the Lord's day was instituted and which in the order of the Answer was first prov'd the Sabbath must in reason surrender to it 3. I shewed it from Col. 2. 16. where the Sabbath is said to be a shadow of things to come and so was to cease by the coming of Christ as the rest of the same kind He saith of this there is as little reason as Scripture but if there be as much reason as Scripture he had no cause to complain But he first takes care to leave out the Scripture and then to exclaim not one Word of Scripture Well! what has he to say to that little Reason that there is He saith The Sabboth did appertain to the Law of Nature and was not a Shadow only of a thing to come but a Memory he would say a Memorial of the Creation But did it otherwise appertain to the Law of Nature than as it was of Divine Institution Or was it then so a Memorial of what was past as not to be a Shadow of somewhat to come Let him see how the Apostle applies it Heb. 4. 9 10. But suppose that it was a Memorial of the Creation as it was and a Shadow to the Jews as he owns then being both were but one and the same day how could the Observation of the Sabbath be abrogated as a Shadow and not also as a Memorial since the same Day that was for the one was also for the other Thus we find there was a Patriarchal Circumcision and a Mosaical as our Saviour shews John 7. 22. And the question then is Whether the Abrogation of the Mosaical was not also the Abrogation of the Patriarchal Circumcision And whether what holds in the one doth not hold in the other 2 d Branch What Text of Scripture exacts of us the keeping the Sunday holy Or what Scripture have we for the Divine Institution of it As to this by way of Preparation I. 1. Gave a general Reason which our Author for a little Advantage has set last and very unworthily abused I shall set them one against the other before the Reader Answer There is as much in the reason of the thing for this peculiar day to be observed in the Christian Church as there was for the Sabbath in the Patriarchal and Jewish Church for what the Moral Sabbath was to Man upon his Creation and the Ceremonial Sabbath was to the Jews upon their deliverance out of Egypt that is the first day of the Week or the Lord's day to Christians upon our Redemption by Christ which was accomplished and testified in his Resurrection on that day Clear Proof The Moral Sabbath in the Patriarchal Church and the Ceremonial in the Jewish Church were on the days following the Creation and Deliverance from Egypt Therefore 't is not to be kept by Christians on the day in which Christ rested after he had accomplished our Redemption on the Cross by a Solemn Consummatum est and his precious Death Not on Saturday And then he Triumphs What can be I will not say more dull but spoken more directly in spight of Sense and Reason And I will add what can be more false than what he here puts upon the Answerer and that is somewhat a worse Charge than Dulness when in spight of honesty he shall thus manifestly pervert that which lay clear before him into ridiculous Nonsense It 's manifest he has here nothing to say unless he will say there is not as much reason in the nature of the thing for the Observation of one day in seven in memory of our Redemption as there was for it in the Creation or the Deliverance out of Egypt 2. I particularly proved it from the Mark of Divine Institution set upon it in the Name the Lord's day Rev. 1. 10. it being usual in Scripture to have the Name of the Lord applied to Times Places Persons and Things when set apart by Divine Institution To this he Replies The Question is What day of the Week that was in the Revelation Or was it only some peculiar day of the year as Easter-day or Good-Friday To which I Answer 1. If the Name of the Lord be not without a reason applied to a Day then it 's evident that no day of the Week has any Colour or Pretence to it but the First day 2. It cannot be reasonably supposed to be some peculiar day of the year as Easter-day or Good-Friday 1. Because we are certain that the first day of the Week was observed in Apostolical times as I shewed from Scripture but we are not certain of these there being not one word of Scripture that looks that way And when St. Austin saith of the Anniversary Observation of the days of Christ's Passion Resurrection Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Ghost that they were observed in the whole World he adds it 's to be belived such things so observed were commanded and appointed by the Apostles or General Councils He saith it 's to be believed they were appointed by one or the other not being able to determine which but we know that there was no General Council till above 300 years after Christ 2. Easter-day which has the nearest pretence both in Reason and Antiquity cannot be the Lord's day because they were distinguished So St. Austin We saith he solemnly celebrate the Lord's day and Easter And the Eastern Churches particularly that of Ephesus where St. John more especally was did observe Easter according to the Moon and not the day of the Week and that so early as An. 197. when Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and a Council of Bishops concurring with him wrote to Victor Bishop of Rome who threatned to Excommunicate them for it that they feared him not for it was better to obey God than Man. As for Good-Friday's being the Lord's day that I believe is a Nostrum of our Author's as well as the Question put by him is What day of the Week the Lords day is on 2. He answers I find forty Texts that call the day of general Judgment or that of each man's death the Lords day but not one that mentions Sunday under that name What follows Therefore the Lord's day St. John was in the Spirit upon was the day of Judgment or death and not Sunday But he will say this is a little too much for the use he makes of this Observation is to shew that that day whatever it was might be called the Lord's day and yet not be of Divine Institution Very well but yet I find the day of Judgment for indeed the day of death is not as far as I remember call'd the Lord's day in Scripture to be of Divine Ordination So Matth. 24. 36. and Acts 17. 31. He hath appointed a day and is therefore a confirmation of what he would confute by it 3. I offer'd further in proof of a Divine Institution That that day was consecrated by the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon it But to this
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
of God as his Plenipotentiary Where first his account of a Moral Vnion is very extravagant as if the being employed by another would make him for that reason to be Morally one with him that employs him but that Author is to be pardoned who understands not the difference betwixt a Moral and Political Union And again he shewed himself not acquainted with the matter of Fact when he saith the Heresie of Nestorius consisted in this that he denied Christ to be united to the Word otherwise than Morally whereas St. Cyril saith he granted that Emanuel or Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was constituted and compounded of the Word of God and an Intelligent Soul and a Body But then saith he he divided one Christ into Two so that he that is born of the Virgin is perfect man and the other the Word of God the one mere man the other true God The Word the true and Eternal Son of God but that which is born of the Virgin is equivocally the Son of God. Thus that Father But he will say I am now better informed Thanks to the Answerer who gently intimated to him that he was out of the way and to his Friend that has since set him in the right But after all was there not one word in the Answer as to the Vnity of one Person uniting these two Natures Let him but cast his eye upon it again and he will see this to be the Conclusion of the Argument Then there must be in him Christ two Natures united which is the Incarnation If the Incarnation be the Union of two Natures in Christ the Word and this was rightly inferred from what went before then what shall I say Our Author has not dealt fairly with his Adversary And if this be to be a Nestorian then so was St. Cyril so was the Couneil that condemncd him for so St. Cyril describes the Incarnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Word was united to a Body informed by a Rational Soul. Q. 6. The first branch of this Question is What Scripture hath absolved us from obeying one of the Commandments which imposes the keeping of Saturday holy The second What Text of Scripture exacts of us the keeping holy as the Lords day the Sunday Ans To the first part not one word of Scripture and for excuse he tells us That there was no need of an express abrogation because Sunday being set apart for the publick and solemn Worship of God the Sabboth-day as well as the Holy-days and New-moons of the Jews being a shadow must surrender to the Sunday Here is as little Reason as Scripture for the Sabboth did appertain to the Law of Nature and was not a shadow only of a thing to come but a memory of the past and never-to-be-forgotten benefit of the Creation from the work whereof God rested on that day and blessed the seventh day Here 't is pity at what a loss the Answerer is to find the Chapter and Verse wherein the abrogation of Circumcision is clearly exprest 'T is a charitable condescendency to instruct him let him look then in Gal. 5. 2. where behold Paul tells you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For the second part he produces a Text Rev. 1. 10. I was in spirit on the Lords day then he flourishes to teach us ignorant people that 't is usual in Scripture after that Times Places Things and Persons were set apart for the service of God by Divine Institution to have his Name as a mark of propriety given to them But in the name of sense and reason what means all this There is a Lords day no doubt St. John was in spirit that day 't is certain but the question is What day of the week was it or was it only some peculiar day of the year as Easter-day or Good-friday Hath he Scripture for this Not one word I find forty Texts that call the day of general Judgment or that of each man's death the Lord's day but not one that mentions Sunday under that name I find Act. 2. 46. how they that believed were daily continuing with one accord in the Temple or breaking Bread from house to house but not a word of a day appointed for stated Assemblies Scripture failing our Adversary he seeks supplies from Reason but the misfortune is that the first and chiefest he offers at stands against him The Moral Sabboth says he in the Patriarchal Church and the Ceremonial in the Jewish Church were on the days following the Creation and Deliverance from the Slavery of Aegypt True but what follows Therefore 't is not to be kept by Christians on the day in which Christ rested after he had accomplish`d our Redemption on the Cross by a solemn Consummatum est and his precious Death Not on Saturday Raillery aside what can be I will not say more dull but spoken more directly in spight of sense and reason Our Author for convenience to himself has transposed the Questions so that the first in the Address is now the last Let him quietly enjoy the benefit of it I shall begin as he now begins Q. 1. What Scripture hath absolved us from c. To this I gave in short a Threefold answer 1. He requiring Chapter and Verse I told him When he could find out Chapter and Verse for an express and clear abrogation of Circumcision I would shew him Chapter and Verse for that of the Sabbath Here out of his abundant charitable condescendency he vouchsafes to instruct me and hands me to Gal. 5. 2. Where behold Paul tells you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And yet I do not find there is a clear and express abrogation of it An Abrogation is a total abolition of it and if it was abrogated so as that whoever was thereafter Circumcised could have no profit by Christ then all so Circumcised were in a state of Damnation And here it would be fit to know when this abrogation did commence For Act. 16. 3. we find Paul to Circumcise Timothy and not long before St. Paul's being a Prisoner and being carried to Rome the solemn Assembly declared that there were many thousands of the Jewish Christians which were zealous of the Law and that St. Paul was reputed to be too forward in teaching the Gentiles ought not to circumcise their children Act. 21. 20 21. So that the Apostle's censure of it is not to be universally understood but is only a preventing of their imposing it upon the Gentiles and requiring it as necessary to Justification and Salvation And of these that held it thus necessary he saith If ye be circumcised upon these terms Christ shall profit you nothing if ye are justified and expect justification by the Law ye are fallen from grace ver 4. 2. I shewed there was no more a need of an express abrogation of the Sabbath than there was of the abrogation of Circumcision because if
Guides of that Church For unless the Scripture be explain'd by some one that cannot err it cannot be understood and ye will dangerously err by reading it as Bellarmin argues And yet whether there be such a Church or whether the Church pretending to it be not a fallible and what is worse a deceiving Church or whether the Guides be not false ones a man cannot be so much as morally sure without he consult and understand the Scripture and when all is done according to this Author's way of arguing he may very well be one of those who wrest the Scripture to his own perdition and consequently hath no good ground for any one act of Faith or can be certain that there is a Church or this or that is the true Church c. This Paragraph of his is a kind of Jargon But it affords occasion to put it to him Who are the false Teachers those that with the Pharisees set up Tradition to an equal Authority with Scripture or those that maintain Scripture alone to be of Divine Authority Those that make Scripture to depend upon the Church or those that make the Church to depend upon Scripture Those that teach we are absolutely to submit to the Church and the Guides of it or those that with the Apostle direct us to follow them only as they follow Christ 1 Cor. 11. 1 Those that say men err by reading the Scriptures and so take away from them that Key of Knowledg or those that with our Saviour teach them they err for not knowing them Mat. 22. 29 Those that discourage men from reading the Scriptures because of their pretended obscurity or those that with our Saviour require that they search them and that because they are as the Psalmist saith a light to their paths Those that with the Fathers hold the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation may be clearly proved from Scripture or those that make them to depend upon Church Authority Those that derive theirs down for a thousand years after Christ without any proof from Scripture and precedent Antiquity or those that Reformed their Church 1500 years after Christ but can deduce the Genealogy of their Doctrines from Scripture and Genuine Antiquity for 4 5 and 600 years after I ask him again Who are the Hereticks in the sense he gives us those that with the Donatists in St. Austin's time confine the Church to their own party or those that with the Apostle comprehend in it all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours 1 Cor. 1. 2 Those that exclude the whole world if not of their corrupt Communion or those that according to his Quotation from St. Austin maintain a communion with the whole world Methinks after all he might to return his own words be as much afraid to mention that word Heretic as a Murtherer to come up to the murther'd Corps considering what havoc and devastation they have made amongst those they have call'd by that name I shall give him Quotation for Quotation from St. Austin and so conclude this Question It suffices us that we hold that Church which is demonstrated by most manifest Testimonies of the holy and Canonical Scripture And again Shew that there is some clear and manifest testimony given from Holy Canonical Scriptures to this thy Communion and I do confess we are to go over to thee Q. 3. What are the necessaries to Salvation Here plain and full Scripture will be of great use we may expect shoals of Texts What answer from Scripture is given to this Question think you E'en the same as honest Bays returns to a hard one in the Rehearsal YGad I won't tell you No he gives not one word of answer to it tho it be so material Any one may guess at the reason without casting a figure With what Confidence can the Prover thus impose upon the Reader Was there not one word of Answer returned to this Question Of that let the Answer speak Where it 's thus put Q. 3. What are these Necessaries to Salvation The Answer begins thus Our Author offers three Instances of such Necessaries as are not clearly revealed in Scripture viz. the Trinity the Incarnation of our Saviour and the Observation of the Lords Day And of these the Answerer Discourses for near eight Pages together to shew that the Addresser had to little purpose objected against them So that if the Trinity and Incarnation and the Lord's day are necessaries and for that reason were singled out as Instances of the Scriptures insufficiency and obscurity by the Addresser and on the contrary were defended by the Answerer then surely the 3 d Question no more wants an Answer than the Prover wants Confidence that denies it He writes indeed as if the Question was barely proposed in the Answer and he has used some art to confirm it when he has made as many Questions as there are Instances viz. of the Trinity Incarnation and the Lord's day So that Question the 4 th in the Answer is Question the 7 th in the Proof And this he does that the Reader if he has not the Answer before him may not be aware of his Falsification nor suspect that a man that first of all writes for the Publick and then engaged to set down the Questions in the order of the Answerer could be so false to both as to affirm there is not one word of Answer Q 4 'T is in its whole extent this By what Text of Scripture are we plainly taught that God is One in Substance Three in Person For as Joh. 10 50. Christ says I and my Father are One so 17. 21. he prays That all Believers may be One as he and his Father are one This second place may seem to expound the first and then Christ and his Father will be One only morally as all the Believers be One. Or else what Texts declares the Three Persons to be One by identity of substance Ans Not one Text of Scripture to give us the dubious Sense of the two in Question And yet these men pretend to clear Scripture for each Fundamental Point The Answerer supplies this want of Scripture with two Reasons The first is this Of the Three that bear record in Heaven `t is said they are One but of the Three that bear witness on Earth they agree in one I will admit this English Translation tho Apocryphal But what then But if in both were meant only a moral Vnion it would have been as well said of the Three that bear record in Heaven they agree in One therefore they have more than a moral Vnion Is not this special Logic Would not this way of arguing prove equally that the Believers are one with more than a moral Union because otherwise it might as wâ—ll have been said Joh. 17. May they agree in one The Question is Whether this second clear Text concerning the Three that
bear Witness on Earth and which we know to be only morally One doth not expound what that Unity is that is found in the Three which bear record in Heaven We ask a proof out of Scripture to decide this doubt but our Answerer hath none to give us or is grown Churlish and will not allow us any Hath he any to expound the other Text No not any but he offers at some Insinuation from Scripture and `t is this When Christ said I and my Father are One the Jews took up stones to stone him for blasphemy because that thou being a Man said they makest thy self God The Jews then understood him to have spoken of a Natural Vnion therefore he did so Well I will let my good nature work upon me once and for quiets sake I will let this Discourse pass as allowable But in return of Curtesy I hope each sober Protestant will own this following Argument to be of at least as good Alloy When Christ said Joh. 6. Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man you have no Life in you The Jews who said how can this man give us his Flesh to eat and his Disciples who walked no more with him understood that he spake of his natural Body which they should corporally eat therefore Christ did really mean they should corporally feed on his natural Flesh This Popish Conclusion is in the same Form. This is the first Instance of Scripture's obscurity in matters necessary offered by the Addresser And here the Answerer shewed in general how frivolous and absurd the way of arguing used on this matter by that Author was to which we have not a word of Reply and then particularly that the two Scriptures viz. 1 John 5. 7. and John 10. 30. usually insisted on amongst others in proof of the Doctrine of the Trinity remain in their full force notwithstanding what the Addresser had objected against them But to this the Prover now Replies There is not one Text of Scripture to give us the dubious Sense of the two in Question What means he Would he have Texts to prove the Father the Word and Holy Ghost to be three Divine Persons That was not the Answerer's part to prove or if it was he might send him to his Friend Bellarmin who in Proof of the Deity of our Saviour has collected about 100 Texts of the Old and New Testament Would he have some Chapter and Verse where are these or the like Words The word One in the first Epistle of St. John Item in St. John 's Gospel signifies a strict Identity yes by all means for saith the Addresser This ought to be if all necessaries to Salvation are contained in Scripture I thought our Author might by this time have been sensible of this weakness certainly this Gentleman's Condition calls for some Commiseration and he would do well to advise upon it whether the Scripture was originally divided into Chapter and Verse and whether Hugo Cardinalis and Robert Stephens were not very Ignorant or unadvised to Labour in this Work anew if so it had been But is there no other way to give the Sense of these Texts Suppose we consider the Words and Phrases the Context and Scope of the Places in question and compare them with others and from all draw some good and substantial Reasons will not that be as proper and as much to the purpose as if we had Chapter and Verse in his way And this was the way taken by the Answerer As for Example in 1 John 5. 7. 1. It was there observed that it 's as plainly said the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are One as that they are Three 2. That the Union betwixt these Three was not a mere moral Union or a Union only of Will and Consent for the Apostle makes a plain difference betwixt the Three that bear Record in Heaven and the Three that bear Witness in Earth For of the Three in Heaven it 's said they are One but of the Three in Earth they agree in one Of this the Prover saith I will admit this English Translation agree in one tho Apocryphal Why an English Translation or why Apocryphal Unless it be that it 's nor Verbatim according to what they call the Authentick Vulgar Translation For otherwise their own Clarius and Bellarmin c. do thus translate it Conveniunt in unum conspirant in unum But admit this saith he What then Then the Answerer thus proceeded in his Argument Now if it had been a mere moral Vnion that was betwixt the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost who are the Three in Heaven it would have been as well said of them as of the Spirit the Water and the Blood which are the Three in Earth that they agree in one Here the Prover exults Is not this special Logic Would not this way of arguing prove equally that the Believers are one with more than a moral Vnion because otherwise it might as well have been said Joh. 17. May they agree in one As for the Logic it is Bellarmin's as well as the Answerer's who from the different Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus argues Whence you may plainly see that the Spirit Water and Blood are not One as the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost but only do agree in one Testimony And as for the Inference the Prover makes Would not this way of Arguing prove c. I answer the Case is not alike For 1. The Force of the Argument doth not lie merely upon the difference of Phrase for both Bellarmin and the Answerer knew how One is sometimes applied to a Moral Union as John 17. but upon its being used in this place by way of distinction betwixt things of a different nature for proof of which it 's to be observed that the Apostle designing to shew the validity of the Testimony given to the Son of God v. 5. which was twofold he further amplifies this and distinctly speaks to each of them ver 7. and tho both do give Testimony to the same Truth yet one in an higher and the other in a lower degree As 1. There are Three that bear Record in Heaven and Three in Earth 2. The Three in Heaven are One and the Three in Earth agree in One. By which way of arguing and the distinction observed betwixt them the Apostle shows That the Three that bear Record in Heaven are not more different in their Nature and Place from the Three in Earth than in their Union That they are both alike Three and both alike in their Testimony but that the one are in Heaven the other in Earth The Three in Heaven are One but the Three in Earth agree in One So that the Three in Earth are no more One as the Three in Heaven than the Three that bear Record in Earth are the Three that bear Record in Heaven 2. In confirmation of this it 's observable
will set him right and leave him to his Cell for the rest The Answerer's Argument is this when set in due form If all questions and doubts relating to Salvation are to be resolved by Scripture then all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture but all questions and doubts relating to Salvation are to be resolved by Scripture as appears from the Texts quoted above therefore c. I shall here return him my words again because in repeating he has perverted them He takes up with such a sort of Arguments which how useful soever they may prove I will recall it and say with him tho not useful to make some men of their Religion have a plainer tendency to not as he corrupts them may very well make others of none Q. 2. Whether all things necessary to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture Ans From Scripture not a word However he condescends to deliver His sense and that of his Church on this Qnestion It is That all persons cannot immediately learn all the necessaries to Salvation by meer reading of Scripture that many other helps are necessary to wit attention consideration to be cleared from prejudices and prepossessions from pride love of the world interest obstinacy partiality sloth and besides all this the assistance of teaching Guides and a dependency from God for the Wisdom he hath promised such promises I find made to the Church but not any to particulars that shall refuse to be absolutely guided by the Church So that Scripture is plain in this sense only that by these means it may be apprehended Now by Guides he means not false ones such as Christ bid us beware of and consequently till a Protestant hath a reasonable conviction that his Church-Teachers tho' divided from the Catholic Church and condemned by General Councils tho' Abettors of a Religion of not 150 years settlement tho not in Communion with one Bishop in the whole World out of His Majesty's Dominions yet still are true Guides and till he be morally sure that he wants not himself any one of the ten other dispositions requir`d is to persuade himself that he may very well be one of those who wrest the Scripture to their perdition and consequently hath no good ground for any one Act of Faith. This will create but small comfort to any Protestant Less yet will he find in St. Cyril's Sentence The things that are easie are yet to Heretics hard to understand especially if all those be Heretics according to St. Augustin who when the Doctrine of Catholic Faith is declared to them chuse to oppose it and rather embrace what is their own sense if the Catholic Faith be according to the same Dr a Communion with the whole world so that according as his Scholar St. Prosper defines it a Christian when in Communion with this General Church is a Catholic when separated from her an Heretick I wonder how this man was so confident as to name that word Heretic which his Brethren are usually as much afraid to mention as a murtherer to come up to the murder'd Corps lest by its bleeding he be betray'd He saith that as to this second Question there is from Scripture not a word in the Answer And what needed it when the same Texts that were brought to prove the Scripture contains all things necessary do prove that it plainly contains them As for instance Joh. 20. 31. These are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life Where the end for which they were written which was that they might believe and the persons for whom they were written for all Christians sufficiently prove that they were for the manner so exprest as well as from the matter so evident that they might believe So again 2 Tim. 3. 15. The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto Salvation If they were the Scriptures that Timothy knew from a child and were able to make him wise unto Salvation surely they were plain in those things So again Luk. 10 25. What is written in the Law How readest thou must needs imply the Law was plain to be read and understood So Luk. 16. 29. They have Moses and the Prophets But to what purpose if Moses and the Prophets were not to be understood by them But 2. What proof would he have of this Can he have any plainer proof than from the things contained therein Tolle lege will shew there is a God and God alone is to be worshipped That the Soul is immortal That there is a future state and that a state of rewards and punishments That man is fallen That Christ redeemed him That Christ is the Son of God. That he became man. That he was Crucified and died a Sacrifice for us That he rose from the dead ascended into Heaven is there our Mediator c. of which and the like we may say as Justin Martyr did to Trypho the Jew Attend to what I shall rehearse out of the holy Scriptures proofs which need not to be explained but only to be heard But he goes on However the Answerer delivers his sense on this Question It is That all persons cannot immediately learn all necessaries by meer reading of Scripture that many other helps are necessary to wit attention consideration And can he say any thing to the contrary Some things are so plain as that with the meer reading of them they are immediately understood Others require attention and consideration and yet be plain though not equally as plain as the former The Answerer further proceeded to shew the mind ought to be clear'd from prejudices And doth this detract any thing from the perspicuity of Scriptures For the Propositions may be plain but yet be obscure to him that is under prepossessions as was shewed at large in the Answer All which were there sum'd up thus If men come with an honest heart and use a competent diligence with a dependence upon God's assistance for the wisdom he hath promised I know nothing necessary to Salvation but what is plainly taught in Scripture and may be learn'd from it What hath the Prover to say to this Such promises of obtaining wisdom from God I find made to the Church but not to any particular that shall refuse to be absolutely guided by the Church But is not this promise made to particulars without any mention of the Church that he is to learn it from What thinks he of the place the Answerer had his eye upon Jam. 1. 5. If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God and it shall be given him What of Joh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God Now it should have been according to our Author's projection If any man lack wisdom or would know whether the Doctrine be of God let him go to the infallible Church to the Vicar of Christ or a Council called by him or to the