into due Form is this If the same Apostle saith the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation that saith they are of Divine Inspiration then we are as certain of their Sufficiency as we are of their Authority but the same Apostle saith the Scriptures are able to make us wise to Salvation that saith they are of Divine Inspiration Therefore we are as certain of their Sufficiency as we are of their Authority This is the Argument and this I will abide by and if our Author had been a fair Disputant he would have shewed how either the Premises were false or the Conclusion not justly inferred from them and since the place in which his Cause was most concerned is ver 15. that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation he should have directed his Answer to it but he found it too hard for him and so shuffles it off to the next verse All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable c. Whereas supposing that all Scripture there was after his wild way which I am not at present concerned to refute to be applied to each part of Scripture yet what is that to ver 15. where it's said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Scriptures the same which Timothy had known from a child are able to make wise unto Salvation But though for fear of being engaged further he durst not undertake it yet he insinuates in an inference of his own that it was the old Testament only that Timothy had read But 1. How doth it appear that he read not also the Books of the New that were then extant of which there were many For Bellarmin in his Answer to this only says When this Epistle was writ the Apocalypse was not then extant nor the Gospel of John and perhaps some other Book was wanting of the Body of the Scripture Thereby yielding the rest were then Written and Published 2. If the Old Testament was able to make them that then read it wise unto Salvation then surely both Old and New is as sufficient now as the Old alone was then Our Author may remember where this was urged upon him but he prudently pass'd over that Paragraph in silence I shall still therefore conclude that the Scripture is not only profitable but necessary and not only necessary but sufficient to answer that end for which it was revealed and written and that is that we might believe and be wise unto Salvation His third Proof is this Christ sent the young man who put that Question to him Master what shall I do to inherit eternal Life to the Commandments thou knowest the Commandments and again declared that Moses and the Prophets were sufficient to dispose a sinner to repent Behold another Logical Inference of great credit to the University this Answerer was brought up in By reading Moses and the Prophets I am moved to repent from my sins and if I will know what I must do to inherit eternal Life I must know the Commandments therefore all things necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture I may with Justice return to this man more than what he ungroundedly says to the Addresser p. 1. that he takes up with such a sort of Arguments which tho not useful to make any ef his Religion may very well make others of none If such use only could be made of Scripture it would be of no use at all to our Salvation no senseless Heresie hath appeared this 1600 years which was not backt by more seeming Proofs from Scripture than these Here our Author again prevaricates The words in the Answer are these From which Consideration that all things necessary are in Scripture it was that all doubts relating to Salvation were hereby to be resolved which could not be were not all things necessary to Salvation contained in it In which there are these Two plain Propositions 1. That all doubts relating to Salvation might and were to be resolved by Scripture 2. That they could not be resolved by Scripture unless all things necessary to Salvation were contained in it The first of these which is the chief thing to be proved the Answerer shewed from Luke 10. 25 26. and Mark 10. 17 19. Luke 16. 29. In the first of these places our Saviour upon the Question put to him Master What shall I do to inherit eternal life Replies What is written in the Law how readest thou And he answcring said Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. To which our Saviour replies v. 28. Thou hast answered right this do and thou shalt live What saith the Prover to this His Answer from Bays p. 7. might well be returned were it seemly in so serious an Argument as we are upon He is indeed silent and in his words elsewhere one may guess at the reason without casting a Figure The same Question is again put to our Saviour Mark 10. 17. and our Saviour answers v. 19. Thou knowest the commandments c. implying That in the Law of which the Decalogue was a part there was the way prescribed by which Eternal Life was to be obtained The Third place in the Answer is Luke 16. 29. where the Rich man in Hell intreating that Lazarus might be sent to his Five brethren lest they come into that place of torment he was answered They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them And when he supposed that was not sufficient but if one went from the dead they would repent Abraham answers again If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded c. In which there are these things First it 's supposed That if they did repent they would not come into that place of Torment 2. That if they hearkned to Moses and the Prophers they would repent 3. That whatever was necessary to their Repentance they might find and was contained in Moses and the Prophets What saith the Prover to this Why instead of an Answer he will be at his Logic and putting the Answerer's Proof in a due Form which he ushers in with great Triumph Behold another Logical Inference of great Credit to the Vuniversity this Answerer was brought up in Well what is this Logical Inference It 's this By reading Moses and the Prophets I am moved to repent of my sins and if I will know what I must do to inherit Eternal Life I must know the Commandments therefore all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture If our Prover's Sincerity be no better than his Logic he is no more a Credit to his Religion than he is to his University if ever he was of one Here 's a defect in both but which prevails is not easie to determine I can relieve him by no other way but by supposing the Argument in the Answer gave him a Shock and his Brain was out of order before his Inference But without exposing his weakness further I
then to declare all Catholicks ever owned what he teaches Since I have good reason to question whether our Author be of that number And that 1. Because all true Catholicks ever held the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour to be things which concern Faith and as such to be plainly contained in Scripture But our Author on the contrary saith these are not plainly contained in Scripture and then either according to St. Austin they should not concern Faith or our Author is none of those Catholicks that own what St. Austin teaches 2. The Church of Rome which whatever others think I question not but the Prover holds to be Catholick owns not what St. Austin teaches for she affirms there is a Word Unwritten as well as Written and that this Unwritten Word is as necessary as the Written Forasmuch as there are things relating to Faith and Manners in the Unwritten Word that are not contained in the Written But here our Author has prevented me for he will prove this also to be the sense of St. Austin and both consistent as thus All Catholicks own what St. Augustin teaches that all things which concern Faith and Manners are plainly contained in Scripture For as the same St. Augustin observes about true Baptism which he held absolutely necessary to Salvation that we have no proof in this case from Scripture Yet c. That is the Scripture contains all things necessary relating to Faith and Manners for we have no proof from Scripture for a point absolutely necessary to Salvation which is as if he should say England is a Country that abounds in all things necessary to Life for it wants Bread which is absolutely necessary to it This is in our Author's phrase Pag. 5. a special piece of Logic. I will for the honour of St. Austin and in charity to our Author suppose he turned not to the place in that Father when besides this impertinence he charges upon that Learned Writer he reads we have no proof for we have no example and speaks so darkly of the case it self I will direct him to it it 's Contr. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. let him read it at his leisure and compare it with Ch. 33. And in the mean time I shall furnish him with another saying of the same Father Whether concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to Faith and Life I will not say If we who are not to be compared with him that said Though We but if an Angel from heaven shall teach besides what ye have received in the Prophetical or Evangelical Writings let him be accursed But the case in this first Question as it appears stated by the Addresser is Whether all things necessary to Salvation are immediately and expresly contain`d in Scripture or drawn thence by an evident Consequence Our Answerer proves they are so by the three following Texts his Proofs I will set in a due form that their force may lie open to all The first Text is taken out of Joh. 20. 31. where the Evangelist having premised v. 30. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book says v. 31. These which he had set down are written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that believing you may have Life in his Name Now what Conclusion can be drawn from this Text to our present purpose but one in one of these two forms First thus The signs set down by St. John Ch 20. are sufficient to make us believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God but precisely to believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God is all that is necessary to have Life in his name or to Salvation therefore the 20th Chapter of St. John contains all things necessary to Salvation Or else thus in the Answerer's words All that is as sufficient in its kind to beget Faith in us as Faith is to save us contains all things necessary to Salvation But the 20th Chapter of St. John`s Gospel as it appears by ver 31. is as sufficient to beget Faith in us therefore that 20th Chapter contains all things necessary to Salvation A special piece of Logic However his Conclusion eases the Members of his Congregation from the Obligation of reading any part of Scripture besides the 20th Chapter of St. John 's Gospel Our Author from his love to Logic and his Skill in it undertakes to set the Answerer's Proofs in a due form But by his leave I shall put in a small Charge or two against it As The first Charge I have against what he calls a setting the Proofs in a due form is that his Conclusion is false in its form as his Syllogism has four Terms in it For saith he The signs set down by St. John 20. are sufficient to make us believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God but Precisely to believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God is all that is necessary c. For precisely to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is to believe that and no more Whereas by that Phrase the Scripture implies the believing the whole Gospel So Joh. 11. 27. I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God. Acts 8. 37. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 1 John 5. 5. Who is he that overcometh the World but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God 2. He puts his Query too extravagantly Now what Conclusion can be drawn from this Text to our present purpose but one therefore the 20 th Chapter of St. John contains all things necessary This is a Conclusion of his own forming and before he can infer it must ask two or three things which he may be sure will never be granted him 1. He takes it for granted that by these in St. John are to be understood only the Signs set down in that Chapter Whereas 1. St. John in the former Verse speaking of the Signs done by Jesus saith they are not written in this Book but these are written Where Not in that Chapter for to say the truth on 't whatever our Author thinks St. John did not divide his Gospel into Chapters but in that Book And thus inded Bellarmin understands it But 2. The Apostle further enlarges this Phrase Chap. 21. 24 25. This is the Disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things And there are also many other things which Jesus did And so what is true of the Signs is also true of the other things wrote by that Evangelist 3. Tho St. John spoke this more especially of the things writ by himself yet the same is applicable to what was wrote by the rest of the Divine Writers And it might be said of what was written by them as well as of what was written by him These are written that ye might believe And this was the
A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER TO THE POPISH ADDRESS Presented to the Ministers of the Church of England In Reply to a Pamphlet abusively Intituled A Clear Proof of the Certainty and Vsefulness of the Protestant Rule of Faith c. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Vindication of the Answer to the Address c. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest April 26. 1688. LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M DC LXXXVIII A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER To the POPISH ADDRESS c. A Clear Proof of the Certainty and Usefulness of the Protestant Rule of Faith Scripture after the Help of Ministerial Guides finally Interpreted by each Man 's private Sense A Title seemingly belonging to a Protestant Book and a Book wrote by a Protestant if the Title and Book do agree But that they are so far from that if Truth and Ability had been on the Author's side it might have been more truly call'd with respect to his Design A clear Disproof of the Certainty c. But why so much Caution Why is not the Address or Answer to it so much as named in the Title We are left to guess and because every man may in such a case use his liberty I could upon Perusal of his Book guess at no reason sooner than that the Prover was not very confident of the sufficiency of his Defence and might by such a clandestine Title secure himself against a further Reply unless his Adversary had nothing else to do than to read all the Pamphlets printed by H. H. or some unlucky Chance should make the Discovery And to say the truth the Prover might have succeeded in his Design and have triumphed in the Victory he had thus secretly stollen had not a little Accident though somewhat late first brought it under his Adversary's eye This proof is drawn from the Answer to the Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England The Author thereof had required that clear and plain Texts of Scripture be offer'd which interpreted in the Protestant way by those who receive it thus expounded for their whole Rule of Faith should so prove the two principal Articles of Christian Belief the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ as also the Obligation of keeping holy the Sunday and not Saturday as one of the Commandments seems to require and that so convincingly that a Christian might ground on them his Faith. Interpreted I say in the Protestant-way without any deciding Church-Authority when doubts arise about the sense of the Letter The Prover's Design is to expose the Protestant Rule of Faith and to that end because he had no better way is forced to Misrepresent it For thus he saith Scripture interpreted in the Protestant way is received by them thus expounded for their whole Rule of Faith. But he well knew or should know that the Scripture is with Protestants a Rule of Faith as it 's the Word of God and their whole Rule of Faith as it 's the only Word of God and so is as uncapable of taking in any humane Exposition to be a part of that Rule as it is of any new Revelation That is the Scripture depends not upon the sense given it by any man or Order of men for its being thus a Rule but upon its own Authority But he ventures a little further by way of Explication Scripture saith he interpreted in the Protestant way without any deciding Church-Authority when doubts arise about the Sense of the Letter But supposing there are no doubts about the sense of the Letter then it seems there is in that case no use of any such deciding Authority and that we may be certain of the sense of the Letter without such Authority If so then it would be known of what kind that Certainty is which may be attained without such Authority and whether it be not attained by the use of Reason and Understanding and so is at last resolved into what he decries Private Sense But put the case as he would have it and supposing there be a doubt about the sense of the Letter I demand whether we may not by the like use of our Reason arrive to the same sort of certainty in the things we now doubt of as we have arrived to in the things we are at present certain of without any deciding Church-Authority As for example Suppose a doubt ariseth about this deciding Church-Authority it self how shall the doubt be decided If we seek to the deciding Church-Authority that is the thing in question if we repair to the Scripture the Sense of that is to be declared and determined by the deciding Church-Authority and if we take any other measures for understanding it we fall into the dangerous and abhorr'd extreme of finally interpreting it by private Sense So that either the matter is uncapable of proof and must be taken for granted and there is a deciding Church-Authority because there is so or else if it be to be proved it must be by the same way that other things are proved in and that is by producing the Reasons for it and according to the Judgment made upon it thereby it 's ultimately to be decided And then farewel to the deciding Church-Authority when in a matter of so great Consequence and the first Point to be resolved in it must be submitted to each mans private Sense The Addresser holds if he be a Catholick That Scripture rightly understood is a Rule of Faith That the Gospel revealed by Christ preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Catholick Church is so much our whole Rule of Faith that we own with Tertullian we need not be curiously searching since Christ nor further inquisitive since the Gospel was preached No new Revelations no new Articles being received as of Catholick Faith but those Truths only retained which the Church proposes as delivered to her by the Apostles her whole authority being ever employed as Pope Celestine delivers it to the Council of Ephesus in providing that what was delivered and preserved in a continual Succession from the Apostles be retained so that nothing is of Faith but what God revealed by the Prophets and the Apostles or what evidently follows from it the Catholick Church ever handing it to us and declaring it to be so The Gospel revealed by Christ preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Catholick Church is their whole Rule of Faith. No new Revelations no new Articles being received as of Catholick Faith. What seemingly more Orthodox and spoken more like a Protestant But our Author for fear of Correction tempers it immediately with some of their own Ingredients here and there cautiously applied As for example if we ask Whether the Scripture be their whole Rule of Faith He answers Scripture rightly understood is a Rule of Faith the Gospel revealed by Christ and preserved