any of them for a perfect good Protestant To elude these plain and evident Texts scilicet Deuter. 17.8 Matt. 23.2 3. c. brought to prove that the Church is the sole infallible Rule and Judge you were wont to say that they may have other interpretations and therefore this is not the truth it is a question whether any Texts of Holy Scriptures and consequently whether these Texts which speak so amply of the Church are to be understood of the Church militant and visible in this world or of the Church triumphant Ye are willing to agree that so long as the Church of Christ teacheth conformable to Scriptures she is infallible Whereas instead of thus saying doubting or agreeing we enquire First To what purpose should you urge us to believe the infallibility of the Church or any thing else upon Scripture grounds when you tell us aforehand that faith founded upon Scripture is not truly faith for though we should grant what you suppose scilicet that Christ and his Apostles did urge the Jews with Scriptures meerly because of their incredulity yet did they never tell them as you do us Faith founded upon Scripture will avail you nothing It is not that Divine Faith which God calls for at your hands Or if you yet say that it is warrantable to believe the Church is infallible upon your urging why not to believe Christ to be the Messias or any other point of Christian Doctrine upon our Ministers alledging of Scripture for it But Secondly Be these Texts plain and evident or not If not why do you say they are And if they be these very Texts are a Rule such as you seek for whereby to judge of this Controversie and consequently the Church is not the only Rule whereby Controversies are to be judged But Thirdly The Quaerendum here is not whether we can shew with any assurance that these Texts are capable of other interpretations but whether you can demonstrate like as the Apostle used to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17.3 18. these your own interpretations to be certainly true do it when you do it by some infallible medium and we shall be ready to believe what you say But if you bring no proofs and no other you have brought as yet save your own private reasonings Instead of believing the truth of your interpretations we shall make bold to ask you as you do your self what difference is there betwixt judging by your own reason and judging by a Law to be interpreted by your own reason This is to make the Scripture not Gods word but the word of every private man Though yet Fourthly Had you not made a little bold with your own reason and quite contrary both to sense and honesty omitted verse the eight be-between blood and blood between Plea and Plea and put down c. instead of the eleventh verse ubi satis apte sanctus Moyses Controversias exortas in Populo Dei ex Lege Domini judicandas docet Bellar. de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee it would have been evident from Deut. 17. That the Controversies there spoken of were limited to matters of strife betwixt party and party like those Mat. 18.17 and the Judge in sentencing to the Rule of the Law called Moses Chair Matt. 23.2 And consequently the first Scripture you cite which should be the measure of the rest partly makes nothing for in part makes directly against your main conclusion Isaiah 35.8 hath been already Isaiah 2.4 Mat. 28.20 John 16.12 will be hereafter spoken to Isaiah 43.3.17 Isaiah 26.2.1 and Mat. 16.9 confirm what we contend for viz the whole Church of Gods Elect consisting of lively stones to be firmly built upon that living stone that Rock Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.4 5. And that the Royal seed the Children of God shall be all taught and led by the Spirit of God according to Rom. 8.14 John 6.45 1 John 2 27. John 14.16 relates only to such as are called out of the world love him and keep his commandements as it is evident from verses 15. and 17. concerns neither the Pope nor his Cardinals unless he or they be first proved the spiritual man intended 1 Cor. 2.15 and if Ephes 4.11 we may be allowed to leave out the Apostles Prophets Evangelists and read he will give instead of he gave which must be done ere that Text can have any shew of pertinency it will respect all and singular Pastors and Teachers that be the gifts of Christ For the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ Till we all come to an unity not of opinion form or points of Faith as you use to word it but into the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro from confidence in one device to a dependency upon another and carried about with every empty wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive But speaking the truth in love may grow up to him in all things which is the head even Christ from whom without mention or mediation of any other head the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplyeth according to the effectual working of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love vers 12 13 14 15 16. Nor is the last with which you flourish of any more moment for never to take notice that by Church cannot there be meant Roman or General Council There is a Pillar for holding out Edicts as well as a Pillar for holding up houses there is a ground wherein men set Trees sow Seed as well as a ground whereon they erect buildings and recumb The Church may be a Pillar to hold out the truth and yet not a Pillar for you to rely on for all doctrins that be true The Church may be that chosen ground in which the Mystery of Godliness Christ the truth is set and sown and yet no common ground given for you to found your faith upon Tares may spring up together with the good Seed Truth held out and yet errour attend it However the word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies a Seat and you know well how to let Moses Chair alone and rely on him supposed to sit therein And now Sir do you not stand astonished at your own impudence in thus imposing upon the Nonconformists they do not they need not limit these Texts to the Church triumphant but tell you further First That it will be hard for you to prove from Scripture that the Church of God in this world the Church you speak of Pag. 62. which Christ redeemed with his blood is a
Revelation and though of two contraries one sense only can be true and he that refuseth that sense which he knows to be true does deserve Damnation yet that God will certainly damn him or that the not believing in case he had not known were a sin damnable is more I think than God ever told you 3. Such controversies as are necessary to be decided in the use of lawful means have been are and may be decided by Scripture without either compleating it by or introducing in the stead thereof any other Rule and for the rest a mutual forbearance of the Controvertors were far better than your Pretorial decision of the controversies Eighthly It is necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not that is as you say what is fundamental and what not fundamental and to be informed of this plainly lest we erre and be damned but in this the Scripture is silent 1. If it be necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not How comes it to pass that your Church only declares negatively what is not to be believed or what must not upon pain of Damnation be disbelieved and yet never tells affirmatively what is purely and absolutely necessary for us to believe True you will have all believe affirmatively implicitly what ever your Church believes but that is nothing to this business where knowledge of the what in an explicit Faith is necessarily required All your Doctors conclude Somewhat must be explicitly believed and you say It is necessary to know the Particulars and yet will not your Church ever be gotten to declare unto us which they be let her do it when it shall seem good unto her in the interim I shall tell you plainly That 2. So much of the what is fundamentally necessary to be believed as is needful to bring such or such a person to believe in the who and rest on the foundation Jesus Christ and consequently more may be necessary for one than another and not necessary at all that the particulars should be determined For 3. Saving and Damning depends not upon a precise knowing and believing just so many points and no more but upon a hearty believing or not believing in Jesus Christ He that believeth in the Son of God hath eternal life He that believeth not c. He that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life 1 John 5.12 Ninthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by the Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that from the Father and the Son that Christ is of one substance with the Father and that these three are one and that one three I refer to consideration whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture If they were it had been almost impossible for so many divisions to have hapned about them as have done amongst persons on all sides admitting the Scripture to be the word of God 1. I refer it also to consideration Whether all these points be not plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture And wish you to consult with almost any large English Catechism or common Place book concerning it 2. The Heart of man is desperately wicked and many are possessed with a Spirit of blindness It is one question whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture and another whether all persons that admit the Scriptures to be the word of God can or will so search as to find them to be there Both Jews and Christians admit the Books of the Old Testament for Divine and yet differ about the weightiest and as we say the clearest point You say the Scriptures are plain and evident for the Churches Infallibility and yet the Protestants that admit the Scriptures for the Word of God as well as you do all deny it 3. Those so manifold divisions in the Primitive Church make more against the Churches being a Pretorial Judge than against Scripture being a perfect Rule It had been sure altogether impossible that such and so many points should have been so long controverted but that either the generality of Christians did not then judge a Pretorial decision of controversies necessary or that there was none then impowered so to decide them Howbeit 4. Is it necessary to believe these points implicitly or explicitly if but implicitly it is not necessary in order to the constituting of Scriptures an adequate object or rule of believing than these points should be plainly contained in them For plainness respects knowledge of the particulars to be believed which this kind of Faith supposeth not and if it be necessary to believe these points explicitly knowingly your own Doctors will not deny but that the Scriptures do plainly and perspicuously contain and teach them We deny not saith Costerus that those chief heads of the Faith which are to all Christians necessary to be known to Salvation are plainly and perspicuously comprehended in the Writings of the Apostles Enchirid. c. 4. p. 49. Cujusmodi sunt mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis incarnationis Filii Dei Of which sort be the mystery of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God The Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the Antient Prophets planè instruunt nos do plainly instruct us what is to be thought concerning things Divine Therefore hostile discord laid aside let us take the explication of Questions from the words Divinely inspired says Constantine to the Council of Nice And now what think ye does Bellarmine reply why See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 1. he takes occasion hence to suspect Constantine for a person unbaptized that as yet non noverit Arcana religionis had not been acquainted with the secrets of Religion howbeit better considering answers 2. That there be Testimonies extant in the Holy Scriptures of all the Doctrines which appertain to the nature of God and that concerning these Doctrines we may be plenè planè fully and plainly instructed out of the Holy Scriptures Tenthly It is necessary the Church of England saith that Infants should be Baptized and Women should receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and Christians should observe the Lords-day and yet none of these points are clearly and particularly proved from Scriptures 1. It matters not much what you say elsewhere this passage sufficiently manifests what sort of Nonconformists you write against scil not Nonconformists to the Church of England but to the Chair of Rome for if otherwise wherefore should you urge them in this case with The Church of England saith c. And yet however 2. You must know that if the Church of England say It is necessary that Infants should be Baptized it is upon a supposition that the affirmative
to be instituted by Christ and no more and sure then the man may count two and need not complain for want of the number numbring Secondly It 's necessary to Salvation to believe all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal but by the Scripture it cannot be made out plainly and clearly which Books are the word of God and which are Apocryphal First Your own Doctors distinguish betwixt an affirmative believing and a negative disbelief and though they make it damnable to disbelieve any one point when sufficiently represented to the understanding as revealed by God yet do they not make it necessary positively and expresly to believe all or any of the Books of Holy Scriptures to be so revealed and suppose they did it matters not sith it 's evident that the Scriptures themselves make believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and not believing all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God to be that Vnum necessarium that one thing necessary to Salvation And the Fathers in the Primitive times had differences and doubts about several Books of Scripture now commonly received for Canonical and yet were saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as we 2. Christians convinced by any means whatsoever that such and such Books in themselves Apocryphal be the word of God ought during that conviction believe them to be so and it is so far from being necessary to Salvation for them rebus sic stantibus to believ otherwise that it were obstinacy and interpretatively a denying of Gods veracity for them not so to believe formally as Chillingworth though not materially an Heresie 3. True it is that it cannot be made out by Scripture as by a Testimony or Argumentum inartificiale which Books are the Word of God and which be Apocryphal yet may this be made out plainly and clearly by Scripture Tanquam per Argumentum artificiale scilicet The Divine Characters that God himself hath imprinted on those Books that be indeed the Word of God nor need we trouble your Churches Authority though we confess our selves much beholding to the Churches ministry for the finding of them out Thirdly It is necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but there is no Text or Texts of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word 1. It is necessary for you and me to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we are perswaded though upon several grounds that they be so but that it is necessary for all persons so to believe will not be granted till you further explain your necessary and add proof for the evincing of it And yet however 2. There is a Text of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word For if there be a Text that expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God there is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word But there is a Text which expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God ergo There is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word The major is evident from universal Tradition assuring us that the Scriptures we now have be the same that the Jews and Christians had then The minor is evinced from that of Paul to Timothy whose Mother was a Jewess and Father a Greek all Scripture is divinely inspired 2 Tim. 3. Fourthly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted for if they be corrupted they cease to be the Word of God and then they cannot be any rule or sure guide to us But of this we have no assurance in Scripture 1. It is not necessary as hath been said to know the Scriptures to be the Word of God and therefore not necessary sure to know they are not corrupted Scripture or Writing is no more than one special means whereby God is pleased to make known and preserve in the World the knowledge of his Will if he do it any where by another Medium that will suffice Nay suppose as the man seems to do all along that the Scriptures be corrupted it cannot be necessary to know that they are not corrupted unless it be necessary to know that which is not possible to be known and so all men be necessarily damned 2. When we say the Scripture is the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies it is usually restrained to such controversies as do not concern the Scripture You will not allow us to argue the Church is no infallible Judge or Rule because the Church is forced to seek for other and higher proof than her own words to prove her self to be Infallible and if so why should we argue the Scripture to be no Rule because we cannot have assurance in Scripture that it is not corrupted it will be sufficient that we have assurance some other way 3. Scripture may be said to be corrupted in Essentials or Accidentals in whole or in part It may be corrupted in Accidentals the Words mis-spelled Sentences misplaced Words or Letters inserted or omitted and yet the mind and meaning of God what it is all that notwithstanding be evident from thence Every Book almost after its most perfect Edition hath Errata's and yet the Authors meaning may be plain enough Nay further Scripture may be corrupted in some parts and yet remaining pure in others Scriptura per Scripturam Scripture may be corrected by Scripture as a Jesuit of your own hath well observed Fifthly It is necessary in order to the knowing of the true mind meaning and will of God and what he intended by such and such a Text that we know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when mystically but this cannot be understood from Scripture as daily experience informs us 1. The Scripture supposes men to have the use of sense and reason and if so they may easily conclude as sure as God is truth the Spirit spake by the Prophets and Apostles accordingly as he meant the Prophets and Apostles writ according as the Spirit spake and writ for that end that the true mind meaning and will of God might be known and understood which could not be without perpetuated new Revelation except we might and ought to take that for his mind and meaning which the words in their literal construction hold out unto us Eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur De verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 certum est esse sensum Spiritus Sancti That says Bellarmin which is immediately gathered from the words is certain to be the sense of the Holy Ghost And therefore 2. vainly does he enquire and fondly distinguish of several senses of this or that Text whenas it is
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
Queens Chapel come in time to get advancement For Secondly If seditions Schisms Heresies amongst Protestants and discourses with Lay-Gentlemen in their quarters could have overturned the faith of Captains never so like to have been done as during the late distractions but for all that while though we heard of some Popish Champions turning Sectaries yet of no Sectarian Captain that became a Romanist Thirdly The mans carriage all along makes manifest that the selfish wisdom of the Old wily Serpent is yet remaining with him he knows well enough that there 's nothing more inconsistent with Papal government than the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy nor any thing more opposite to Popish Doctrine than the 39 Ariticles and yet can he neither be content to say ill nor say nothing of our English Episcopacy but upon occasion is bowing down himself unto it in the days of yore doubtless he got to be a Captain by praying and preaching like some sort of a Saint and now time after time is crying up himself for a good Subject leaves the Episcopal Church out of his Catalogue of Sects and pretends a great deal of Reverence to any profession that shall be established by Law But above all the just judgment of God is most remarkable in sending him and such like strong delusion that they should believe a lie and that because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved but had pleasure in unrighteousness nor need I divine the no love this man had to the truth and the great pleasure he always had and now hath in unrighteousness is notoriously manifest by his First Blaspheming the Spirit Secondly Abusing Reason Thirdly Vilifying the Scriptures Fourthly Wronging the Church Catholick Fifthly Belying Protestants Sixthly Dissembling the Tenets of the Papists The spirit is blasphemed 1. by giving that glory of Infallibility which is peculiar to the Holy Ghost to the organs or instruments by which he is pleased to reveal the mind of God Men speaking from deliberation use free-will may speak or not speak speak truth or falshood and consequently for that time cannot but be fallible And when men speak divinely yet not deliberately it is not properly they that speak but the Holy Ghost that speaketh in them The word of the Lord came to me saying The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it And in this case 't is the word spoken that is infallible and not they that speak it It were not proper for such on that account to say It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us but not we but the Holy Ghost not I but the Lord and hence the eternal God is said internally to demonstrate by his spirit and externally to confirm by miracles not the infallibility of the organ through which he speaks but the infallible truth of the word that is spoken And they went forth every where the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs following Mark 16.20.2 The spirit expresly 1 John 4.2 3. makes the Doctrine Preached the Rule according to which we are to try the spirits Hereby know we the spirit of God Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God and every spirit that confesseth not c. And yet does the man wittingly conceal that and wrests verse 6. to the making of the hearing of the Apostle the only rule of trying of spirits without regard had to their Doctrine Nor does he 〈◊〉 here but supposing we verse 6. to denote the same persons as ye verse 4. confidently concludes hearing of Christs Apostles then was therefore hearing Popish Priests now is the only rule The Apostle doubtless saw this mystery of iniquity beginning then to work and therefore leaves us a general Rule without any exception 2 Joh. ◠Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ he hath the Father and the Son If there come any to you and bringeth not this doctrine receive him not into the House neither bid him God speed 3. The man reviles the Saints that have received the Holy anointing tells how they would have the world believe that they have the spirit without bringing Reason Evidence Testimony or Authority to evince it whenas yet if either Reason Evidence Testimony or Authority may be regarded the Tree is known by its fruits and their having the spirit manifest by Love Joy Peace Long-suffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meekness Temperance Gal. 5.22 They confess that Jesus is come in the Flesh as aforesaid and that Jesus is the Lord which no man can but by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12.3 Nor need he trouble himself with telling Page 21. that if it be the spirit of God they have he is infallible in his teaching and both they and all the world are obliged under pain of Damnation to believe what he delivers as matter of faith to be true For 1. Though they say they have the spirit of God and that he is infallible in his teaching yet they do not say Pope-like that they are thereby made infallible in theirs He teacheth all of them the whole truth as it is in Jesus for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them saith the Lord Jer. 31.34 but teaches not any all the points of Doctrine that be true for we know in part and prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13.9 according to the measure of the gift of Christ Eph. 4.7.2 Both they and all the world are obliged under pain of Damnation to believe whatsoever God says is true and so many as know that there is an Holy Ghost are obliged in like manner to believe whatsoever shall be delivered by that promised spirit of truth But as to the particulars he shall deliver the case is different The Saints are severally bound to believe whatsoever he shall conviningly deliver to any of them and the world bound to believe whatsoever he shall convincingly deliver to the World when he comes he shall convince Joh. 16.8 Nor yet 3. do they look as some would seem to suppose that others should believe what they say to be true either because they say or prove that they have the Spirit whether of Adoption or Prophecy but because when and so far as that same Spirit by undeniable reasons and testimonies shall make manifest in their consciences the truth of what they do assert by the manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God 2 Cor. 4.2 Reason is a means whereby we come to know what is not what ought to be revealed a means whereby we judge of things Divine according to the Rule though yet it be not may not be called the Rule according to which we are to judge Reason I say that is thus useful and ought to be thus limited the man one while enslaves and then anon sets it up for an absolute Lord. When
reason comes to argue against the Churches Infallibility then must it Vassal-like submit not dispute not wait for an effectual conviction according to Christs promise and procedure And when he is come he shall convince c. but yield forthwith to what the Church says nay to whatsoever an ignorant English Romish Priest can have the confidence to say their Church hath sufficiently proposed or if Reason offer to produce arguments to prove the truth of Christianity and evince the Scripture to be the word of God urge Miracles Universal-Tradition conclude from Topicks internal external in other cases cogent and demonstrative yet then Reason is fallible subject to error a private spirit a fancy can make things at best appear no more than probable Jews Turks and Pagans may be as fully perswaded and upon as good rational grounds of the truth of their Religion as we can of ours But now if reason will be corrupted become an Advocate for Rome her very sophisms shall be cryed up as sufficient grounds for us to found our faith upon God will not be defective in necessaries and therefore there must be an infallible visible Judge Christ is the only absolute independent head of the Church but may and therefore hath appointed a dependent head derived from him It is most rational in business of civil concernment to rely on a Council of wise and learned men And therefore in things spiritual which God usually hides from the wise and prudent and the natural man receives not we ought to rely on a Council of Popish Prelates The Eunuch could not understand the Prophecy of Isaiah till ministerially expounded by Philip the Deacon And therefore cannot we understand that Text though already expounded no nor any other till Authoritatively interpreted by the Roman Church The Apostles Elders and Brethren when sent to sent out a Temporary Decree about things indifferent made then by circumstances in some places antecedently necessary binding only in those places and pressed with an if ye do these things ye do well And therefore the Cardinals Bishops and Abbots may and ought to frame an everlasting Law about points of Doctrine make that necessary for all men which God never made necessary for any and press it under the dread of an Anathema or pain of Eternal damnation Nay though God say to the Law and to the Testimony the Law of the Lord is perfect the Scripture able not only to make wise to Salvation but so far profitable that the man of God the Pastor may be throughly furnished unto every good work Hominem Dei vocat Doctorem Episcopum ut dixi Ep. 1. C. 6. ver 11. Cornel à Lapid yet it Reason can find any thing to say against the Scripture's being a Rule it shall be heard The Scripture then must not be a Rule and why Has God any where contradicted himself and said it must not Has he any where appointed another No but here 's a first reason and a second reason and a third reason c. and therefore it must be none and yet the sum of all no more than this Some Christians are dim-sighted some perverse many are carnal walk as men will not be ruled and therefore the Scripture is not the Rule Ruler sure he would have said some people are contentious Lawyers corrupt and differ in their opinions and therefore the Law of the Land is not what it is scilicet the Law of the Land according to which controversies may and ought to be decided and now The Church before under and since the Law will she nill she must always have been and for ever be this Rule when as yet it is evident that the Word was a rule both to Adam and Eve before the Church had Being it shall bruise thy head Genes 3.15 God said to Abraham so shall thy seed be and he believed in the Lord c. Gen. 15.5 6. Nor was it written for his sake alone but for us also Rom. 4.23 24. Ye shall not add to the word I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it was given in charge to the Church of the Jews Deut. 4.2 And if any man says the Apostle Preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received let him be accursed Gal. 1.9 These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name Joh. 20.31 Nor yet is it the question whether the Scripture accidentally taken or the Word as written but whether the Scripture taken Essentially or the mind of God communicated at sundry times and in divers manners to and by the Prophets Preached by the Apostles Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis cognovimus quà m per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postremò verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum nobis Iren. I. 3. c. 1. and now committed and conveyed down to us by Sacred writing always hath is ought to be owned for the rule of Faith or whether indeed because it seems you long to have the question stated with that advantage even in Abrahams and the Apostles times others as well as Sarah Gen. 21.10 and the Beraeans Act. 17.11 might not have urged demanded and without the just controul of any then visible authority have believed and acted according to the prescript of that Rule your own instances Page 53. of extraordinary actions done and Commands given by Gods directions by the mouths of several particular Prophets submitted to as you say without further enquiry do plainly evince as much and also intimate that the will or word of God which way soever it be made known whether immediately or mediately whether by Prophecy Tradition or Writing is and always has been the supream Rule both of Faith and Practice and its adequation as to matters of Faith as now contained in and expressed by the Scripture Sure footing for Christianity page 18. 20. shall be after cleared However the Church as your own J. S. well observes being a Congregation of the faithful must needs presuppose the notion of faithful faithful the notion of Faith Faith of the rule of Faith an evident argument that the Church is and ought to be regulated in believing and consequently she her self cannot be the rule of belief nor any more save as the same man says of Fathers Doctors and great Scholars and might as well have said the same of Tradition too a means to bring others to the knowledge of it But Secondly The man will needs seat authority in the Holy Catholick Church notwithstanding that authority Supream Magisterial formally as well as radically is seated in Christ All authority is given to me Matt. 28.18 Nor is the Church the subject but the object of the Ministerial Power He gave some Apostles some Pastors for the perfecting of the Saints
visible body Politick different from that invisible Church which is Christs mystical body the Texts you cite Acts 20.28 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Col. 1.24 2 5. Mat 16.18 do import no such thing for the four first distinguish betwixt the Church and the Overseers Officers or Ministers thereof seeming thereby to suppose that the Overseers not as Overseers in their Politick capacity but as believers respect had to their spiritual Union be truly members of the Church there mentioned and for the fifth if by Rock might be understood Peter it would as to this business be of the same import Augustin de verbis domini secund Mat. Serm. 13. Chamier Tom. 2. l. 11. chap. 23. And if by Rock with the great St. Augustin we understand Christ and so we ought and may as is made appear by Chamier the remoteness of the antecedent notwithstanding that Text relates to the Church builded the Church which is Gods own workmanship Eph. 2.10 holding out that to be it against which the Gates of Hell whether sin or death or the power or policy of spiritual Adversaries shall not prevail Secondly Your Doctors usually blame us for making two Churches the one visible and the other invisible And now you seem offended because we do not However without regard to either we affirm that the same Holy Catholick militant Church is both visible and invisible invisible respect had to its union and visible respect had to its profession of Faith in Christ Thirdly Yours I think do and therefore sure should you in this case distinguish inter Ecclesiam judicantem docentem betwixt the Church judging or defining and the Church teaching and have pleaded for that not this to be infallible as and for ours though its true they do affirm that the Church while teaching conformable to Scriptures teacheth Doctrine infallibly true yet do they never say that the Church in any sense is or ought to be denominated infallible No Sir the Church hath other precious priviledges other benefits by these promises and the Doctrine of Christ as hath and shall be made appear is and may be abundantly otherwise confirmed you need not for fear of debasing the Church below the Devil suppose her thus guilty of robbery in making her self equal with God Equal I say with God because infallibility is not an effect or fruit like love peace but an essential attribute of the Holy Ghost no more communicable to or predicable either of you or us than Omnipresence or Omnipotency It 's God alone that cannot lie Titus 1.2 howbeit in some cases others through his grace shall not Fourthly The books of Scripture Pag. 83. which you are pleased to accept as Gods written word and Divine revelations were first delivered unto you by Catholicks and accepted of by your Ancestors upon the score and word of Roman Catholicks Priests and Monks together with the same sense and interpretation which the Roman Catholick Church now teacheth and which was then confirmed by miracles as aforesaid First You confess Pag. 84. Querie the third that there is a Greek Church and an Ethiopian Church distinct from yours and we can tell you out of Reinerius cont Haeret. cap. 4. of Leonists or Lollards that were dispersed into all Countries have continued ever since the Apostles lived justly and believed all the Articles contained in the Creed Our Ancestors might receive the books of Scripture as Gods written word from Catholicks and yet never be beholding to the Romanists for it But be it so that our Ancestors did as you say what then Did not the Primitive Christians receive the books of the Old Testament from the Jews and yet rejected their Traditions nay disputed against the Jewish Traditions out of those very books How ever Secondly These books were not accepted as aforesaid upon the score and word of the Roman Catholick Priests and Monks for our Ancestors had the Priests and Monks word for the Apocrypha books as well as for the Canonical and yet did they reject those and accept these because they found convincing reasons so to do Thirdly True it is your Priests are sworn not to interpret Scripture against the sense which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold but that they do so or ever delivered unto our Ancestors any such an interpretation much less any confirmed by Miracles remains for you to prove and is a fable we know nothing of though yet Fourthly If you your Priests and Monks or any body else can bring us to the certain knowledge thereof or any other traditions so confirmed we shall without further ado accept of hold them as fast as we can and in the mean while no little marvel that you knowing so well of such a sense should spend time in troubling us with your own private glosses Nor yet is the last the least sign of a brazen forehead the Apostate blushes not to tell to all the world that he has now learned to hate and abhorr Rebellion and Treason as much as Hell and Damnation Pag. 86. notwithstanding that First The general approved Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third decrees that if the Temporal Lord being required and admonished of the Church shall neglect to purge his Country of Heretical defilments the Pope may from thenceforth denounce his Vassals absolved from their fidelity and may expose his Country to be seised on by Catholicks who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and keep it in the purity of Faith The Popish Bishops and Priests declare and swear extra hanc veram fidem Catholicam non est salus out of this true Catholick Faith there is no Salvation The summ of all the Captain has learned and would have us to learn is to believe as the Church believes and consequently is so far from having learned to hate and abhor rebellion as Hell and Damnation as he believes all such shall be damned to Hell as do not hold it lawful such procedure first had by the Church and Pope to rise up in Rebellion against their Lord and King Secondly The Oath of Allegiance was composed and imposed on purpose to distinguish the Loyal and disloyal Romanists the Popes power of Excommunication not at all therein touched no point of doctrine inserted and yet is the Popish Religion so near allied to Rebellion that it commands her Vassals rather to suffer death than bind themselves by Oath to perform Allegiance to their Lord and King though yet to say truth Thirdly The Papists in this deal more candidly than in any other thing that I know of for should they take this Oath as sometimes some of them in policy may do it were no better than taking Gods name in vain The Pope if antecedently he have not may yet at pleasure absolve them from it they may this notwithstanding be free to rebel so soon as there is an opportunity and â—ill there be an opportunity it is not likely that men so wise
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
may evidently be proved from Scripture for if you or any else shall evince that Infants-Baptism cannot be proved from the Scriptures the Church of England Article the sixth hath expresly declared against the necessity of it 2. You cannot but have heard of haec homo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a Man examine himself c. 1 Cor. 11.28 Women as well as Men are there required self examination and not Auricular confession first had to receive the Eucharist Nor 3. Can you be ignorant that there is a difference betwixt the Lords-day being necessary to be observed and its being necessary that Christians should observe the Lords-day That would imply a Doctrinal This no more than an obediential necessity That if held by any the Church of England will tell you ought to be proved particularly from Scripture This needs no more but a general warrant Eleventhly It is a sin as the generality of Christians agree an heresie to re-baptize any one which hath been baptized by an Heretick where doth the Scripture say so 1. Those that hold it a sin and heresie to rebaptize any one Videtur quod Baptismus possit iterari sed contra est quod dicitur Eph 4. una fides unum baptisma Aquinas 3. quaest 66. Art 9. c. found their opinion upon Scripture One Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5.2 Cyprian held such ought to be re-baptized dyed in that opinion and yet dyed a Saint and Martyr 3. The Thesis here laid down without restriction is apparently false contradicting the Nineteenth Canon of the Council of Nice Si quis confugit ad Ecclesiam Catholicam de Paulianist Cataphrygiis statutum est rebaptizari If any one of the Paulianists and Cataphrygians fly unto the Catholick Church it is Decreed That they ought to be re-baptized And now it being evident that neither your Argument nor instances make against but for the Scriptures being a sole sufficient Rule let us try what they 'll do on that account against or for your Romish Church Whatsoever is a sole sufficient Rule must be plain and clear in all necessary points at least which relate to Faith But the Roman Church is not plain and clear in all necessary points that relate to Faith Therefore the Roman Church is not the sole sufficent Rule The major is your own nor shall I need to trouble any body else for instances to prove the minor First then it is necessary you say to know how many Sacraments Christ ordained and yet your Church leaves it doubtful whether anointing with Oyl was ordained by Christ a Sacrament or not Insinuated she says it was Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 1. Mark 6. but does not dare not say it was there or any where else instituted as such Secondly It is necessary to salvation you say to believe all the Books of the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal And yet as to this Your Church is so dark and dubious See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 7. that though Bellarmine contend that the Council of Trent did define the additaments to the Book of Hester to be canonical Sixtus Senensis believes otherwise and brings Arguments against it Nay if it be necessary to know which Books be the Word of God and which Apocryphal it is necessary sure to know which Traditions be Dominical or Apostolical which not and yet concerning this your Church is silent Thirdly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted it is necessary to know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when Mystically it is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translations of the Scriptures which we have and upon which we ground our selves are certainly true it is necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided it is necessary to know what is Fundamental what not and yet as to none of these your Church is plain and clear Fourthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth from the Father and the Son that Christ is of one substance with the Father and that these Three are One and that One Three and yet suppose these points not plainly and clearly to be found in Scriptures how possibly could the Church for the first three hundred years be said to be plain and clear concerning them for during that time there was no General Council whereby she might explain her self and if she did explain her self in General Councils after that implyed her former darkness and deficiency with respect to those very points Fifthly It is a sin and heresie you say to re-baptize any one who hath been Baptized by an Heretick and yet as hath been said your Church that I mean you take the boldness to call your Church is so far from being plain and clear in this that she hath defined the contrary Nay plainness and clearness owned as it is and ought to be for an essential property of the Rule of Faith P. 54 56. the whole of what you have said in behalf of the Church if granted true will amount to as much as nothing For suppose Christ judge the Nations not by his Word and Spirit in the mouths of his Ministers but as you phrase it by his Churches Tribunal in passing of Acts and pronouncing Anathema's suppose the Church to be what you would have it and not only led if she will but so drawn that she follow the Spirit into all truth sic de caeteris yet what were all this to the purpose For it would not necessarily follow thence that she is plain and clear in all necessary points the Apostles sure if any might so judge and were so drawn Pag. 37. and yet you say that they in their Epistles are defective dark very subject and that in fundamentals desperately to be misunderstood Nor do you trouble us with telling that the Church is always in being Pag. 61. and capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense For 1. If we cannot certainly understand the Apostles when explaining and declaring their sense and meaning how shall we be able certainly to understand your Church when explaining and declaring hers sith the Church hath no other way to explain her meaning save by words most intelligible which way the Apostles had and did make use of as is evident from 1 Cor. 14.2 The question is whether the Church be actually plain and clear in all necessary points not whether the Church be capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense being plain and clear and capable upon demand to explain and declare be different things this belongs to an Interpreter of no concern here it 's that that is pertinent and the
property of a Rule And yet 3. The Church diffusive is not capable either of explaining or of being demanded to explain its own sense Council or Church representative there has been none at your own account for a whole Century of years nor likely to be any more and it cannot be imagined that by Church you should mean the Pope because other reasons at present omitted you referr to a Church always in being However 4. Frustra est potentia quae non reducitur in Actum What are we nearer having or the Church nearer being a Rule of Faith for her being capable of doing that which by no means she 'l be gotten to do Often has she been demanded I now demand and desire you to demand her to explain her self touching the points forementioned as also touching those after instanced in the close of my answer to the third Querie and if she do explain her sense as to those points we shall conclude that hitherto she hath not been a sole sufficient Rule for want of that explanation if she do not at the best she 'l be but remotely capable of being hereafter and at present be no Rule of Faith nor yet indeed is she capable at this account of being hereafter or rather would you speak properly making such a Rule because disenabled by the first general Council at Ephesus from ever making tanquam de fide any such an explanation Can. 7. That there are in the Scriptures several places which to common reason seem contradictions and consequently some parts of Scripture seem untrue is easily proved And I shall here give you some few plain instances for example to which many more might be added First It 's well you distinguish betwixt private and common Reason for though you exempt each mans private Spirit or Reason from meddling about interpreting of Scriptures you 'l sure admit common Reason to be of special use unless you 'l say that Reason ought to be abused for finding out of contradictions in Scriptures but must by no means be employed either in unfolding or reconciling the difficult places that occur therein Secondly Either Reason can judge of things and propositions when contradictory or not if not wherefore do you tell stories of several places seeming to common Reason to contradict one another so seeming that thereupon Scripture must be rejected from being a Rule and if Reason can thus judge wherefore should not your Church be rejected from being a Rule as well as Scriptures sith her Doctrines seem to Reason and often to common Sense too to be more contradictory than any of these Texts A Council is above the Pope A Council is not above the Pope hoc this scilicet bread or nothing is the body is really Christs body at London at Rome on Earth in Heaven the very same moment Every man is a lyar The Pope as Pope is a man unless he be either Accidens or animal irrationale and yet the Pope as Pope is no lyar in no possibility to be mistake Nay further these very places you say seem contradictory your Church teaches to be certainly true in her Authoritative approval of the Canon of Scripture so that if upon this account you 'l reject Scripture upon the same account you may must reject the Church from being a Rule and yet rather the Church than the Scripture for the Scripture barely presents us with the places your Church passeth sentence says they are all true unless you 'l tell us your Churches saying can make contradictions true at once and warrant you to believe it howbeit Gods saying cannot do so Thirdly Had you had many more plain instances it is not like you would have troubled the Reader with these your task is to prove that the Scripture is not plain and clear in all necessary points and is it not then for want of some more pertinent that you present us with doubts and difficulties about Chronologies and Genealogies concerning which the Apostle forbids us to dispute you had better have said with the great Master of Reason Grotius afflatu Dei locutos quae locuti sunt scripsisse quae scribere jussi sunt Prophetas de scriptis Historicis Moralibus Hebraeorum sententiis aliud puto In 2 Kings chap. 8. verse 26. you read thus Pag. 45. Twenty two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem and his Mothers name was Athaliah the Daughter of Omri But 2 Chron. chap. 22. verse 2. you will read thus Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem his Mothers name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri Now against the infallibility of Scripture Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demonstration viz. No one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other can be said to be infallible in speaking but to affirm of the same person that he began to reign when he was two and twenty years old and that he was two and forty years old when he began to reign is to speak two things the one contrary to the other therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking First I am glad to find you in hand with infallible demonstrations for if demonstrations Theological be to be had and may be owned as infallible I hope there will be no great need amongst sober persons of your judicial Decisions unless you can get licence to demonstrate against and we neither for by nor from the Scriptures Secondly Your Major is denyed for heat and cold are two things contrary one to another and yet I hope God himself may be infallible notwithstanding he hath said Summer and Winter heat and cold Gen. 8.22 You would say if you could speak No one that delivereth two propositions the one contrary to the other can be said to be infallible though yet this will not do neither for you your self might speak and write too these two propositions Ahaziah began to reign when he was forty and two years old And Ahaziah began to reign when he was twenty and two years old and yet this notwithstanding did nothing else hinder be infallible But that it may be sense and pertinent your Major must be supplied from your Minor No one that affirms two things of the same person that are contrary the one to the other can be said to be infallible in speaking But to affirm of Ahaziah that he was twenty and two years old when he began to reign and that he was forty and two years old when he began to reign is to speak two things contrary the one to the other yes and more too or else nothing to the purpose scilicet to affirm of the same person two things contradictory one to the other See Light-foots Harmony in â—oc which yet this Scripture doth not for the Book of Chronicles in this place meaneth not that Ahaziah was so old when he began to Reign but these
grounds of assurance for all points of Christian Religion affirmatively negatively respect had to their Verity and yet have we not the same grounds for all respect had unto their Charity and therefore may we have assurance for all upon the same grounds yet not the same assurance 4. The Spirit is sent in a special manner to convince the world of sin for not believing and to perswade all the Elect to believe in Jesus Christ But which or how many other points the Holy Ghost will certainly give in evidence for or against I shall not determine Thirdly Suppose I were willing upon their perswasions to relinquish this way wherein I now am what sort of Christianity viz. whether the way of the Lutheran or Calvinist of the Greeks Church or of the Armenian or Ethiopian or whether the way of the English Independents or Anabaptists or Quakers or of the Fifth monarchy-men or the way of the new Arrians or Socinians or any other and what shall I follow and why as the only secure way to salvation or is it enough to secure my salvation if I be a Christian opposing the Roman Church and believe or disblieve what I please so it be in contradiction to the Roman Church 1. I can easily suppose you convinced of the naughtiness of the way that you are in and yet at present cannot suppose you willing to relinquish it for any of those ways you mention indeed there is another way you seem to be thinking of because you say nothing of it and had not your perfidiousness been such that the Chieftains thereof will not allow you preferment I little question but they have Motives that might work upon you 2. The way as you call it of the Lutherans the way of the Calvinists Arminians English Independents be not several sorts of Christianity or several ways to salvation but several opinions held out several forms of Government under which several Christians live that are all in the same secure way to salvation viz. Jesus Christ and therefore 3. I shall not perswade you first or last to be of any of these ways but as you say well to become a Christian believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and him alone for salvation and then as to other points believe or disbelieve not what you please but what God in an humble use of lawful means shall be pleased to make known unto you Lord what wilt thou have me to do Acts 9.6 And then though I cannot tell which of the ways forementioned you 'l be for may be for none yet certain I am you 'l stand up with me in contradiction to the Church of Rome because she above all other Sects sets her self most notoriously to contradict our only Lord Jesus Christ will needs sit as God in the Temple of God However 4. suppose I were willing upon your perswasions to relinquish this way wherein I now am what sort of Popery viz. whether the way of the Dominicans Jesuits or Franciscans or the way of the French or Italian or the way of your Thomists or Scotists nominal or reals or whether the way of J. S. who makes Tradition or the way of R. E. who makes the Church the Rule of Faith of any other and what shall I follow and why as the only secure way to salvation or is it enough to secure my Salvation if I be a Papist opposing the Protestant Churches and believe or disbelieve what the Priest my Confessor pleases so it be in contradiction to the Protestant Churches If 't be said that yet for all this you do not differ in points of Faith We answer First you differ in what is more considerable the foundation and Rule J. S. and his party holding Tradition R. E. and his party holding the Church to be the Rule of Faith And then in a subdivision the Italians holding the Pope The French maintaining that the Council and R. E. again that the vast community of all Christians c. ought to be meant by the Church Nor does it end thus Bellarmin holds that by Miracles the Church can be proved true no more than credibly you 'l needs prove your Church by Miracles to be the universal Judge and the infallible Guide of Faith and that certainly certitudine fidei directly contrary to and far enough beyond what Bellarmin ere attempted 2. The differences betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans Whether God predeterminate every action Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight be about points of Faiths and more material than any point in Controversie betwixt Presbyterians Independents and Anabaptists If you say you agree in all points your Church has defin'd to be of Faith it 's not simply and unanimously as you pretend to agree in all points of Faith but in all your Church has defin'd or can agree that you should agree in whose definitions and politick Arbitration together with your irrational forced submissions be nothing to us nor to the Question However you use to tell us herewithal that an agreement in the letter or words is worth nothing unless there be an agreement in sense And now you controvert the sense of almost all your Churches definitions Conc. Trid. Sess 25. Due Honour and veneration saith your Church must be given to Images and then one sort of you conclude the Image in it self must not in any manner be worshipped Bellar. de Imag. sanct l. 2. c. 20. but only the exemplar be worshipped before the Image Another sort that the same honour is due to the Image as is due to the exemplar And a third sort that the Images in themselves and properly ought to be honoured but with a lesser Honour than the exemplar it self and if you urge yet that you all agree the definitions to be true in the sense intended by the Church her self we reply that you your selves be the Church that thus falls out about the sense do not know what 's your own meaning and add further that we all agree the Scriptures to be true in the sense intended by God yet will not that content you Fourthly Whether they who would teach me that sort of Christianity to be the only Religion wherein Salvation is to be attained which they would have me follow and imbrace be infallible in their teaching of this particular We do not tell you of this or that sort of Christianity being the only Religion wherein but of Jesus being the only Christ through faith in whom Salvation is to be attained and though we dare not say that we are infallible in teaching this particular yet are we certain that this particular which we teach is true infallibly and that one infallible according to Christs own promise Matt. 28.20 goes along with us in teaching thereof your Priests want such company and therefore not being able their Ministry powerfully to evidence in mens understandings the verity of what they set themselves to Preach they labour to set up an infallible visible Authority unto
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
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