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
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
two and forty years have relation to another thing namely to the Kingdom of the House of Omri and not to the Age of Ahaziah for count from the beginning of the reign of Omri and you find Ahaziah to enter his Reign in the two and fortieth year from thence The Original words therefore Ben arbagumi Vshethaiim Shunah are not to be translated as they be Ahaziah was two and forty years old but Ahaziah was the Son of the two and forty years as Sedar Olam hath acutely observed long ago nor should you tell us now of our different translations unless it could be made appear that the Church in all ages had and of necessity ought to have one authentick Translation Or Secondly that our Translations do not clearly and with one consent deliver to us all points necessary to be believed differing only in some punctilio's of an inferiour concern Or Thirdly That it may not be as lawful for us to propose what seems agreeable to Reason for the removing as 't is for you to urge what seems contradictory to Reason for the raising of objections against a book of Scripture so universally received for Canonical And your Minor thus mended is denyed for contradictories must be ad idem in the same respect as well as de eodem See Peter Martyr in loc concerning the same person Ahaziah began to reign with his sickly infirm Father when he was twenty and two years old and the same Ahaziah was forty and two years old when he began to reign himself alone or if this will not satisfie you may consult with your own Cornelius de lapide upon the place he 'l tell you of the Syriack and Arabick Translations both those of Antioch or Mount Sinai the Alexandrian or Coptick that for forty two have twenty two and he that is offended at the other may use this reading Nor is it saith he the interpreters but the Scripture it self that corrects it self corrupted by the Transcribers The book of Kings corrects the book of Chronicles nor need we go further than Scripture for salving of the other difficulties for 1 Chron. 3.16 will teach you to insert Joechim or Jachim betwixt Josias and Jeconiah Mat. 1.11 and so compleat your number of forty two and Gen. 10.22 will tell you to put out Cannai from betwixt Sem and Arphaxad put in upon special Reason as is conceived by the Seventy See Light-foots Harmony in loco and retained as is likely by S. Luke chap. 3.36 the better to win upon the Gentiles The Argument from Heaven for the Roman Churches being Judge and Guide solved ANd now that I may conclude my whole proof with an Argument from Heaven Pag. 74. and by a Testimony of the highest nature make it evident to you that this Roman Catholick Church must be this Church which God hath appointed to be this Guide and Judge I shall insist upon the gift of Miracles this was that Testimony which our blessed Redeemer did himself produce as his Letters of Credence and as both necessary and sufficient to prove his mission If I had not saith our Lord Joh. 15.24 done among them the works that no other man did they had not had sin namely in not believing me to be the Messiah God therefore hath decreed it as a Law that whosoever refuseth to believe and submit unto that authority unto which he sets his hand and Seal by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles that Person committeth sin the reason is given in the same Text viz. because he thereby sheweth that he hateth God namely by not believing him Now I urge But the Roman Catholick Church hath done Works and Miracles amongst us such as no other Christian Church upon Earth hath done Therefore if we give credit to any other Church or Churches and disbelieve or refuse to believe her we shall have sin and shew our selves to be haters of God First You pretend here to conclude your proof with an argument from Heaven and yet have you not hiththerto produced so much as one Testimony of the lowest nature somewhat you have said indeed which is already touched to prove what we grant scilicet that no other Church can be but have not said a word to make good what you your self affirm viz. that the Roman Church is this infallible Rule Judge and Guide And let me tell you by the way either you can prove this your Church infallible or you cannot If you cannot wherefore should we believe it If you can either by Revelation or by Reason Divine revelation it 's apparent you neither do can nor attempt to produce and as for Reason you have already proved it to be fallible so that at best how much soever you may seem to be taken with your own fallacies your Church can be proved but fallibly to be infallible But Secondly There is a difference betwixt the gift and the power of working Miracles You do it 's true insist upon the gift but should make it out that your Church has power of working Miracles if you 'l evince her Christ-like to be infallible this was necessary that had not been sufficient to have proved his mission It is therefore somewhat loose arguing for you to conclude the Jews committed sin were haters of God for not believing Jesus to be the Messiah who did amongst them the work which no other man did viz. wrought Miracles by his own power and therefore Christians commit sin shew themselves haters of God in not believing the Roman Church to be infallible because she has the gift can do works howbeit none among us like other men viz. work Miracles in the name and power of another And hence Thirdly We deny Gods having decreed any such a Law as you tell of 1 Sam. 10. Numb 11. for though an Authority to which God sets his hand and seal by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles may be rendred thereby like that of Saul and the Seventy by the spirit of Prophecy more than ordinary venerable and whosoever refuseth to believe and submit to an Authority knowing it to work Miracles by its own power that person committeth sin and sheweth himself an hater of of God yet may an Authority divinely signed and sealed by having that gift be disbelieved however submission still due whether it have the gift or not without contracting any such a guilt not disbelieved do I mean in a particular Doctrine that it shall actually and visibly confirm by Miracles but disbelieved when teaching it self and all other Authorities that have that gift to be disbelievable upon that account or de debito believed in all that they should dictate forth unto us That being indeed a Doctrine never confirmed by Miracles nor delivered by him that had the power of working of them Though yet Fourthly It cannot be made out that Christ did set his hand and seal either to this or that Authority by bestowing on it any such a gift for particular believers
Testimony And whereas he should have resolved his faith into the Sovereign Authority and verity of God himself speaking in Scriptures as the formal ground thereof and into the spirits inlightning inlivening Power as the efficient cause He resolves it wholly into an inward Testimony of the spirit of which for ought appears neither of the twain save by hear-say knew any thing at all However instead of the Spirits testimony the man might better have said in this case simply by the Spirit by the Spirit scilicet as that medium facultatis whereby we are enabled to see and believe scriptural verities to be Divine Albeit as Dr. Ames well observeth Medull l. 2. c. 5. there is a sufficient and certain representation proposed to us in the Scripture both of things that are to be believed and of that Reason upon which we ought to believe them See Rom. 16.26 Nor yet Fourthly Does he perceive the difference betwixt faith Dogmatical complex assenting to the truth of Divine propositions and that faith which we call salvifical incomplex fixing on adhering to and resting in Jesus Christ alone That may be various respect had to its object the same man knows such a proposition to be revealed to morrow which he knows not to day and consequently believe that to morrow which to day he does not This respect had to the object varies not It 's Jesus the same Yesterday to Day and for ever Though yet respect had to the subject like as the other it 's sometimes weaker or stronger confused or more distinct And hence men of different faiths incomplex cannot be saved for there is no other name under Heaven given c. Acts 4.12 other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 oneness of Faith as to this is commended and commanded Eph. 4.5 compared with Eph. 4.13 unto the unity of the Faith and knowledge of the Son of God He that believeth on the Son of God hath life Eternal and he that believeth not c. John 3.36 But men may be of different faiths complex believe diverse nay contrary propositions and yet through Grace obtain salvation Some build Gold Silver precious Stones some Wood Hay Stubble one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth Herbs Rom. 14.2 Fifthly and Lastly the man seems not to know of any difference betwixt an acquired Habit and a Divine Gift the requisites to our getting of Science and Gods giving of Faith Science it 's true as Thomas determines cannot be had unless we first know the certainty of the Medium or Reason whereby the conclusion is demonstrated but it is impertinent to Faith as Estius well concludes by what means we believe the prime Verity that is by what means God useth to bestow on men the gift of Faith He may do it as well by the preaching of the meanest Minister as of the greatest Apostle for indeed neither the one nor the other is or needs to be what he supposes a foundation or Argument whereon to build but simply a medium or instrument whereby is begotten and brought forth that Faith which is of the operation of God Page 7. And therefore in vain does he dispute about the Primitive Christians believing either because the Apostles so taught or Simon Magus so affirmed for it was not because but by the Preaching whether of Paul or Apollos that they did believe We have not dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. 1.24 Who then is Paul or who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every man 1 Cor. 3.5 The Captains inadvertency or imprudence is as evident First In that he never calls to mind that Priests and Jesuites pass usually under the Notion of Lay Gentlemen and great Folks Cousins Trusts Eve like to his own skill and never makes known either his doubts or the Gentlemans objections to any of the Protestant Ministers He borrows it 's true a certain deal of Popish Books The Question of Questions Novelty repressed Fiat Lux Infidelity unmasked or a confutation of a Book published by Mr. William Chillingworth but never inquires for Mr. William Chillingworth's own Book nor Dr. Hammonds answer to Infidelity Vnmasked in his vindication of the Lord Falkland He never sends to Dr. Owen for his animadversions on Fiat Lux nor adviseth with Mr. Baxter about Novelty supprest Had he consulted with these Ministers of ours and told us wherein they failed in the answering either these Books or the Lay Gentlemans Objections it might have been of some moment have startled perhaps some of the Nonconformists but to make a stirr and a story how mildly how profoundly the Lay Gentleman objected and then how extreamly troubled how strangely the Horse-Captain was gravelled argues nothing save the Gentlemans cunning craftiness and the Captains dastardly weakness the cause no more concerned than if they had never had meeting Secondly He never considered that the Gentleman was altogether for asking questions Robert never proposes any for if when the Captain was gravelled and could not certainly prove the truth of Christianity from his own Fanatick Principles he had put the Gentleman to it to have proved Christianity certainly true from the Popish a hundred to one but they had both proved Heathens the one being no more able to establish it by Miracles upon the infallibility of the Roman Church than the other by sense and feeling upon the Spirits Testimony the man now knows and finds this to be true enough and therefore in the conclusion doth he present us with six queries conjures his old Brethren to answer them and withal warily provides that they shall not ask him any question at all but first ascertain what they would establish for says he Page 85. Who knows not if a Man will give himself scope to be bold he may raise Arguments against the belief of the Trinity or any other Mystery of Faith that will puzzle learned Men to answer a piece of cunning and caution I could wish all our weaker sort of Protestants to take special notice of Thirdly The man unadvisedly all along confounds endeavours to fix and find in the same subject the Rule Judge and Guide of Faith whenas these three are in their respective Natures Uses Ends distinct and scarcely possible to be subjected in the same thing or person The Scripture may be a Rule certain and stable as Bellarmine and yet no Judge Reason may be a judge or rather that whereby every man is to judge for himself as Chillingworth and yet no Rule The spirit may be Guide to direct draw and lead us into all truth and yet neither rule nor judge The Church by her Ministry may be subservient to the spirit in leading helpful to us in finding out applying of and judging according to the Rule and yet the Church it self be neither Rule Judge nor Guide nor will now that grand Sophism the Spirit is not Reason is not the
Scripture is not the Judge Rule and Guide and therefore the Church is be of any force for never to take notice that it founds an affirmative conclusion upon negative premisses it supposes that some Presbyterians Independents c. should hold the Spirit alone some Reason some the Scripture each exclusive of the Ministry of the Church to be the Rule Judge and Guide of Faith whenas all they joyntly in this business joyn all these together and look up unto God according to his command and promise for his Holy spirit in the Churches Ministery throughly to direct their understandings in judging of things according to the written Rule Fourthly The man never perceives that his own vain ratiocinations and needless concessions are the sole ground that is given for him to bottom his belief upon a strong fancy he has and need on for his Faith 's no stronger To evince this I shall instance in these six positions laid down and supposed as the Basis of his whole discourse First Faith is an infallible assent of the understanding submitting it self obediently to believe the Revelations of God Secondly There must be some means appointed of God by which we may know this one true Faith from all false opinions Thirdly These means must be infallible Fourthly The understanding must submit to these means under pain of Damnation Fifthly Two men of two different faiths or beliefs cannot be saved Sixthly Ignorant people by such reasonable diligence as is very tolerable to Humane frailty and yet possible for them may come to the knowledge wisely done to leave out certain of these means And now if you ask what foundation he has whereupon to ground his belief of these assertions he 'll tell you I gathered them from the true interpretation of certain Texts of Scripture Pag. 16. And if you ask further how he knows that interpretation to be true Has he Divine Revelation for it According to the tenour of his own first position Has he the unanimous consent of the Fathers for it Or does he certainly know beyond all possibility of being mistaken that the Church in all Ages hath and the present Church now doth give that interpretation accordingly as 't is decreed by the Council of Trent No but from hence I thought says he it did very naturally follow Firstly 17. Secondly and Thirdly c. And yet that it may appear he only says could not possibly think any such a thing observe from that exhortation Heb. 10.23 Let us hold fast the profession of our Hope so in their own Authentick Translation undeclining does he inferr Faith is an infallible assent of our understanding and because the latter part of the verse for he is faithful that hath promised founded the confidence there spoken of upon the promise of Grace and the former Verse fixed faith with its full assurance upon the High Priest Jesus alone The man slily passeth over both and leaves the other part of his proposition obediently submitting c. destitute of any proof From 2 Cor. 10.5 bringing into Captivity every thought to the Obedience of Christ he infers the understanding must submit not dispute all be Damned that disobey the Authority of the Church and adds withal that saving faith is seated in the understanding as if Paul had been mistaken when he said with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness Rom. 10.10 or as if he himself knew not what he had done in putting obediently submitting into the definition of faith sith all conclude obedience and disobedience to be subjected in the will From Eph. 4.5 there is but one Faith respect had to the personal object in whom the Lord Jesus He concludes that two men of differing faiths Dogmatical or that believe two contrary opinions cannot be saved nor is he ashamed from Isaiah 35.8 plainly pointing at Christ the new and living way first to take out and the unclean shall not pass over it as incoherent because their unholy Mother admits of such for her children and then inferrs that ignorant people by reasonable diligence may come to the knowledge of those means about which yet their learned men to this very day could never be agreed Nor can he himself tell when it comes to the pinch how those means should be certainly manifest save by miracles of which we ignorant folk may often hear but never come to the knowledge of however that I most admire at is That the man designing to prove that true acceptable faith consists in believing as the Church believes a believing that the Roman Church is infallible should quote Heb. 11.6 that holds out the faith without which it is impossible to please God to be a believing not that the Church but that God himself is so he that comes to God must believe that he is c. And further that he should stand hafling and pafling and proving by halfs there must be some means appointed by God by which men may know c. those means must be infallible the understanding must submit to those means under pain of damnation when the very Text quoted Mark 16.16 shews plainly that there be means infallible means and which be the means appointed whereby true faith both is begotten and may be known from all false opinions and unto which all that heartily submit shall be saved and those that do not shall be damned and lest you should mistake in reading the means be the word of truth the Gospel Preached though by the mouth of never so weak a Minister Go into all the World and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned A Genere ad speciem affirmat non valet Argumentum nor yet is it unworthy of remark 1. That means in general is here all along found in the premisses and Authority in speciall put after into the conclusion there must be there is an infallible Means and therefore there is there must be an infallible Authority And 2. That the man seriously endeavours to found the very foundation of his own faith upon Scriptures dark Scriptures privately interpreted howbeit the main scope of his Book is to evince that faith true faith neither first nor last can or ought to be founded thereupon That self-interest had a hand in the Captains overturning seems more than probable Pag. 4. because First The Captain in the late Wars as his Book relates had run through the several forms of Religion Presbyterian Independent Anabaptist c. and yet never that we read of lost his preferment upon any Turn nor missed of it for want of timely turning and sith so the man might easily foresee that such a notorious Jugler was never like to be trusted at the Kings Court Best for him now at last to turn Papist do the Jesuits some signal service declare against his old friends and their old enemies the Nonconformists and perhaps by that wile he might in the
as they should ever offer to rebel Non licet Christianis c. says Bellarmine it is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an Heretick if he indeavour â—o draw his Subjects into Heresie And if you would know how Christian Papists in England and some parts of Germany can be excused from neglect of duty Dominicus Bannes will â—ell you because that generally they have not power to make such Wars against Princes and great dangers are â—mminent over them however an Apology might easily be framed out of Bellarmine in the place fore-quoted quod si Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem Dioclesianum Julianum Apostatam Valentem Arianum similes fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis If Christians in former times did not depose Nero Dioclesian Julian the Apostate and Valens the Arian and such like it was because temporal forces were wanting unto Christians nor may it with any colour of Justice be pleaded that Bellarmine Bannes Mariana Suarez c. be but private Doctors unless it be firstly made appear that the Roman Church might and has legally reversed the foresaid Lateran Decree and anathematised the persons and opinions of these and such like as Heretical however Captain Robert carries it throughout like a man that is indeed an Heretick for while a Protestant he did act as a rebellious Traytor and now being turn'd Papist will needs profess himself a Loyal Subject both in their several times apparently against his own principles The sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule examined THe sixth reason I meet with was whatsoever is a sole and sufficient rule Pag. 42. must be plain and clear in all necessary points at least which relate unto faith or the Means by which salvation is to be had which the Scripture is not and above all things it must not contradict it self which the Scripture seems to do To prove this I shall give some few instances which I think can never be infringed The man comes here home to the point waves his impertinent sophistical jumbling in of Judge and Guide and most industriously indeavours to prove from the Scriptures deficiency and obscurity that it is not the sole sufficient Rule nor is it any marvel that we find him now so serious and earnest for if this argument fail all his other seven Antiscriptural reasons come to nothing with it for though Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists c. should disagree in matters of Faith raise different senses to serve their several interests cannot all of them understand and some of them do desperately wrest several places to their own destruction the Scripture supposed plain and clear in all necessary points the fault and folly is their own The Scripture all this notwithstanding may and does still remain as it was a sole sufficient Rule or if some Books be lost all Copies corrupted and several Texts mistranslated yet what 's this to the purpose while we can and shall evince that the Books we at present have are so intire the Copies so pure and the Translations so true that all points necessary at least be therein plain and clear nor will it avail to tell us of the Primitive Christians consulting with the Apostles and that it is all one to judge by our own reason and by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason For we might suppose the Apostles with all their Authority now in being go and consult with them or in their absence with the Pastors of the several Churches as the great Moderators of all controversies and yet the Scriptures if plain and clear still remain a sole sufficient Rule according to which the controversies might and ought to be decided Nor need we in this case be troubled with interpreting of Scriptures according to our own reason sith 't is supposed and shall be proved that the Scripture is so clear in all necessary points that it needs no interpretation though yet you may take notice by the way that to judge by our own reason as the only rule is not the same with judging by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason as one special means your Argument would perhaps strike at that but this is all that in any case we practise and so do because Christ bids us search the Scriptures and the Apostle adds judge ye what I say comparing spiritual things with spiritual however sith the faith or means by which salvation is to be had is a believing on Christ the foundation as hath been said not a believing of just so many as you or others are pleased to call fundamental points If the Scriptures be plain and clear as without peradventure they are in their testifying of him according to Joh. 5.40 they are plain and clear in what necessarily relates to Faith or the means by which Salvation is to be had according to John 20.31 and consequently what ever becomes of all the other whether necessary or unnecessary points may be a sole sufficient Rule according to the tendency of this your present discourse the seeming contradictions shall after your infringible instances come now to be discussed Pag. 42. That they are not plain and clear as aforesaid consider all Christians generally except some few do agree that the Sacraments of the Gospel are necessary in order to Salvation Now as to these the Scriptures are so far from being clear that they do not so much as denominate what a Sacrament is how many Christ ordained or whether there be any Sacrament or not First All Christians may agree that the Sacraments are necessary and yet they not be so for it 's Christs saying that they are not at all the Christians agreeing that can make them necessary Did not all Christians generally agree for six hundred years together that the Eucharist was necessary for Infants and yet now the Church concludeth otherwise But 2. it is here granted that some Christians deny the Sacraments of the Gospel to be necessary and if some may be Christians and yet deny the necessity of Sacraments it 's an argument sufficient that they are not necessary Nor indeed does the man assert that Sacraments be simply necessary but qualifies it with in order to Salvation and limits it to Sacraments of the Gospel perhaps he may think there be two ways whereby God brings his people to Salvation one ordinary with and the other extraordinary without Sacraments nor shall I say more of that but tell him that if Women and Male Children under the Law might much more the Catechumeni and Infants under the Gospel may be saved by grace without Sacraments to confer or convey it 3. Though it be not the Scripture mode to observe Logick rules in framing definitions nor always Arithmetical in making up of accounts Yet is the nature and end of these Ordinances we call Sacraments described in Scripture so far as is meet for us to know The number numbred Baptism and the Lords-supper said
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
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