When you say you made this search according to the uttermost of your understanding how do you infallibly know that your understanding was not depraved and that you were not given over to an injudicious mind Fourthly Did you not pretend to have used the same means to find out the true Church when you turned an Independent as you did when you did turn Papist Lastly If so how are you more able to Answer the Turk or Jew now then you were when your Catholick Friend began to discourse with you In the latter end of p. 8. and the beginning of the 9. You say that You gathered from Heb. 1â— 6 Mark 16.16 Eph. 4.5 2 Cor. 10.45 Heb 10.13 From all which scriptures where God requires Faith you say you thought it did naturally follow that there must be some means appointed by God by which we may know this true faith from all false Opinions or else you say p. 10. that prophesie would be ineffectual Esay 35. Say to them that are of a fearfull heart Be strang fear not hebold your God will come and save you Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the eares of the deaf shall be unstopped c. There shall be one high way and a way and it shall be called the holy way the way faring men though fools shall not erre therein Now since God hath appointed such a way Your great difficulty you say is to finde out the Rule and the Judge since one party proposeth the spirit to be his guide a Second proposeth Reason to be his Rule A Third proposeth Scriptures The Fourth assigneth the Holy Catholick Church c. You answer to the First and say That the spirit bearing witness with our spirts or in plain terms the private spirit is not that judge Your reason is because any one whether he be Jew Pagan or Christian if he have but confidence enough may pretend to the Spirit But since you say the great difficulty is to finde out the Rule I would gladly know how this difficulty shall be infallibly resolved For if the private spirit within me must not resolve me nor my reason must not be my Rule nor the Scriptures my Guide then I have no light left me to shew me the Church but the Church Thus they deal like thieves put out all other lights that should discover them but their own dark lanthorn But if you shall say that you prove the Church by Miracles How shall I be satisfied that those Miracles are not delusions Since as many pretend to the spirit that have it not So many pretend to miracles that have them not Then we must have faith to believe those miracles are true and if they are true they are no otherwise true but by the spirit of God Then it is the same absurdity to believe miracles by the spirits testimony as it is to believe the Scriptures by the spirits testimony But this also implies a contradiction for if I must finde the Church by the light of the spirit perswading me that she doth those miracles by the power of God then â—ave you contradicted your self by saying The spirit is not the guide But further may not a man as well say that he believes he hath the spirit by the spirit and that he believes the Scriptures by the Scriptures as you say you believe the Church by the Church I am sure the last is the greatest absurdity and may not a Turk say the same for his way that he believers Mahomet by Mahomet and the Alcoran by the Alcoran as you believe the Church by the Church Now if you shall say you believe the Church by the Scripture then the question will be how you know them to be the Word of God If you say because the Church teaches they are so then you run round like a horse in a Mill proving the Church by the Scripture and the Scripture by the Church You give another Reason why the spirit witnessing within us is not the guide appointed by God because by this none that ever pretended to it did reconcile differences Pray let charity begin at home if your Church be so infallible why do not you decide the differences that are between the Jesuites and the Dominicans hath not as endless controversies arisen among you Hath not as many Errours and Schismes sprung from you as from any People professing Christianity And would not your divisions be greater if the power of the Sword did not prevail more then your pretended Infallibility And whereas you say St. John prescribeth a Rule to know the Spirit of Truth from the Spirit of Errour 1 Joh. 4. We are of God he that knoweth God heareth us and he that is not of God heareth not us Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth from the Spirit of Errour Now what is this to your purpose unless you would still beg the question That your Church and her Doctors are intended in those words WE and US But what if it be proved that you do not hear the Apostles Then it follows by the Text and your own Argument that you have the Spirit of Errour Now the Apostle taught that a Man should examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup but you deny the cup to the common people is this hearing the Apostles The Apostle allows the Bishops to be Husbands of one Wife but you forbid that they should have any at all The Apostles would not have Prayers said in a Language that the People understood not but you command it Christ and the Apostles commanded a diligent reading and searching of the Scriptures but you forbid it and yet you are the only Men that must be heard though you teach contrary to Scripture You go on and say That Reason must not be our Judge because it must submit to the Judge as a Subject c. I pray what was your Judge who resolved the question which you say had so much difficulty in it viz. who should direct you whether any Church was Infallible or no or where that Church was to be found Did your reason guide you in this search or no If it did not I do not wonder you made no better choise but you say Reason is not your Rule because it was to submit as a Vassall to that Rule and Judge But Sir Though the Church of Rome which you call your Judge do exercise such a Lordship over the reasons of Men I am sure you have given no reason why it should be so You say Reason is apt to mistake and therefore we ought not to be governed by it But Sir what if I say the Pope is apt to mistake and therefore I ought not to be governed by him I am sure if that be made to appear in the judgment of Reason then Reason will guide me to decline following such a blind Guide As for example Liberius that was Pope about the year 350 fell into Arianism and subscribed to
he cannot reclaim him he must tell the Church which cannot be understood for any but that particular Church among whom he resides which you say are such as may err in judgment 3 By the same parity of reason a single private man cannot err because the Text saith he ought to be heard if he admonish his brother of his fault ver 15 16 17. and that it is his brothers sin if he do not hear him and the Text further saith If his brother do hear him that he hath gained his brother But if this brother might err then he might err in admonishing and the admonished person in stead of being gained to the Truth might be gained to an errour This is the sum of your Argument I am to hear the Church therefore the Church cannot err might you not as Logically infer that because I am to hear a single private brother therefore a single private brother cannot err and by this you would make all the Sons of your Church infallible like the Pope your Father and by this rule Parents are infallible because they must be heard by their children Your next Scriptures are Mat. 28.20 Lo I am with you always to the end of the world and Joh. 24.16 I will pray the Father and he will send you another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth which the World cannot receive and ver 26. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost which the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all things into your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you and Chap. 16.17 I have many things to say unto you but you cannot hear them now howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth From which you infer that if Christ and his Spirit should be with his Apostles for ever to lead them into all Truth it follows they shall be preserved from all errour To which I answer 1. That this Text in St. Mathew cannot be a good argument for you because you say you have lost the Original of St. Mathews Gospel and cannot tell whether he that did translate it was an honest man or no. 2 The Spirit of Christ might preserve the Apostles from all Errour and yet not be engaged to secure the Church from erring to the end of the World But 3 I answer further If this promise was made that the Holy Spirit should lead the Church in all Ages into all Truth it doth not follow as I have said that it should lead them irresistably though it might lead them sufficiently But 4. May I not as well infer that because the Spirit was promised to convince the World of sin because they believe not in Christ that therefore all the world cannot be but effectually and irresistably convinced as you may say that because the Spirit is promised to lead into all Truth that therefore the Church cannot err but must be effectually so led 5 It is called the Spirit of Truth which the World cannot receive meaning notorious and wicked men Now then this Spirit some of those Popes which you call the Apostles successors could not have because many of them have been notoriously and confessedly wicked all which doth plainly shew that this promise of the Spirit was made to direct and guide us into a further knowledge of the Truth till we come to be perfect in Christ upon condition that we are faithful in what we already know Like unto that promise Joh. 17.17 If any man do his will he shall know of his doctrine and to this agrees the Rhemiâ—â— Testament translating that Text of John 14.15 16. If you love me keep my comandements and I will pray the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever Now how can I be infallible that the Pope is thus guided unless I do infallibly know that he loves God and keeps his Commandements 6 You say 〈◊〉 into all Truth implies preserving from all errour but this follow not not more then because the Scriptures say Gods goodness leads to Repentance that therefore all men should be preserved from impenitency And lastly If leading into all truth implies preserving from all Error how comes it to pass that since your Church as you say is an infallible guide into all Truth that she doth not preserve all her sons from all Errour And if you shall say see doth guide them all sufficiently though not efficiently although that be false yet you have answered your self For though Gods Spirit and goodness be sufficient to lead to Truth and Repentance yet it doth not follow but there are as sad experience teacheth multitudes of erring and impenitent persons Your next Text is Ephes 4.11 He gave some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and some Teachers for perfecting the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying the body of Christ till we come in the union of the faith and ver 14. that we be no more children in understanding c. From which Text you would prove that the succession of the Apostles in the Church was to preserve people from being tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine but what then doth this prove the Church cannot err This means was used by God for the perfecting of Saints and yet we see that they are full of imperfections Thus God may teach and the Church not learn Gods Spirit may lead and the Church like Rome may be refractory Your last Text is 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church of the living God the Pillar and ground of Trust. Hence you would infer that the Church cannot err because we may securely relye upon her as upon a Pillar To which I answer That these words do not respect the universal Church as you would have it but the particular Church which Timothy had the oversight of in which Paul admonisheth him how he should behave himself But 2. If this were granted that the universal Church is here meant and not a particular Church I answer that this proves nothing to your purpose because Churches and People receive their denomination ordinarily from what they should be in point of Duty and not from what they are by necessity Thus the Disciples are called the Salt of the Earth because they were in duty to be so and not that there was a necessity that they could not have been otherwise else it had been in vain to threaten them that if they lost their savour they should be good for nothing but to be trodden under foot In like manner the Church is the Pillar of Truth and ground of in point of Duty and yet this doth not hinder but she may neglect and violate this Duty and become the Teacher of Errour But lastly The Church may be the Pillar and Ground of Truth not only because she should be so but because in all Ages she is so in that she teacheth and maintaineth
merchandize of you and that you may so do shall be the Prayers and Desires of thy Friend J. I. Rome is no Rule OR An Answer to an Epistle published by a Roman Catholick who stiles himself Cap. ROBERT EVERARD BEfore I shall engage against the main body of this discourse I shall take a view of its Front and Rear I mean the Title and Post-script In the Title you have the superscription of An Epistle to the several Congregations of Non-conformists Here I would gladly be informed who you mean by this term of discrimination Non-Conformists either you mean all that Conform not to the Church of Rome or all that Conform not to the Church of England if you mean all that Conform not to the Church of Rome then the Church of England is concerned in this Epistle and reckoned by you among all other Sects and Hereticks but if by Non-Conformists you would discriminate all that Conform not to the Church of England then your Mother the pretended Holy Catholick Church is concerned in your Epistle they being Non-Conformists to the Church of England as well or rather as ill as others and good reason she should be concerned since she hath furnished you with all your Weapons for this Warfare out of here Armoury and it is but a piece of gratitude to direct that to her which you so lately received from from her for he that hath a hand to take and not a tongue to return thanks deserves for the future to be both lame and dumb Having viewed the Superscription I come to the Subscriber and he is no less then a Captain Captain Robert Everard But where was he a Captain and whom did he command Let him speak for himself he is old enough He tells us he was at the head of a Troop in the rebellious Army See his Post-script p. 40. But what a shame is this that this Honour was not laid in the dust rather then prefixed in the Title of a Book Surely had you been truly humbled for that Rebellion as you pretend you would have said of all the honour that you acquired thereby as Ephraim said of his Idols What have I to do any more with you In the next place I cannot but observe the place where this Epistle was printed and if you will believe it it was printed at Paris I see you have learned one if not all the the three things which a learned man observes Children soon learn of their Mothers Pride Revenge and Lying this last appears in that you have made a Lye your refuge by saying your Epistle was printed at Paris But let me ask you the Question which you ask your Reader p. 20. who will adventure say you to make oath the Scriptures we have agree with the Originals So say I Who will adventure to make oath that this Epistle was printed at Paris Surely we are like to meet with little truth in the House when a Lye in Capitals and a Capital Lye is inscribed on the Porch as a London Printer will witnes to your â—ace if occasion serve I come now to the Post-script â—herein you caution your Respondent p. 39. to set down your own words as they lye intirely without maintaining them and also if he answers by Paragraphs to set down your whole Paragraphs Sir give me leave to tell you that you require a thing impossible for there is in your Epistle so little of you as any one may perceive by your own words and by comparing it with the Book Entituled The Question of Questions and Fiat Lux that it is hard to say whether any thing by yours besides these three words CAPTAIN ROBERT EVERARD and therefore if you would have had a distinct Answer to all your Arguments you should have distinguished what had been yours from what was other mens by a different Character as is usual in such cases You go on in your Post-script and forewarn your Respondent that be set not up a Puppit of his own in stead of Answering If he doth set up a Puppit of his own he hath done more then you who have scarce set up any thing of your own besides your name But what if be set up a Puppit of his own and call it yours you say he will not make your Arguments but his own ridiculous Truly he may possibly make his own but he cannot make your Arguments ridiculous because he knows not any one that is yours in all the Epistle The next thing you caution your Respondent is That he would forbear all reproaches and slanders against the Catholick Church or Catholicks in general or in particular which say you is a fault Protestants are too much in general addicted to Sir I perceive this Counsel is easier given then taken else why do you reflect reproach upon Protestants in general in the same breath in which you invite them to forbear reproaches Again You say That the Presbyterians and Independents do by the Catholicks as they did by his late Majesty of glorious memory and with our most dread Soveraign that now is and their Party viz. to impute crimes to them without end and errours innumerable without taking care to examine whether what they charged was true or false Sir I have four or five things to ask you 1 Whether you did use to do so by the Kings Majesty when you were an Independent and at the head of your Rebellious Troop 2 Whether you believe the Kings Majesty hath pardoned you and all that were so wickedly minded 3 Whether since you were pardoned you would have any to upbraid you with those pardoned Crimes If not then 4 Why do you that pretend to so much Charity do that to others you would not be done unto Lastly Why do you violate the Law of your Soveraign who hath forbidden upon a penalty that those things should be remembred against any that he hath been pleased to bury in Oblivion But Sir if you were not a Novice in the Catholick Way you might know that the people you are now fallen in with have been the most guilty in speaking evil of and doing evil to men in Authority of any that ever mentioned the Name of Christ witness their traducing King Henry 8. for that ever to be admired and to be remembred work of his in throwing off the Popes Supremacy how have the Romanists reported it as a Consequent of his Lust and Levity How then can they have any regard to the present Rulers who daily revile their Predecessors wherein any of them have acted against their Interests witness both the Gunpowder Treason and the Irish Rebellion And what good Allegiance can his Majesty that now is expect from you Who forsaking a People that destroyed one King and pretending repentance for that go and joyne with a people whose Principle is to Depose and Destroy Kings Passing from your Title and Post-Script I now come to Encounter with the main Body of your Epistle In the Front whereof You place a Text
the unjust excommunicating Athanasius Again The Council of Constance deposed Pope John 23. where it was proved that he held there was no eternal life nor Immortality of the soul nor Resurrection of the dead Pray Sir let Reason judge whether I may follow such a Catholick Guide You add a third Reason to prove that Reason is not judge in matters of Faith for then say you it would follow that it is possible to please God for Reason would teach us how to please him May not a man from the same Premises infer that your Church is not the Judge because then it would follow that it is possible to please God without Faith because the Church would teach us how to please him But you will say the Church doth teach us to please God by Faith I say it is well if she do But what is this to the purpose she did not teach us to please God by Faith before it was required and made known to us that God would be so pleased In like manner Reason will direct a man to do the same when he is informed God requireth such a duty But must not the Scripture nor my private Spirit nor my Reason judge I pray then tell me how I shall be the better for all you have written for if my Reason must not judge of the fallibility and infallibility of your Arguments then you had as good have told your late Brethren thus My Bâ—â—â—tren I see that there is a great difference and contention among us whether the Roman Church be infallible or not This Controversie cannot be judged by a private Spirit for that may sail nor by Reason because mens Reasons are uncertain and subject to variation neither are the Scriptures an infallible Judge of Controversies therefore they cannot judge of this Let me therefore advise you of a way to decide this question First Agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will soon be ended An excellent advice because you say all other ways to judge and decide controversies are fallable You now come in the third place to enquire whether the Scripture be sufficient to teach us the true Faith c. You say You found this highly contended for and several reasons urged for it First The words of our Saviour John 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them you think to have eternal life and they are they which testifie of me To this Text you say you found several answers given which were satisfactory I That it doth not appear whether this in the Original be the Im perative or the Indicative Mood St. Cyril you say with whom Beza agrees takes it in the Indicative Mood What a strange Mood are you in then to give an Answer to a Text which you say you were satisfied withal And in the same breath you say it doth not appear whether it be the Imperative or the Indicative Mood Do you think infallibility had any assinity with this Answer Nay you further say that they are so farr from being a Command to all to road and search the Scriptures that they RATHER SEEM a Reprehension to all that shall frame that Conceit of them But how can this sense of that Text be Catholick when in stead of an infallible Exposition you tell us it RATHER SEEMS to be so then otherwise But what if I should tell you that those words Search the Scriptures rather seem a Command then a Reprehension I should rather seem to be infallible then you You say If it be the Indicative Mood the sense will run thus You do search the Scriptures and so it seems to be a Reprehension But this is a sense contrary to Chryfostome Hom. 39. in Joan. Christ sayes he sends us to the testimony of the Scriptures then it cannot be that he should reprehend them And the Colledge of Rhems translating the Text as we do give this Interpretation of it He viz. Christ reprehendeth the Jews not for reading but that reading dayly the Scriptures and acknowledging that in them they should find life that yet they viewed them so superficially that they could not find therein him to be Christ their King Lord Life and Saviour And in the Marginal Note upon this Text they say that neither Jews nor Hereticks find the truth because they search not the Scriptures deeply but read superficially See Rhemish Annot. upon John 5. Now see how you contradict your selves you say the Scriptures are so far from being a Command to all to read and search that they rather seem to be a reprehension to all that shall frame that conceit of them And your Rhemish Commentators say that they are reprehended because they did not search deep enough for if they had they might have found Jesus to have been their Christ their King Lord Life and Saviour And how can the said Annotators give that as a reason why the â—ews and Hereticks did not find the Truth because they did not search the Scriptures deep enough If either of these two opinions of your be true 1 That men are reprehended for searching the Scriptures 2 That the Scriptures are not an infallible guide to direct us to find the Truth if the whole Colledge have translated and interpreted truly then surely you and many of your Authors speak falsly But if you shall say the Scriptures may direct Jews and Hereticks to the truth because they direct them to the Church which is the Pillar of Truth then it follows 1 That both Jews and Hereticks ought to search the Scriptures deeply to find out the true Church 2 It must rest upon their private judgments of discretion to determine within themselves whether the Romanists or the Protestants be that true Church after they have made this deep and diligent search 3 It follows that the Scripture is an infallible guide being deeply and diligently searched and that the reason why both Jews and Hereticks err is not the fallibleness of the Scriptures but want of diligent and deep search which being used they might have found Christ to have been their King Lord Life and Saviour they might have found the Truth and the Church and consequently all things necessary to Eternal life You come in the 14 pag. to give a second reason why the words search the Scriptures cannot extend to prove the conclusion because you say if they were uuderstood in the Imperative Mood which cannot infallibly be proved because they cannot be profitable to work Faith in them that cannot read which you say are the greatest part of Mankind You say it cannot infallibly be proved that those words search the Scripture are in the Imperative Mood but have you that pretend to Infallibility proved that they are in the Indicative Mood What a madness is this that you should exact infallible Interpretations from those that do profess fallibility and not perform an infallible Interpretation when you pretend to be guided by a Church that is infallible But
our guide but it was because you did not make a deep diligent search into them which is the reason as your Rhemists say Hereticks never find the Truth But why do you beguile your unwary Reader with this word viz. That the Scriptures are not a SOLE Guide thereby to let him think that you allow them in some sense to be a guide when indeed your following Arguments do manifestly declare that you would not have them to be any guide at all Your first Reason why the Scriptures are not a Guide is because they do not answer the end viz. the reconciling differences for those who pretend most to consult the Scriptures do most of all disagree in matters of faith and interpreting the Scriptures To this I answer First May not a Heathen or a Jew alledge the same Argument against Christianity it self and say that the Christian Religion is no safe way to happiness because of the differences that are among the Professors of it 2 May it not be said that the Apostles themselves were no certain Guides because they had divisions and contentions among them and that they had appears by the testimony of St. Paul himself Rom 16.17 Mark them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine c. And the same Apostle tells the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3.3 and 1 Cor. 11.19 That there was among them envyings strife and contention some holding of Paul and some of Apollo some of Cephas Nay he further tells them there must be Heresies among you that they that are approved might be made manifest 3 May it not as well be said of the Church of the Jews which you say were infallible that they were no Guide or at least no certain Guide because there were differences and contentions among them as there was between the Pharisees Sadduces and Essavaus it is said that the Sadduces denied the Resurrection Angels and Spirit as you say the Scriptures are no Guide to true faith because men differ and and disagree in matters of Faith But 4 May you not as well say that Christ is not the Saviour of the World and that he came not into the World to the end that the World might be saved because it doth not appear that all shall be saved as say the Scriptures are no Guide to end Controversies because all Controversies are not ended 5 May you not as well infer that the grace of God doth not teach men to deny ungodliness because some turn the grace of God into wantonness as say the Scriptures are no sure Guide to faith and salvation because many wrest them to their own destruction 6 May you not as well say that the Primitive Church were no infallible Guide to true faith because they had disagreements and contentions among them as the strife between the Eastern and Western Churches about the keeping of Easter and they excommunicating one another And the Question of Re-baptizing bred the like differences between the Bishops of Rome and the Western Bishops of one Party and Cyprian Dionysius and Firmilianus with most of the Eastern Bishops of the other Party Euseb Hist lib. 5. c. 21. lib. 7. c. 3. Cyp. Ep. 74 75. Soc. lib. 6. c. 17. Soc. lib. 6. c. 21. I say may not one more truly infer these were no Guides because they had dissentions and divisions among them as you may say the Scriptures are not a Guide because of the differences that are amongst Protestants 7 And lastly May I not infer as well from the like Premises because there is and hath been differences among the now-pretended Catholicks as I have already shewn that therefore their Church is no infallible Guide as you may say the men that consult Scriptures do not agree among themselves therefore the Scriptures are not the Guide Your second Reason followeth in the 17 pag. which is but the same in effect with the first therefore the former Answer may suffice onely you tell us a story of an Arian or as the Question of Questions hath it an Arian Cobler how that if you were to dispute with him about the Deity of Christ from Job 10.30 I and my Father are one by this Text you say you should think you had proved the Question But then you say your Arian would compare this Text with john 17.21 where Christ prayeth to his Father that his Disciples might be all one thing as thou Father are in me and I in thee But if you should urge the Arian further and tell him the Council of Nice gave the same Interpretation which you do you say the Arian would answer as the Protestants generally do that they have a worthy esteem of Councils as far as they agree with the Word of God but where they disagree in that he must contradict them all To which I Answer setting aside the contraversie between the Arians and Athanasians as not coming within the verge of our present question that if the Arian Cobler had been as Orthodox in all his other Opinions as he is in his opinion about the Holy Scriptures and Councels viz. to think reverently of Councels and agree with them as far as they agree with the World of Truth I say if this had been all this Arian Coblers Errour I should have judged him a better Christian then a Roman Shoo-maker or the Catholick Collier who could say no more for himself being tempted by the Devil at the point of death what his faith was Answered I believe and dye in the faith of Christs Church Being again demanded what the Faith of Christs Church was Answered The faith that I believe in See Apology Translated by Staplet p. 53. But you say That you can urge against an Arian the Authority of the Councel of Nice and their Interpretation of the Scripture by which they Infallibly decide the controversie And here you think you have a more certaine guide and ground of your Faith then others because they adhere to private spirits and private judgements up on the Scriptures whereas you adhere to general Councel To which I Answer First Doe you think that General Councels did speak and teach in more plainness of Speech and that they uttered words less subject to be wrested by wrong interpretations then the words of the Prophets and Apostles were who spake as they were inspired by the spirit of God Secondly How do you know that you have the true sense and meaning of the Councels determinations since their Decrees are as lyable if not more lyable to mis-interpretations then the Holy Scriptures The reason of this question is because you did not hear them your self and if you had heard them you might have mis-understood them but if you say you have read the Councels and so came to be informed I do further demand how you do believe by a Divine Faith that you do not mis-understand the Councels in what you read and so collect a false sense Thirdly If you shall say you have a Priest to teach you
the sense of the Councels by which you understand what Doctrines are Catholick and what Expositions of Scripture are true and what are false then I demand Fourthly How do you believe with a Divine Faith that what this private Priest teacheth is according to the Infallible Doctrine of the Church since he is a Man and may err and so teach his own private Opinion for the Infallible Doctrine of the Church Fifthly Whether you may not be more subject to mis-understand the Scriptures either by the errour of the Priest in Preaching or the frailty of your understanding in hearing then others are in the reading of the Holy Scriptures And if so why should you say the Scriptures are no guide because they may be mis-interpreted For shame forbear to blame the use of a thing because of the abuse of it What if some are to blame in that they have wrested the Scriptures to serve their own interests Are not you more to blame to wound these men through the sides of the Scripture What if as one well observes That some are blind and miss their way and others are drunk and stagger out of it Must we all conspire to wish the Sun out of the Firmament that we might follow a Will with a Wisp And yet this is your kind of reasoning that because some are perverse and froward and others are full of darkness prejudice and corrupt affections by which they cannot perfectly and infallibly judge of every truth that is contained in the Scripture therefore they must throw away the blessed word of God from being their rule and guide You proceed in p. 18. and tell us That the third Reason which you thought was forcible was that those who are thus far for sole Scripture do not say that one or any particular number of the Books of Scripture but all Scriptures written by inspiration of God do being joyned together make up this Rule and Judge Hence you say you concluded that if any of these Books were lost this Rule was not perfect Now that many of these Books were lost you say you proved from those that remain Num. 21.14 The Book of the Wars of the Lord and this you say is lost It is said of Solomon 1 King 4.3 2. that he spoke 3000 Proverbs and his Songs were 1000 and 5 You conceive you say that upon a just reckoning some of these will be wanting We finde named 2 Chron. 9.29 The Book of Nathan the Prophet the Prophesie of Ahijah and the Visions of Iddo these you say are lost as also those named 1 Chron. 29.29 The Book of Samuel the Book of Nathan the Book of Goda and it is clear from Mat. 27.9 That part of Jeremy is lost So also from Mat. 2.23 Where it was foretold that Christ should be called a Nazaren and 1 Cor. 5.9 Tells us that the Epistle which our Canon calls St. Pauls First Epistle was not truly his first for there he sayeth I wrote to you in an Epistle not to keep company with Fornicatours St. Paul also wrote an Epistle from Laodicea and yet you say you do not finde this Epistle In Answer hereunto I cannot but take notice that you say you THOUGHT this Answer was forcible but where was your Mother that she did not inable you to say you were SURE it was forcible But let us see wherein this force lyeth you say Protestants do not believe a certain number of Books to be their guide but all the Scriptures written by Inspiration from God make up this Rule and Guide and many of these Books are lost therefore this Rule is not perfect I Answer First That the Law of the Lord is perfect and every word of God is pure and therefore there can be no imperfections in the word of God but Secondly How doth it appear that any of those Books which you say were lost had a Divine Image and Superscription upon them or that they that did write them weâ—e inspired by the Holy Ghost in the writing of those particular Books For it is very possible that they wrote many things upon particular occasions as Hezekiah wrote to Ephraim and that sometimes their writings were of no more inspiration from Heaven then Davids Letters were that he sent to Joab by Uriah or then Peters practise for which Paul withstood him to the face But Thirdly What Infallible reason have you to prove that these sayings recited out of these Scriptures may not refer to the Books of Samuel and the Kings which we have extant rather then to any Books that are lost Fourthly How do you know that those writings however the Pen-men were inspired were intended by God for the perpetual use of his Church in all Ages Fifthly How do you Infallibly know that all the Canons or your Church even of those which you say are necessary to Salvation are preserved and that some very material things are not lost Sixthly If you say there is none lost then whether you do not make God in his wise providence more carefull to preserve intire and unmaimed the Canons of your Councels then he hath been to preserve the Writings of his Holy Prophets and Apostles And if you suppose any of the Decrees of your Councels hath been lost or maimed then how do you know Infallibly whether some that are lost are not as material as those you have Thus the edge of your sword is turned against your self But Seventhly If any of the Books of the Old Testament were lost that were by God intended for the perpetual use of that Church to whom his Oracles were committed how then can you say that the Church of the Old Testament was infallible since she failed in that trust that was committed to her viz. the keeping of the Scripture And if this was not a failing in her in that she lost part of the Scriptures then she had not failed if she had lost all and then it followeth that the Scriptures are so far from being a sole Guide that they are no guide at all for if they are a guide and a directer in any sense or if they are of any divine use then it must be an errour either of ignorance or wilfullnesse to suffer them to be lost or maimed Eighthly Whereas you say that the Epistle of St. Paul which your Canon calls the first to the Corinthians was not TRULY his first I Answer then your Canon doth falsely call it the first and then how shall we believe when your Canons are true You had best tell your Mother she lyes as soon as you can speak and then shew a reason for it by telling her That St. Paul saith he writ to the Corinthians an Epistle before Ergo there is an Epistle before that which your Canon calls the first But Chrysostome understands it of the words going before wherein he had charged them to deliver the incestious person to Satan and to purge out the old leaven And that you may see how little cause you have