Image nor the likeness of any thing Thou shalt not bow down to them c. I know the Pamphleter says that this is a corrupt Version and that it should be rendred Idol not Image it being Pesel in the Hebrew But that is a corrupt evasion say I doth not the root Pasal signifie dolare sculpere Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma an Image Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus render it sculptile But whatever be of that is it not added in the Hebrew Ve coltemuna or any likeness of any thing Are not here then all Images in so far as they are made objects of Adoration prohibited But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol which before was not one Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est Idololatria and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similachrum quod humana effigie factum consecratum est according to the known Distich Qui sacros fingit auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit Yea so evident is this that their great School-man Vasq Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 104. cap. 2. confesses that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews whence I conclude therefore also to Christians the Moral Law standing still in force Rom. 3. 31. Do we by Faith make void the Law nay rather we establish it I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures Whereas he says these three Scriptures Mat. 26. 26. Jam. 2. 24. 2 Thes 2. 13. are flatly against Protestants he too flatly discovers either his own ignorance or impudency the harmony betwixt these and the Doctrine of Protestants hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Justification and Traditions Now shortly I say first that these words This is my Body make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ than these 1 Cor. 10. 4. the Rock was Christ for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ Yea their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted without falsifying the words of Christ as I demonstrated against M. Demster and shall shew in its own place that my Argument stands yet in force not withstanding the Pamphleters insignificant attempts to the contrary In evidence hereof after Consecration it 's frequently called Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26 27. I proceed therefore to the second Scripture Jam. 2. 24. Ye see that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only That this place is not so clear for them may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 4. 5 6. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly is Faith counted for righteousness even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi per fidem which Estbius upon the place acknowledges to be equivalent to sed tantum per fidem but only by Faith And he affirms that the most Learned both of Greek and Latin Interpreters do agree in that Exposition These and other Texts of the Apostle Paul seem to stand in so full contradiction to the sense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to elude those luculent testimonies of the Apostle S. Paul Some affirming that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel as is clear comparing Rom. 3. 28. with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law yet say that only these works as done before Conversion and without Grace are excluded Others say that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justification but not of the second But the Apostle S. Paul Rom. 4. to confirm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law brings in the instances of David and Abraham long after their Conversion and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justâ—fication I shall not digress to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification but surely in the Romish sense it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness or by works and so is a begging of the question Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words it would be considered that the chief question betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is concerning the meritorious cause of Justification what it is that purchases to us Remission of sin and right to Eternal Life Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons what else can do this but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ Can our good works either before or after Conversion satisfie Divine Justice or merit to us remission of sins and a right to eternal life Is there any proportion betwixt our works and that Eternal and far more exceeding weight of Glory or the wrath to the uttermost due to us for our sins Are we not bound Luke 17. 10. When we have done all that we are commanded to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants for we have but done that which was our duty to do Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects Eccles 7. 20. Esay 64. 6. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is not that saying of S. Greg. known lib. 9. Moral in Job cap 11. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esse convincitur si districté judicetur prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ex sola judicis pietate convalescat Does any man love God so well as he ought says not S. Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet in vitio est Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works Neh. 13. 22. Are they not made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. Can we then be pronounced by God perfectly just on the account of these or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ for which these are accepted and we our selves also Ephes 1. 6. He hath made us accepted in the beloved Is not that Scripture luculent Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous If any might have placed confidence on their works to be justified thereby then surely the Apostle S. Paul might have done it but he durst not adventure on it 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified It remains then to be expounded in what sense a man is said Jam. 2. 24. to be justified by works and not by Faith only Far be it from us to impose with Romanists a gloss upon S. James which upon the matter would make him contradict S. Paul The word of the Lord is not yea and nay many have taken excellent pains to clear the harmony of these two Apostles and to vindicate this place of S. James from the Cavils of Romanists I will not here digress to examine the new notions of some late Learned Writers touching this matter whose way should I imbrace I might perhaps easily expede my self from Romish Cavils and leave also some considerable differences betwixt the Romish Party and Protestants in this matter But I confess I am afraid of new Methods especially in a matter of so great importance as the point of Justification And therefore holding to the more received grounds I shall remit the Reader to Reverend Bishop Downam his learned Treatise of Justification lib. 7. cap. 8. where he both discusses Bellarmine's Quibbles as also illustrates that place in S. James by an Elegant Analytick Exposition from ver 14. to the end of the Chapter Let it suffice at present to advertise the Reader that S. James uses neither the word Faith nor the word Justifie in the same sense with S. Paul nor does he debate the question which S. Paul handled or which is at this day tossed betwixt Romanists and us For clearing these things briefly I say first when S. James says we are not justified by Faith only he takes not Faith for a saving Grace of the Spirit receiving whole Christ John 1. 12. purifying the heart Act. 15. 9. and working by love Gal. 5. 6. which is the only true Faith by which we are justified according to the Doctrine of S. Paul and the Reformed Churches But S. James takes Faith for a dogmatical assent to Divine Truths joyned with an outward profession but such as may be separated from good works as is evident from the series of his whole discourse particularly from ver 14. where the state of the question which S. James handles is propounded What doth it profit my Brethren though a man say he hath Faith and have not works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can that Faith save him by which it appears S. James whole discourse is concerning that Faith which a man saith he hath but may be void of good works Now that is not the Faith by which we according to the Apostle S. Paul's Doctrine affirm a man to be justified without the works of the Law for true justifying Faith is a living and working Faith But Jam. 2. 17. Faith if it have no works is dead being alone I add secondly that when S. James says that a man is justified by works he does not speak as S. Paul of the true proper Act of Justification which is a Judicial Act of God really acquitting the sinner of guiltiness and from the wrath of God to which he was lyable but of a declarative Justification or of that which evidences a man to be in a justified estate or to be acquitted from guilt and wrath Nor needs this seem strange to any it being a Rule among Interpreters of Scripture quandoque tunc dicitur aliquid esse aut fieri quum esse intelligitur aut declaratur A thing is said to be done when it becomes manifest that it is done So Levit. 13. 3. 13. The Priest is said to pollute or cleanse the Leper because he declared him clean or unclean So Act. 10. 15. What God hath cleansed defile thou not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declare thou not common or unclean And this word Justification is frequently taken in a like sense as Luk. 7. 24. 35. Rom. 3. 4. 1 Tim. 3. 16. c. That so it is taken here Learned Protestants have evicted from the Context I only desire the Reader to cast his eyes upon verse 18. A man may say thou hast Faith and I have Works shew me thy Faith without Works and I will shew thee my Faith by my Works Where it 's apparent that the Apostle is enquiring after the Evidences of a Justified Estate which he concludes to be good works The chief difficulty which here seems to arise is that if the Apostle James did here speak only of a declarative Justification then he would have ascribed this Justification only to good works and not at all to Faith whereas the Apostle gives good works and Faith a conjunct interest in the Justification where of he treats you see then how by Works a man is justified and not by Faith Answ This inference would perhaps have some strength had the Apostle been speaking only of the internal act of Faith but not at all when as hath been shewed the Faith spoken of is a professed Faith for the profession of Faith may concur with good works to declare and evidence a person to be in a Justified Estate Thirdly therefore and lastly for the full illustration of this whole matter we would carefully notice the different questions handled by the two Apostles S. Paul and S. James The Apostle S. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians having to do with persons who Pharisaically boasted of their good works and presumed as our Romanists do to this day to be justified thereby or at least joyned their good works with Faith in Christ as the ground of their Justification before God Therefore he disputes at length the same question which now is agitated betwixt Romanists and us what is the true ground upon which a sinner is accepted of God and pronounced by him Just as if he had perfectly kept the whole Law in his own person and to hammer down these proud Justitiaries he concludes that the only ground of this Justification of a sinner before God is the obedience of Christ laid hold upon by Faith and totally secludes good works from having any causal influence upon Justification which he proves besides many other Arguments by the most apposite examples of Abraham and David For if any could have been justified by works then surely Abraham and David persons of so Eminent Holiness had been justified thereby but not they as he shews Rom. 4. Ergo none at all But S. James on the other hand had to do with a kind of Epicures who abusing S. Paul's Doctrine of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law maintained there was no necessity of good works but only to profess Faith in Christ This is S. Austin's observe and not mine in Psal 31. Jacobus vult corrigere eos qui Paulum male intelligendo nolebant bene operari de sola fide praesumentes So that the
oppugne him 4. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the wisdome of God saying that God obliges us to things impossible whereas 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not heavy We do not say that God commands any things simply impossible Any impossibility that is we have contracted it sinfully in the loyns of our first Parents and so God is not to be blamed for it This accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly Scripture frequently holds out Rom. 8. 3. that which the Law could not doe in that it was weak through the flesh ver 8. they that are in the flesh cannot please God Joh. 12. 39. they could not believe Matth. 7. 8. a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles 7.20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodâ— impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7. 22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3. 2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veraeity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay inthis they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varaeity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He faith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasms ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1. 7. O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 7. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood frees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscenee remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7. 24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7. 25. thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Faith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2. 24. It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3. 28. That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as
Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentenee As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuity or ignorance For pag 33 34 35 36 3â— more likâ— a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumnious invective against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Catholick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Denister against the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question
our Translation was something concerning the question of the descent of the Soul of Christ to Hell I cannot examine whether Zuinglius be faithfully cited not having his Works But though Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exeges loc de script cap. 29. Sect. 122. gives an account of other of our Authors not so well satiâ—fied with Luthers German Translation yet he has no word of Zuinglius However they who know the animosities which the Sacramentarian Controversie did breed will not think strange though Zuinglius and Luther used more asperity in Censuring the Works of one another than was fitting The Censure of Carolus Molinoeus is not much to be regarded he being no Divine but an unsetled though Learned Lawyer first a Papist then a Protestant and afterwards with the Dog returning to his Vomit and re imbracing Popery he breathed forth invectives against worthy men as is usual with Apostates to be haters of their own Sect. This is testified of him by Lucas Osiander Epitom Hist Eccles cent 16. Anno 1566. pag. 802. As for the acknowledgment of Luther that he added the word Sola you may take the Answer of Gerard the Lutheran loc cit Sect. 525. Non verba numeravit sensum exprimere voluit And indeed though I would have Translators to be punctual in their Version of Scripture yet it 's a sure truth that we are justified by Faith alone or as the Apostle saith by Faith without the works of the Law But leaving further to canvase those unadvised expressions of some Protestants Authors which are nothing ad summa in rei I can press Romanists with contrary Verdicts of Popes concerning the Vulgar Latin Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. All they can object to us are but some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no Authority Secondly Therefore I answer that we ought carefully to distinguish betwixt smaller Grammatical Escapes and substantial Errours overturning Articles of Faith It 's not denied but the first may be incident to any Version made by humane industry but I appeal all the Romish Party to try if they can charge the English Translation which is made use of in this Church with any substantial Errour and Article of Faith that had been the most solid way of arguing against us As for the diversities betwixt the English Translation under Q. Elizabeth and K. James 6. I suppose it will be found that both the reading laid aside and that which is substituted are conform to the Analogy of Faith though the one may be more agreeable to the Original and Series of the Context and so is preferrable to the other by which the ingenuity of Protestant Churches may appear they being willing to correct the least failure It were easie to demonstrate that the Papists vulgar Version is often guilty of ill Latin and worse Divinity Who desire an account of the varieties contradictions errours and barbarisms of the Vulgar Latin I refer them to D. James bellum Papale Calov Crit. Sac de Vers Vulg. Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 14. cap. 11 12 13. and to Sixtinus Amama in Anti barbaro Biblic lib. 1. cap. 9 10 11. who also shews cap. 12 13. that Jesuit Serrarius Bellarmine Baptista Baudinus the Reviser of the Vatican Press Lucas Brugensis yea and the Prefacer to the Clementine Version do acknowledge that the Latin Version as lastly corrected by Clement 8. hath yet its own trespasses and deserves further emendation But this is the mischief of Rome's pretended Infallibility that she will rather justly know faults than by amending them humbly confess her self fallible In a word except Romanists can prove that in our Translations there be such Errours as destroy the substantials of Christianity which though the Conclaves of Rome and Hell do joyn forces cannot be done it cannot be concluded that our Bibles are not a sufficient Ground and Rule of Faith To shut up the Answer to this Objection Richard Cappell in his Remains pag. 30 31. presents this Notion to the consideration of the Godly Learned that seeing the Lord hath commanded his people to hear read and search the Scriptures which the multitude cannot do but in some Translation or other and God being in his Providence very careful that his Church shall not want sufficient provision for their Souls therefore he the said M. Cappell supposes that God ever hath doth and will so assist Translators that for the main they shall not err And indeed though the Vulgar Latin be but too faulty as I have already shewed yet we deny not but it is a Bible and contains the substantials of Religion Neither have I any doubt but many have been converted by it such as Peter Martyr Zanchius Luther Oecâ—lampadius c. I am not to adopt M. Cappell's Notion yet should it hold far less could there be ground to Cavil against our Translations as not being a sufficient ground of Faith they being much more pure and agreeable to the Originals than the Vulgar Latin as cannot but be clear to those who have any measure of skill to compare them Objection 2. The Pamphleter pag. 54 55 56. accuses the Original Texts of Scripture as corrupted in confirmation whereof be alledges that it 's doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written that Calvin and Luther questioned the purity of the Originals that there be various Lections in the Hebrew that the Jews Christs professed Enemies five hundred years after Christ invented the Hebrew Points or Vowels and corrupted the Text but that before this corruption their Vulgar Latin was made that Hereticks also particularly Arrians Macedonians Nestorians c. had their hand in adulterating Scripture for which he alledges Irenaeus Tertull. and Eusebius but cites no place in any of them that we have not the Autographies written by Prophets or Apostles and all Copies are subject to faults In the end he concludes that there is no remedy for these evils without an infallible visible Judge In all this he doth still behave himself like an Atheist Doth he not by concluding the Original Scriptures to be all corrupted raze with one stroak the Foundation of the Christian Religion Is not this a pregnant evidence of the impiety of the Romish Interest and truth of the Protestant Religion that Romanists cannot fight against us but with the Weapons of Infidels for supporting their Babel they will venture the ruine of all Religion ridente Turca nec dolente Judaeo For answer therefore to this Blasphemous Cavil let first the Pamphleters inconsistency with himself be noticed In his former Section he brought Scriptures to prove the necessity of an infallible visible Judge yet here he affirms we cannot know a line of pure Scripture that is not vitiated but by the sentence of this infallible Judge Is not this to intangle himself into a manifest Circle or contradiction Secondly Was this man compos mentis when he brings in Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Eusebius testifying that the Scriptures were
question which S. James agitates is whether there be a necessity of good works which he resolves affirmatively and withal attests that though they be not the causes of our Justification before God yet they are the inseparable effects of a Justifying Faith and the Evidences of a Justified Estate For this end he brings in not only the example of Abraham but also of Rahab who of an Infidel had been proselyted to the Faith yet she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquiuas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2. 13. which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articels of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alicujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians