may evidently be proved from Scripture for if you or any else shall evince that Infants-Baptism cannot be proved from the Scriptures the Church of England Article the sixth hath expresly declared against the necessity of it 2. You cannot but have heard of haec homo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a Man examine himself c. 1 Cor. 11.28 Women as well as Men are there required self examination and not Auricular confession first had to receive the Eucharist Nor 3. Can you be ignorant that there is a difference betwixt the Lords-day being necessary to be observed and its being necessary that Christians should observe the Lords-day That would imply a Doctrinal This no more than an obediential necessity That if held by any the Church of England will tell you ought to be proved particularly from Scripture This needs no more but a general warrant Eleventhly It is a sin as the generality of Christians agree an heresie to re-baptize any one which hath been baptized by an Heretick where doth the Scripture say so 1. Those that hold it a sin and heresie to rebaptize any one Videtur quod Baptismus possit iterari sed contra est quod dicitur Eph 4. una fides unum baptisma Aquinas 3. quaest 66. Art 9. c. found their opinion upon Scripture One Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5.2 Cyprian held such ought to be re-baptized dyed in that opinion and yet dyed a Saint and Martyr 3. The Thesis here laid down without restriction is apparently false contradicting the Nineteenth Canon of the Council of Nice Si quis confugit ad Ecclesiam Catholicam de Paulianist Cataphrygiis statutum est rebaptizari If any one of the Paulianists and Cataphrygians fly unto the Catholick Church it is Decreed That they ought to be re-baptized And now it being evident that neither your Argument nor instances make against but for the Scriptures being a sole sufficient Rule let us try what they 'll do on that account against or for your Romish Church Whatsoever is a sole sufficient Rule must be plain and clear in all necessary points at least which relate to Faith But the Roman Church is not plain and clear in all necessary points that relate to Faith Therefore the Roman Church is not the sole sufficent Rule The major is your own nor shall I need to trouble any body else for instances to prove the minor First then it is necessary you say to know how many Sacraments Christ ordained and yet your Church leaves it doubtful whether anointing with Oyl was ordained by Christ a Sacrament or not Insinuated she says it was Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 1. Mark 6. but does not dare not say it was there or any where else instituted as such Secondly It is necessary to salvation you say to believe all the Books of the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal And yet as to this Your Church is so dark and dubious See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 7. that though Bellarmine contend that the Council of Trent did define the additaments to the Book of Hester to be canonical Sixtus Senensis believes otherwise and brings Arguments against it Nay if it be necessary to know which Books be the Word of God and which Apocryphal it is necessary sure to know which Traditions be Dominical or Apostolical which not and yet concerning this your Church is silent Thirdly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted it is necessary to know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when Mystically it is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translations of the Scriptures which we have and upon which we ground our selves are certainly true it is necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided it is necessary to know what is Fundamental what not and yet as to none of these your Church is plain and clear Fourthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth from the Father and the Son that Christ is of one substance with the Father and that these Three are One and that One Three and yet suppose these points not plainly and clearly to be found in Scriptures how possibly could the Church for the first three hundred years be said to be plain and clear concerning them for during that time there was no General Council whereby she might explain her self and if she did explain her self in General Councils after that implyed her former darkness and deficiency with respect to those very points Fifthly It is a sin and heresie you say to re-baptize any one who hath been Baptized by an Heretick and yet as hath been said your Church that I mean you take the boldness to call your Church is so far from being plain and clear in this that she hath defined the contrary Nay plainness and clearness owned as it is and ought to be for an essential property of the Rule of Faith P. 54 56. the whole of what you have said in behalf of the Church if granted true will amount to as much as nothing For suppose Christ judge the Nations not by his Word and Spirit in the mouths of his Ministers but as you phrase it by his Churches Tribunal in passing of Acts and pronouncing Anathema's suppose the Church to be what you would have it and not only led if she will but so drawn that she follow the Spirit into all truth sic de caeteris yet what were all this to the purpose For it would not necessarily follow thence that she is plain and clear in all necessary points the Apostles sure if any might so judge and were so drawn Pag. 37. and yet you say that they in their Epistles are defective dark very subject and that in fundamentals desperately to be misunderstood Nor do you trouble us with telling that the Church is always in being Pag. 61. and capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense For 1. If we cannot certainly understand the Apostles when explaining and declaring their sense and meaning how shall we be able certainly to understand your Church when explaining and declaring hers sith the Church hath no other way to explain her meaning save by words most intelligible which way the Apostles had and did make use of as is evident from 1 Cor. 14.2 The question is whether the Church be actually plain and clear in all necessary points not whether the Church be capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense being plain and clear and capable upon demand to explain and declare be different things this belongs to an Interpreter of no concern here it 's that that is pertinent and the
visible body Politick different from that invisible Church which is Christs mystical body the Texts you cite Acts 20.28 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Col. 1.24 2 5. Mat 16.18 do import no such thing for the four first distinguish betwixt the Church and the Overseers Officers or Ministers thereof seeming thereby to suppose that the Overseers not as Overseers in their Politick capacity but as believers respect had to their spiritual Union be truly members of the Church there mentioned and for the fifth if by Rock might be understood Peter it would as to this business be of the same import Augustin de verbis domini secund Mat. Serm. 13. Chamier Tom. 2. l. 11. chap. 23. And if by Rock with the great St. Augustin we understand Christ and so we ought and may as is made appear by Chamier the remoteness of the antecedent notwithstanding that Text relates to the Church builded the Church which is Gods own workmanship Eph. 2.10 holding out that to be it against which the Gates of Hell whether sin or death or the power or policy of spiritual Adversaries shall not prevail Secondly Your Doctors usually blame us for making two Churches the one visible and the other invisible And now you seem offended because we do not However without regard to either we affirm that the same Holy Catholick militant Church is both visible and invisible invisible respect had to its union and visible respect had to its profession of Faith in Christ Thirdly Yours I think do and therefore sure should you in this case distinguish inter Ecclesiam judicantem docentem betwixt the Church judging or defining and the Church teaching and have pleaded for that not this to be infallible as and for ours though its true they do affirm that the Church while teaching conformable to Scriptures teacheth Doctrine infallibly true yet do they never say that the Church in any sense is or ought to be denominated infallible No Sir the Church hath other precious priviledges other benefits by these promises and the Doctrine of Christ as hath and shall be made appear is and may be abundantly otherwise confirmed you need not for fear of debasing the Church below the Devil suppose her thus guilty of robbery in making her self equal with God Equal I say with God because infallibility is not an effect or fruit like love peace but an essential attribute of the Holy Ghost no more communicable to or predicable either of you or us than Omnipresence or Omnipotency It 's God alone that cannot lie Titus 1.2 howbeit in some cases others through his grace shall not Fourthly The books of Scripture Pag. 83. which you are pleased to accept as Gods written word and Divine revelations were first delivered unto you by Catholicks and accepted of by your Ancestors upon the score and word of Roman Catholicks Priests and Monks together with the same sense and interpretation which the Roman Catholick Church now teacheth and which was then confirmed by miracles as aforesaid First You confess Pag. 84. Querie the third that there is a Greek Church and an Ethiopian Church distinct from yours and we can tell you out of Reinerius cont Haeret. cap. 4. of Leonists or Lollards that were dispersed into all Countries have continued ever since the Apostles lived justly and believed all the Articles contained in the Creed Our Ancestors might receive the books of Scripture as Gods written word from Catholicks and yet never be beholding to the Romanists for it But be it so that our Ancestors did as you say what then Did not the Primitive Christians receive the books of the Old Testament from the Jews and yet rejected their Traditions nay disputed against the Jewish Traditions out of those very books How ever Secondly These books were not accepted as aforesaid upon the score and word of the Roman Catholick Priests and Monks for our Ancestors had the Priests and Monks word for the Apocrypha books as well as for the Canonical and yet did they reject those and accept these because they found convincing reasons so to do Thirdly True it is your Priests are sworn not to interpret Scripture against the sense which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold but that they do so or ever delivered unto our Ancestors any such an interpretation much less any confirmed by Miracles remains for you to prove and is a fable we know nothing of though yet Fourthly If you your Priests and Monks or any body else can bring us to the certain knowledge thereof or any other traditions so confirmed we shall without further ado accept of hold them as fast as we can and in the mean while no little marvel that you knowing so well of such a sense should spend time in troubling us with your own private glosses Nor yet is the last the least sign of a brazen forehead the Apostate blushes not to tell to all the world that he has now learned to hate and abhorr Rebellion and Treason as much as Hell and Damnation Pag. 86. notwithstanding that First The general approved Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third decrees that if the Temporal Lord being required and admonished of the Church shall neglect to purge his Country of Heretical defilments the Pope may from thenceforth denounce his Vassals absolved from their fidelity and may expose his Country to be seised on by Catholicks who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and keep it in the purity of Faith The Popish Bishops and Priests declare and swear extra hanc veram fidem Catholicam non est salus out of this true Catholick Faith there is no Salvation The summ of all the Captain has learned and would have us to learn is to believe as the Church believes and consequently is so far from having learned to hate and abhor rebellion as Hell and Damnation as he believes all such shall be damned to Hell as do not hold it lawful such procedure first had by the Church and Pope to rise up in Rebellion against their Lord and King Secondly The Oath of Allegiance was composed and imposed on purpose to distinguish the Loyal and disloyal Romanists the Popes power of Excommunication not at all therein touched no point of doctrine inserted and yet is the Popish Religion so near allied to Rebellion that it commands her Vassals rather to suffer death than bind themselves by Oath to perform Allegiance to their Lord and King though yet to say truth Thirdly The Papists in this deal more candidly than in any other thing that I know of for should they take this Oath as sometimes some of them in policy may do it were no better than taking Gods name in vain The Pope if antecedently he have not may yet at pleasure absolve them from it they may this notwithstanding be free to rebel so soon as there is an opportunity and â—ill there be an opportunity it is not likely that men so wise
as they should ever offer to rebel Non licet Christianis c. says Bellarmine it is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an Heretick if he indeavour â—o draw his Subjects into Heresie And if you would know how Christian Papists in England and some parts of Germany can be excused from neglect of duty Dominicus Bannes will â—ell you because that generally they have not power to make such Wars against Princes and great dangers are â—mminent over them however an Apology might easily be framed out of Bellarmine in the place fore-quoted quod si Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem Dioclesianum Julianum Apostatam Valentem Arianum similes fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis If Christians in former times did not depose Nero Dioclesian Julian the Apostate and Valens the Arian and such like it was because temporal forces were wanting unto Christians nor may it with any colour of Justice be pleaded that Bellarmine Bannes Mariana Suarez c. be but private Doctors unless it be firstly made appear that the Roman Church might and has legally reversed the foresaid Lateran Decree and anathematised the persons and opinions of these and such like as Heretical however Captain Robert carries it throughout like a man that is indeed an Heretick for while a Protestant he did act as a rebellious Traytor and now being turn'd Papist will needs profess himself a Loyal Subject both in their several times apparently against his own principles The sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule examined THe sixth reason I meet with was whatsoever is a sole and sufficient rule Pag. 42. must be plain and clear in all necessary points at least which relate unto faith or the Means by which salvation is to be had which the Scripture is not and above all things it must not contradict it self which the Scripture seems to do To prove this I shall give some few instances which I think can never be infringed The man comes here home to the point waves his impertinent sophistical jumbling in of Judge and Guide and most industriously indeavours to prove from the Scriptures deficiency and obscurity that it is not the sole sufficient Rule nor is it any marvel that we find him now so serious and earnest for if this argument fail all his other seven Antiscriptural reasons come to nothing with it for though Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists c. should disagree in matters of Faith raise different senses to serve their several interests cannot all of them understand and some of them do desperately wrest several places to their own destruction the Scripture supposed plain and clear in all necessary points the fault and folly is their own The Scripture all this notwithstanding may and does still remain as it was a sole sufficient Rule or if some Books be lost all Copies corrupted and several Texts mistranslated yet what 's this to the purpose while we can and shall evince that the Books we at present have are so intire the Copies so pure and the Translations so true that all points necessary at least be therein plain and clear nor will it avail to tell us of the Primitive Christians consulting with the Apostles and that it is all one to judge by our own reason and by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason For we might suppose the Apostles with all their Authority now in being go and consult with them or in their absence with the Pastors of the several Churches as the great Moderators of all controversies and yet the Scriptures if plain and clear still remain a sole sufficient Rule according to which the controversies might and ought to be decided Nor need we in this case be troubled with interpreting of Scriptures according to our own reason sith 't is supposed and shall be proved that the Scripture is so clear in all necessary points that it needs no interpretation though yet you may take notice by the way that to judge by our own reason as the only rule is not the same with judging by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason as one special means your Argument would perhaps strike at that but this is all that in any case we practise and so do because Christ bids us search the Scriptures and the Apostle adds judge ye what I say comparing spiritual things with spiritual however sith the faith or means by which salvation is to be had is a believing on Christ the foundation as hath been said not a believing of just so many as you or others are pleased to call fundamental points If the Scriptures be plain and clear as without peradventure they are in their testifying of him according to Joh. 5.40 they are plain and clear in what necessarily relates to Faith or the means by which Salvation is to be had according to John 20.31 and consequently what ever becomes of all the other whether necessary or unnecessary points may be a sole sufficient Rule according to the tendency of this your present discourse the seeming contradictions shall after your infringible instances come now to be discussed Pag. 42. That they are not plain and clear as aforesaid consider all Christians generally except some few do agree that the Sacraments of the Gospel are necessary in order to Salvation Now as to these the Scriptures are so far from being clear that they do not so much as denominate what a Sacrament is how many Christ ordained or whether there be any Sacrament or not First All Christians may agree that the Sacraments are necessary and yet they not be so for it 's Christs saying that they are not at all the Christians agreeing that can make them necessary Did not all Christians generally agree for six hundred years together that the Eucharist was necessary for Infants and yet now the Church concludeth otherwise But 2. it is here granted that some Christians deny the Sacraments of the Gospel to be necessary and if some may be Christians and yet deny the necessity of Sacraments it 's an argument sufficient that they are not necessary Nor indeed does the man assert that Sacraments be simply necessary but qualifies it with in order to Salvation and limits it to Sacraments of the Gospel perhaps he may think there be two ways whereby God brings his people to Salvation one ordinary with and the other extraordinary without Sacraments nor shall I say more of that but tell him that if Women and Male Children under the Law might much more the Catechumeni and Infants under the Gospel may be saved by grace without Sacraments to confer or convey it 3. Though it be not the Scripture mode to observe Logick rules in framing definitions nor always Arithmetical in making up of accounts Yet is the nature and end of these Ordinances we call Sacraments described in Scripture so far as is meet for us to know The number numbred Baptism and the Lords-supper said
Testimony And whereas he should have resolved his faith into the Sovereign Authority and verity of God himself speaking in Scriptures as the formal ground thereof and into the spirits inlightning inlivening Power as the efficient cause He resolves it wholly into an inward Testimony of the spirit of which for ought appears neither of the twain save by hear-say knew any thing at all However instead of the Spirits testimony the man might better have said in this case simply by the Spirit by the Spirit scilicet as that medium facultatis whereby we are enabled to see and believe scriptural verities to be Divine Albeit as Dr. Ames well observeth Medull l. 2. c. 5. there is a sufficient and certain representation proposed to us in the Scripture both of things that are to be believed and of that Reason upon which we ought to believe them See Rom. 16.26 Nor yet Fourthly Does he perceive the difference betwixt faith Dogmatical complex assenting to the truth of Divine propositions and that faith which we call salvifical incomplex fixing on adhering to and resting in Jesus Christ alone That may be various respect had to its object the same man knows such a proposition to be revealed to morrow which he knows not to day and consequently believe that to morrow which to day he does not This respect had to the object varies not It 's Jesus the same Yesterday to Day and for ever Though yet respect had to the subject like as the other it 's sometimes weaker or stronger confused or more distinct And hence men of different faiths incomplex cannot be saved for there is no other name under Heaven given c. Acts 4.12 other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 oneness of Faith as to this is commended and commanded Eph. 4.5 compared with Eph. 4.13 unto the unity of the Faith and knowledge of the Son of God He that believeth on the Son of God hath life Eternal and he that believeth not c. John 3.36 But men may be of different faiths complex believe diverse nay contrary propositions and yet through Grace obtain salvation Some build Gold Silver precious Stones some Wood Hay Stubble one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth Herbs Rom. 14.2 Fifthly and Lastly the man seems not to know of any difference betwixt an acquired Habit and a Divine Gift the requisites to our getting of Science and Gods giving of Faith Science it 's true as Thomas determines cannot be had unless we first know the certainty of the Medium or Reason whereby the conclusion is demonstrated but it is impertinent to Faith as Estius well concludes by what means we believe the prime Verity that is by what means God useth to bestow on men the gift of Faith He may do it as well by the preaching of the meanest Minister as of the greatest Apostle for indeed neither the one nor the other is or needs to be what he supposes a foundation or Argument whereon to build but simply a medium or instrument whereby is begotten and brought forth that Faith which is of the operation of God Page 7. And therefore in vain does he dispute about the Primitive Christians believing either because the Apostles so taught or Simon Magus so affirmed for it was not because but by the Preaching whether of Paul or Apollos that they did believe We have not dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. 1.24 Who then is Paul or who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every man 1 Cor. 3.5 The Captains inadvertency or imprudence is as evident First In that he never calls to mind that Priests and Jesuites pass usually under the Notion of Lay Gentlemen and great Folks Cousins Trusts Eve like to his own skill and never makes known either his doubts or the Gentlemans objections to any of the Protestant Ministers He borrows it 's true a certain deal of Popish Books The Question of Questions Novelty repressed Fiat Lux Infidelity unmasked or a confutation of a Book published by Mr. William Chillingworth but never inquires for Mr. William Chillingworth's own Book nor Dr. Hammonds answer to Infidelity Vnmasked in his vindication of the Lord Falkland He never sends to Dr. Owen for his animadversions on Fiat Lux nor adviseth with Mr. Baxter about Novelty supprest Had he consulted with these Ministers of ours and told us wherein they failed in the answering either these Books or the Lay Gentlemans Objections it might have been of some moment have startled perhaps some of the Nonconformists but to make a stirr and a story how mildly how profoundly the Lay Gentleman objected and then how extreamly troubled how strangely the Horse-Captain was gravelled argues nothing save the Gentlemans cunning craftiness and the Captains dastardly weakness the cause no more concerned than if they had never had meeting Secondly He never considered that the Gentleman was altogether for asking questions Robert never proposes any for if when the Captain was gravelled and could not certainly prove the truth of Christianity from his own Fanatick Principles he had put the Gentleman to it to have proved Christianity certainly true from the Popish a hundred to one but they had both proved Heathens the one being no more able to establish it by Miracles upon the infallibility of the Roman Church than the other by sense and feeling upon the Spirits Testimony the man now knows and finds this to be true enough and therefore in the conclusion doth he present us with six queries conjures his old Brethren to answer them and withal warily provides that they shall not ask him any question at all but first ascertain what they would establish for says he Page 85. Who knows not if a Man will give himself scope to be bold he may raise Arguments against the belief of the Trinity or any other Mystery of Faith that will puzzle learned Men to answer a piece of cunning and caution I could wish all our weaker sort of Protestants to take special notice of Thirdly The man unadvisedly all along confounds endeavours to fix and find in the same subject the Rule Judge and Guide of Faith whenas these three are in their respective Natures Uses Ends distinct and scarcely possible to be subjected in the same thing or person The Scripture may be a Rule certain and stable as Bellarmine and yet no Judge Reason may be a judge or rather that whereby every man is to judge for himself as Chillingworth and yet no Rule The spirit may be Guide to direct draw and lead us into all truth and yet neither rule nor judge The Church by her Ministry may be subservient to the spirit in leading helpful to us in finding out applying of and judging according to the Rule and yet the Church it self be neither Rule Judge nor Guide nor will now that grand Sophism the Spirit is not Reason is not the
Scripture is not the Judge Rule and Guide and therefore the Church is be of any force for never to take notice that it founds an affirmative conclusion upon negative premisses it supposes that some Presbyterians Independents c. should hold the Spirit alone some Reason some the Scripture each exclusive of the Ministry of the Church to be the Rule Judge and Guide of Faith whenas all they joyntly in this business joyn all these together and look up unto God according to his command and promise for his Holy spirit in the Churches Ministery throughly to direct their understandings in judging of things according to the written Rule Fourthly The man never perceives that his own vain ratiocinations and needless concessions are the sole ground that is given for him to bottom his belief upon a strong fancy he has and need on for his Faith 's no stronger To evince this I shall instance in these six positions laid down and supposed as the Basis of his whole discourse First Faith is an infallible assent of the understanding submitting it self obediently to believe the Revelations of God Secondly There must be some means appointed of God by which we may know this one true Faith from all false opinions Thirdly These means must be infallible Fourthly The understanding must submit to these means under pain of Damnation Fifthly Two men of two different faiths or beliefs cannot be saved Sixthly Ignorant people by such reasonable diligence as is very tolerable to Humane frailty and yet possible for them may come to the knowledge wisely done to leave out certain of these means And now if you ask what foundation he has whereupon to ground his belief of these assertions he 'll tell you I gathered them from the true interpretation of certain Texts of Scripture Pag. 16. And if you ask further how he knows that interpretation to be true Has he Divine Revelation for it According to the tenour of his own first position Has he the unanimous consent of the Fathers for it Or does he certainly know beyond all possibility of being mistaken that the Church in all Ages hath and the present Church now doth give that interpretation accordingly as 't is decreed by the Council of Trent No but from hence I thought says he it did very naturally follow Firstly 17. Secondly and Thirdly c. And yet that it may appear he only says could not possibly think any such a thing observe from that exhortation Heb. 10.23 Let us hold fast the profession of our Hope so in their own Authentick Translation undeclining does he inferr Faith is an infallible assent of our understanding and because the latter part of the verse for he is faithful that hath promised founded the confidence there spoken of upon the promise of Grace and the former Verse fixed faith with its full assurance upon the High Priest Jesus alone The man slily passeth over both and leaves the other part of his proposition obediently submitting c. destitute of any proof From 2 Cor. 10.5 bringing into Captivity every thought to the Obedience of Christ he infers the understanding must submit not dispute all be Damned that disobey the Authority of the Church and adds withal that saving faith is seated in the understanding as if Paul had been mistaken when he said with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness Rom. 10.10 or as if he himself knew not what he had done in putting obediently submitting into the definition of faith sith all conclude obedience and disobedience to be subjected in the will From Eph. 4.5 there is but one Faith respect had to the personal object in whom the Lord Jesus He concludes that two men of differing faiths Dogmatical or that believe two contrary opinions cannot be saved nor is he ashamed from Isaiah 35.8 plainly pointing at Christ the new and living way first to take out and the unclean shall not pass over it as incoherent because their unholy Mother admits of such for her children and then inferrs that ignorant people by reasonable diligence may come to the knowledge of those means about which yet their learned men to this very day could never be agreed Nor can he himself tell when it comes to the pinch how those means should be certainly manifest save by miracles of which we ignorant folk may often hear but never come to the knowledge of however that I most admire at is That the man designing to prove that true acceptable faith consists in believing as the Church believes a believing that the Roman Church is infallible should quote Heb. 11.6 that holds out the faith without which it is impossible to please God to be a believing not that the Church but that God himself is so he that comes to God must believe that he is c. And further that he should stand hafling and pafling and proving by halfs there must be some means appointed by God by which men may know c. those means must be infallible the understanding must submit to those means under pain of damnation when the very Text quoted Mark 16.16 shews plainly that there be means infallible means and which be the means appointed whereby true faith both is begotten and may be known from all false opinions and unto which all that heartily submit shall be saved and those that do not shall be damned and lest you should mistake in reading the means be the word of truth the Gospel Preached though by the mouth of never so weak a Minister Go into all the World and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned A Genere ad speciem affirmat non valet Argumentum nor yet is it unworthy of remark 1. That means in general is here all along found in the premisses and Authority in speciall put after into the conclusion there must be there is an infallible Means and therefore there is there must be an infallible Authority And 2. That the man seriously endeavours to found the very foundation of his own faith upon Scriptures dark Scriptures privately interpreted howbeit the main scope of his Book is to evince that faith true faith neither first nor last can or ought to be founded thereupon That self-interest had a hand in the Captains overturning seems more than probable Pag. 4. because First The Captain in the late Wars as his Book relates had run through the several forms of Religion Presbyterian Independent Anabaptist c. and yet never that we read of lost his preferment upon any Turn nor missed of it for want of timely turning and sith so the man might easily foresee that such a notorious Jugler was never like to be trusted at the Kings Court Best for him now at last to turn Papist do the Jesuits some signal service declare against his old friends and their old enemies the Nonconformists and perhaps by that wile he might in the
Bede's time not simply to confirm the Doctrine taught but the then Roman Churches infallibility in teaching yet would that make nothing at all to prove either that the now Roman Church is infallible or her new devised Doctrines certainly true 4. The former position you father on Mr. Chillingworth will be taken for your own till such time as you quote the Chapter Section or Page where you had it and if then as much may not be done for Mr. Chillingworth against you as Mr. Chillingworth in the like case hath done for Bishop Vsher against Knott we shall confess him a Man what would you more and fallible and yet withal tell you that his Arguments remain unanswered nay unanswerable by your Church nor will so wise a man's contradicting of himself make any thing at all against but for the establishing the Doctrine of ours Let God be true and every Man a Lyar Rom. 3.4 Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10.5.5 Clodius accusat Moechum You tax Mr. Chillingworth with contradicting of himself and yet you are taken in that very act you blame that learned Writer for relying too much upon his own reason and yet you would have us build our Faith upon yours we must have reasons forsooth without revelation for conversion and submission to the said Church The Six Queries answered BUt yet all after this Pag. 84. I fear some of you will blame me for having joyned with this Catholick Church to which by Gods mercy I am united and judge me as having taken the wrong way To those who shall remain so perswaded I make this humble request and conjure them by all the Obligations of Brotherly Love and as they have any charity for my Soul that they will please to tell me First c. First Fear of blame argues a sense of Guilt you confess your having joyned with this Catholick Church and that implies your having separated from the Catholick Church the very thing your old Brethren do and that upon just grounds blame you for And therefore 2. Do not take Gods name in vain never say that it was by Gods mercy but because of your own sin and folly that you are now divided from the communion of Christians that are all one in Christ Jesus according to Gal. 3.28 and are become united to a Sect of Papists that center in nought else save three Words which you cannot construe Roman Catholick Church without either Christian or Holy Thirdly How can you but judge your self to have taken a wrong way when as you know you have left Gods way an explicit Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and have taken up a way of your own viz. an implicite believing as the Church believeth When the poor Jaylor enquired Acts 16.31 What shall I do to be saved Pray now did the Apostle direct him to go that way you have taken or that way you have left Howbeit indeed you cannot rightly be said to walk in that wrong way you have taken or to believe as the Church believes because the Church hath one manner and Rule of believing and you another unless you 'l say what yet I think you will not that the Church like you believes she neither knows what nor in whom and is a Rule of believing unto her self 4. Humble requests and Brotherly love we shall let alone till another time but out of Charity to your Soul and tenderness of many others a solution is endeavoured to all your Quaeries First Whether they themselves are certain past all possibility of being mistaken that the Christian Religion is the only safe way to Salvation i. e. Whether they are infallibly sure of this point and how come they to be so infallibly assured 1. It is not so proper to say Christian Religion as that Christ is the only way to Salvation I am the way John 14.6 nor need there should be any addition of safe as if there were other ways to Salvation though somewhat dangerous For there is no other name under Heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved neither is Salvation in any other Act. 4.12 Bellarmins saying tutissimum est was well for a Papist yet would ill become the mouth of a Protestant 2. Though we shall not say that we are certain of this point ex parte nostri beyond all possibility of mistaking for that were to make our selves Gods pure Acts not men compounded ex actu potentia of what we are and what we may be Yet we say we are ascertained hereof ex parte Dei beyond all possibility of being mistaken because God that cannot lie hath declared it and taken away the actual hurt of that mist that yet naturally we are still prone unto And hence 3. Though we do not say that we can infallibly assure our selves nor dare say that we are infallibly sure of this or any other point Yet we affirm that we are most sure of this point Historically Morally as men so sure as the best Authentick Histories Universal Traditions and the most rational Arguments can make us sure with a certainty cui non subest dubium exclusive of all doubt Though yet this notwithstanding as some do and we may surmise potest subesse falsum there is a possibility of its being otherwise a possibility of our being mistaken 2. We are assured hereof infallibly spiritually as Christians finding in our selves a faith of adherency freely given beyond and besides that of evidence by natural means to be obtained nor will it be either reasonable or charitable for you to call this our faith fancy for sith we make it out that what we believe is true objectivè beyond all contradiction of Reason wherefore should you question the goodness of the God of truth in confirming us subjectivè especially when we who know our own Hearts if not well enough yet better than you affirm that from time to time we experience it are ready to seal it with our lives and that Ancient godly Book called the Bible hath many speeches and promises of such a tendency Secondly Whether they have the same assurance and from the same grounds or from what grounds that this sort of Christianity wherein I now worship God is erroneous and damnable 1. We do not say that sort of Christianity wherein you worship God is erroneous and damnable but that that sort of Popery wherein you worship Images invocate Saints adore a piece of bread c. is so 2. That this sort of Popery is erroneous and damnable we are certain from divine Scripture ground Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. thou shalt not bow down thy self unto them Exod. 20.4 5. When ye pray say Our Father which art in Heaven Luk. 11.2 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matt. 4.10 In vain do ye worship me teaching for doctrins the commandments of men Mat. 15.9 3. True it is we have the same
to be instituted by Christ and no more and sure then the man may count two and need not complain for want of the number numbring Secondly It 's necessary to Salvation to believe all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal but by the Scripture it cannot be made out plainly and clearly which Books are the word of God and which are Apocryphal First Your own Doctors distinguish betwixt an affirmative believing and a negative disbelief and though they make it damnable to disbelieve any one point when sufficiently represented to the understanding as revealed by God yet do they not make it necessary positively and expresly to believe all or any of the Books of Holy Scriptures to be so revealed and suppose they did it matters not sith it 's evident that the Scriptures themselves make believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and not believing all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God to be that Vnum necessarium that one thing necessary to Salvation And the Fathers in the Primitive times had differences and doubts about several Books of Scripture now commonly received for Canonical and yet were saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as we 2. Christians convinced by any means whatsoever that such and such Books in themselves Apocryphal be the word of God ought during that conviction believe them to be so and it is so far from being necessary to Salvation for them rebus sic stantibus to believ otherwise that it were obstinacy and interpretatively a denying of Gods veracity for them not so to believe formally as Chillingworth though not materially an Heresie 3. True it is that it cannot be made out by Scripture as by a Testimony or Argumentum inartificiale which Books are the Word of God and which be Apocryphal yet may this be made out plainly and clearly by Scripture Tanquam per Argumentum artificiale scilicet The Divine Characters that God himself hath imprinted on those Books that be indeed the Word of God nor need we trouble your Churches Authority though we confess our selves much beholding to the Churches ministry for the finding of them out Thirdly It is necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but there is no Text or Texts of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word 1. It is necessary for you and me to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we are perswaded though upon several grounds that they be so but that it is necessary for all persons so to believe will not be granted till you further explain your necessary and add proof for the evincing of it And yet however 2. There is a Text of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word For if there be a Text that expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God there is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word But there is a Text which expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God ergo There is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word The major is evident from universal Tradition assuring us that the Scriptures we now have be the same that the Jews and Christians had then The minor is evinced from that of Paul to Timothy whose Mother was a Jewess and Father a Greek all Scripture is divinely inspired 2 Tim. 3. Fourthly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted for if they be corrupted they cease to be the Word of God and then they cannot be any rule or sure guide to us But of this we have no assurance in Scripture 1. It is not necessary as hath been said to know the Scriptures to be the Word of God and therefore not necessary sure to know they are not corrupted Scripture or Writing is no more than one special means whereby God is pleased to make known and preserve in the World the knowledge of his Will if he do it any where by another Medium that will suffice Nay suppose as the man seems to do all along that the Scriptures be corrupted it cannot be necessary to know that they are not corrupted unless it be necessary to know that which is not possible to be known and so all men be necessarily damned 2. When we say the Scripture is the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies it is usually restrained to such controversies as do not concern the Scripture You will not allow us to argue the Church is no infallible Judge or Rule because the Church is forced to seek for other and higher proof than her own words to prove her self to be Infallible and if so why should we argue the Scripture to be no Rule because we cannot have assurance in Scripture that it is not corrupted it will be sufficient that we have assurance some other way 3. Scripture may be said to be corrupted in Essentials or Accidentals in whole or in part It may be corrupted in Accidentals the Words mis-spelled Sentences misplaced Words or Letters inserted or omitted and yet the mind and meaning of God what it is all that notwithstanding be evident from thence Every Book almost after its most perfect Edition hath Errata's and yet the Authors meaning may be plain enough Nay further Scripture may be corrupted in some parts and yet remaining pure in others Scriptura per Scripturam Scripture may be corrected by Scripture as a Jesuit of your own hath well observed Fifthly It is necessary in order to the knowing of the true mind meaning and will of God and what he intended by such and such a Text that we know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when mystically but this cannot be understood from Scripture as daily experience informs us 1. The Scripture supposes men to have the use of sense and reason and if so they may easily conclude as sure as God is truth the Spirit spake by the Prophets and Apostles accordingly as he meant the Prophets and Apostles writ according as the Spirit spake and writ for that end that the true mind meaning and will of God might be known and understood which could not be without perpetuated new Revelation except we might and ought to take that for his mind and meaning which the words in their literal construction hold out unto us Eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur De verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 certum est esse sensum Spiritus Sancti That says Bellarmin which is immediately gathered from the words is certain to be the sense of the Holy Ghost And therefore 2. vainly does he enquire and fondly distinguish of several senses of this or that Text whenas it is