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
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
to be instituted by Christ and no more and sure then the man may count two and need not complain for want of the number numbring Secondly It 's necessary to Salvation to believe all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal but by the Scripture it cannot be made out plainly and clearly which Books are the word of God and which are Apocryphal First Your own Doctors distinguish betwixt an affirmative believing and a negative disbelief and though they make it damnable to disbelieve any one point when sufficiently represented to the understanding as revealed by God yet do they not make it necessary positively and expresly to believe all or any of the Books of Holy Scriptures to be so revealed and suppose they did it matters not sith it 's evident that the Scriptures themselves make believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and not believing all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God to be that Vnum necessarium that one thing necessary to Salvation And the Fathers in the Primitive times had differences and doubts about several Books of Scripture now commonly received for Canonical and yet were saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as we 2. Christians convinced by any means whatsoever that such and such Books in themselves Apocryphal be the word of God ought during that conviction believe them to be so and it is so far from being necessary to Salvation for them rebus sic stantibus to believ otherwise that it were obstinacy and interpretatively a denying of Gods veracity for them not so to believe formally as Chillingworth though not materially an Heresie 3. True it is that it cannot be made out by Scripture as by a Testimony or Argumentum inartificiale which Books are the Word of God and which be Apocryphal yet may this be made out plainly and clearly by Scripture Tanquam per Argumentum artificiale scilicet The Divine Characters that God himself hath imprinted on those Books that be indeed the Word of God nor need we trouble your Churches Authority though we confess our selves much beholding to the Churches ministry for the finding of them out Thirdly It is necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but there is no Text or Texts of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word 1. It is necessary for you and me to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we are perswaded though upon several grounds that they be so but that it is necessary for all persons so to believe will not be granted till you further explain your necessary and add proof for the evincing of it And yet however 2. There is a Text of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word For if there be a Text that expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God there is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word But there is a Text which expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God ergo There is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word The major is evident from universal Tradition assuring us that the Scriptures we now have be the same that the Jews and Christians had then The minor is evinced from that of Paul to Timothy whose Mother was a Jewess and Father a Greek all Scripture is divinely inspired 2 Tim. 3. Fourthly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted for if they be corrupted they cease to be the Word of God and then they cannot be any rule or sure guide to us But of this we have no assurance in Scripture 1. It is not necessary as hath been said to know the Scriptures to be the Word of God and therefore not necessary sure to know they are not corrupted Scripture or Writing is no more than one special means whereby God is pleased to make known and preserve in the World the knowledge of his Will if he do it any where by another Medium that will suffice Nay suppose as the man seems to do all along that the Scriptures be corrupted it cannot be necessary to know that they are not corrupted unless it be necessary to know that which is not possible to be known and so all men be necessarily damned 2. When we say the Scripture is the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies it is usually restrained to such controversies as do not concern the Scripture You will not allow us to argue the Church is no infallible Judge or Rule because the Church is forced to seek for other and higher proof than her own words to prove her self to be Infallible and if so why should we argue the Scripture to be no Rule because we cannot have assurance in Scripture that it is not corrupted it will be sufficient that we have assurance some other way 3. Scripture may be said to be corrupted in Essentials or Accidentals in whole or in part It may be corrupted in Accidentals the Words mis-spelled Sentences misplaced Words or Letters inserted or omitted and yet the mind and meaning of God what it is all that notwithstanding be evident from thence Every Book almost after its most perfect Edition hath Errata's and yet the Authors meaning may be plain enough Nay further Scripture may be corrupted in some parts and yet remaining pure in others Scriptura per Scripturam Scripture may be corrected by Scripture as a Jesuit of your own hath well observed Fifthly It is necessary in order to the knowing of the true mind meaning and will of God and what he intended by such and such a Text that we know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when mystically but this cannot be understood from Scripture as daily experience informs us 1. The Scripture supposes men to have the use of sense and reason and if so they may easily conclude as sure as God is truth the Spirit spake by the Prophets and Apostles accordingly as he meant the Prophets and Apostles writ according as the Spirit spake and writ for that end that the true mind meaning and will of God might be known and understood which could not be without perpetuated new Revelation except we might and ought to take that for his mind and meaning which the words in their literal construction hold out unto us Eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur De verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 certum est esse sensum Spiritus Sancti That says Bellarmin which is immediately gathered from the words is certain to be the sense of the Holy Ghost And therefore 2. vainly does he enquire and fondly distinguish of several senses of this or that Text whenas it is
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
apparent from the very writing of it in letters and the confession of our adversaries that each Text is to be understood literally Nor is that he calls figurative Literalis est duplex alius simplex alius figuratuâ— Bellar. ibid. any other than a species of the literal sense The mystical an uncertain remote intendment of the things and not the immediate argumentative meaning of the written Words or Text which we are now enquiring after Augustin 〈◊〉 Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 9. However 3. In iis quae aperte in Scripturis posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem morésque vivendi In those things which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures all those things are found which appertain to Faith and Direction of Life Dark figurative Texts and mystical meaning of things may in some sense be useful yet it is not necessary in order to the knowing of the mind of God so far as is requisite for us to know that we should be able to unfold them Exponat si cui Deus concesserit As Cajetan of the Revelation And yet further 4. There is a difference betwixt being ignorant of such and such a Text and wresting or wilfully perverting it to a wrong sense This even in Scriptures not materially necessary to be known must of necessity be avoided It is Heretical it is Soul-destructive 2 Peter 3.19 that anent Texts holding out points commonly called Fundamental may consist with saving knowledge for it is the knowing the true mind meaning and will of God as to such a particular that is necessary and not just the knowing it by such and such a Text you may perhaps know it by one Text and I by another or you by oral practical tradition and I by writing Sixthly 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 for if they are not we build upon uncertainties and consequently have no sure foundation for our Faith yet we cannot be assured nor have so much as any information as to this particular from the Scriptures First The Man does not deny either the being or possibility of knowing That there be Copies and Translations certainly true only he asserts That we have not so much as any information as to this particular from the Scriptures which we might as hath been said easily grant and yet upon just Grounds maintain that the Scripture is a rule both plain and perfect howbeit In hac germani textuâ—s pervestigatione salis perspicuè inter omnes constat nullum argumentum esse certius ac firmius quam antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem c. in praefat we need not do it for in the pervestigation of the true genuine Text says Sixtus Quintus There was no Argument more firm and certain to be relyed on than the Faith of the antient Books Nor is there a better way says a great Rationalist for the ordinary sort whether of Papists or Protestants than to compare their and our Translations together and where there is no real difference there to be confident they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of their Guide 2. There is a certainty Mathematical Moral and Spiritual Mathematical either touching Copies or Translations of Scripture is not now to be had Certainty Moral such as the nature of the thing will bear and as much as humane Testimony and industry can afford us we have Nor is the building thereupon a founding our Faith upon uncertainties but upon most strong probabilities such as especially in a matter of Fact and Skill it were extream imprudence and obstinacy not to rest satisfied withal Certainty Spiritual whether of Science or adherence beyond that which the best rational Evidence can give ground for is to be had and sometimes by but not from us you must by Prayer seek unto God for it every good Gift and every perfect Gift is from above And if God vouchsafe to give it you as to this particular touching the whole or part well if not for ought I know or you are able to evince you must be content to be without it However 3. You do ill to call the Scripture quà Scriptura as copied and translated the foundation of Faith and worse to conclude from its uncertainty as such that our Faith has no sure foundation For Scripture under that notion is not the Material much less either the Formal or Salvifical object of Faith nor any more save choicely instrumental in the producing thereof and I think we may safely affirm That an Instrument in it self fallible may be mainly subservient to the supreme Cause in bringing us both to believe Divine Truths because Divine and to acquiesce in him who is the Foundation indeed and Truth it self Jesus Christ Your English Priests are fallible yet instrumental sure by Preaching Translating Writing to bring persons certainly to believe those Proposals and to fix upon that Authority which is supposed in it self to be infallible How shall they believe in him on whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. Not how without an infallible Proposer But 4. I much admire the Man should hold it necessary to know c. sith it is evident that in Austin's time the Latin Translations of the Scripture were innumerable nor could any man have said this or that is certainly true The Septuagint said to be used by the Apostles is confessedly faulty and though some of the present Romanists may be arrived at that height of impudence as peremptorily to affirm yet none can rationally make it out that they know any one Translation that is perfect or Copy that is uncorrupt The Council of Trent indeed did decree That the Vulgar Translation should be received for Authentick but which she meant by Vulgar or what by Authentick no body can yet tell there was bellum Papale after about the Editions Sixtus against Clemens and Clemens against Sixtus Nor can their Doctors yet conclude whether it is better say the Translation is free from all errours or only such as relate to Faith and Manners Seventhly It is necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided because where two contrary senses are imposed and urged and both affirmed to be the meaning of God and his Revelation one only can be true and he who refuseth that which is true shall be damned yet these controversies cannot be decided by Scripture 1. If it be necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided sure your Supream Infallible Judge is far to blame that hath not yet decided them but suffers your own Doctors to controvert the sense of almost every Text of Scripture 2. We urge it 's true by Arguments but it is you alone that Magisterially impose your own meanings as Divine
Chillingworth That God in his Justice may permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude Men who have forged many I answer That by this you help the Jews who refused to believe the Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles notwithstanding their Miracles For why may not they say God in his Justice for our sins might permit those true Miracles to be wrought by Jesus Christ and his Apostles to delude us who have forged many I hope this Answer will satisfie any rational person but if it do not I have another answer to give out of Mr. Chillingworth's own words Pag. 144. It is impossible that God should lye or that the Eternal truth should set his Hand and Seal to the confirmation of a falshood or of such a Doctrine as is partly true and partly false the Apostles Doctrine was thus viz. by Miracles confirmed therefore it was intirely true and in no particular false or uncertain If you reply this contradicts Mr. Chillingworth's former position I must answer That if Mr. Chillingworth be found to contradict himself relying upon his own reason it is not my fault nor doth it make any thing against our Church 1. If you will have us guilty of Sin and Haters of God for refusing to believe on that account it is necessary according to the tenor of your own law that the Miracles be done amongst and seen of us If I had not done amongst them the works which no other Man did they had not had sin but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father And yet I think it is by chance indeed if any say That this Testimony is nothing to them meerly because they have not seen a Miracle it is the Testimony it self that they except against And yet 2. There is a difference betwixt remaining out of Communion and remaining out of subjection to that you call the Holy Catholick Church Suppose we granted the truth of these things it might perhaps be a sin to remain out of her Communion and yet a duty to remain out of her subjection Miracles as hath been said may evince the truth of such and such a Church and yet make nothing at all in order to the proving of her either Supreme or Infallible though yet mistake me not by Communion I do not mean a communion total or local in all her Doctrines and polluted modes of Worship but partial Spiritual in those Doctrines and Performances supposed to be confirmed by those Miracles However 3. It is well you make it no worse with them that refuse to believe these things they have not seen than to destroy Faith and take away all humane converse c. I was afraid you would have charged them as Christ did the Jews with sin against the Holy Ghost though yet as it is your charge is so high it can never be made good For may not Faith think you evidence things not seen upon the account of Divine Revelation unless we believe what we never saw upon the report of Abraham Hartwell and John Brerely May not one Man believe another about worldly things with a humane Faith unless one Man believe another about Heavenly Doctrines with a Faith Divine Or can Thieves and Traytors ever imagine that a Law publickly promulged by the King and practically attested by the whole Nation may as warrantably be pleaded against by them as the private Testimony of a few ignote Travellers may be excepted against by us especially when they discourse largely about Miracles which if your own Doctors say true neither they nor any Man else can with certainty distinguish from lying Wonders We have notice of the Reigns and Acts of the several Kings and Queens of England no otherwise than by hear-say and by Authors and Books and we have notice of the Lives and Acts of Bevise of Southampton Robin Hood and Little John by hear-say Authors and Books and will any conclude the one is to be credited as well as the other because they have seen neither and both come to us reported by that you may have the forehead to call a good Authority Your grand Argument as is before observed comes to nothing because we have not seen your Miracles howbeit we give a ground for no such inferences as these but are ready to proportion our belief according to the worth and weight of the Testimony be it Divine or humane Nor yet will the Infidels be excused for that they have not seen the Miracles for in the Apostles time Their sound went into all the Earth and their words unto the utmost parts of the World Rom. 10.18 And now in these days besides the universal Tradition of the Church we have reasons and Records undeniable to evince the truth of Christianity and of Miracles having been done to confirm it Howbeit those who have not heard at all or heard no better proofs for the truth of Christian Religion than you bring for your Popish Miracles if excusable for not believing before doubtless may yet remain in the same venial condition as they were And now for a close 4. Give me leave to mind you 1. That in the beginning of this Epistle you would have Faith destroyed transformed into Fancy Humour and Opinion if built on any foundation save Divine Revelation or what we did certainly know to be infallibly true And now here you will have a total destruction of Faith unless it may be built upon the private Apocryphal reports of Abraham Hartwell John Pory John Brerely and such like Men not only fallible subject to errour and in a possibility to be mistaken in this very thing but Men that cannot be concluded with any probability of reason to be in a capacity to know the certain truth of what they say they do affirm 2. You can now present us with an argument from Mr. Chillingworth sufficient at once both to convince an Heathen of the truth of Christianity and to prove the Divinity of the Scriptures It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternal Truth should set his Hand and Seal to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly False The Apostles Doctrine was thus viz. by Miracles confirmed Therefore it was intirely true and in no particular false or uncertain And yet in your Discourse with the Lay Gentleman you had not a word to say for the truth of Christianity upon Protestant Grounds nor any thing for Scriptures being the Word of God save that the Spirit witnessed with your Spirit they were so 3. The Gospel Scripture Doctrines we preach are like your universal essential predications Eternal once confirmed by Miracles in themselves or their Principal they need no more This proposition The Roman Church is infallible has a personal mutable individuum for its subject changes every Age may change every year and therefore still stands in need of new miraculous confirmations insomuch that would we give you leave to suppose Miracles wrought in
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
Testimony And whereas he should have resolved his faith into the Sovereign Authority and verity of God himself speaking in Scriptures as the formal ground thereof and into the spirits inlightning inlivening Power as the efficient cause He resolves it wholly into an inward Testimony of the spirit of which for ought appears neither of the twain save by hear-say knew any thing at all However instead of the Spirits testimony the man might better have said in this case simply by the Spirit by the Spirit scilicet as that medium facultatis whereby we are enabled to see and believe scriptural verities to be Divine Albeit as Dr. Ames well observeth Medull l. 2. c. 5. there is a sufficient and certain representation proposed to us in the Scripture both of things that are to be believed and of that Reason upon which we ought to believe them See Rom. 16.26 Nor yet Fourthly Does he perceive the difference betwixt faith Dogmatical complex assenting to the truth of Divine propositions and that faith which we call salvifical incomplex fixing on adhering to and resting in Jesus Christ alone That may be various respect had to its object the same man knows such a proposition to be revealed to morrow which he knows not to day and consequently believe that to morrow which to day he does not This respect had to the object varies not It 's Jesus the same Yesterday to Day and for ever Though yet respect had to the subject like as the other it 's sometimes weaker or stronger confused or more distinct And hence men of different faiths incomplex cannot be saved for there is no other name under Heaven given c. Acts 4.12 other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 oneness of Faith as to this is commended and commanded Eph. 4.5 compared with Eph. 4.13 unto the unity of the Faith and knowledge of the Son of God He that believeth on the Son of God hath life Eternal and he that believeth not c. John 3.36 But men may be of different faiths complex believe diverse nay contrary propositions and yet through Grace obtain salvation Some build Gold Silver precious Stones some Wood Hay Stubble one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth Herbs Rom. 14.2 Fifthly and Lastly the man seems not to know of any difference betwixt an acquired Habit and a Divine Gift the requisites to our getting of Science and Gods giving of Faith Science it 's true as Thomas determines cannot be had unless we first know the certainty of the Medium or Reason whereby the conclusion is demonstrated but it is impertinent to Faith as Estius well concludes by what means we believe the prime Verity that is by what means God useth to bestow on men the gift of Faith He may do it as well by the preaching of the meanest Minister as of the greatest Apostle for indeed neither the one nor the other is or needs to be what he supposes a foundation or Argument whereon to build but simply a medium or instrument whereby is begotten and brought forth that Faith which is of the operation of God Page 7. And therefore in vain does he dispute about the Primitive Christians believing either because the Apostles so taught or Simon Magus so affirmed for it was not because but by the Preaching whether of Paul or Apollos that they did believe We have not dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. 1.24 Who then is Paul or who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every man 1 Cor. 3.5 The Captains inadvertency or imprudence is as evident First In that he never calls to mind that Priests and Jesuites pass usually under the Notion of Lay Gentlemen and great Folks Cousins Trusts Eve like to his own skill and never makes known either his doubts or the Gentlemans objections to any of the Protestant Ministers He borrows it 's true a certain deal of Popish Books The Question of Questions Novelty repressed Fiat Lux Infidelity unmasked or a confutation of a Book published by Mr. William Chillingworth but never inquires for Mr. William Chillingworth's own Book nor Dr. Hammonds answer to Infidelity Vnmasked in his vindication of the Lord Falkland He never sends to Dr. Owen for his animadversions on Fiat Lux nor adviseth with Mr. Baxter about Novelty supprest Had he consulted with these Ministers of ours and told us wherein they failed in the answering either these Books or the Lay Gentlemans Objections it might have been of some moment have startled perhaps some of the Nonconformists but to make a stirr and a story how mildly how profoundly the Lay Gentleman objected and then how extreamly troubled how strangely the Horse-Captain was gravelled argues nothing save the Gentlemans cunning craftiness and the Captains dastardly weakness the cause no more concerned than if they had never had meeting Secondly He never considered that the Gentleman was altogether for asking questions Robert never proposes any for if when the Captain was gravelled and could not certainly prove the truth of Christianity from his own Fanatick Principles he had put the Gentleman to it to have proved Christianity certainly true from the Popish a hundred to one but they had both proved Heathens the one being no more able to establish it by Miracles upon the infallibility of the Roman Church than the other by sense and feeling upon the Spirits Testimony the man now knows and finds this to be true enough and therefore in the conclusion doth he present us with six queries conjures his old Brethren to answer them and withal warily provides that they shall not ask him any question at all but first ascertain what they would establish for says he Page 85. Who knows not if a Man will give himself scope to be bold he may raise Arguments against the belief of the Trinity or any other Mystery of Faith that will puzzle learned Men to answer a piece of cunning and caution I could wish all our weaker sort of Protestants to take special notice of Thirdly The man unadvisedly all along confounds endeavours to fix and find in the same subject the Rule Judge and Guide of Faith whenas these three are in their respective Natures Uses Ends distinct and scarcely possible to be subjected in the same thing or person The Scripture may be a Rule certain and stable as Bellarmine and yet no Judge Reason may be a judge or rather that whereby every man is to judge for himself as Chillingworth and yet no Rule The spirit may be Guide to direct draw and lead us into all truth and yet neither rule nor judge The Church by her Ministry may be subservient to the spirit in leading helpful to us in finding out applying of and judging according to the Rule and yet the Church it self be neither Rule Judge nor Guide nor will now that grand Sophism the Spirit is not Reason is not the