil and Orat. 21. to Athanasius So Basil Epist 62. honours the Bishop of Neo Caesarea with this very Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore either Nazianzen and Basil judged all these persons infallible which I suppose none will affirm or if they did not then they did not think these words to import infallibility But fourthly Granting it be said of the Church yet it makes nothing for the Romish Interest many probably supposing that to be spoken of the particular Ephesine Church Now particular Churches by the acknowledgment of all may err If it should be extended to the Catholick Church what is that to the Roman she being at the best but a particular Church But whether universal or particular Church be here meant yet if it be not the Church Representative it makes nothing to the purpose in hand concerning the visible Judge But the very Series of the context seem to favour them who understand the place rather of the Church governed than governing that thou says he to Timothy mightest know how thou ought to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church that is how Timothy as a Pastor should carry among those under his charge Was not the Church in the first 300 years the Pillar and ground of Truth as well as now yet all that time after the first Council at Jerusalem she never assembled in a General Council ergo her being Pillar and ground of Truth is not by Conciliary infallibility But fifthly Giving and not granting that it were spoken of the Representative of the Catholick Church yet infallibility will never be infallibly deduced from it Why may not she be called the Pillar and ground of Truth in a politick sense because Ministerially she holds forth the Truth as a Programme affixed to a Pillar is exposed to publick view of others but not in an Architectonick sense as if the Church did Authoritatively and infallibly support the Truth especially seeing as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cap. 11. columna firmamentum Ecclesiae est Evangelicum The written Gospel for of that he there speaks is the ground and Pillar of the Church yea and Hierom as cited by a Lapide on the place writeth thus Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis quia in ea sola stat veritas firmatae quae sola sustinet aedificium Ecclesiae If the truth alone as Hierom says doth sustain the Church then doth not the Church in an Architectonick sense sustain the Truth yet do we not deny but the Church is a Keeper Witness Propounder and Defender of the Truth Why may not this phrase the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth hold forth the Churches duty what de jure she ought to do and not what always de facto is her practise infallibly Though Rom. 13. 3. it be said that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil yet the Romanists will not grant that Magistrates do always and infallibly countenance Godliness and Truth because there he speaks what 's their duty not what always is their practise Why may not the Church be called a Pillar in regard of solidity though not in regard of infallibility to signifie the difficulty of her removal from truth though not the impossibility But sixthly as Chillingworth loc cit Sect. 78. does further acutely observe concerning this
habitat Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis Nunquid in praecipitiis Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum Non est via haec sed ruina si via tua est non illius Did not Christ by collating the Scripture cited by the Devil with another Deut. 6. 16. demonstrate that the Devil did pervert the Scripture contrary to its sense and thereby did confirm the truth which the Jesuit here impugnes viz. that collation of Scripture with Scripture is one solid mean to find out the true sense of Scripture What though Hereticks for their Heresies do alledge Scriptures as would seem clear Is there not as great odds betwixt a Scripture seemingly clear and really clear as betwixt a Jesuits Sophism and a real demonstration May not all those perversions of Scripture by Marcion tes Mauichees c. be sufficiently cleared without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Is it not apparent that it was an impious inference from Joh. 10. 8. that Moses was a Thief or Robber seeing he was faithful in all the House of God as a servant Heb. 3. 6. That place Joh. 10. 8. pronounces them only Thieves and Robbers who run without a Mission from God as Austin expounds lib. 16. contra Faustum cap. 12. or that gave themselves out for the Messias such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas c. So Chrysest Cyril Theophil Enthym cited by à Lapide on the place none of which did Moses Is not the fancy of the Manicheans from Joh. 8. 12. as impious and ludibrious Is not Christ God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. therefore as Austin said excellently Tract 34. in Joh. Est Lux quae faecit hanc lucem he is not the Sun but the Light which made the Sun As for that Tenet he charges upon the Waldenses they are vindicated from it by Learned Vsher de Christian Eccles success stat cap. 6. Edit 2. pag. 198. and by Perrin Hist of Walden lib. 1. cap. 4. Yea Alphonsus à Castro albeit he following the Drove accuse them of it yet confesses that Aeneas Sylvius in lib. de orig Bohemorum cap. 35. in reckoning out the errours of the Waldenses charges them with no such thing However surely that Position has no Foundation in that Text Exod. 20. 13. For the Magistrate Rom. 13. bears not the Sword in vain and Scripture expresly injoyns the punishing of sundry Criminals capitally particularly Murtherers Numb 35. 31. So that those impious glosses which Hereticks have put upon Scripture may be clearly confuted by Scripture if it were not so what could the Romish infallible Judge do What ground should he have upon which to pronounce this to be the sense of the place and not that which Hereticks pretend if the Popes definition be the only way to vindicate Scriptures from glosses of Hereticks why has he not given us a clear Commentary upon the whole Scripture As Hereticks wrest sentences of Scripture may they not wrest sentences of Popes or Councils They can bring no Objection against us which recoils not upon their own head He clamours pag. 61. that there may be many seeming contradictions in Scripture What then Ergo all things necessary to salvation are not clearly set down in Scripture or by firm consequence deducible from it Non sequitur There are not only seeming but real contradictiors betwixt the definitions of their Popes and Canons of their Councils one Council decreeing that the General Council is above the Pope another decreeing that the Pope is above the Council and both approved by Popes for as the Lateran which did subject the Council to the Pope was approved by Leo the 10. so also was the Council of Constance which subjected the Pope to the Council approved and confirmed by Pope Martyn 5. Sess 45. but the holy Scripture is not Yea and Nay He objects ibid. That many things are believed by Protestants which are not in Scripture at all as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the Command of keeping the Sunday Answ I would have apprehended the Pamphleter would have heard of Nazianzen's distinction Orat. 37. that quâ—dam sunt in Scripturis quae non dicuntur quaedam sunt dicuntur There are Points of Faith materially contained in Scripture though the words which the Catholick Church uses to explain these Mysteries be not there found Thus the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ are found in Scripture and luculently demonstrated thence against the Socinian though those words be not found in Scripture Did not the ancient Fathers demonstrate from Scripture the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in Scripture It 's enough that the thing meant by the word Persons and Sacraments and a sufficient Warrant to keep the Lords day be found there Yea have we not the word Person Heb. 1. 3. Who is the express Image of his Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Albeit I be not ignorant of the Logomachies which were among Ancients concerning the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Command concerning the Lords Day besides other Warrants to observe it from the Scripture such as the practice of the Apostles the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 1. 10 the Apostolick Injunction 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Has not Learned M. Caudrey demonstrated a preceptive Authority for it from the fourth Command in his Sabbatum Redivivum Part. 2. cap. 7. Part. 3. cap. 3. Part. 4. cap. 1. As for the Sacraments I hope the Institution of Baptism and the Lords Supper is clear in Scripture and other Sacraments we know none As for the definition of a Sacrament given by me in my tenth Paper against M. Demster at which here he snarâ—s when he gets confidence to examine it he shall find it will abide the Test In fine could any Romanist solidly prove that any of the Articles of our Religion are not contained in Scripture I should ingenuously disown them It 's further objected pag. 62. that many places of Scripture are flatly against Protestants and for Papists as Matth. 26. 26. Jam. 2. 24. 2. Thes 2. 13. yea he is bold to say that Protestants can never be able to bring one clear Scripture against any of their Tenets These be big words but splendid untruths Can we bring no clear Scripture against any Tenet of Popery Is not that Scripture clear against their Dry Communions Matth. 26. 27. Drink ye all of it Is not that Scripture express against Purgatory Revel 14. 13. Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If they rest from their labours then they labour not in the flames of Purgatory Is not that a clear Scripture against Image-worship Exod. 20. 4 5. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven
be necessary to believe any thing explicitely Does not Azor Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. qu. 1. bring in Directo and Rossel maintaining that its enough to believe what the Church believes though explicitely nothing in particular be believed Yet herein also they are contradicted by Sylvius Navarr and Azorius himself Can the Pamphleter give an inventory of all that their Church hath so imposed under pain of Anathema's as to make Fundamentals to her Disciples How then have these men a face to challenge others of their divisions about the number of Fundamentals Had the Pamphleter considered the distinction betwixt credenda facienda petenda he would have seen these forementioned seeming difficulties among Protestants were not so hard to be reconciled If one said the Creed contains summum credendorum the Decalogue faciendorum and the Lords Prayer petendorum If some have reduced the Sacraments to an Article of the Creed inter credenda others to a Precept of the Decalogue inter facienda the contrariety is not so great as the Pamphleter would insinuate Neither do all Persons take the word Fundamental in the same restristive sense Hence Paraeus in Irenico cap. 29. after he had branched forth the Fundamentals into four heads the Decalogue the Creed Lords Prayer and Sacraments subjoyns in his ipsis tamen Capiâ—ibus discrimen aliquod esse posse libenter etiam concesserimus nam alia aliis magis vcl minus ad salutem sunt necessaria To reduce the Pamphleters disorderly discourse of Fundamentals into some method I shall briefly enquire into these eight things 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals or Non Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion 2. Whether all Fundamentals be clearly contained in Scripture 3. Whether every thing which the Church imposes to be believed as an Article of Faith become on that very account a Fundamental 4. Whether there was a necessity of determining the precise number of Fundamentals for decision of the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author 5. Whether the Popish Religion be injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity 6. Whether the Waldensez Wicklevists and Hussites were of the same Religion as to Fundamentals with Protestants 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals 8. Whether the Religion of Protestants be openly against Gods Word and contrary to the Fundamentals of Christianity as the Pamphleter does alledge SECT I. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion THat there be no logomachy concerning the subject of the present Dispute I shall seek no other description of a Fundamental Verity in Religion than that which the Pamphleter gives page 90. It is saith he either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and beliefe thereof none can be saved Now this being the notion of Fundamental Truth I conceive it cannot be asserted rationally that all Truths of the Christian Religion are Fundamental If by Fundamental be understood that for which other Articles are to be believed then sure we must suppose there be other particulars which are believed for that As there is a formal Object and Rule of Faith so there are distinct material Objects of Faith If therefore a Fundamental and the formal Object or Rule of Faith which is the reason for which the rest are believed be one and the same then as many material Objects as there be in Christianity there be as many Non-Fundamentals If you take a Fundamental for that without the explicite belief whereof none can be saved I am sure likewise there be many Non-Fundamentals in Religion Else the Romish implicite Colliar and all who walk in his Footsteps as do the plurality of their Communion must be damned eternally If all Truths of the Christian Religion were of absolute necessity to Salvation and Fundamentals what meant the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. to distinguish betwixt the Foundation and Gold Silver and Precious Stones built thereupon There be then precious Truths built upon the Foundation which yet are not the Foundation Or what meant the Author to the Hebrewes cap. 6. v. 1. by that foundation of Repentance from dead Works and of Faith toward God when he is quickening them to pursue after other Truths If all Articles of Faith be Fundamental and the explicite belief thereof absolutely necessary to Salvation than who ever did live or die in any error of Religion were damned eternally What then should become of the believing multitude of whom said S. Austin lib. cont Epist Fundam cap. 4. Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit and so may be obnoxious to many errours in Religion But what speak I of the Multitude What did become of all the Fathers who were leavened with the Millenary error of whom an account may be received from Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Bibl. annot 233. and lib. 6. annot 347. or of the Fathers who denyed that the Souls of Just men are admitted to the beatifique Vision before the day of Judgement of whom a List may be had from Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. What did become of Tertullian Cyprian Firmilian Deny's of Alexandria who maintained rebaptization What became of Austine Innocent the 1. and others who as Maldonat witnesses in John 6. 53. affirmed the Eucharist was necessary to the salvation of Infants Were all these Fathers damned eternally Surely either the points about which they erred were not Fundamental or these Errors have damned the Fathers of the Church eternally Do we not know but in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. Who can understand his Errors Psal 19. 12. If every Error did plunge men into Damnation who then could be saved I know the ordinary reply That the Church then had not explicitely declared against these Errors and therefore though the Errors concerning the Millenium the exclusion of Saints from the Beatisique Vision Rebaptization the necessity of the Eucharist be Heresies now in regard of of the declaration of the Church yet were not in the dayes of the Fathers This supposes another absurd Error which I hope Sect. 3. to consute viz. That the declaration of the Church makes points to be Fundamental and consequently the basis falling the Superstructure cannot stand At present I onely argue thus if these points be Fundamental now which were not in the dayes of the Fathers than the Christian Religion is not the same now which it was nor make we up one Catholick Church with them Their Religion and ours differâ—ng in Essentials If the Roman Church be that Catholique Church whose declaration makes Articles Fundamental did not she and Stephen the Bishop of Rome declare explicitely against S. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization It should therefore follow that St. Cyprian and the rest who joyned with him had erred Fundamentally Yet the Catholick Church holds them for Saints for Firmilian is Sainted in
Nudi-pedales yea Rivet Cathol Orthod Proaem de Haeres reckons forth a Catalogue of fifty Ancient Heresies ingrossed in the Romish Religion When Romanists have considered the affinity of their Tenets with the errours of those Hereticks they may tell us whether they hold all for Fundamental Errours which are reckoned forth in the Catalogues of Heresies I answer secondly that it 's a notorious falshood that the Protestant Churches do own all the particulars mentioned in the Pamphleters Objection I might remit him to the Authors who have long ago confuted these old raucid Calumnies yet a touch I give of them And first we maintain not with Eunomians that if a man had Faith and retained his Profession how impiously soever be lived be might be saved D. Field when he is repelling this calumny of Romanists lib. 3. cap. 22. breaks forth in these words If saith he any of us ever wrote spake or thought any such thing let God forget ever to do good unto us and let our prayers be rejected from his presence but if this be as vile a slander as ever Satanist devised the Lord reward them that have been the Authors and devisers of it Who would not have thought that this serious protestation would have stopped the mouths of Romanists for ever Yet this impudent Calumniator has the confidence to come over with it again If our Protestation be not sufficient to clear us yet I hope Bellarmines confession may be heard Now he declares lib. 1. de justif cap. 3. and lib. 3. de justif cap. 6. that we acknowledge that true Faith cannot be without good works I know that Bell. notwithstanding all this endeavours lib. 4 de justif cap. 1. to fix the same Calumny on Protestants as if they denied the necessity of good works by misconstruing some words which dropt from Luther Calvin and some others But these are not only fully vindicated by Davenant de justitiâ habit actual cap. 30. but also the Cardinal palpably bewrays the violence he used to his own Conscience in this Crimination for in the beginning of that very Chapter he confesses that Luther Calvin Melancthon Brentius and the Augustan Confession had asserted the necessity of good works All who know our doctrine know that we subscribe to that of the Apostle Heb. 12. 14. Without holiness none can see the Lord. As to that which is charged upon the Aerians concerning Fasts not to insist that it is questioned by Learned Authors particularly by Danaeus in his Commentaries upon S. Austin's book de Haeres cap. 53. whether there were sufficient ground to charge all that is alledged by Epiphanius and out of him by Austin upon the Aerians and the rather seeing there is no mention of the Aerians as Hereticks either in Theodorets four Books Haeret. Fab. or in the Church Histories of Socrates Sozomen or Evagrius but only in Epiphanius which might have been occasioned by his freedom in testifying against some misdemeanours of Eustathius He might have known that D. Morton's Appeal lib. 5. cap. 1. in confutation of this same Calumny in Breerly's mouth had shewed from Luther and Calvin that publick Fasts enjoyned by the Church are not disallowed by Protestants The like might be shewed from the confession of Protestant Churches particularly by the Helvetian art 24. the Bohemian art 18. Argentin cap. 8. and that of Wittenberg tit de jejunio and Cassander Consult art 15. reporteth this to be the judgment of Protestants in the Saxonick confession yet I must put him in mind that their own Cardinal Jesuit Tolet in Luke 5. Annot. 70. confesses that the present set Fasts of their Church such as the Vigils four Embers and Lent-Fast were not instituted by Jesus Christ The third Heresie that he mentions is the denying of Free will which he saith is condemned by Epiphanius Haeres 64. In that Chap. Epiphanius disputes against Origen to whom he ascribes sundry other gross errours all I find said in reference to Free-will is that Adam by his Fall lost the Image of God whereby if Origen had only meant that he lost the habits of grace and holiness wherewith in the state of Innocency he was adorned he had been guilty of no errour This being a truth clear from Scriptures and acknowledged by Learned Romanists as well as by Fathers and Protestants as is evident from the debates de statu primi hominis But if Origen meant by the Image of God the Natural Faculties of the Rational Soul sure it was an errour and disallowed by Protestants to say that the Image of God was lost for faln man in so far as he has a Rational Nature is said Gen. 9. 6. to bear the Image of God The same distinction is given in behalf of Origen by Alphonsus à Castro de Haeres lib. 2. tit Adam Haeres 2. where also he suspects that Epiphanius zeal did over-reach in charging this errour upon Origen I might far rather charge Jesuits with Pelagianism in the matter of Free-will But of this hereafter only now he who would be satisfied may see Jansenius parallel betwixt Pelagians and Molinists or Jesuits The fourth Heresie he mentions is that of Vigilantius condemned by Hierome for affirming that Relicks of Saints ought not to be reverenced Need I tell him that Erasmus wished that Hierome had used more Reasoning and less Railing in his debates with Vigilantius Learned Fulk against the Rhemists art 19. 12. doubts whether Hierome in that heat of dispute might not represent Vigilantius Opinion more grosly than it was and the rather seeing by none of those who of old wrote the Catalogues of Hereticks is he condemned for this thing except only by Hierom But if Vigilantius indeed asserted as Hierom saith that the bodies of Saints should be thrown ad sterquilinium to a dunghil and trod upon we do abominate such thoughts the memory of Saints with us is precious We judge a decent Christian Burial to be a honour due to their bodies and therefore Romanists are highly injurious to them who dig them up out of their Graves and adore sometimes the Bones of a Robber instead of a Saint as testifieth Cassander in Consult art 21. de veneratione Reliquiarum the true Veneration of the Relicks of Saints saith the same Cassander is to imitate the examples of Vertue and Piety recorded of them all other ostentation of Relicks for avoiding Superstition he wishes to be abandoned How far Hierom and the Catholick Church in his time were from giving Religious Worship to the Relicks of Martyrs Hierom himself testifies adversus Vigilant Quis saith he O insanum caput aliquando Martyres adoravit quis hominem putavit Deum Where Hierom rates it as such an impiety as if one should Deifie a poor Creature The fifth Heresie objected to us is that of Jovinian condemned by Austin Haeres 82. for holding Wedlock equal in dignity to Virginiiy Seeing this Pamphleter is pleased to resume this long-ago confuted Calumny together with the rest out of Breerly
an interpreter as you yet to him it seemed not so clear yea he held it for one of these places in Paul which are hard to be understood lib. de fid oper cap. 15. and quest 1. ad Dulcit It seems Jesuit Cotton saw not such clearness in it for Purgatory when as Thuan records lib. 132. he would enquire at the devil what were the clearest Scripture for Purgatory The Difficulty of this Scripture appears by the perplexed disputes both of ancient and modern interpreters concerning it in so much that Bellarmine lib. 1. de purg cap. 5. confesses it to be unum ex difficillimis totius Scripturae one of the hardest places in all the Bible Before he can make use of it for his 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 confated to our hand by Esthi us 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 unâ—difying 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 Hitherte 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 Judgement 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-hood 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 Metchisedeck 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
Had it been so Is it credible that neither Ignatius nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen nor Cyprian would once have made mention of the word Mass but for this impudent falshood the Cardinal is sufficiently chastised by Causabon Exercit. 16. an 34. Num. 39. The first notice that the same learned Causabon and after him D. Will. Forbes lib. 3. de Sacrif Missae cap. 1. do observe of it was about 250 years after Christ in an Epistle of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Lupicinus and yet both of them doubt if this Epistle be genuine and therefore I said that hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of Ancients of these Ages But it s not names we stand upon and therfore I affirm that though Fathers did offen use the word Sacrifice concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet they meant only an eucharistick and commemorable Sacrifice not proper and expiatory This has been largly demonstrated by many I will hint at a few considerations which I hope may Satisfie those that are not obstinately wilfull to adhere to a preconceived opinion And 1. the Fathers said that they did Sacrifice to God bread and win in the Eucharist so Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. Cyprian Serm. de opere Eleemosynis and epist 63. and Austin epist 122. yea and the compyler of a part of the Missal for it s like a beggars cloak patched up at Severall times Seems to have been of the same opinion for before the Consecration it s said suscipe pater hanc Immaculatam hostium but then by the Romanists own confession there is nothing but bread and wine Now sure it is bread and wine can be no propitiatory Sacrifice to expiate the sins of the Elect Ergo all these must be understood to speak of an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice Secondly the Fathers doe clearly expound themselves to mean nothing else Chrysostom who as often terms the Sacrament of the Supper a Sacrifice as any expounds his meaning most clearly Hom. 17. in Heb. we offer up saith he The same Sacrifice which Christ offered then he Subjoyns by way of Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather the remembrance thereof So Euseb lib. 1. de demonstrat cap. 10. he has commanded us to offer unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Memoriall instead of a Sacrifice and Austin lib. 20. Cond Faust Manich. cals it Sacramentum memoriae a Sacrament of remembrance Theoret Clemens Basil and Greg. Nazianzen call the eucharist Simbols and tips of the Sacrifice of Christ on the crosse The Chuch Theodoret in Ps 109. offers to God the Simbols of Christs body and blood These Fathers indeed excepting Clemens are posterior to the 3d Century but their faith is consonant to the faith of the Church in former ages Hence Iustin Martir in dial cum Triph. Pap. 101. edit Comelin Christ commanded us to offer the bread of the Eucharist in recordationem passionis in remembrance of his Passion and Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. makes this disparity betwixt the Jewish and Christian Sacrifice Species tantum mutata est the change is only in the out ward formes but sure the Jewish Sacrifices were not the real Sacrifice of Christ but representations thereof consequently Irenaeus looked on the eucharist only as a representative Sacrifice Thirdly as the Eucharist so also Baptism was called by the Fathers a Sacrifice the most of the Fathers plerique antiquorum if we may credit Melchior Canus lib. 12. loc com c. 13. p. 680. expound that of the Apostle Heb. 10. There remains no more Sacrifice for sin of Baptism But Romanists will confess Baptism is no proper Sacrifice why then do they not say the same of the Eucharist Fourthly as fathers say that Christ is Sacrificed in the eucharist so are they found saying that he dyes and Suffers in that Sacrament Hence Greg. is cited in the Canon law by Gratian de consecrat dist 2. cap. 73. quid sit affirming that Jesus dyes in the mistery of the eucharist Will any Romanist say Christ properly dies or Suffers either in Baptism or in the Eucharist Nay says the Gloss upon the last cited place he is said to die quiae mors ejus passio repraesentantur why then do they not say the same concerning his Sacrifice And indeed if he be properly Sacrificed then must he also properly die and Suffer Fiftly when Julian the Apostate did object that Christians had no proper Sacrifices Cyril lib. 9. cont Jul. did admit they had only Spiritual Sacrifices which he would never have yielded if he had been of the Tridentin faith that there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass Sixly this truth is so luculent that it hath extorted confessions from eminent Doctors of the Romish Church that the Sacrament of the Supper is called a Sacrifice because in it the Sacrifice of Christ on the crosse is commemorated so Lombard lib. 4. sent dist 12. Aquinas part 3. quest 83. art 1. Liranus in heb 10. Picherel dissert de Missa Barnesius in Catholico Romano Pontif. sect 7. to whom D. William Forbes de Missa cap. 1. adds Wicelius Ferus and divers others Seventhly and lastly Romanists are so divided among themselves touching this matter that Malderus Bishop of Antwerp as cited by D. Will. Forbes pag. 452. relates nine several opinions of Romanists all which Malderus refutes not excepting the opinion of Bellarmin himself And yet says mine Author who is known to have been no rigid Adversary of Romanists his own opinion was nihilo melior no whit sounder then the rest By these considerations I hope the discreet Reader may be satisfied that though Fathers used the word Sacrifice yet they meant only an Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice To the Testimonies therefore objected by the Pamphleter I answer in two words viz. That the first three namely from the Liturgy of James Andrews Book of the Passion Clements Epistle 3. as also that from Hippolitus de Antichristo are censured as spurious see Cocus in Censur pag. 9.21.53 and 65. And Rivet Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 3.4 and 8. lib. 2. cap. 11. Yea the faith of James Liturgie is questioned by Bell. de script Eccles an 34. and lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 3. Andrews Book by Barronius Tom. 1. an 44. Num. 42. 43. and an 69. Num. 34. And Clements Epistles both by Bell. descript Eccles an 92. and Barron Tom. 2. an 102. Num. 6. 7. Secondly that the rest of the testimonies from Ignatius Irenaeus Tertul. c. are only to be understood of Eucharistick commemorative and Symbolick Sacrifices which might be confirmed by particular arguments from the several Authors but I hope the premised considerations may suffice Only left any should imagine that the word Mass was known in the days of Ignatius that which the Pamphleter renders out of him to celebrate a Mass in Ignatius Greek Epist ad Smyrn is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies only to celebrate