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
THE Popish Proselyte THE GRAND FANATICK OR AN ANTIDOTE AGAINST The Poyson of Captain Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Non-conformists And many other Signs and Wonders truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that in believing you might have life through his name John 20.30 31. London Printed for Samuel Tidmarsh at the Kings Head in Cornhill next House to the Royal Exchange MDCLXXXIV TO THE READER AN exact answering of the whole Epistle by Paragraphs would have swelled my intended little Book into a great Volume nor did I conceive it needful and that because the Captain himself hath contracted the pith of all that is pertinent into his sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule His Argument from Heaven for the Roman Church being Judge and Guide and his six Queries supposed utterly destructive to and altogether unanswerable upon the grounds of Protestants and now all these be at large transcribed examined and solved And yet lest the less intelligent Reader should stumble or the Adversary insult I have in an admonitory prefatory discourse so far taken notice of all his mostly seeming important conclusions and objections as to make it apparent that they have nought else save ignorance inadvertency selfishness and strong delusion to support and give rise unto them Nor yet have I made it my only business to pull down though that must needs be their great work that have to do with Babel-builders but have all along ascertained what I would or should establish from such common principles of Religion and Reason as are assented to by Papists Protestants and the Vniversality at least of Christians As for reviling had not his own guilt put him on to caution against it I should never have thought of it what is of personal concern is occasioned by his own writings circumstant to the matter under debate and all contained in one single Page the whole is closed with a vindication of the Great Saint Augustin from favouring the proceedings of so grand an Apostate as Robert Everard Joseph Harrison An Answer to Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Nonconformists I Shall at present suppose Robert Everard to be no Romish Jesuited Priest Pag. 91. but Quondam Captain to a Troop of Rebellious Souldiers and do conclude from his own Printed papers attended with some obvious circumstances that four things did chiefly concur to the shipwracking of his Faith First Ignorance Secondly Inadvertency or Imprudence Thirdly Self-interest Fourthly A just judgment of God in sending such strong delusions that they should believe a lie The mans ignorance appears First in that he cannot construe credo Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam I believe the Being but renders as if he had read credo Sanctae c. I believe the saying of the Holy Catholick Church sets hence in the front of his Book and urges all a-long the Churches and in the issue the Roman Churches pretended infallible declaration for the foundation of Faith When yet the very Creed teacheth him First To confess I believe in God the Father in the Son and in the Holy Ghost as that which must necessarily forego and found his believing first that there is a Holy Catholick Church as well as that there is a Communion of Saints nor doth it give any more ground to conclude the one than the other for to be infallible Secondly Though the Captain before the closure of the Book be so well taught as to prove the Roman Church infallible in teaching from certain stories about Miracles no more than pointed at out of Breerleys Index no more than surmised to be done by S. Francis S. Dominick and the Monk Austin with such like to confirm and that but some few of her superstitious Doctrins Nay can chide such as Persons destroying Faith Pag. 78. taking away all humane converse c. that shall refuse upon such fallible Testimonies to believe stories so extreamly improbable yet is he such a Novice in the beginning that he cannot so much as offer an argument for the truth of Christianity from all the undoubted Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles Pag. 6. for no other end save the confirming thereof Heb. 2.3 4. recorded in Sacred Writ that we might believe John 20.31 not denyed by the Adversaries of our Faith and most celebriously attested by the unanimous consent of all Christians in all succeeding Ages Nor has he a word to say to the Gentleman that in opposition to the Evangelist calls Faith thus founded an opinion an humour But instead of that gratis grants that unless we know what ex parte rei is impossible to be known our selves or those that teach us to be infallible Christianity as to us can be no more than probably not most probably true Jews Turks and Pagans may be as well perswaded of their several ways as we can be of ours both upon a fallible certainty Not knowing sure that the Christians certainty hath no fallible save that they may the Jews Turks and Pagans fallible no certainty save that they do imagine it And secondly that it is irrational thus to argue à Doctore ad Doctrinam from the Person to the thing from what may be to what is Euclid may be fallible and yet his demonstrations not deceive we may know our selves and those that teach us to be subject to mistake and yet know too that in this or that particular neither they nor we are mistaken Christianity as to us may be certainly true certainly so demonstrated to Jews Turks and Pagans and yet every Man confessed to be a liar every Church ex parte sui in a possibility to commit an error in this thing But 3dly The man cannot distinguish betwixt the internal testimony of the spirit vouchsafed sometimes unto some and that constant historical evidence which is afforded unto all When he was a Quaker it 's like he confounded the original Cause and the original Language and now he cannot make a difference betwixt the efficient cause of our believing and the formal object ground or Reason of Faith He discourses with a man sensual as if he had the spirit and imagines that the Holy Ghost which is sent to witness with our spirits that we are the children of God should in the same manner and measure witness the Divine truth of every particular Book and Text of Scripture And hence instead of Firstly telling the sensual Lay Gentleman that he believed the Scriptures to be the word of God fide Historica by an Historical Faith upon the account of universal Tradition He talks with him about an inward infallible Testimony of the Spirit and makes that spiritual sense and feeling which is peculiar to Gods Elect sealing up their interest in Christ to be the common convincing ground of that being indeed the Spirits
reason comes to argue against the Churches Infallibility then must it Vassal-like submit not dispute not wait for an effectual conviction according to Christs promise and procedure And when he is come he shall convince c. but yield forthwith to what the Church says nay to whatsoever an ignorant English Romish Priest can have the confidence to say their Church hath sufficiently proposed or if Reason offer to produce arguments to prove the truth of Christianity and evince the Scripture to be the word of God urge Miracles Universal-Tradition conclude from Topicks internal external in other cases cogent and demonstrative yet then Reason is fallible subject to error a private spirit a fancy can make things at best appear no more than probable Jews Turks and Pagans may be as fully perswaded and upon as good rational grounds of the truth of their Religion as we can of ours But now if reason will be corrupted become an Advocate for Rome her very sophisms shall be cryed up as sufficient grounds for us to found our faith upon God will not be defective in necessaries and therefore there must be an infallible visible Judge Christ is the only absolute independent head of the Church but may and therefore hath appointed a dependent head derived from him It is most rational in business of civil concernment to rely on a Council of wise and learned men And therefore in things spiritual which God usually hides from the wise and prudent and the natural man receives not we ought to rely on a Council of Popish Prelates The Eunuch could not understand the Prophecy of Isaiah till ministerially expounded by Philip the Deacon And therefore cannot we understand that Text though already expounded no nor any other till Authoritatively interpreted by the Roman Church The Apostles Elders and Brethren when sent to sent out a Temporary Decree about things indifferent made then by circumstances in some places antecedently necessary binding only in those places and pressed with an if ye do these things ye do well And therefore the Cardinals Bishops and Abbots may and ought to frame an everlasting Law about points of Doctrine make that necessary for all men which God never made necessary for any and press it under the dread of an Anathema or pain of Eternal damnation Nay though God say to the Law and to the Testimony the Law of the Lord is perfect the Scripture able not only to make wise to Salvation but so far profitable that the man of God the Pastor may be throughly furnished unto every good work Hominem Dei vocat Doctorem Episcopum ut dixi Ep. 1. C. 6. ver 11. Cornel à Lapid yet it Reason can find any thing to say against the Scripture's being a Rule it shall be heard The Scripture then must not be a Rule and why Has God any where contradicted himself and said it must not Has he any where appointed another No but here 's a first reason and a second reason and a third reason c. and therefore it must be none and yet the sum of all no more than this Some Christians are dim-sighted some perverse many are carnal walk as men will not be ruled and therefore the Scripture is not the Rule Ruler sure he would have said some people are contentious Lawyers corrupt and differ in their opinions and therefore the Law of the Land is not what it is scilicet the Law of the Land according to which controversies may and ought to be decided and now The Church before under and since the Law will she nill she must always have been and for ever be this Rule when as yet it is evident that the Word was a rule both to Adam and Eve before the Church had Being it shall bruise thy head Genes 3.15 God said to Abraham so shall thy seed be and he believed in the Lord c. Gen. 15.5 6. Nor was it written for his sake alone but for us also Rom. 4.23 24. Ye shall not add to the word I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it was given in charge to the Church of the Jews Deut. 4.2 And if any man says the Apostle Preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received let him be accursed Gal. 1.9 These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name Joh. 20.31 Nor yet is it the question whether the Scripture accidentally taken or the Word as written but whether the Scripture taken Essentially or the mind of God communicated at sundry times and in divers manners to and by the Prophets Preached by the Apostles Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis cognovimus quà m per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postremò verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum nobis Iren. I. 3. c. 1. and now committed and conveyed down to us by Sacred writing always hath is ought to be owned for the rule of Faith or whether indeed because it seems you long to have the question stated with that advantage even in Abrahams and the Apostles times others as well as Sarah Gen. 21.10 and the Beraeans Act. 17.11 might not have urged demanded and without the just controul of any then visible authority have believed and acted according to the prescript of that Rule your own instances Page 53. of extraordinary actions done and Commands given by Gods directions by the mouths of several particular Prophets submitted to as you say without further enquiry do plainly evince as much and also intimate that the will or word of God which way soever it be made known whether immediately or mediately whether by Prophecy Tradition or Writing is and always has been the supream Rule both of Faith and Practice and its adequation as to matters of Faith as now contained in and expressed by the Scripture Sure footing for Christianity page 18. 20. shall be after cleared However the Church as your own J. S. well observes being a Congregation of the faithful must needs presuppose the notion of faithful faithful the notion of Faith Faith of the rule of Faith an evident argument that the Church is and ought to be regulated in believing and consequently she her self cannot be the rule of belief nor any more save as the same man says of Fathers Doctors and great Scholars and might as well have said the same of Tradition too a means to bring others to the knowledge of it But Secondly The man will needs seat authority in the Holy Catholick Church notwithstanding that authority Supream Magisterial formally as well as radically is seated in Christ All authority is given to me Matt. 28.18 Nor is the Church the subject but the object of the Ministerial Power He gave some Apostles some Pastors for the perfecting of the Saints
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
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
Cambridge in his Geographical History of Africa published Anno 1600. Pag. 410 413. commendeth Mr. Hartwel for publishing the aforesaid Miracles and acknowledgeth the same 1. The common people may must be deluded by lying Wonders but sith you are so sober as not to insist upon our English Popish Priests either throwing in or throwing out of Devils you did wisely when giving in your Catalogue of Miracles done by the Romish Church to leave out amongst us and yet suppose the Roman Church hath done these Miracles and done them amongst us it is little to the point for if she did them in her own name and power she is no more a Church but a God the Messias and if she did them in the name and power of Christ it will evince Christ in whose name and power the Miracles were wrought to be the Son of God and consequently infallible but leave your Church subject to mistakes as formerly she was However 2. It is one thing to say it is evident both by Testimonies of Holy Fathers and approved Historians and another thing to produce those Testimonies and yet if you had those Testimonies could be no more than Humane capable of mistake in a possibility of being erroneous and consequently the thing as to us be no more at your own account than probably true our belief or opinion rather no better founded than the perswasions of the Jews Turks or Pagans all upon a fallible certainty Nor yet 3. Can it be said either with truth or modesty that the Heathens and Atheists will be as justifiable in their denials of the Miracles revealed in the Old and New Testament as those Men will be that deny these For though the relation of the Miracles in the Old and New Testament be brouhgt down to us by humane means yet such as be in no wise morally questionable and besides all is ultimately resolved into Testimony Divine Whereas these reports of yours first and last have no firmer a Basis than the Testimony of Men blinded byassed by interest and that could not certainly know a true Miracle from a lying Wonder had they stood by at the working thereof 4. It may be true that the Magdeburgenses with some others writing the Churches general History recount as from your own Authors several Miracles to have been done by persons infected with Popery But it is as true that they themselves account of them all as no better than either illusions of Daemons or false narrations And well may we grant with Abraham Hartwell John Pory and some more of ours True Miracles to have been wrought by Popish persons and not conclude with you Popish but Christian Doctrine to have been confirmed by them For if they did Miracles it is apparent they did them as Christians and not as Papists in the name of Christ and not in the name of the Pope nor need you stumble at such a distinction Bellar. de Notis Eccles l. 4. c. 14. For Bellarmin unto the Miracle of Novatianus the Heretick answereth the Miracle to have been wrought not for the confirmation of the Faith of Novatianus but of Catholick Baptism And yet suppose Miracles wrought to confirm the truth of certain Popish Doctrines what is that to the infallibility of the Popish Church that learned Cardinal saw the non sequitur well enough and therefore labours by Miracles to prove the verity not the infallibility of that Church and to prove it by them credibly not certainly For saith he before the approbation of the Church it is not evident or certain with the certainty of Faith concerning any Miracle that it is a true Miracle However 5. The most antient Author you or your Index pretend to quote is Beda who flourished Anno 720. the most antient Miracle-Monger the Monk Austin who came into England about the Year 600. an evident sign that your Popish Doctrines if brought forth yet were not confirmed from Heaven for the first six hundred years after Christ Nor were those you instance in ratified on Earth by any General Council for a long time after that The first pretended for Image-Worship is the second of Nice Anno 705. condemned by that of Frankford Anno 794. And the first for Transubstantiation was that of Lateran 1215. For the most notorious of the rest you must come down as low as the Council of Trent begun since Luther's death And for a Miracle neither England France Italy nor Spain can furnish you with one but you are forced to run as far as Congo a Kingdom in the Region of Africa and there resolve your Faith into a Book said by John Brerely Anno 1664. to have been published Anno 1597. by Abraham Hartwell Servant to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury without any leave from his Master which Book yet for ought appears neither mentions Miracles done to confirm the truth of any Popish Doctrine nor the Infallibility of the Roman Church Pag. 78. If any of you should chance to say That this Testimony of Miracles is nothing to you because you have never seen a Miracle I answer Either you grant what these Authors report to be true or you deny their Testimony refusing to believe what you have not seen If you grant the truth of these things and yet remain out of the Communion of the Holy Catholick Church upon which God hath conferred this Gift you have sin and hate God according to the argument framed by our Lord himself which I have before cited If you refuse to believe what you have not seen First You destroy Faith Which is an evidence of things not seen Secondly You take away all humane conversation no man must believe another Thirdly you make it unjust for Civil Magistrates to punish Transgressors or Felons for where there is no Law there can be no breach of a Law and if there be no Law to him who did not actually see the very Statute which was passed in Parliament and hear the King and both Houses agree unto it as in this case there is no Miracle to him who did not see it how can you with Justice condemn and execute a Malefactor who shall urge at the Barr that he never saw the Statute upon which he stands Indicted nor had any knowledge or notice thereof otherwise than by hear-say and the report of Authors and Books which since they are no sufficient proof of Gods setting his Hand and Seal to a Law by Miracles he sees no reason why they should be proofs for passing that Statute and consequently that as to him that Statute is not in force What you would reply to one who should give this for his Plea upon such an Indictment suppose as said unto your self in the case of Miracles not seen by you but reported by good Authority Lastly this would excuse all Infidels who have been since the Apostles times even those that lived in their times in case they saw no Miracles But if any of you shall further say after the learned
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
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
which they most impudently aver that all persons must and ought to yield a blind obedience Fifthly Whether they are infallibly sure that all who do not follow and imbrace that fort of Christianity which they would have me follow and imbrace shall be damned 1. You are always in hand with your several sorts of Christianity an expression ill becoming one that hath Christian for his name and Catholick for his Sirname and therefore disclaimed by us 2. We tell you that all those that imbrace Jesus Christ by Faith and follow him in love so far as shall be made known unto them whom we perswade you to imbrace and follow shall be certainly saved and those that do not shall be certainly damned 3. Such Sectaries as you that make several sorts of Christianity and maintain it to be necessary to Salvation in all things to obey and follow this or that sort of Christianity do certainly deserve for that very thing to be eternally damned But what God will do either with you or them lest herein we should be like you I shall not determine Sixthly Supposing that they are not infallible in these particulars whether will it not rationally and necessarily follow that possibly I may at present be in the right way and they in an errour and if so what reason can they give why I should forsake my present Guide whom I believe to be infallible to follow them who confess they may be and therefore for ought they know are at present mistaken in what they believe and practise First If we neither did nor could bring any other proof for these particulars save our own Testimony fallibility on our part supposed it would rationally and necessarily follow quoad nos that possibly at least you might be in the right way and we in an errour Though yet quoad rem ipsam the sequel this notwithstanding be impossible because these particulars might be in themselves infallibly true and we neither know nor be able to evince it Secondly You may strongly imagine but if your own principles abide firm you cannot do not believe that the Roman Church your present Guide is infallible For Faith according to you is an infallible assent of the understanding submitting it self obediently to the revelations of God And therefore sith you have no revelation of God for but one express against the infallibility of the Roman Church Rom. 11.22 Your own definition will tell you it is impossible that your understanding should exert an Act of Faith about it nor yet suppose you had divine Revelation for it or that God himself should say to you the Roman Church is infallible were you ere the nearer For it 's possible you may commit an errour nay err in your understanding of those words and consequently your understanding never give an infallible assent to that which God intended by them Howbeit Thirdly We can tell you as formerly that à posse ad esse non valet Argumentum it follows not we may be therefore we are or we confess we may be therefore for ought we know at present we are mistaken c. for though we still confess we may be mistaken in what we believe and practise respect had to our desert and natural proneness yet do we know that God of his mercy through the Ministery of his word hath at present fully satisfied us that as to the main we are not and if in some things we differ and wander yet doubt we not but God for Christs sake will pardon our errours as well as our other sins and cause us to keep the unity of the Spirt in the bond of peace Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things Phil. 3.16 However Fourthly We do not desire you to forsake your present Guide and follow us but to forsake your present Guide us and your own selfish humour and follow the Lord Jesus Christ You pretend and would have us to believe the Romish Church to be infallible independently on the Scriptures because God by Miracles as you imagine has confirmed it so to be and sith so we would have you at least allow us to believe Scriptural Doctrines confessedly so confirmed independently on that Church or else excuse your self from being an Heretick sith you 'l believe nay press others to believe one proposition and refuse another equally proposed at your own account Not may this be retorted upon us either by Mr. Johnson or you For First Though we own all the gifts Christ gave unto Men for the perfecting of the Saints and work of the Ministry according to Eph. 4.11 12. yet do we neither claim nor admit of such a propounding Authority as you without any divine warrant pretend unto Pag. 9. 2. Though your Church equally impose all her Tenets respect had to her own usurped power yet does she not equally propose all respect had to the evidencing of their truth For some she proposes as Divine but does not prove them so to be as her Doctrines about the real Presence and Purgatory Pag. 81. others she not only proposes as such but evidently evinces them to be Divinely revealed as the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation to these we assent those we except against as not sufficiently represented to us And yet say 3. That two propositions may be equally proposed to and not equally work upon the understanding preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles and preaching the Gospel to the Jews were both proposed with equal evidence and Authority Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every Creature Mark 16.15 and yet did Peter with a thousand others believe that and disbelive this without any crime of Heresie if of prejudice or inadvertency imputed to them If there be any who hath any value for the Authority of the great S. Austin I shall beseech them to read this following Text of that Saint and to consider whether I have not in my proceedings observed his Rule and Method and let them but change the word Manichaeus into John Calvin and how nearly it will concern them S. Augustin against the Epistle of Manichaeus which they call fundamental cap. 5. edit Paris Tom. 61.46 If thou shalt find any one who doth not as yet believe the Gospel what wilt thou do when he shall say unto thee I do not believe But neither had I believed the Gospel unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholick Church Those therefore to whom I submitted when they required me to believe the Gospel why should I not also yield obedience unto them when they direct me not to believe Manichaeus Take your choice if you tell me I must believe the Catholicks they give me advice not to give credit to you and therefore if I believe them I cannot but refuse to believe you If you tell me I must not believe the Catholicks you proceed ill when you go about by the