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-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-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-Authority As for example Suppose a doubt ariseth about this deciding Church-Authority it self how shall the doubt be decided If we seek to the deciding 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-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-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
by the Catholick Church is their whole Rule of Faith. Is it asked again Whether there are no new Revelations no new Articles received as of Catholick Faith He answers These Truths are only received which the Church proposes as delivered to her by the Apostles The meaning of which Phrases the Gospel rightly understood and preserved by the Church and the Truths which the Church proposes as delivered is that which is thus preserved proposed delivered and interpreted by the Church is as much the Rule as the Scripture and that without this Tradition and Exposition of the Church the Scripture is in Bellarmine's Phrase but a partial Rule Scripture thus interpreted is a Catholick Rule of Faith the Addresser therefore meant nothing less than to diminish its Divine Authority his design was to preserve it and that each mans private sense might not sacrilegiously pretend to be that Word of God which as St. Peter minds us is not of private Interpretation 'T is not against the Authority or Use of Scripture he writ but against the Protestants unjust and insignificant method of using it I will here make good the Charge hoping that when he thinks fit he will much more fully perform it by the very answers given to his Questions which I shall set down in that Order and Sense in which the Answerer construed them Here he tells us 'T is not against the Authority or use of Scripture the Addresser writ The Divine Authority of Scripture consists in its being of Divine Revelation and the reason for which it was revealed is for the use instruction and salvation of mankind But if it be insufficient for attaining that end and either is wanting in what is neeessary or is writ in a way so obscure and dubious that it 's not to be understood by those for whom it was written it 's certainly a Revelation unworthy of God and a considerable argument against its Divine Authority And therefore he that undertakes to prove this must if he be in earnest have a very mean opinion of that Divine Book and designs to bring others to the like opinion of it But this is the apparent design of the Addresser who argues all along against the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture even in those points which our Author owns to be the two principal Articles of Christian Belief the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ clearly giving away the Cause to the Arians and Nestorians and frankly acknowledging nay venturing in his way to prove that the Texts usually insisted on by the Orthodox in proof of those Articles are not sufficient for it So that in conclusion if the Scripture be so perplex'd and obscure so doubtful and ambiguous so unintelligible and insufficient a Rule they may as well lay aside the Scripture as that Father did the obscure Poet with an If thou art not to be understood thou art not fit to be read And yet after all this charge insinuated all along in the Address against the Scripture 'T is not yet against the Authority or Vse of it he writ What then did he write against It was against the Protestants unjust and insignificant method of using it and that each mans private sense might not sacrilegiously pretend to be that word of God which as St. Peter minds us is not of private Interpretation I must confess if each or any mans private sense be pretended to be the Word of God it 's both Vnjust and Sacrilegious since nothing can be the Word of God but what is by his immediate Inspiration But where are they that thus pretend What reason is there for this charge These are things he takes for granted but insinuates that this is done by the Protestants who interpret Scripture by their own private sense But why will this any more prove that because they interpret Scripture by their own sense they pretend their sense to be the Word of God than it follows that those that resolve all into a deciding Church-Authority do therefore pretend that the sense given by that Authority is the Word of God For I presume after all that they will not dare to say such their Interpretations are as much the Word of God as the Word is which they are the Interpretations of However he intimates it 's Sacrilegious to interpret Scripture by each mans private sense when St. Peter minds us the Word of God is not of private Interpretation But surely the Apostle doth not therein include the using and understanding of Scripture by private persons as if that was forbidden when he tells them they did well to give heed to it ver 19. Neither did he suppose they were uncapable of understanding it when he calls it a light and unto which they were to give heed till the day dawn c. Nor farther will the Apostles Argument admit of any such Exposition which is thus Ye ought to give heed to the Scripture for it 's not of private Interpretation for holy men of God spake as they were moved that is Scripture is the Interpretation of God's will the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost and though wrote by men is not of humane invention nor was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their own motion nor an explication of their own mind but of God's Of this see a late Book called Texts of Scripture cited by Papists c. Pag. 35. The Prover now falls on in earnest and with great resolution saith he will make good the charge of the Protestants unjust and insignificant Interpretation of Scripture by the very Answers given to the Addresser's Questions and that he will set them down in that order and sense in which the Answerer construed them I wish he had added too in his own words as the Answerer did by him For I find no great reason to trust him either as to order or sense Qu. 1. Whether all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture Ans Scripture must contain these Necessaries All Catholics ever owned what St. Augustin teaches That all things which concern Faith and Manners of Life are found in those things which are plainly contained in Scripture So that as St. Gregory expresses it God needs speak to us no more by any new Revelation For as the same St. Augustin observes in the Question betwixt Him and the Donatists about true Baptism which he held absolutely necessary to Salvation Tho we have no proof in this case from holy Scripture yet we follow the truth of holy Scripture even in this case when we do what the Vniversal present Church approves of which Church is commended by the Authority of the very Scripture All true Catholics without doubt ever owned what St. Austin teaches and that not so much because St. Austin teaches it as that what he herein taught is true But to use our Authors words pag. 7. I wonder how this man was so confident as to name St. Austin and quote this place after the Answerer and
finding out a particular person and that he that would find him out knows not the man but for his better direction applies himself to one that knows somewhat of this matter and asks him Sir How shall I find out such a Man or where may I seek the Marks by which he may be discover'd Would it not force a Smile to have this Answer Do you ask that Why Friend the Marks and the Man are found at once for they are to be seen in his Face Would he not be made much the Wiser by this grave Reply and forthwith be able to find out the Man he seeks for by this goodly Direction Or would he not say Sir I came not to be informed of that which every one that is not a stark Fool understands as well as your Worship but I would know what are those Marks which are to be seen in his Face and by which I may know him from your self or any other and where are they describ'd And will not the other if he be able and willing to inform him then tell him the Marks are in the Gazette and there you may find them Now which is to be found out first the Marks or the Man And what are those Marks and where must I seek them Surely it needs no Application As for his Triumphant Marks of the Church he may find them answered to purpose in the Book not long since published upon that Argument 'T is also observable at what a distance these men are from the true Church who conceive it so hard to find her out All holy Fathers ever judged it a most easy thing to each Person insomuch that the Holy Doctor St. Augustin thus delivers his Sense of it I tell you with truth Brethren the Prophets have spoken more obscurely of Christ than of the Church I believe because they saw in Spirit that men would make Sects against the Church but would not be so much divided about Christ But 't is natural for a Crimnal to question the Power of his Judge and these men know it hath ever been the Sense of all Christians which St. Augustin exprest in the following Words There is no Salvation out of the Church who doubts of it Therefore whatever you have from the Church Seripture Creed Sacraments c help you not to Salvation out of the Church whether you believe contrary to the Truth or being divided from the Vnity gather not with Christ whence St. Paul says to Heretics Those who do such things shall not possess the Kingdom of Heaven He saith 'T is observable at what a distance Men are from the true Church who conceive it so hard to find it out But our distance from the true Church is not the more because we conceive it so hard to find her out in their way and by such Marks which if there are no other it 's impossible to find her out by But now if we go in St. Austins way then it 's not difficult for thus he determines it The weak seeks for the Church The wandring seeks for the Church I inquire after the Voice of the Pastor Read this to me out of the Prophet and read it out of the Psalms recite it from the Law the Gospel the Apostle Look for it in the Scripture and there you will find it Here the Prover cites a Passage out of St. Austin which I am confident he did not read there For 1. he quotes the 4 th Book of St. Austin de Vnitate whereas there is but one Book in all 2. There are several mistakes in the Quotation it self As he saith There is no Salvation out of the Church who doubts of it Whereas the Words of St. Austin are Qui autem super arenam aedificant i. e. qui audiunt Verba non faciunt as just before quis dubitaverit quod regnum Dei non possidebunt That is But those who build upon the sand who doubts that they shall not possess the Kingdom of Heaven Again the Prover reads it Whatever you have from the Church Scripture Creed Sacraments c. help you not to Salvation out of the Church Whereas there is nothing of this but it follows after what was said of the builders on the sand Nihil utique prodest Baptismi Sacramentum that is So that the Sacrament of Baptism profits not such And then he quotes that of St. Paul Those which do such things c. without that other Insertion of his Whether you believe contrary to the Truth c. The matters are not much material but by this the Reader may judg what a careless injudicious or confident to say no worse Adversary I have to deal with His other Queries have no difficulty and withal so little of Sense that I shall not offer to force my Readers Attention on them Whether the other Queries had any Sense I shall leave to others to judg but however because they may not be so easie to others as to himself it is to be wished he had shewed a little more of his good Nature and Condescendency to have resolved them I shall try once again whether I can make sense of them and leave him to try whether he can answer them If they are not Sense they are not to be understood and so there can be no hurt to Propose them If they have no difficulty they are the easier and the sooner answered The Queries Propounded in the Answer and yet remaining to be resolved are these Q. 1. What those Necessaries to Salvation are that are not contained in Scripture and where each of them is to be found Q. 2. Whether the Articles of Pope Pius's Creed joined to the Nicene Creed are as clearly to be proved from Scripture as those of the Nicene Creed or that those of the Nicene Creed are no more to be proved from Scripture than those of Pope Pius Q. 3. Whether it 's as necessary to believe the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and all the other Articles of that Creed of Pope Pius as it is to believe that our Lord Jesus was Incarnate and the rest of the Articles of the Nicene Creed Q. 4. Which has the first and Supreme Authority the Scripture or the Church Q. 5. Whether the Church can ordain new Articles of Faith and which when so ordained are as much to be received and believed as those which have their Authority immediately from Scripture Q. 6. Which is to be sought for first the Notes or the Church that is to be found out by these Notes If the Church then how shall I know it If the Notes where must I seek them Q. 7. If the Church be to be an Infallible Guide when it 's found out then what is the Guide that will infallibly lead to the Church And whether is that Guide to be sought for within the Church or without it Q. 8.
bear Witness on Earth and which we know to be only morally One doth not expound what that Unity is that is found in the Three which bear record in Heaven We ask a proof out of Scripture to decide this doubt but our Answerer hath none to give us or is grown Churlish and will not allow us any Hath he any to expound the other Text No not any but he offers at some Insinuation from Scripture and `t is this When Christ said I and my Father are One the Jews took up stones to stone him for blasphemy because that thou being a Man said they makest thy self God The Jews then understood him to have spoken of a Natural Vnion therefore he did so Well I will let my good nature work upon me once and for quiets sake I will let this Discourse pass as allowable But in return of Curtesy I hope each sober Protestant will own this following Argument to be of at least as good Alloy When Christ said Joh. 6. Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man you have no Life in you The Jews who said how can this man give us his Flesh to eat and his Disciples who walked no more with him understood that he spake of his natural Body which they should corporally eat therefore Christ did really mean they should corporally feed on his natural Flesh This Popish Conclusion is in the same Form. This is the first Instance of Scripture's obscurity in matters necessary offered by the Addresser And here the Answerer shewed in general how frivolous and absurd the way of arguing used on this matter by that Author was to which we have not a word of Reply and then particularly that the two Scriptures viz. 1 John 5. 7. and John 10. 30. usually insisted on amongst others in proof of the Doctrine of the Trinity remain in their full force notwithstanding what the Addresser had objected against them But to this the Prover now Replies There is not one Text of Scripture to give us the dubious Sense of the two in Question What means he Would he have Texts to prove the Father the Word and Holy Ghost to be three Divine Persons That was not the Answerer's part to prove or if it was he might send him to his Friend Bellarmin who in Proof of the Deity of our Saviour has collected about 100 Texts of the Old and New Testament Would he have some Chapter and Verse where are these or the like Words The word One in the first Epistle of St. John Item in St. John 's Gospel signifies a strict Identity yes by all means for saith the Addresser This ought to be if all necessaries to Salvation are contained in Scripture I thought our Author might by this time have been sensible of this weakness certainly this Gentleman's Condition calls for some Commiseration and he would do well to advise upon it whether the Scripture was originally divided into Chapter and Verse and whether Hugo Cardinalis and Robert Stephens were not very Ignorant or unadvised to Labour in this Work anew if so it had been But is there no other way to give the Sense of these Texts Suppose we consider the Words and Phrases the Context and Scope of the Places in question and compare them with others and from all draw some good and substantial Reasons will not that be as proper and as much to the purpose as if we had Chapter and Verse in his way And this was the way taken by the Answerer As for Example in 1 John 5. 7. 1. It was there observed that it 's as plainly said the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are One as that they are Three 2. That the Union betwixt these Three was not a mere moral Union or a Union only of Will and Consent for the Apostle makes a plain difference betwixt the Three that bear Record in Heaven and the Three that bear Witness in Earth For of the Three in Heaven it 's said they are One but of the Three in Earth they agree in one Of this the Prover saith I will admit this English Translation agree in one tho Apocryphal Why an English Translation or why Apocryphal Unless it be that it 's nor Verbatim according to what they call the Authentick Vulgar Translation For otherwise their own Clarius and Bellarmin c. do thus translate it Conveniunt in unum conspirant in unum But admit this saith he What then Then the Answerer thus proceeded in his Argument Now if it had been a mere moral Vnion that was betwixt the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost who are the Three in Heaven it would have been as well said of them as of the Spirit the Water and the Blood which are the Three in Earth that they agree in one Here the Prover exults Is not this special Logic Would not this way of arguing prove equally that the Believers are one with more than a moral Vnion because otherwise it might as well have been said Joh. 17. May they agree in one As for the Logic it is Bellarmin's as well as the Answerer's who from the different Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus argues Whence you may plainly see that the Spirit Water and Blood are not One as the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost but only do agree in one Testimony And as for the Inference the Prover makes Would not this way of Arguing prove c. I answer the Case is not alike For 1. The Force of the Argument doth not lie merely upon the difference of Phrase for both Bellarmin and the Answerer knew how One is sometimes applied to a Moral Union as John 17. but upon its being used in this place by way of distinction betwixt things of a different nature for proof of which it 's to be observed that the Apostle designing to shew the validity of the Testimony given to the Son of God v. 5. which was twofold he further amplifies this and distinctly speaks to each of them ver 7. and tho both do give Testimony to the same Truth yet one in an higher and the other in a lower degree As 1. There are Three that bear Record in Heaven and Three in Earth 2. The Three in Heaven are One and the Three in Earth agree in One. By which way of arguing and the distinction observed betwixt them the Apostle shows That the Three that bear Record in Heaven are not more different in their Nature and Place from the Three in Earth than in their Union That they are both alike Three and both alike in their Testimony but that the one are in Heaven the other in Earth The Three in Heaven are One but the Three in Earth agree in One So that the Three in Earth are no more One as the Three in Heaven than the Three that bear Record in Earth are the Three that bear Record in Heaven 2. In confirmation of this it 's observable