grounds of assurance for all points of Christian Religion affirmatively negatively respect had to their Verity and yet have we not the same grounds for all respect had unto their Charity and therefore may we have assurance for all upon the same grounds yet not the same assurance 4. The Spirit is sent in a special manner to convince the world of sin for not believing and to perswade all the Elect to believe in Jesus Christ But which or how many other points the Holy Ghost will certainly give in evidence for or against I shall not determine Thirdly Suppose I were willing upon their perswasions to relinquish this way wherein I now am what sort of Christianity viz. whether the way of the Lutheran or Calvinist of the Greeks Church or of the Armenian or Ethiopian or whether the way of the English Independents or Anabaptists or Quakers or of the Fifth monarchy-men or the way of the new Arrians or Socinians or any other and what shall I follow and why as the only secure way to salvation or is it enough to secure my salvation if I be a Christian opposing the Roman Church and believe or disblieve what I please so it be in contradiction to the Roman Church 1. I can easily suppose you convinced of the naughtiness of the way that you are in and yet at present cannot suppose you willing to relinquish it for any of those ways you mention indeed there is another way you seem to be thinking of because you say nothing of it and had not your perfidiousness been such that the Chieftains thereof will not allow you preferment I little question but they have Motives that might work upon you 2. The way as you call it of the Lutherans the way of the Calvinists Arminians English Independents be not several sorts of Christianity or several ways to salvation but several opinions held out several forms of Government under which several Christians live that are all in the same secure way to salvation viz. Jesus Christ and therefore 3. I shall not perswade you first or last to be of any of these ways but as you say well to become a Christian believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and him alone for salvation and then as to other points believe or disbelieve not what you please but what God in an humble use of lawful means shall be pleased to make known unto you Lord what wilt thou have me to do Acts 9.6 And then though I cannot tell which of the ways forementioned you 'l be for may be for none yet certain I am you 'l stand up with me in contradiction to the Church of Rome because she above all other Sects sets her self most notoriously to contradict our only Lord Jesus Christ will needs sit as God in the Temple of God However 4. suppose I were willing upon your perswasions to relinquish this way wherein I now am what sort of Popery viz. whether the way of the Dominicans Jesuits or Franciscans or the way of the French or Italian or the way of your Thomists or Scotists nominal or reals or whether the way of J. S. who makes Tradition or the way of R. E. who makes the Church the Rule of Faith of any other and what shall I follow and why as the only secure way to salvation or is it enough to secure my Salvation if I be a Papist opposing the Protestant Churches and believe or disbelieve what the Priest my Confessor pleases so it be in contradiction to the Protestant Churches If 't be said that yet for all this you do not differ in points of Faith We answer First you differ in what is more considerable the foundation and Rule J. S. and his party holding Tradition R. E. and his party holding the Church to be the Rule of Faith And then in a subdivision the Italians holding the Pope The French maintaining that the Council and R. E. again that the vast community of all Christians c. ought to be meant by the Church Nor does it end thus Bellarmin holds that by Miracles the Church can be proved true no more than credibly you 'l needs prove your Church by Miracles to be the universal Judge and the infallible Guide of Faith and that certainly certitudine fidei directly contrary to and far enough beyond what Bellarmin ere attempted 2. The differences betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans Whether God predeterminate every action Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight be about points of Faiths and more material than any point in Controversie betwixt Presbyterians Independents and Anabaptists If you say you agree in all points your Church has defin'd to be of Faith it 's not simply and unanimously as you pretend to agree in all points of Faith but in all your Church has defin'd or can agree that you should agree in whose definitions and politick Arbitration together with your irrational forced submissions be nothing to us nor to the Question However you use to tell us herewithal that an agreement in the letter or words is worth nothing unless there be an agreement in sense And now you controvert the sense of almost all your Churches definitions Conc. Trid. Sess 25. Due Honour and veneration saith your Church must be given to Images and then one sort of you conclude the Image in it self must not in any manner be worshipped Bellar. de Imag. sanct l. 2. c. 20. but only the exemplar be worshipped before the Image Another sort that the same honour is due to the Image as is due to the exemplar And a third sort that the Images in themselves and properly ought to be honoured but with a lesser Honour than the exemplar it self and if you urge yet that you all agree the definitions to be true in the sense intended by the Church her self we reply that you your selves be the Church that thus falls out about the sense do not know what 's your own meaning and add further that we all agree the Scriptures to be true in the sense intended by God yet will not that content you Fourthly Whether they who would teach me that sort of Christianity to be the only Religion wherein Salvation is to be attained which they would have me follow and imbrace be infallible in their teaching of this particular We do not tell you of this or that sort of Christianity being the only Religion wherein but of Jesus being the only Christ through faith in whom Salvation is to be attained and though we dare not say that we are infallible in teaching this particular yet are we certain that this particular which we teach is true infallibly and that one infallible according to Christs own promise Matt. 28.20 goes along with us in teaching thereof your Priests want such company and therefore not being able their Ministry powerfully to evidence in mens understandings the verity of what they set themselves to Preach they labour to set up an infallible visible Authority unto
Gospel to perswade me to believe Manichaeus because it was from the Preachings of the Catholicks that I believe the Gospel it self If you tell me I did well when I believed the Catholicks praising the Gospel but I do ill when I believe the same persons decrying Manichaeus do you take me to be so stupid as without any reason given unto me I should believe or disbelieve what you please c. But if you have any Reason to offer unto me lay aside the Gospel if you hold your self to the Gospel I shall adhere to those upon whose commands I believe the Gospel and so long as I obey them I shall not believe you But if by accident you should find any thing in the Gospel most evidently touching the Apostleship of Manichaeus you will weaken the Authority of the Catholicks in my esteem who require me not to believe you but that being weakened I shall not believe the Gospel because I believe that by them so that whatsoever you bring from the Gospel will be of no force with me Wherefore if nothing be found in the Gospel for the manifestation of Manichaeus his Apostleship I shall rather give credit to Catholicks than you But if any thing shall be there found manifest on the behalf of Manichaeus I shall neither believe them nor you Not them because they told me a lie of you nor shall I believe you because you urge that Scripture to me which I believe upon their Authority who told me a lie in relation to you c. 1. S. Augustine may be considered either as a Witness acquainting us what the Church then held or as a Doctour rationally deducing and proving of conclusions had you quoted him under the former notion I should not have questioned the truth of any thing that Great Augustine had said without undeniable evidence to the contrary But sith you cite him as Doctor I shall value S. Austins Authority as S. Austin had learned to value the Authority of other pious learned Doctors of or before his time not credit what he saith because he saith it but because he proves it true either by Canonical Authorities or probable Reasons Howbeit 2. You observe the Rule and Method not of Saint Austin but Mr. Knot substituting John Calvin for Manichaeus and I might by the same Rule observe the Method of Mr. Chillingworth substitute Arians as great pretenders then as the Papists are now for the Catholick Church put Goth or Vandal converted by them for S. Austin for Manichaeus write Homousians and then try whether the Argument if but first fitted to your purpose be not as he says like a buskin that will fit any leg but I shall wave this and in a just parallel let you see plainly how far different your proceedings are from those of the great S. Austin First then S. Austin speaks of an Infidel that did not as yet believe the Gospel you direct your speech to Christians Protestants that do already believe it and that upon the account of Universal Tradition the Scriptures and the Divine Attestations of Miracles far better grounds than your Popish principles can or will allow Secondly S. Austin supposes such a one to come and say I do not believe and thereupon seeks to bring him to and establish him in the faith you deal with such as say they do believe and seek to overturn their faith established as aforesaid averring it 's no better than fancy and an humour thus did not Austin Thirdly S. Austin speaks in the singular number and preter Tense Neither had I believed the Gospel unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholick Church You speak in the plural and present Tense we must not do not believe the Gospel unless our Faith be founded upon the Authority and infallibility of that society of Christians which is in Communion with and in subjection to the Bishop of Rome Fourthly those to whom Austin submitted required him to believe the Gospel and disbelieve Manichaeus who held two first Principles and consequently two Gods and maintained several other errous apparently repugnant thereunto those to whom you have submitted require you to believe the Real presence Purgatory Image-worship with other such like Humane inventions and disbelieve Calvin who teacheth the Gospel and declares against all such Doctrins as do not accord therewith Fifthly We do not advise you to believe the Romanists nor did you at the first believe the Gospel by the Romanists Preaching but by the preaching of the Protestants And therefore if you 'l adhere to those upon whose grounds you did at first believe the Gospel so long as you obey them you shall not believe the Romanists and if they say what one would think they should you did well when you believed the Protestants preaching of the Gospel but do ill when you believe the same persons decrying the Romanists are you so stupid as without any reason given unto you to believe or disbelieve what they please c. Had you indeed been bred a Papist and then could have proved the Papists the only Catholicks and Protestants as gross Hereticks as the Manichees there might have been some ground for your parallel with S. Austin as it is you proceed upon a threefold disadvantage and disparity FINIS
for the work of the Ministery for the edification of the body of Christ Eph. 4.11 12. God hath set some in the Church First Apostles 1. Cor. 12.18 and by the way some in the Church not one over the Church for the whole respect had to its organical frame form or Government is divided into several Churches several Congregations if you will as well as the world into several Kingdoms To the angel of the Church of Ephesus Rev. 2.1 We have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Nor did Paul treating 1 Cor. 12. concerning spiritual gifts relate to a chief in governing but the choicest for Prophesying when he said nor again the Head to the Feet I have no need of you Thirdly Although the Bishops of Rome in that very thing as Gregory well notes forerunners of Antichrist did frequently challenge an Universal Jurisdiction yet was it never owned nor submitted to by the Catholick Church as it is evident from S. Cyprian opposing Stephanus Irenaeus reproving of Victor Jerom's Eugubium and the sixth Council of Carthage in which was Augustin and Aurelius as also from the Acts of three of the four first General Councils Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon Fourthly The man in the Close restrains the Church Catholick to a Church of one denomination called the Roman meaning though thereby not what Paul meant the Saints at Rome Rom. 1.7 but all that vastly extended community of Christians which live in communion with and in subjection to the Bishop of Rome as to their supream Pastor and Governour on Earth in all things appertaining unto faith next under Christ when as yet the Arguments and Texts all along produced seemingly militate for the infallibility of the Church not this or that Church though never so vastly extended and above all not for the old Roman and therefore he did wisely to frame a new one for it 's expresly declared fallible Rom. 11.22 And yet again pag. 61. we are presented with a General Council of Prelates as this Church this infallible Rule which can by no means be identified with all that vastly extended community c. And yet let him take which he will he 'l be still at a loss For such an Assembly of Prelates is not now in being nor like to be nor has there been any such for a Century of years last past And as for all the Christians of that vast community they are to be judged ruled guided and consequently not the Rule Judge and Guide If exempted from error personal it were well Judicial infallibility concerns not them In the beginning he 's for submission to the Holy Catholick Church and now as if by Holy Catholick Church he did not mean the Holy Catholick Church his Mother nor any thing else save the Pope his Father he 's for submission and obedience to the Bishop of Rome The matter and marvel is that the man has been tewing and tugging and troubling himself and us all this while about an universal infallible visible Authoritative Church and now in the issue can neither tell who where or what it is However sith the Church is such an one which is truly appointed by God to be this infallible Judge must needs as he saith have this condition Pag. 72. that she doth own her infallibility It is incumbent upon the Captain in the first place to make it out that the present Roman visible Church doth plainly own her infallibility for his owning and inferences we shall not regard or else confess that in his own account she is not the Church he tells of truly appointed of God to be this infallible Judge nor let him thus think to put us off and say unless he evidently prove that she does that by the Pope her mouth for the Pope will not be content to be the Churches but Christs own mouth and Vicar Peter's successor the Rock upon which the Church is built at least next unto Christ Of Protestants he saith All that I ever met with seemed to grant Pag. 18. There must be a way or Rule there must be a means appointed there must be a Governing Power to judge and decide all doubts and teach us the true way to Heaven with certainty but who this Judge is that is the difficulty Whenas 1. though Protestants generally conclude that the Scripture is the rule according to which every Christian may and ought to judge of doubts with a judgment of discretion and Pastors joyntly or severally with a judgment of direction Yet none affirm that any who on Earth is or can be either Rule or Judge much less both Rule and Judge Infallible Universal Praetorial such as he under the notion of his Governing Power is at present seeking for Pag. 60. Dr. Fern's expression indeed such a Judge and Umpire in Christendom if to be had would be a ready means to compose all differences and to restore truth and Peace comes next to any that he can pitch upon and yet has Dr Fern neither wish nor word of any whosoever being a Rule nor is he so sawcy as to say there must be a Judge or Umpire appointed But such a Judge or Umpire would if to be had be a ready neither the best nor the only means to compose all differences Of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome p. 6. §. 19. 2. Sith in those things in which before a General Council hath defined it is lawful to hold either way and damnable to do so after The Lord Falkland desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define any thing and so bestow upon the Devil one path more for us to walk in to him Against Knot part 1. c. 2. pag. 84. And although sayes Chillingworth we wish heartily that all controversies were ended as we do that all sin were abolished yet have we little hope of the one or of the other till the World be ended in the mean while think it best to content our selves with and perswade other to an unity of charity and mutual toleration seeing God hath authorised no man to force all to the unity of opinion Neither do we think it fit to argue thus To us it seems convenient there should be one Judge for the whole world therefore God hath appointed one but more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such judge of controversies therefore though to us it seems convenient there should be one yet it is not so And yet 3. We who can distinguish betwixt the scriptural way to Heaven and the Churches Rule of â—…ith betwixt an external infallible Governour and an internal infallible Teacher betwixt an unnecessary decision of all doubts and a full satisfaction of the heart about the one thing needful We I say which have learned thus to distinguish do humbly and thankfully acknowledge that there is a means appointed to teach us the true way to Heaven with certainty Jesus is the true way
the only way to Heaven and that Spirit which he hath promised and gives in the Gospel ministry is the means appointed to teach and establish us in that way with certainty If I depart I will send him unto â—…on and when he is come he shall convince the world of sin because they believe not in me They shall be all taught of God all shall know me c. In whom after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise Eph. 1.15 And now you instead of reviling such Christians as humbly own their having received the anointing or troubling your self and others with that monstrous notion of an universal infallible governing Church should examine your self whether you have been so convinced taught and sealed by that spirit through hearing the word of truth the Gospel of your salvation received ye the spirit by the hearing of Faith Gal. 3.2 Pag. 33. Secondly It is impossible for any one of these parties meaning Independents Presbyterians Anabaptists Fifth-monarchy men Quakers which I must now crave leave to call Sects with reason to censure or condemn any of the others although never so different from themselves even in points by them esteemed fundamental since each of them have their uncontroulable Plea for themselves that their faith is in every respect conformable to what they understand to be the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures which they agree to be the sole and only Rule and Judge Nay which of these parties can deny the others the Title of Protestants or convince them of Heresie Since to be a Protestant no more is required or if it be I would gladly know what it is than to admit the Scriptures interpreted according to their best understanding and Conscience to be the sole and only rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies Is not he that professeth and followeth this principle allowed by all to be a perfect good Protestant though never so much differing in Faith from others who make the same profession The Quakers because your Allies in the grand point of justification and an uncharitable sentencing of all save their own Sect shall for me stand or fall to their own Master but for the rest that you mention I say that you suppose what you cannot prove scilicet that they differ in points that be or are esteemed by them to be fundamental Do they not all own the Creed called the Apostles and all conclude that therein be contained all the fundamental points at least Nay do they not all own the doctrinal part of the 39 Articles insomuch that you who would seem to revere the Doctrine established by Law dare not say they be Hereticks but are fain to crave leave to call them Sects Secondly It 's true they all agree the Scripture to be the sole and only Rule and yet mean the Scripture taken in the sense intended by God not as privately interpreted by any of them nor is their faith or present perswasion according to their grounds or pleadings uncontroulable sith what they hold in a supposed conformity with or understand to be the true sense and meaning of any Text is humbly submitted unto what can be made out with greater evidence more nearly to accord with or be the very sense and meaning intended by the Holy Ghost Apollos was ready to yield to Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18.26 and they to you or any else that shall expound unto them the way of God more perfectly But Thirdly It matters not much whether these parties can or cannot deny to one another the title of Protestant so they see ground for and do allow to one another the name of Christian Protestant is no more to us than Papist to you though yet you seem not well to know either who or what is meant by Protestant And therefore shall Mr. Baxter at your desire instruct you A Protestant is a Christian that holdeth to the Holy Scripture as the sufficient Rule of Faith and Holy living and protesteth against Popery Or if this like you not take your own definition with some little amendment A Protestant is a Christian that professeth with S. Augustin in those things which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures all those things are found which appertain to faith and direction of life and further admitteth of the Scripture where needing interpretation as interpreted according to his best understanding and Conscience that he has or in the use of lawful means may have for the intire Rule of what he as such ought to hold and practise And yet suppose all that and only that required to the Being of a Protestant which you insert The parties you tell of may at that account convince of Heresie such amongst them as shall appear to be guilty of it may they not use means by opening alledging and reasoning out of the Scripture according to Act. 17.2 3. better to inform and reclaim such a one May they not do as the Lay gentleman did with you and you now in writing this Epistle do with your old Brethren or may they not mind him as Christ did the Sadduces ye err not knowing the Scriptures Matt. 22.19 and make such a like challenge as Augustin did to Maximinius August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 14. But now neither ought I to produce the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum as going about to prejudge neither am I detained by the Authority of this nor thou of that set thing with thing cause with cause reason with reason by authorities oâ— Scriptures not proper to either but common witnesses to us both and iâ— after apparent conviction or stopping of the mouth by Scripture Testimony that man will not relinquish but persist groundlesly to maintain his grosly erroneous Tenet it is an evident sign that he does not indeed admit of Scriptures interpreted according to his best understanding and conscience to be the Rule but obstinately adheres to the perverse wilful reasonings of his own fleshly mind is not a Protestant according to the tenor of your own description but one that is or ought to be rejected by them And although I know well enough you have other means for condemning and killing such you please to call Hereticks yet am I to learn what better means you have whereby to convince them of Heresie or discern who they be A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself Tit. 3.10 11. However you might have done well to have distinguished betwixt a Protestant and a perfect good Protestant He that professeth to follow this one principle so diametrically opposite to the fundamentals of Popery may perhaps be admitted by all or most for a Protestant yet if he differ in points of faith tradited by the four first General Councils and commonly received by Christians or to be of a vicious life he is not at least ought not to be owned by
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
Revelation and though of two contraries one sense only can be true and he that refuseth that sense which he knows to be true does deserve Damnation yet that God will certainly damn him or that the not believing in case he had not known were a sin damnable is more I think than God ever told you 3. Such controversies as are necessary to be decided in the use of lawful means have been are and may be decided by Scripture without either compleating it by or introducing in the stead thereof any other Rule and for the rest a mutual forbearance of the Controvertors were far better than your Pretorial decision of the controversies Eighthly It is necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not that is as you say what is fundamental and what not fundamental and to be informed of this plainly lest we erre and be damned but in this the Scripture is silent 1. If it be necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not How comes it to pass that your Church only declares negatively what is not to be believed or what must not upon pain of Damnation be disbelieved and yet never tells affirmatively what is purely and absolutely necessary for us to believe True you will have all believe affirmatively implicitly what ever your Church believes but that is nothing to this business where knowledge of the what in an explicit Faith is necessarily required All your Doctors conclude Somewhat must be explicitly believed and you say It is necessary to know the Particulars and yet will not your Church ever be gotten to declare unto us which they be let her do it when it shall seem good unto her in the interim I shall tell you plainly That 2. So much of the what is fundamentally necessary to be believed as is needful to bring such or such a person to believe in the who and rest on the foundation Jesus Christ and consequently more may be necessary for one than another and not necessary at all that the particulars should be determined For 3. Saving and Damning depends not upon a precise knowing and believing just so many points and no more but upon a hearty believing or not believing in Jesus Christ He that believeth in the Son of God hath eternal life He that believeth not c. He that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life 1 John 5.12 Ninthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by the Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that 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 I refer to consideration whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture If they were it had been almost impossible for so many divisions to have hapned about them as have done amongst persons on all sides admitting the Scripture to be the word of God 1. I refer it also to consideration Whether all these points be not plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture And wish you to consult with almost any large English Catechism or common Place book concerning it 2. The Heart of man is desperately wicked and many are possessed with a Spirit of blindness It is one question whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture and another whether all persons that admit the Scriptures to be the word of God can or will so search as to find them to be there Both Jews and Christians admit the Books of the Old Testament for Divine and yet differ about the weightiest and as we say the clearest point You say the Scriptures are plain and evident for the Churches Infallibility and yet the Protestants that admit the Scriptures for the Word of God as well as you do all deny it 3. Those so manifold divisions in the Primitive Church make more against the Churches being a Pretorial Judge than against Scripture being a perfect Rule It had been sure altogether impossible that such and so many points should have been so long controverted but that either the generality of Christians did not then judge a Pretorial decision of controversies necessary or that there was none then impowered so to decide them Howbeit 4. Is it necessary to believe these points implicitly or explicitly if but implicitly it is not necessary in order to the constituting of Scriptures an adequate object or rule of believing than these points should be plainly contained in them For plainness respects knowledge of the particulars to be believed which this kind of Faith supposeth not and if it be necessary to believe these points explicitly knowingly your own Doctors will not deny but that the Scriptures do plainly and perspicuously contain and teach them We deny not saith Costerus that those chief heads of the Faith which are to all Christians necessary to be known to Salvation are plainly and perspicuously comprehended in the Writings of the Apostles Enchirid. c. 4. p. 49. Cujusmodi sunt mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis incarnationis Filii Dei Of which sort be the mystery of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God The Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the Antient Prophets planè instruunt nos do plainly instruct us what is to be thought concerning things Divine Therefore hostile discord laid aside let us take the explication of Questions from the words Divinely inspired says Constantine to the Council of Nice And now what think ye does Bellarmine reply why See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 1. he takes occasion hence to suspect Constantine for a person unbaptized that as yet non noverit Arcana religionis had not been acquainted with the secrets of Religion howbeit better considering answers 2. That there be Testimonies extant in the Holy Scriptures of all the Doctrines which appertain to the nature of God and that concerning these Doctrines we may be plenè planè fully and plainly instructed out of the Holy Scriptures Tenthly It is necessary the Church of England saith that Infants should be Baptized and Women should receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and Christians should observe the Lords-day and yet none of these points are clearly and particularly proved from Scriptures 1. It matters not much what you say elsewhere this passage sufficiently manifests what sort of Nonconformists you write against scil not Nonconformists to the Church of England but to the Chair of Rome for if otherwise wherefore should you urge them in this case with The Church of England saith c. And yet however 2. You must know that if the Church of England say It is necessary that Infants should be Baptized it is upon a supposition that the affirmative
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
two and forty years have relation to another thing namely to the Kingdom of the House of Omri and not to the Age of Ahaziah for count from the beginning of the reign of Omri and you find Ahaziah to enter his Reign in the two and fortieth year from thence The Original words therefore Ben arbagumi Vshethaiim Shunah are not to be translated as they be Ahaziah was two and forty years old but Ahaziah was the Son of the two and forty years as Sedar Olam hath acutely observed long ago nor should you tell us now of our different translations unless it could be made appear that the Church in all ages had and of necessity ought to have one authentick Translation Or Secondly that our Translations do not clearly and with one consent deliver to us all points necessary to be believed differing only in some punctilio's of an inferiour concern Or Thirdly That it may not be as lawful for us to propose what seems agreeable to Reason for the removing as 't is for you to urge what seems contradictory to Reason for the raising of objections against a book of Scripture so universally received for Canonical And your Minor thus mended is denyed for contradictories must be ad idem in the same respect as well as de eodem See Peter Martyr in loc concerning the same person Ahaziah began to reign with his sickly infirm Father when he was twenty and two years old and the same Ahaziah was forty and two years old when he began to reign himself alone or if this will not satisfie you may consult with your own Cornelius de lapide upon the place he 'l tell you of the Syriack and Arabick Translations both those of Antioch or Mount Sinai the Alexandrian or Coptick that for forty two have twenty two and he that is offended at the other may use this reading Nor is it saith he the interpreters but the Scripture it self that corrects it self corrupted by the Transcribers The book of Kings corrects the book of Chronicles nor need we go further than Scripture for salving of the other difficulties for 1 Chron. 3.16 will teach you to insert Joechim or Jachim betwixt Josias and Jeconiah Mat. 1.11 and so compleat your number of forty two and Gen. 10.22 will tell you to put out Cannai from betwixt Sem and Arphaxad put in upon special Reason as is conceived by the Seventy See Light-foots Harmony in loco and retained as is likely by S. Luke chap. 3.36 the better to win upon the Gentiles The Argument from Heaven for the Roman Churches being Judge and Guide solved ANd now that I may conclude my whole proof with an Argument from Heaven Pag. 74. and by a Testimony of the highest nature make it evident to you that this Roman Catholick Church must be this Church which God hath appointed to be this Guide and Judge I shall insist upon the gift of Miracles this was that Testimony which our blessed Redeemer did himself produce as his Letters of Credence and as both necessary and sufficient to prove his mission If I had not saith our Lord Joh. 15.24 done among them the works that no other man did they had not had sin namely in not believing me to be the Messiah God therefore hath decreed it as a Law that whosoever refuseth to believe and submit unto that authority unto which he sets his hand and Seal by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles that Person committeth sin the reason is given in the same Text viz. because he thereby sheweth that he hateth God namely by not believing him Now I urge But the Roman Catholick Church hath done Works and Miracles amongst us such as no other Christian Church upon Earth hath done Therefore if we give credit to any other Church or Churches and disbelieve or refuse to believe her we shall have sin and shew our selves to be haters of God First You pretend here to conclude your proof with an argument from Heaven and yet have you not hiththerto produced so much as one Testimony of the lowest nature somewhat you have said indeed which is already touched to prove what we grant scilicet that no other Church can be but have not said a word to make good what you your self affirm viz. that the Roman Church is this infallible Rule Judge and Guide And let me tell you by the way either you can prove this your Church infallible or you cannot If you cannot wherefore should we believe it If you can either by Revelation or by Reason Divine revelation it 's apparent you neither do can nor attempt to produce and as for Reason you have already proved it to be fallible so that at best how much soever you may seem to be taken with your own fallacies your Church can be proved but fallibly to be infallible But Secondly There is a difference betwixt the gift and the power of working Miracles You do it 's true insist upon the gift but should make it out that your Church has power of working Miracles if you 'l evince her Christ-like to be infallible this was necessary that had not been sufficient to have proved his mission It is therefore somewhat loose arguing for you to conclude the Jews committed sin were haters of God for not believing Jesus to be the Messiah who did amongst them the work which no other man did viz. wrought Miracles by his own power and therefore Christians commit sin shew themselves haters of God in not believing the Roman Church to be infallible because she has the gift can do works howbeit none among us like other men viz. work Miracles in the name and power of another And hence Thirdly We deny Gods having decreed any such a Law as you tell of 1 Sam. 10. Numb 11. for though an Authority to which God sets his hand and seal by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles may be rendred thereby like that of Saul and the Seventy by the spirit of Prophecy more than ordinary venerable and whosoever refuseth to believe and submit to an Authority knowing it to work Miracles by its own power that person committeth sin and sheweth himself an hater of of God yet may an Authority divinely signed and sealed by having that gift be disbelieved however submission still due whether it have the gift or not without contracting any such a guilt not disbelieved do I mean in a particular Doctrine that it shall actually and visibly confirm by Miracles but disbelieved when teaching it self and all other Authorities that have that gift to be disbelievable upon that account or de debito believed in all that they should dictate forth unto us That being indeed a Doctrine never confirmed by Miracles nor delivered by him that had the power of working of them Though yet Fourthly It cannot be made out that Christ did set his hand and seal either to this or that Authority by bestowing on it any such a gift for particular believers
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