Whether we may be infallibly certain out of the Church or how we can find out the Church infallibly if the Church alone be infallible and that we cannot be infallibly certain till we come into the Church Q. 9. Where is the Seat of Infallibility in the Church whether in every particular Person or the Supreme Pastor or a General Council And whether they all agree in this matter Q. 10. Whether what they disagree in can be the Sentiment of the whole Church or that we are hound to believe what they cannot agree in Q. 11. Whether we are any more bound to believe the Infallibility of their Church which they thus disagree in than the Address would perswade us we are not obliged to believe the Trinity because the Arians tho Christians deny it Q. 12. How one at a vast distance of Time or Place can be infallibly assured of the Certainty of those Decrees which are said to proceed from an Infallible Power or that he can be any more certain of the Truth Certainty and Sense of these than he can be of the Truth Authority and Sense of Scripture Q. 13. Whether our Saviour has not spoken as plainly and intelligibly in Scripture as his pretended Vicar or their Councils have done in their Decrees and Canons Q. 14. Whether when the Persons that publish or give the Sense of those Decrees and Canons are Fallible a Person can be infallibly certain that these are the very Decrees or that the true Sense of them Or whether a Person in these Circumstances can be any more certain tho a Member of an Infallible Church than another may be that is a Member of a Fallible Church Q. 15. Whether for example we can be any more certain that there ever was such a Pope as Pope Pius or that ever there was such a Creed drawn up by him or that this or that is an Article or the Sense of it than we are that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are clearly contained in them These are the Questions in the Answer and which I have drawn out in order I hope they shew themselves to be Sense it remains to the Prover to shew they have no difficulty to be resolved All well-meaning Protestants finding that Scripture interpreted the Protestant-way is so far from being an easie and clear Rule of Faith that a Protestant in the Answer to an Address made to the Ministets of the Church of England approved by a Chaplain to the highest Ecclesiastical Authority under the King cannot as much as teach by it the first Principles of Christian Religion will seek a better method of using that Divine Rule and not be hereafter so easily imposed upon by those Guides who give them but their own private fancies under the Veil and Name of the Word of God. I was I confess surprized to find Guil. Needham c. approving this Answer but God and Truth are of our side Et inimici nostri sunt Judices the weakness of our Opposers Arguments bear a proof to it Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam I may now leave the case to all well-meaning Protestants for who that is of that number or indeed is impartial but may soon discern who they are that make the Scripture a Rule of Faith Whether those that resolve all Necessaries to Salvation wholly into it or those that join Tradition with it in Esteem and Authority They may again as soon discern Whether the Scripture be Easie and Clear and best understood in the Protestant Method when it 's Translated for Vulgar use in the Mother Tongue and the People are allowed and exhorted to read it or in the Popish Method when it 's kept in an unknown Tongue or if Translated not permitted to be read by them Whether again They feed them with their own private Fancies that teach the people nothing but what both Teacher and Hearer learn from Scripture or they that make things necessary to be believed and done which are not contained in Scripture I find our Author surpriz'd to find Guil. Needham a Chaplain to the highest Eeclesiastical Authority under the King we know who they are that set up an Ecclesiastical Authority above the King to approve the Answer But why so surprized When it 's likely G. N. was as confident as the Prover could be on his own that God and Truth are on the Answerer's side and perhaps might have a good opinion of his Performance though I grant it 's likely not as good as our Author hath of his own Clear Proof Here I should have ended but it seems the poor Answer has met with another Adversary one as he himself tells us that at a full mixed Assembly in the City so laid it open that most of the Protestants there ashamed of it found no better Salvo than to disown the Answerer as an Ignorant Scribler who had betrayed his Cause I wish this successful Undertaker had but given us a Breviate of the Case as he propounded it to that Assembly for if he managed it in the same way as his Friend the Prover has done or as he himself has answered the Preservative sometimes omitting sometimes mangling and at all times Misrepresenting his Adversaries Arguments I will for once excuse my Friends the Protestants if they then thought the Answerer worthy of no better a Character than is here related who I hope for the future they will have less reason to believe an Adversary and use that kind of liberty which the Church of Rome so much envies them and belongs to them as Men and as Christians and judg for themselves by seeing with their own eyes whether the Cause is maintained or betrayed But after all I know not whether I may not have as little reason to believe him concerning these Protestants as they had to believe him concerning the Answer FINIS Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell THE Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome By the Author of the Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist 4 o. Mr Pulton Considered in his Sincerity Reasonings Authorities Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True Account his True and Full Account of a Conference c. His Remarks and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T 's Rule of Faith. By Th. Tenison D. D. A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church and inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation Being a sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other late Collections of the Fathers pretending to the Contrary 4 o. An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy With a Reply to the Vindicator's Full Answer shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruin'd the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery 4 o. An Answer to the Popish Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England 4 o. An Abridgment of the Prerogatives of St. Ann Mother of the Mother of God with the Approbations of the Doctors of Paris thence done into English with a PREFACE concernining the Original of the Story The Primitive Fathers no Papists in Answer to the Nubes Testium to which is added a Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints in Answer to the Challenge of F. Sabran the Jesuit wherein is shewn that Invocation of Saints was so far from being the Practice that it was expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers 4 o. An Answer to a Discourse concerning the Celibacy of the Clergy lately Printed at Oxford 4 o. The Virgin Mary Misrepresented by the Roman Church In the Traditions of that Church concerning her Life and Glory and in the Devotions paid to her as the Mother of God. Both shewed out of the Offices of that Church the Lessons on her Festivals and from their allowed Authors Dr. Tenisons Sermon of Discretion in giving Alms. 12 o. A Discourse concering the Merits of Good Works The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in some Observations upon the Life of Ignatius Loyola Founder of the Order of Jesus A Vindication of the Answer to the Popish Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England 4 o. Reflections upon the Books of the Holy Scripture in order to establish the Truth of the Christian Religion in 3 Parts 8 vo In the Press The Texts which the Papists cite out of the Bible for Proof of the Points of their Religion Examin'd and shew'd to be alledged without Ground In several distinct Discourses Five whereof are published viz. Popery not founded in Scripture The Introduction Texts concerning the Obscurity of Holy Scripture Of the Insufficiency of Scripture and Necessity of Tradition Of the Supremacy of St. Peter and the Pope over the whole Church In Two Parts Of Infallibility The Rest will follow Weekly in their Order Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof De Praesc Ep. 7. Vindication De verbo non Scripto l. 4. c. 12. SS dico secundo Script Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof De Doctr. Ch. l. 2. c. 9. Vindication Contr. Liter Petiliani l. 3. c. 6. Clear Proof Vindication De Verbo l. 4. c. 10. ss Respondeo ad primum De Verbo l. 4. c. 10. ss Neque Ut supra C. 12. ss Respondeo ad C. 11. ss Septimo Clear Proof 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 13. Vindication Cap. 10. 8. Quod autem Clear Proof Luc. 10. 25. Luc. 16. 29. Vindication Clear proof Mat. 7. 15. In Jo. l. 1. c. 4. L. 4. de Bapt. cont Don c. 16. L 2 con Gaud. In Dim H. Vindication De Verbo l. 4. c. 4. ss septimo De Unit. Eccles c. 18. C 19. Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication De Christo l. 1. c. 4 c. De Christo l. 1. c. 4. ss Quod autem De Christo l. 1. c. 6. ss Secundo probo Clear Proof Vindication Epist Imper. Theod. n. 6. Concil Tom. 4. Ad Monach. Aegypt ss 12. Clear Proof Gen. 2. 3. Vindication Epist 118. Contr. Adimant c. 16. Nova Collectio Concil Baluz p. 10. Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Cc. 2. in Psal 30. De Vnit Eccl. l 4. c. 8. Gal. 5. Vindication De Pastore c. 14. Clear Proof Vindication Clear Proof Vindication An Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Preservative
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-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
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
A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER TO THE POPISH ADDRESS Presented to the Ministers of the Church of England In Reply to a Pamphlet abusively Intituled A Clear Proof of the Certainty and Vsefulness of the Protestant Rule of Faith c. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Vindication of the Answer to the Address c. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest April 26. 1688. LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M DC LXXXVIII A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER To the POPISH ADDRESS c. A Clear Proof of the Certainty and Usefulness of the Protestant Rule of Faith Scripture after the Help of Ministerial Guides finally Interpreted by each Man 's private Sense A Title seemingly belonging to a Protestant Book and a Book wrote by a Protestant if the Title and Book do agree But that they are so far from that if Truth and Ability had been on the Author's side it might have been more truly call'd with respect to his Design A clear Disproof of the Certainty c. But why so much Caution Why is not the Address or Answer to it so much as named in the Title We are left to guess and because every man may in such a case use his liberty I could upon Perusal of his Book guess at no reason sooner than that the Prover was not very confident of the sufficiency of his Defence and might by such a clandestine Title secure himself against a further Reply unless his Adversary had nothing else to do than to read all the Pamphlets printed by H. H. or some unlucky Chance should make the Discovery And to say the truth the Prover might have succeeded in his Design and have triumphed in the Victory he had thus secretly stollen had not a little Accident though somewhat late first brought it under his Adversary's eye This proof is drawn from the Answer to the Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England The Author thereof had required that clear and plain Texts of Scripture be offer'd which interpreted in the Protestant way by those who receive it thus expounded for their whole Rule of Faith should so prove the two principal Articles of Christian Belief the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ as also the Obligation of keeping holy the Sunday and not Saturday as one of the Commandments seems to require and that so convincingly that a Christian might ground on them his Faith. Interpreted I say in the Protestant-way without any deciding church-Church-Authority when doubts arise about the sense of the Letter The Prover's Design is to expose the Protestant Rule of Faith and to that end because he had no better way is forced to Misrepresent it For thus he saith Scripture interpreted in the Protestant way is received by them thus expounded for their whole Rule of Faith. But he well knew or should know that the Scripture is with Protestants a Rule of Faith as it 's the Word of God and their whole Rule of Faith as it 's the only Word of God and so is as uncapable of taking in any humane Exposition to be a part of that Rule as it is of any new Revelation That is the Scripture depends not upon the sense given it by any man or Order of men for its being thus a Rule but upon its own Authority But he ventures a little further by way of Explication Scripture saith he interpreted in the Protestant way without any deciding church-Church-Authority when doubts arise about the Sense of the Letter But supposing there are no doubts about the sense of the Letter then it seems there is in that case no use of any such deciding Authority and that we may be certain of the sense of the Letter without such Authority If so then it would be known of what kind that Certainty is which may be attained without such Authority and whether it be not attained by the use of Reason and Understanding and so is at last resolved into what he decries Private Sense But put the case as he would have it and supposing there be a doubt about the sense of the Letter I demand whether we may not by the like use of our Reason arrive to the same sort of certainty in the things we now doubt of as we have arrived to in the things we are at present certain of without any deciding church-Church-Authority As for example Suppose a doubt ariseth about this deciding church-Church-Authority it self how shall the doubt be decided If we seek to the deciding church-Church-Authority that is the thing in question if we repair to the Scripture the Sense of that is to be declared and determined by the deciding church-Church-Authority and if we take any other measures for understanding it we fall into the dangerous and abhorr'd extreme of finally interpreting it by private Sense So that either the matter is uncapable of proof and must be taken for granted and there is a deciding Church-Authority because there is so or else if it be to be proved it must be by the same way that other things are proved in and that is by producing the Reasons for it and according to the Judgment made upon it thereby it 's ultimately to be decided And then farewel to the deciding church-Church-Authority when in a matter of so great Consequence and the first Point to be resolved in it must be submitted to each mans private Sense The Addresser holds if he be a Catholick That Scripture rightly understood is a Rule of Faith That the Gospel revealed by Christ preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Catholick Church is so much our whole Rule of Faith that we own with Tertullian we need not be curiously searching since Christ nor further inquisitive since the Gospel was preached No new Revelations no new Articles being received as of Catholick Faith but those Truths only retained which the Church proposes as delivered to her by the Apostles her whole authority being ever employed as Pope Celestine delivers it to the Council of Ephesus in providing that what was delivered and preserved in a continual Succession from the Apostles be retained so that nothing is of Faith but what God revealed by the Prophets and the Apostles or what evidently follows from it the Catholick Church ever handing it to us and declaring it to be so The Gospel revealed by Christ preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Catholick Church is their whole Rule of Faith. No new Revelations no new Articles being received as of Catholick Faith. What seemingly more Orthodox and spoken more like a Protestant But our Author for fear of Correction tempers it immediately with some of their own Ingredients here and there cautiously applied As for example if we ask Whether the Scripture be their whole Rule of Faith He answers Scripture rightly understood is a Rule of Faith the Gospel revealed by Christ and preserved
he found nothing to reply 4. I proved it from the observation of that day and the Service celebrated upon it Act. 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2. What has he here to say I find Acts 2. 46. saith he how they that believed were daily continuing in the Temple but not a word of a day appointed for solemn Assemblies What use can be made of this accurate Observation and the stress he lays upon daily What but this The believers daily resorted to the Temple therefore they had no peculiar day and so it follows most admirably the Jews daily repaired to the Temple therefore they had no peculiar day no Sabbath But he finds not a word of a day appointed for stated Assemblies no not so much as Acts 20. 7. c. quoted and insisted on in the Answer Having thus dismiss'd the third question of the Answer with all the supernumerary Questions collected out of it by the Prover I went to look for Question the fourth as it is in the Answer and put by the Addresser and that is Whether it be necessary to salvation for him to believe the Trinity and Incarnation that cannot find them clearly express'd in Scripture though he reads it sincerely and with humility But of this not a word We may guess at the reason without casting a figure However it 's a little more honest to omit a Paragraph than it is to pervert it The former is an implicit acknowledgment of Truth the latter is a renouncing it Q. 7. Am I bound to believe the sense given to a doubtful Text because my Guides tell me I must do so Ans No plainly No And he hath two Texts for it the first 2 Cor. 1. 24. Not for that we have dominion over your Faith but are helpers says St. Paul and Mat. 23. 8. Call no man Master on earth for one is your Master Here not only the Walls of the City of God are broken down but the very Foundations of Prophets and Apostles are digg'd up is it all St. Paul could do all you allow him to give some light some helps when his Proselytes had any doubt about the sense of Scripture Were they not oblig'd to believe the Sense and Interpretation He gave to the Text Then that Faith is vain which was founded on the Apostles Preaching and all Christianity stands on a wrong bottom Here our Author is guilty of another omission For the Answerer exhibited a five-fold Charge against him of Fallacy and Collusion which he has taken no manner of care to clear himself of but suffers it to remain in its full force against himself He has indeed proceeded otherwise in this last Question For whereas before in the Address he set up a Guide that is a Judge whom it's necessary so to believe and to submit to as to receive from him such Necessaries to Salvation as are not contained in Scripture and the sense of such Necessaries as are not clearly contained in it he now in the proof softens and extenuates and expounds and the Question now is reduced to this Am I bound to believe the Sense given to doubtful Texts because my Guide tells me I must do so This indeed may better serve his purpose but after all is neither true in it self nor can be accommodated to his former notion of a Guide and the authority given to him For what has doubtful Texts to do with the Case where there are no Texts concerned What has a Sense given to Scripture to do with a Case which is to be determined without Scripture As it is in Necessaries not contained in Scripture and which we are to learn from our Guide that we are bound to follow But supposing we take his Exposition that this is when the Texts be doubtful yet the Things those Texts are supposed to be concerned in are Things necessary to Salvation and so to believe a Guide absolutely as to the sense of a doubtful Text is equivalent to the believing him where there is no Text pretended Since the Person in doubt is no more assur'd of the sense of these Texts in a Point necessary than he was without a Text. For when there is no Text for a thing necessary he absolutely relies upon his Guide who tells him it is necessary And when there is a sense given to a doubtful Text he believes that sense because his Guide tells him that is the sense of it and so he still relies upon his Guide and his Faith is thus immediately resolved into the Guide And it seems this the Answerer doth deny and that upon the Authority of our Saviour who disallows it Mat. 23. 8. and the Apostle who disclaims it 2 Cor. 1. 24. But here our Author is beside all patience and answers it with a dreadful Exclamation Here not only the Walls of the City of God are broken down but the very Foundations of Prophets and Apostles are digg'd up And why so because we will not admit a Guide of their own Imposition in defiance of our Saviour's and St. Paul's prohibition to the contrary But O saith our Author Is it all St. Paul could do all you allow him to give some light some helps when his Proselytes had any doubt about the Sense of Scripture Were they not obliged to believe the Sense and Interpretation he gave to the Text Then c. Here the Prover is either confounded in his own thoughts or intends to confound and amuse his Reader The Opinion he maintains is That in matters of doubt a Person doubting is to be absolutely concluded by his Guide I am to believe saith he because my Guides tell me I must do so Now he would have it that to deny this Authority to the Apostles is to allow them only to give some light some helps that is as I conceive he means to make them no more than Common Teachers But I shall endeavour if it may be to set our Author right in this matter Toward which it 's to be observed 1. That there is an absolute and sovereign Authority in the Church which all are bound to follow believe and obey without any dispute and that Authority is soly the prerogative of our Saviour and which no man or society of men can claim Mat. 23. 8 9. 2. There is a subordinate Authority which is immediately derived from him and this was peculiar to inspired Persons and is extraordinary So the Apostle saith of himself Gal. 1. 11 12. The Gospel which was preached of me is not after man For I neither received it of man neither was I taught it but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ But as such Persons were sent so they were able to prove their Commission and their Doctrine to be received from Christ And they did not require any to believe them because they told them they were their Guides and they must believe them because they tell them so for that was to have dominion over their Faith but they appealed to the Scriptures to