any of them for a perfect good Protestant To elude these plain and evident Texts scilicet Deuter. 17.8 Matt. 23.2 3. c. brought to prove that the Church is the sole infallible Rule and Judge you were wont to say that they may have other interpretations and therefore this is not the truth it is a question whether any Texts of Holy Scriptures and consequently whether these Texts which speak so amply of the Church are to be understood of the Church militant and visible in this world or of the Church triumphant Ye are willing to agree that so long as the Church of Christ teacheth conformable to Scriptures she is infallible Whereas instead of thus saying doubting or agreeing we enquire First To what purpose should you urge us to believe the infallibility of the Church or any thing else upon Scripture grounds when you tell us aforehand that faith founded upon Scripture is not truly faith for though we should grant what you suppose scilicet that Christ and his Apostles did urge the Jews with Scriptures meerly because of their incredulity yet did they never tell them as you do us Faith founded upon Scripture will avail you nothing It is not that Divine Faith which God calls for at your hands Or if you yet say that it is warrantable to believe the Church is infallible upon your urging why not to believe Christ to be the Messias or any other point of Christian Doctrine upon our Ministers alledging of Scripture for it But Secondly Be these Texts plain and evident or not If not why do you say they are And if they be these very Texts are a Rule such as you seek for whereby to judge of this Controversie and consequently the Church is not the only Rule whereby Controversies are to be judged But Thirdly The Quaerendum here is not whether we can shew with any assurance that these Texts are capable of other interpretations but whether you can demonstrate like as the Apostle used to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17.3 18. these your own interpretations to be certainly true do it when you do it by some infallible medium and we shall be ready to believe what you say But if you bring no proofs and no other you have brought as yet save your own private reasonings Instead of believing the truth of your interpretations we shall make bold to ask you as you do your self what difference is there betwixt judging by your own reason and judging by a Law to be interpreted by your own reason This is to make the Scripture not Gods word but the word of every private man Though yet Fourthly Had you not made a little bold with your own reason and quite contrary both to sense and honesty omitted verse the eight be-between blood and blood between Plea and Plea and put down c. instead of the eleventh verse ubi satis apte sanctus Moyses Controversias exortas in Populo Dei ex Lege Domini judicandas docet Bellar. de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee it would have been evident from Deut. 17. That the Controversies there spoken of were limited to matters of strife betwixt party and party like those Mat. 18.17 and the Judge in sentencing to the Rule of the Law called Moses Chair Matt. 23.2 And consequently the first Scripture you cite which should be the measure of the rest partly makes nothing for in part makes directly against your main conclusion Isaiah 35.8 hath been already Isaiah 2.4 Mat. 28.20 John 16.12 will be hereafter spoken to Isaiah 43.3.17 Isaiah 26.2.1 and Mat. 16.9 confirm what we contend for viz the whole Church of Gods Elect consisting of lively stones to be firmly built upon that living stone that Rock Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.4 5. And that the Royal seed the Children of God shall be all taught and led by the Spirit of God according to Rom. 8.14 John 6.45 1 John 2 27. John 14.16 relates only to such as are called out of the world love him and keep his commandements as it is evident from verses 15. and 17. concerns neither the Pope nor his Cardinals unless he or they be first proved the spiritual man intended 1 Cor. 2.15 and if Ephes 4.11 we may be allowed to leave out the Apostles Prophets Evangelists and read he will give instead of he gave which must be done ere that Text can have any shew of pertinency it will respect all and singular Pastors and Teachers that be the gifts of Christ For the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ Till we all come to an unity not of opinion form or points of Faith as you use to word it but into the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro from confidence in one device to a dependency upon another and carried about with every empty wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive But speaking the truth in love may grow up to him in all things which is the head even Christ from whom without mention or mediation of any other head the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplyeth according to the effectual working of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love vers 12 13 14 15 16. Nor is the last with which you flourish of any more moment for never to take notice that by Church cannot there be meant Roman or General Council There is a Pillar for holding out Edicts as well as a Pillar for holding up houses there is a ground wherein men set Trees sow Seed as well as a ground whereon they erect buildings and recumb The Church may be a Pillar to hold out the truth and yet not a Pillar for you to rely on for all doctrins that be true The Church may be that chosen ground in which the Mystery of Godliness Christ the truth is set and sown and yet no common ground given for you to found your faith upon Tares may spring up together with the good Seed Truth held out and yet errour attend it However the word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies a Seat and you know well how to let Moses Chair alone and rely on him supposed to sit therein And now Sir do you not stand astonished at your own impudence in thus imposing upon the Nonconformists they do not they need not limit these Texts to the Church triumphant but tell you further First That it will be hard for you to prove from Scripture that the Church of God in this world the Church you speak of Pag. 62. which Christ redeemed with his blood is a
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
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
Scripture is not the Judge Rule and Guide and therefore the Church is be of any force for never to take notice that it founds an affirmative conclusion upon negative premisses it supposes that some Presbyterians Independents c. should hold the Spirit alone some Reason some the Scripture each exclusive of the Ministry of the Church to be the Rule Judge and Guide of Faith whenas all they joyntly in this business joyn all these together and look up unto God according to his command and promise for his Holy spirit in the Churches Ministery throughly to direct their understandings in judging of things according to the written Rule Fourthly The man never perceives that his own vain ratiocinations and needless concessions are the sole ground that is given for him to bottom his belief upon a strong fancy he has and need on for his Faith 's no stronger To evince this I shall instance in these six positions laid down and supposed as the Basis of his whole discourse First Faith is an infallible assent of the understanding submitting it self obediently to believe the Revelations of God Secondly There must be some means appointed of God by which we may know this one true Faith from all false opinions Thirdly These means must be infallible Fourthly The understanding must submit to these means under pain of Damnation Fifthly Two men of two different faiths or beliefs cannot be saved Sixthly Ignorant people by such reasonable diligence as is very tolerable to Humane frailty and yet possible for them may come to the knowledge wisely done to leave out certain of these means And now if you ask what foundation he has whereupon to ground his belief of these assertions he 'll tell you I gathered them from the true interpretation of certain Texts of Scripture Pag. 16. And if you ask further how he knows that interpretation to be true Has he Divine Revelation for it According to the tenour of his own first position Has he the unanimous consent of the Fathers for it Or does he certainly know beyond all possibility of being mistaken that the Church in all Ages hath and the present Church now doth give that interpretation accordingly as 't is decreed by the Council of Trent No but from hence I thought says he it did very naturally follow Firstly 17. Secondly and Thirdly c. And yet that it may appear he only says could not possibly think any such a thing observe from that exhortation Heb. 10.23 Let us hold fast the profession of our Hope so in their own Authentick Translation undeclining does he inferr Faith is an infallible assent of our understanding and because the latter part of the verse for he is faithful that hath promised founded the confidence there spoken of upon the promise of Grace and the former Verse fixed faith with its full assurance upon the High Priest Jesus alone The man slily passeth over both and leaves the other part of his proposition obediently submitting c. destitute of any proof From 2 Cor. 10.5 bringing into Captivity every thought to the Obedience of Christ he infers the understanding must submit not dispute all be Damned that disobey the Authority of the Church and adds withal that saving faith is seated in the understanding as if Paul had been mistaken when he said with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness Rom. 10.10 or as if he himself knew not what he had done in putting obediently submitting into the definition of faith sith all conclude obedience and disobedience to be subjected in the will From Eph. 4.5 there is but one Faith respect had to the personal object in whom the Lord Jesus He concludes that two men of differing faiths Dogmatical or that believe two contrary opinions cannot be saved nor is he ashamed from Isaiah 35.8 plainly pointing at Christ the new and living way first to take out and the unclean shall not pass over it as incoherent because their unholy Mother admits of such for her children and then inferrs that ignorant people by reasonable diligence may come to the knowledge of those means about which yet their learned men to this very day could never be agreed Nor can he himself tell when it comes to the pinch how those means should be certainly manifest save by miracles of which we ignorant folk may often hear but never come to the knowledge of however that I most admire at is That the man designing to prove that true acceptable faith consists in believing as the Church believes a believing that the Roman Church is infallible should quote Heb. 11.6 that holds out the faith without which it is impossible to please God to be a believing not that the Church but that God himself is so he that comes to God must believe that he is c. And further that he should stand hafling and pafling and proving by halfs there must be some means appointed by God by which men may know c. those means must be infallible the understanding must submit to those means under pain of damnation when the very Text quoted Mark 16.16 shews plainly that there be means infallible means and which be the means appointed whereby true faith both is begotten and may be known from all false opinions and unto which all that heartily submit shall be saved and those that do not shall be damned and lest you should mistake in reading the means be the word of truth the Gospel Preached though by the mouth of never so weak a Minister Go into all the World and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned A Genere ad speciem affirmat non valet Argumentum nor yet is it unworthy of remark 1. That means in general is here all along found in the premisses and Authority in speciall put after into the conclusion there must be there is an infallible Means and therefore there is there must be an infallible Authority And 2. That the man seriously endeavours to found the very foundation of his own faith upon Scriptures dark Scriptures privately interpreted howbeit the main scope of his Book is to evince that faith true faith neither first nor last can or ought to be founded thereupon That self-interest had a hand in the Captains overturning seems more than probable Pag. 4. because First The Captain in the late Wars as his Book relates had run through the several forms of Religion Presbyterian Independent Anabaptist c. and yet never that we read of lost his preferment upon any Turn nor missed of it for want of timely turning and sith so the man might easily foresee that such a notorious Jugler was never like to be trusted at the Kings Court Best for him now at last to turn Papist do the Jesuits some signal service declare against his old friends and their old enemies the Nonconformists and perhaps by that wile he might in the
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
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
had that gift bestowed upon them as well as the Apostles these signs shall follow them that believe c. Mark 16.17 Nor did the Apostles work Miracles by virtue of their Authority but by Faith If ye have Faith as a grain of Mustard-seed c. Matt. 17.20 And though I have all Faith c. 1. Cor. 13.2 And when Peter saw it he answered unto the People Ye men of Israel why marvel ye at this or why look ye so earnestly on us as though we by our own Power and Holiness had made this man to walk His name through Faith in his name hath made this man strong c. yea the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all Act. 3.12 16. And hence sure it is that in your Minor you leave out Authority mention neither Seal nor Gift but barely urge and assume Now the Roman Catholick Church hath done c. not now God hath set his hand and seal to the Authority of the Roman Catholick Church by bestowing upon it the gift of Miracles Nor is it any marvel that you do so for if that gift were bestowed upon that Authority the Pope and Council that are invested with it should work Miracles which yet they do not nor do you insist on any such a thing and yet if that gift be not bestowed upon that Authority it cannot bestow â—t upon inferiour Officers it wants Gods Hand and Seal and may according to the tenor of your own Argument be disbelieved be disobeyed without either committing sin or shewing hatred against God However 5. If a Church may properly be said to work Miracles when yet indeed it is not the Church but some particular believer that works them and that not in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ Other Christian Churches have done as great Works or Miracles in former Ages as the Roman Church ever did witness the Church of Corinth that came behind in no gift 1 Cor. 1.7 and yet were not they reputed thereupon either Judges of controversies or infallible nor does the present Roman Church do any greater Works or Miracles than other Christian Churches now on earth What does she what can she do here amongst us more than our Protestant Church doth amongst you save make louder lying boasts of what she has done elsewhere And therefore shall not we refuse to believe them or resolve to give credit unto her upon any such account and conclude our so doing to be warrantable and well enough consistent with the love we owe unto the Lord wishing you yet withal to remember That the Question is not solely or chiefly whether this or that Church ought to be believed or disbelieved in their Doctrinal teaching but whether the Roman Church be the infallible Rule Judge and Guide of Faith Doctrinal certainty will not infer Judicial Authority nor è contra Nay suppose your Church were Doctrinally infallible and had universal Jurisdiction yet would it not necessarily follow that she is the Rule of Faith The Prophets of old you will say were infallible and the High Priests had judicial power and yet to the Law and to the Testimony Isaiah 8.20 It was therefore prudently done of you to alter the Question First leave out Rule and undertake to prove no more by your Argument from Heaven but that the Roman Church was Judge and Guide and then finding after a while that that would not do neither you leave out Judge or Authority and tell us of believing and disbelieving as if it would follow The Roman Church ought to be believed in all that she says and therefore has she plainly said all that we ought to believe is a Rule of Faith compleat and evident howbeit indeed had she authoritatively and infallibly so said not she but her sayings in propriety of Speech were to be owned for the Rule Now that the Roman Church hath done these works or Miracles P. 76. is a thing so evident both by the testimonies of the Holy Fathers and authorities of approved Historians that those who deny it must shew themselves either not to be Men or Men who purposely shut their Eyes against the truth yea Heathens and Atheists will be as justifiable in their denial of the Miracles related in the Old and New Testament as those will be who deny these The Magdeburgenses who were all professed and known Lutherans do almost in every one of their Centuries recount multitudes of Miracles wrought by persons whom they affirm to have been infected with what they call Popery Namely S. Bernard S. Malachy S. Dominick S. Francis and the like as you may particularly see in Brerely if you examine the several places to which his Index at the word Miracles will refer you By which it will appear That most of those Miracles were done not in confirmation of those Points and Articles of Faith which you hold with us but even of those Points and Doctrines which you call Popish Superstitions and Idolatries as the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass the respect and veneration which is given to Saints Reliques Images c. Certainly there are few amongst you but have heard and read how and what Christian Faith was first brought into England amongst our Progenitors the Saxons and by whom brought in It was by S. Austin a Monk of S. Benets Order and his fellow Monks sent hither by S. Gregory the then Pope of Rome and it was the same Faith that Catholicks now teach which was then confirmed by wonderful Miracles from Heaven as is testified by our own Writers Venerable Bede and others yea and by our Protestant Chronologies Holingshead's Chronicle the last Edition Vol. 1. Book 5. Cap. 21. Page 100 102. Fox's Acts and Monuments Printed Anno 1576. Pag. 117. Stow's Annals Printed 1592. Pag. 66. Goodwin in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England Pag. 4. Also Fox in his aforesaid Book at the Word Miracles in the Index To this I shall add the Authorities of our own late Protestant Writers for proof of undoubted Miracles wrought in this latter Age. In the Book entituled A report of the Kingdom of Congo a Region of Africa Printed Anno 1597. Published by Mr. Abraham Hartwel Servant to the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury mention is made Lib. 1. Cap. 1. of the discovery of that Kingdom 1587. by Odoardo Lopez and of the conversion thereof to the Christian Faith Lib. 2. Cap. 2. and of the great and undoubted Miracles shewed by God in the presence of a whole Army Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Insomuch that the said Hartwell in his Epistle there to the Reader confesseth That this conversion of Congo was accomplished by Massing Priests after the Romish manner and saith he this action which tendeth to the glory of God shall it be concealed and not committed to memory because it was performed by Popish Priests and Popish means God forbid In like manner Mr. John Pory of Gonvile and Cajus Colledge in
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
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
Queens Chapel come in time to get advancement For Secondly If seditions Schisms Heresies amongst Protestants and discourses with Lay-Gentlemen in their quarters could have overturned the faith of Captains never so like to have been done as during the late distractions but for all that while though we heard of some Popish Champions turning Sectaries yet of no Sectarian Captain that became a Romanist Thirdly The mans carriage all along makes manifest that the selfish wisdom of the Old wily Serpent is yet remaining with him he knows well enough that there 's nothing more inconsistent with Papal government than the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy nor any thing more opposite to Popish Doctrine than the 39 Ariticles and yet can he neither be content to say ill nor say nothing of our English Episcopacy but upon occasion is bowing down himself unto it in the days of yore doubtless he got to be a Captain by praying and preaching like some sort of a Saint and now time after time is crying up himself for a good Subject leaves the Episcopal Church out of his Catalogue of Sects and pretends a great deal of Reverence to any profession that shall be established by Law But above all the just judgment of God is most remarkable in sending him and such like strong delusion that they should believe a lie and that because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved but had pleasure in unrighteousness nor need I divine the no love this man had to the truth and the great pleasure he always had and now hath in unrighteousness is notoriously manifest by his First Blaspheming the Spirit Secondly Abusing Reason Thirdly Vilifying the Scriptures Fourthly Wronging the Church Catholick Fifthly Belying Protestants Sixthly Dissembling the Tenets of the Papists The spirit is blasphemed 1. by giving that glory of Infallibility which is peculiar to the Holy Ghost to the organs or instruments by which he is pleased to reveal the mind of God Men speaking from deliberation use free-will may speak or not speak speak truth or falshood and consequently for that time cannot but be fallible And when men speak divinely yet not deliberately it is not properly they that speak but the Holy Ghost that speaketh in them The word of the Lord came to me saying The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it And in this case 't is the word spoken that is infallible and not they that speak it It were not proper for such on that account to say It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us but not we but the Holy Ghost not I but the Lord and hence the eternal God is said internally to demonstrate by his spirit and externally to confirm by miracles not the infallibility of the organ through which he speaks but the infallible truth of the word that is spoken And they went forth every where the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs following Mark 16.20.2 The spirit expresly 1 John 4.2 3. makes the Doctrine Preached the Rule according to which we are to try the spirits Hereby know we the spirit of God Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God and every spirit that confesseth not c. And yet does the man wittingly conceal that and wrests verse 6. to the making of the hearing of the Apostle the only rule of trying of spirits without regard had to their Doctrine Nor does he 〈◊〉 here but supposing we verse 6. to denote the same persons as ye verse 4. confidently concludes hearing of Christs Apostles then was therefore hearing Popish Priests now is the only rule The Apostle doubtless saw this mystery of iniquity beginning then to work and therefore leaves us a general Rule without any exception 2 Joh. ◠Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ he hath the Father and the Son If there come any to you and bringeth not this doctrine receive him not into the House neither bid him God speed 3. The man reviles the Saints that have received the Holy anointing tells how they would have the world believe that they have the spirit without bringing Reason Evidence Testimony or Authority to evince it whenas yet if either Reason Evidence Testimony or Authority may be regarded the Tree is known by its fruits and their having the spirit manifest by Love Joy Peace Long-suffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meekness Temperance Gal. 5.22 They confess that Jesus is come in the Flesh as aforesaid and that Jesus is the Lord which no man can but by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12.3 Nor need he trouble himself with telling Page 21. that if it be the spirit of God they have he is infallible in his teaching and both they and all the world are obliged under pain of Damnation to believe what he delivers as matter of faith to be true For 1. Though they say they have the spirit of God and that he is infallible in his teaching yet they do not say Pope-like that they are thereby made infallible in theirs He teacheth all of them the whole truth as it is in Jesus for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them saith the Lord Jer. 31.34 but teaches not any all the points of Doctrine that be true for we know in part and prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13.9 according to the measure of the gift of Christ Eph. 4.7.2 Both they and all the world are obliged under pain of Damnation to believe whatsoever God says is true and so many as know that there is an Holy Ghost are obliged in like manner to believe whatsoever shall be delivered by that promised spirit of truth But as to the particulars he shall deliver the case is different The Saints are severally bound to believe whatsoever he shall conviningly deliver to any of them and the world bound to believe whatsoever he shall convincingly deliver to the World when he comes he shall convince Joh. 16.8 Nor yet 3. do they look as some would seem to suppose that others should believe what they say to be true either because they say or prove that they have the Spirit whether of Adoption or Prophecy but because when and so far as that same Spirit by undeniable reasons and testimonies shall make manifest in their consciences the truth of what they do assert by the manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God 2 Cor. 4.2 Reason is a means whereby we come to know what is not what ought to be revealed a means whereby we judge of things Divine according to the Rule though yet it be not may not be called the Rule according to which we are to judge Reason I say that is thus useful and ought to be thus limited the man one while enslaves and then anon sets it up for an absolute Lord. When
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
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
property of a Rule And yet 3. The Church diffusive is not capable either of explaining or of being demanded to explain its own sense Council or Church representative there has been none at your own account for a whole Century of years nor likely to be any more and it cannot be imagined that by Church you should mean the Pope because other reasons at present omitted you referr to a Church always in being However 4. Frustra est potentia quae non reducitur in Actum What are we nearer having or the Church nearer being a Rule of Faith for her being capable of doing that which by no means she 'l be gotten to do Often has she been demanded I now demand and desire you to demand her to explain her self touching the points forementioned as also touching those after instanced in the close of my answer to the third Querie and if she do explain her sense as to those points we shall conclude that hitherto she hath not been a sole sufficient Rule for want of that explanation if she do not at the best she 'l be but remotely capable of being hereafter and at present be no Rule of Faith nor yet indeed is she capable at this account of being hereafter or rather would you speak properly making such a Rule because disenabled by the first general Council at Ephesus from ever making tanquam de fide any such an explanation Can. 7. That there are in the Scriptures several places which to common reason seem contradictions and consequently some parts of Scripture seem untrue is easily proved And I shall here give you some few plain instances for example to which many more might be added First It 's well you distinguish betwixt private and common Reason for though you exempt each mans private Spirit or Reason from meddling about interpreting of Scriptures you 'l sure admit common Reason to be of special use unless you 'l say that Reason ought to be abused for finding out of contradictions in Scriptures but must by no means be employed either in unfolding or reconciling the difficult places that occur therein Secondly Either Reason can judge of things and propositions when contradictory or not if not wherefore do you tell stories of several places seeming to common Reason to contradict one another so seeming that thereupon Scripture must be rejected from being a Rule and if Reason can thus judge wherefore should not your Church be rejected from being a Rule as well as Scriptures sith her Doctrines seem to Reason and often to common Sense too to be more contradictory than any of these Texts A Council is above the Pope A Council is not above the Pope hoc this scilicet bread or nothing is the body is really Christs body at London at Rome on Earth in Heaven the very same moment Every man is a lyar The Pope as Pope is a man unless he be either Accidens or animal irrationale and yet the Pope as Pope is no lyar in no possibility to be mistake Nay further these very places you say seem contradictory your Church teaches to be certainly true in her Authoritative approval of the Canon of Scripture so that if upon this account you 'l reject Scripture upon the same account you may must reject the Church from being a Rule and yet rather the Church than the Scripture for the Scripture barely presents us with the places your Church passeth sentence says they are all true unless you 'l tell us your Churches saying can make contradictions true at once and warrant you to believe it howbeit Gods saying cannot do so Thirdly Had you had many more plain instances it is not like you would have troubled the Reader with these your task is to prove that the Scripture is not plain and clear in all necessary points and is it not then for want of some more pertinent that you present us with doubts and difficulties about Chronologies and Genealogies concerning which the Apostle forbids us to dispute you had better have said with the great Master of Reason Grotius afflatu Dei locutos quae locuti sunt scripsisse quae scribere jussi sunt Prophetas de scriptis Historicis Moralibus Hebraeorum sententiis aliud puto In 2 Kings chap. 8. verse 26. you read thus Pag. 45. Twenty two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem and his Mothers name was Athaliah the Daughter of Omri But 2 Chron. chap. 22. verse 2. you will read thus Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem his Mothers name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri Now against the infallibility of Scripture Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demonstration viz. No one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other can be said to be infallible in speaking but to affirm of the same person that he began to reign when he was two and twenty years old and that he was two and forty years old when he began to reign is to speak two things the one contrary to the other therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking First I am glad to find you in hand with infallible demonstrations for if demonstrations Theological be to be had and may be owned as infallible I hope there will be no great need amongst sober persons of your judicial Decisions unless you can get licence to demonstrate against and we neither for by nor from the Scriptures Secondly Your Major is denyed for heat and cold are two things contrary one to another and yet I hope God himself may be infallible notwithstanding he hath said Summer and Winter heat and cold Gen. 8.22 You would say if you could speak No one that delivereth two propositions the one contrary to the other can be said to be infallible though yet this will not do neither for you your self might speak and write too these two propositions Ahaziah began to reign when he was forty and two years old And Ahaziah began to reign when he was twenty and two years old and yet this notwithstanding did nothing else hinder be infallible But that it may be sense and pertinent your Major must be supplied from your Minor No one that affirms two things of the same person that are contrary the one to the other can be said to be infallible in speaking But to affirm of Ahaziah that he was twenty and two years old when he began to reign and that he was forty and two years old when he began to reign is to speak two things contrary the one to the other yes and more too or else nothing to the purpose scilicet to affirm of the same person two things contradictory one to the other See Light-foots Harmony in â—oc which yet this Scripture doth not for the Book of Chronicles in this place meaneth not that Ahaziah was so old when he began to Reign but these
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