by the Catholick Church is their whole Rule of Faith. Is it asked again Whether there are no new Revelations no new Articles received as of Catholick Faith He answers These Truths are only received which the Church proposes as delivered to her by the Apostles The meaning of which Phrases the Gospel rightly understood and preserved by the Church and the Truths which the Church proposes as delivered is that which is thus preserved proposed delivered and interpreted by the Church is as much the Rule as the Scripture and that without this Tradition and Exposition of the Church the Scripture is in Bellarmine's Phrase but a partial Rule Scripture thus interpreted is a Catholick Rule of Faith the Addresser therefore meant nothing less than to diminish its Divine Authority his design was to preserve it and that each mans private sense might not sacrilegiously pretend to be that Word of God which as St. Peter minds us is not of private Interpretation 'T is not against the Authority or Use of Scripture he writ but against the Protestants unjust and insignificant method of using it I will here make good the Charge hoping that when he thinks fit he will much more fully perform it by the very answers given to his Questions which I shall set down in that Order and Sense in which the Answerer construed them Here he tells us 'T is not against the Authority or use of Scripture the Addresser writ The Divine Authority of Scripture consists in its being of Divine Revelation and the reason for which it was revealed is for the use instruction and salvation of mankind But if it be insufficient for attaining that end and either is wanting in what is neeessary or is writ in a way so obscure and dubious that it 's not to be understood by those for whom it was written it 's certainly a Revelation unworthy of God and a considerable argument against its Divine Authority And therefore he that undertakes to prove this must if he be in earnest have a very mean opinion of that Divine Book and designs to bring others to the like opinion of it But this is the apparent design of the Addresser who argues all along against the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture even in those points which our Author owns to be the two principal Articles of Christian Belief the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ clearly giving away the Cause to the Arians and Nestorians and frankly acknowledging nay venturing in his way to prove that the Texts usually insisted on by the Orthodox in proof of those Articles are not sufficient for it So that in conclusion if the Scripture be so perplex'd and obscure so doubtful and ambiguous so unintelligible and insufficient a Rule they may as well lay aside the Scripture as that Father did the obscure Poet with an If thou art not to be understood thou art not fit to be read And yet after all this charge insinuated all along in the Address against the Scripture 'T is not yet against the Authority or Vse of it he writ What then did he write against It was against the Protestants unjust and insignificant method of using it and that each mans private sense might not sacrilegiously pretend to be that word of God which as St. Peter minds us is not of private Interpretation I must confess if each or any mans private sense be pretended to be the Word of God it 's both Vnjust and Sacrilegious since nothing can be the Word of God but what is by his immediate Inspiration But where are they that thus pretend What reason is there for this charge These are things he takes for granted but insinuates that this is done by the Protestants who interpret Scripture by their own private sense But why will this any more prove that because they interpret Scripture by their own sense they pretend their sense to be the Word of God than it follows that those that resolve all into a deciding Church-Authority do therefore pretend that the sense given by that Authority is the Word of God For I presume after all that they will not dare to say such their Interpretations are as much the Word of God as the Word is which they are the Interpretations of However he intimates it 's Sacrilegious to interpret Scripture by each mans private sense when St. Peter minds us the Word of God is not of private Interpretation But surely the Apostle doth not therein include the using and understanding of Scripture by private persons as if that was forbidden when he tells them they did well to give heed to it ver 19. Neither did he suppose they were uncapable of understanding it when he calls it a light and unto which they were to give heed till the day dawn c. Nor farther will the Apostles Argument admit of any such Exposition which is thus Ye ought to give heed to the Scripture for it 's not of private Interpretation for holy men of God spake as they were moved that is Scripture is the Interpretation of God's will the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost and though wrote by men is not of humane invention nor was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their own motion nor an explication of their own mind but of God's Of this see a late Book called Texts of Scripture cited by Papists c. Pag. 35. The Prover now falls on in earnest and with great resolution saith he will make good the charge of the Protestants unjust and insignificant Interpretation of Scripture by the very Answers given to the Addresser's Questions and that he will set them down in that order and sense in which the Answerer construed them I wish he had added too in his own words as the Answerer did by him For I find no great reason to trust him either as to order or sense Qu. 1. Whether all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture Ans Scripture must contain these Necessaries All Catholics ever owned what St. Augustin teaches That all things which concern Faith and Manners of Life are found in those things which are plainly contained in Scripture So that as St. Gregory expresses it God needs speak to us no more by any new Revelation For as the same St. Augustin observes in the Question betwixt Him and the Donatists about true Baptism which he held absolutely necessary to Salvation Tho we have no proof in this case from holy Scripture yet we follow the truth of holy Scripture even in this case when we do what the Vniversal present Church approves of which Church is commended by the Authority of the very Scripture All true Catholics without doubt ever owned what St. Austin teaches and that not so much because St. Austin teaches it as that what he herein taught is true But to use our Authors words pag. 7. I wonder how this man was so confident as to name St. Austin and quote this place after the Answerer and
Whether we may be infallibly certain out of the Church or how we can find out the Church infallibly if the Church alone be infallible and that we cannot be infallibly certain till we come into the Church Q. 9. Where is the Seat of Infallibility in the Church whether in every particular Person or the Supreme Pastor or a General Council And whether they all agree in this matter Q. 10. Whether what they disagree in can be the Sentiment of the whole Church or that we are hound to believe what they cannot agree in Q. 11. Whether we are any more bound to believe the Infallibility of their Church which they thus disagree in than the Address would perswade us we are not obliged to believe the Trinity because the Arians tho Christians deny it Q. 12. How one at a vast distance of Time or Place can be infallibly assured of the Certainty of those Decrees which are said to proceed from an Infallible Power or that he can be any more certain of the Truth Certainty and Sense of these than he can be of the Truth Authority and Sense of Scripture Q. 13. Whether our Saviour has not spoken as plainly and intelligibly in Scripture as his pretended Vicar or their Councils have done in their Decrees and Canons Q. 14. Whether when the Persons that publish or give the Sense of those Decrees and Canons are Fallible a Person can be infallibly certain that these are the very Decrees or that the true Sense of them Or whether a Person in these Circumstances can be any more certain tho a Member of an Infallible Church than another may be that is a Member of a Fallible Church Q. 15. Whether for example we can be any more certain that there ever was such a Pope as Pope Pius or that ever there was such a Creed drawn up by him or that this or that is an Article or the Sense of it than we are that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are clearly contained in them These are the Questions in the Answer and which I have drawn out in order I hope they shew themselves to be Sense it remains to the Prover to shew they have no difficulty to be resolved All well-meaning Protestants finding that Scripture interpreted the Protestant-way is so far from being an easie and clear Rule of Faith that a Protestant in the Answer to an Address made to the Ministets of the Church of England approved by a Chaplain to the highest Ecclesiastical Authority under the King cannot as much as teach by it the first Principles of Christian Religion will seek a better method of using that Divine Rule and not be hereafter so easily imposed upon by those Guides who give them but their own private fancies under the Veil and Name of the Word of God. I was I confess surprized to find Guil. Needham c. approving this Answer but God and Truth are of our side Et inimici nostri sunt Judices the weakness of our Opposers Arguments bear a proof to it Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam I may now leave the case to all well-meaning Protestants for who that is of that number or indeed is impartial but may soon discern who they are that make the Scripture a Rule of Faith Whether those that resolve all Necessaries to Salvation wholly into it or those that join Tradition with it in Esteem and Authority They may again as soon discern Whether the Scripture be Easie and Clear and best understood in the Protestant Method when it 's Translated for Vulgar use in the Mother Tongue and the People are allowed and exhorted to read it or in the Popish Method when it 's kept in an unknown Tongue or if Translated not permitted to be read by them Whether again They feed them with their own private Fancies that teach the people nothing but what both Teacher and Hearer learn from Scripture or they that make things necessary to be believed and done which are not contained in Scripture I find our Author surpriz'd to find Guil. Needham a Chaplain to the highest Eeclesiastical Authority under the King we know who they are that set up an Ecclesiastical Authority above the King to approve the Answer But why so surprized When it 's likely G. N. was as confident as the Prover could be on his own that God and Truth are on the Answerer's side and perhaps might have a good opinion of his Performance though I grant it 's likely not as good as our Author hath of his own Clear Proof Here I should have ended but it seems the poor Answer has met with another Adversary one as he himself tells us that at a full mixed Assembly in the City so laid it open that most of the Protestants there ashamed of it found no better Salvo than to disown the Answerer as an Ignorant Scribler who had betrayed his Cause I wish this successful Undertaker had but given us a Breviate of the Case as he propounded it to that Assembly for if he managed it in the same way as his Friend the Prover has done or as he himself has answered the Preservative sometimes omitting sometimes mangling and at all times Misrepresenting his Adversaries Arguments I will for once excuse my Friends the Protestants if they then thought the Answerer worthy of no better a Character than is here related who I hope for the future they will have less reason to believe an Adversary and use that kind of liberty which the Church of Rome so much envies them and belongs to them as Men and as Christians and judg for themselves by seeing with their own eyes whether the Cause is maintained or betrayed But after all I know not whether I may not have as little reason to believe him concerning these Protestants as they had to believe him concerning the Answer FINIS Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell THE Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome By the Author of the Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist 4 o. Mr Pulton Considered in his Sincerity Reasonings Authorities Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True Account his True and Full Account of a Conference c. His Remarks and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T 's Rule of Faith. By Th. Tenison D. D. A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church and inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation Being a sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other late Collections of the Fathers pretending to the Contrary 4 o. An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy With a Reply to the Vindicator's Full Answer shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruin'd the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery 4 o. An Answer to the Popish Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England 4 o. An Abridgment of the Prerogatives of St. Ann Mother of the Mother of God with the Approbations of the Doctors of Paris thence done into English with a PREFACE concernining the Original of the Story The Primitive Fathers no Papists in Answer to the Nubes Testium to which is added a Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints in Answer to the Challenge of F. Sabran the Jesuit wherein is shewn that Invocation of Saints was so far from being the Practice that it was expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers 4 o. An Answer to a Discourse concerning the Celibacy of the Clergy lately Printed at Oxford 4 o. The Virgin Mary Misrepresented by the Roman Church In the Traditions of that Church concerning her Life and Glory and in the Devotions paid to her as the Mother of God. Both shewed out of the Offices of that Church the Lessons on her Festivals and from their allowed Authors Dr. Tenisons Sermon of Discretion in giving Alms. 12 o. A Discourse concering the Merits of Good Works The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in some Observations upon the Life of Ignatius Loyola Founder of the Order of Jesus A Vindication of the Answer to the Popish Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England 4 o. Reflections upon the Books of the Holy Scripture in order to establish the Truth of the Christian Religion in 3 Parts 8 vo In the Press The Texts which the Papists cite out of the Bible for Proof of the Points of their Religion Examin'd and shew'd to be alledged without Ground In several distinct Discourses Five whereof are published viz. Popery not founded in Scripture The Introduction Texts concerning the Obscurity of Holy Scripture Of the Insufficiency of Scripture and Necessity of Tradition Of the Supremacy of St. Peter and the Pope over the whole Church In Two Parts Of Infallibility The Rest will follow Weekly in their Order Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof De Praesc Ep. 7. Vindication De verbo non Scripto l. 4. c. 12. SS dico secundo Script Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof De Doctr. Ch. l. 2. c. 9. Vindication Contr. Liter Petiliani l. 3. c. 6. Clear Proof Vindication De Verbo l. 4. c. 10. ss Respondeo ad primum De Verbo l. 4. c. 10. ss Neque Ut supra C. 12. ss Respondeo ad C. 11. ss Septimo Clear Proof 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 13. Vindication Cap. 10. 8. Quod autem Clear Proof Luc. 10. 25. Luc. 16. 29. Vindication Clear proof Mat. 7. 15. In Jo. l. 1. c. 4. L. 4. de Bapt. cont Don c. 16. L 2 con Gaud. In Dim H. Vindication De Verbo l. 4. c. 4. ss septimo De Unit. Eccles c. 18. C 19. Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication De Christo l. 1. c. 4 c. De Christo l. 1. c. 4. ss Quod autem De Christo l. 1. c. 6. ss Secundo probo Clear Proof Vindication Epist Imper. Theod. n. 6. Concil Tom. 4. Ad Monach. Aegypt ss 12. Clear Proof Gen. 2. 3. Vindication Epist 118. Contr. Adimant c. 16. Nova Collectio Concil Baluz p. 10. Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Cc. 2. in Psal 30. De Vnit Eccl. l 4. c. 8. Gal. 5. Vindication De Pastore c. 14. Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication An Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Preservative
use made of this place of St. John in the Answer viz. to shew what was the end the Scripture was written for and the sufficiency of Scripture in order to that end and this that Quotation proves for if any part and much more the whole of Scripture was written that they might believe Surely then they might believe by reading what was written Thus it was argued in the Answer p. 3. The Scripture must fail of its end and we of the Salvation therein revealed if that be not as sufficient in its kind to beget Faith in us as Faith is to save us For saith St. John These things are written c. So that instead of our Author's Conclusion I shall give him two other which contain the force of what was there said they are these The end for which the things are written in Scripture is that we might believe but the things written would fail of the end for which they were written if they are not sufficient to beget that Faith in us which they were intended to be the means of Again If by the belief of what is contained in Scripture we come to be saved as St. John saith then the Scripture must contain all those things which are necessary to be believed But saith the Prover St. John saith all this of the Signs written in that Chapter But that I have already prevented or if I should say so it 's as tolerable as it is for Bellarmin to affirm that all the useful ends for which Scripture was wrote are to be found in the 2 d Epistle of St. John the shortest Book of Scripture But however here is a dreadful Charge at the heels of it For saith the Prover The Conclusion eases the Members of his Congregation from the Obligation of reading any part of Scripture besides the 20 th Chapter of St. John 's Gospel We may guess to what Church our Author belongs when he will have it an ease to the People to be discharged from reading the Scripture Tho at the same time I wonder how he came to stumble upon the word Obligation For how is this to be reconciled to the Practice of that Church which eases the People of the whole and permits them not to read the 20 th Chapter of St. John nor any other part of Scripture tho they are under a Divine Obligation so to do But in the Name of Logic and the University our Author was of how comes this Conclusion on That if all things necessary to Salvation are contained in the 20 th Chapter of St. John That therefore the People are eased from the Obligation of reading more I remember Bellarmin at this place argues much at this rate If St. John 's Gospel contains all things necessary then the rest of Scripture is Superfluous But the same Bellarmin when press'd another way asserts There are many things in Scripture which of themselves do not pertain to Faith that is which are not therefore written because they are necessary to be believed And again There may be things sufficient for Baptism but which suffice not absolutely for the Church So that it seems there are things necessary and sufficient in one respect and not in another some necessary for Salvation absolutely some for Edification And therefore it follows not that because all things absolutely necessary are contained in some part of Scripture therefore the others are Superfluous and there is no Obligation to read them For then it would also follow that because all things necessary are contained in the New Testament therefore the Church in our Author's Phrase is eased from the Obligation of reading the old And because three thousand were converted by one Sermon Acts 2. therefore all besides what was contained in that Sermon would have been Superfluous The second Text of Scripture is 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 where the Apostle having thus warned Timothy immediately before v. 14. Continue in those things which thou hast learnt and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learnt by which words he renews the commands he had given him O Timothy keep the depositum have a form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in Faith The said Apostle minds him that in his Infancy he had read the Old Testament which bears sufficiently witness that Christ was the Messias v. 15 16. Because from thine infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures which can instruct thee the Protestant Version hath make thee wise to Salvation by the Faith that is in Christ Jesus All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in Justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good work Hence the Minister argues thus The same Apostle that says all Scripture i. e. each part of Scripture is given by Inspiration of God says that the Scriptures are able to make us wise to Salvation But men cannot be wise to Salvation without knowing what is necessary to salvation Here he leaves us but I will make up the Syllogism Therefere the Old Testament alone nay every part of Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation Thus you see the Minister rests satisfied with the first Chapter of Genesis for his whole Rule of Faith. The truth is that St. Paul only teaches there that the Testament or any part of Scripture is of good use is profitable to instruct any one in the concerns of his Salvation What 's this to the containing of all necessaries to Salvation Bread is of very good use to preserve Life and enables a man to perform all the duties of it is therefore nothing else necessary What pitiful shifts are these Here I must take leave to charge our Author with notorious Sophistry not only from the false Construction of his Syllogism whether out of Ignorance or Design I know not but also for the falseness of the matter contained in it The Answerer indeed undertook to prove the Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation and that we are as sure of its sufficiency in that kind as we are of its Divine Authority forasmuch as the same Apostle that said all Scripture is of Divine Inspiration doth also immediately before as positively affirm that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15 16. This is the whole of what the Answerer said upon this place and now with what Conscience could our Author charge this following Consequence upon him Hence the Minister argues thus The same Apostle that says all Scripture i. e. each part of Scripture is given by Inspiration of God says that the Scriptures are able to make us wise to Salvation but men cannot be wise to Salvation without knowing what is necessary to Salvation Is this He that said he would set down the Answerers Proofs in due Form Then God deliver us from such Undertakers In short it 's very evident that the Argument in the Answer reduced
into due Form is this If the same Apostle saith the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation that saith they are of Divine Inspiration then we are as certain of their Sufficiency as we are of their Authority but the same Apostle saith the Scriptures are able to make us wise to Salvation that saith they are of Divine Inspiration Therefore we are as certain of their Sufficiency as we are of their Authority This is the Argument and this I will abide by and if our Author had been a fair Disputant he would have shewed how either the Premises were false or the Conclusion not justly inferred from them and since the place in which his Cause was most concerned is ver 15. that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation he should have directed his Answer to it but he found it too hard for him and so shuffles it off to the next verse All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable c. Whereas supposing that all Scripture there was after his wild way which I am not at present concerned to refute to be applied to each part of Scripture yet what is that to ver 15. where it's said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Scriptures the same which Timothy had known from a child are able to make wise unto Salvation But though for fear of being engaged further he durst not undertake it yet he insinuates in an inference of his own that it was the old Testament only that Timothy had read But 1. How doth it appear that he read not also the Books of the New that were then extant of which there were many For Bellarmin in his Answer to this only says When this Epistle was writ the Apocalypse was not then extant nor the Gospel of John and perhaps some other Book was wanting of the Body of the Scripture Thereby yielding the rest were then Written and Published 2. If the Old Testament was able to make them that then read it wise unto Salvation then surely both Old and New is as sufficient now as the Old alone was then Our Author may remember where this was urged upon him but he prudently pass'd over that Paragraph in silence I shall still therefore conclude that the Scripture is not only profitable but necessary and not only necessary but sufficient to answer that end for which it was revealed and written and that is that we might believe and be wise unto Salvation His third Proof is this Christ sent the young man who put that Question to him Master what shall I do to inherit eternal Life to the Commandments thou knowest the Commandments and again declared that Moses and the Prophets were sufficient to dispose a sinner to repent Behold another Logical Inference of great credit to the University this Answerer was brought up in By reading Moses and the Prophets I am moved to repent from my sins and if I will know what I must do to inherit eternal Life I must know the Commandments therefore all things necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture I may with Justice return to this man more than what he ungroundedly says to the Addresser p. 1. that he takes up with such a sort of Arguments which tho not useful to make any ef his Religion may very well make others of none If such use only could be made of Scripture it would be of no use at all to our Salvation no senseless Heresie hath appeared this 1600 years which was not backt by more seeming Proofs from Scripture than these Here our Author again prevaricates The words in the Answer are these From which Consideration that all things necessary are in Scripture it was that all doubts relating to Salvation were hereby to be resolved which could not be were not all things necessary to Salvation contained in it In which there are these Two plain Propositions 1. That all doubts relating to Salvation might and were to be resolved by Scripture 2. That they could not be resolved by Scripture unless all things necessary to Salvation were contained in it The first of these which is the chief thing to be proved the Answerer shewed from Luke 10. 25 26. and Mark 10. 17 19. Luke 16. 29. In the first of these places our Saviour upon the Question put to him Master What shall I do to inherit eternal life Replies What is written in the Law how readest thou And he answcring said Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. To which our Saviour replies v. 28. Thou hast answered right this do and thou shalt live What saith the Prover to this His Answer from Bays p. 7. might well be returned were it seemly in so serious an Argument as we are upon He is indeed silent and in his words elsewhere one may guess at the reason without casting a Figure The same Question is again put to our Saviour Mark 10. 17. and our Saviour answers v. 19. Thou knowest the commandments c. implying That in the Law of which the Decalogue was a part there was the way prescribed by which Eternal Life was to be obtained The Third place in the Answer is Luke 16. 29. where the Rich man in Hell intreating that Lazarus might be sent to his Five brethren lest they come into that place of torment he was answered They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them And when he supposed that was not sufficient but if one went from the dead they would repent Abraham answers again If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded c. In which there are these things First it 's supposed That if they did repent they would not come into that place of Torment 2. That if they hearkned to Moses and the Prophers they would repent 3. That whatever was necessary to their Repentance they might find and was contained in Moses and the Prophets What saith the Prover to this Why instead of an Answer he will be at his Logic and putting the Answerer's Proof in a due Form which he ushers in with great Triumph Behold another Logical Inference of great Credit to the Vuniversity this Answerer was brought up in Well what is this Logical Inference It 's this By reading Moses and the Prophets I am moved to repent of my sins and if I will know what I must do to inherit Eternal Life I must know the Commandments therefore all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture If our Prover's Sincerity be no better than his Logic he is no more a Credit to his Religion than he is to his University if ever he was of one Here 's a defect in both but which prevails is not easie to determine I can relieve him by no other way but by supposing the Argument in the Answer gave him a Shock and his Brain was out of order before his Inference But without exposing his weakness further I