any of them for a perfect good Protestant To elude these plain and evident Texts scilicet Deuter. 17.8 Matt. 23.2 3. c. brought to prove that the Church is the sole infallible Rule and Judge you were wont to say that they may have other interpretations and therefore this is not the truth it is a question whether any Texts of Holy Scriptures and consequently whether these Texts which speak so amply of the Church are to be understood of the Church militant and visible in this world or of the Church triumphant Ye are willing to agree that so long as the Church of Christ teacheth conformable to Scriptures she is infallible Whereas instead of thus saying doubting or agreeing we enquire First To what purpose should you urge us to believe the infallibility of the Church or any thing else upon Scripture grounds when you tell us aforehand that faith founded upon Scripture is not truly faith for though we should grant what you suppose scilicet that Christ and his Apostles did urge the Jews with Scriptures meerly because of their incredulity yet did they never tell them as you do us Faith founded upon Scripture will avail you nothing It is not that Divine Faith which God calls for at your hands Or if you yet say that it is warrantable to believe the Church is infallible upon your urging why not to believe Christ to be the Messias or any other point of Christian Doctrine upon our Ministers alledging of Scripture for it But Secondly Be these Texts plain and evident or not If not why do you say they are And if they be these very Texts are a Rule such as you seek for whereby to judge of this Controversie and consequently the Church is not the only Rule whereby Controversies are to be judged But Thirdly The Quaerendum here is not whether we can shew with any assurance that these Texts are capable of other interpretations but whether you can demonstrate like as the Apostle used to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17.3 18. these your own interpretations to be certainly true do it when you do it by some infallible medium and we shall be ready to believe what you say But if you bring no proofs and no other you have brought as yet save your own private reasonings Instead of believing the truth of your interpretations we shall make bold to ask you as you do your self what difference is there betwixt judging by your own reason and judging by a Law to be interpreted by your own reason This is to make the Scripture not Gods word but the word of every private man Though yet Fourthly Had you not made a little bold with your own reason and quite contrary both to sense and honesty omitted verse the eight be-between blood and blood between Plea and Plea and put down c. instead of the eleventh verse ubi satis apte sanctus Moyses Controversias exortas in Populo Dei ex Lege Domini judicandas docet Bellar. de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee it would have been evident from Deut. 17. That the Controversies there spoken of were limited to matters of strife betwixt party and party like those Mat. 18.17 and the Judge in sentencing to the Rule of the Law called Moses Chair Matt. 23.2 And consequently the first Scripture you cite which should be the measure of the rest partly makes nothing for in part makes directly against your main conclusion Isaiah 35.8 hath been already Isaiah 2.4 Mat. 28.20 John 16.12 will be hereafter spoken to Isaiah 43.3.17 Isaiah 26.2.1 and Mat. 16.9 confirm what we contend for viz the whole Church of Gods Elect consisting of lively stones to be firmly built upon that living stone that Rock Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.4 5. And that the Royal seed the Children of God shall be all taught and led by the Spirit of God according to Rom. 8.14 John 6.45 1 John 2 27. John 14.16 relates only to such as are called out of the world love him and keep his commandements as it is evident from verses 15. and 17. concerns neither the Pope nor his Cardinals unless he or they be first proved the spiritual man intended 1 Cor. 2.15 and if Ephes 4.11 we may be allowed to leave out the Apostles Prophets Evangelists and read he will give instead of he gave which must be done ere that Text can have any shew of pertinency it will respect all and singular Pastors and Teachers that be the gifts of Christ For the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ Till we all come to an unity not of opinion form or points of Faith as you use to word it but into the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro from confidence in one device to a dependency upon another and carried about with every empty wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive But speaking the truth in love may grow up to him in all things which is the head even Christ from whom without mention or mediation of any other head the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplyeth according to the effectual working of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love vers 12 13 14 15 16. Nor is the last with which you flourish of any more moment for never to take notice that by Church cannot there be meant Roman or General Council There is a Pillar for holding out Edicts as well as a Pillar for holding up houses there is a ground wherein men set Trees sow Seed as well as a ground whereon they erect buildings and recumb The Church may be a Pillar to hold out the truth and yet not a Pillar for you to rely on for all doctrins that be true The Church may be that chosen ground in which the Mystery of Godliness Christ the truth is set and sown and yet no common ground given for you to found your faith upon Tares may spring up together with the good Seed Truth held out and yet errour attend it However the word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies a Seat and you know well how to let Moses Chair alone and rely on him supposed to sit therein And now Sir do you not stand astonished at your own impudence in thus imposing upon the Nonconformists they do not they need not limit these Texts to the Church triumphant but tell you further First That it will be hard for you to prove from Scripture that the Church of God in this world the Church you speak of Pag. 62. which Christ redeemed with his blood is a
Gospel to perswade me to believe Manichaeus because it was from the Preachings of the Catholicks that I believe the Gospel it self If you tell me I did well when I believed the Catholicks praising the Gospel but I do ill when I believe the same persons decrying Manichaeus do you take me to be so stupid as without any reason given unto me I should believe or disbelieve what you please c. But if you have any Reason to offer unto me lay aside the Gospel if you hold your self to the Gospel I shall adhere to those upon whose commands I believe the Gospel and so long as I obey them I shall not believe you But if by accident you should find any thing in the Gospel most evidently touching the Apostleship of Manichaeus you will weaken the Authority of the Catholicks in my esteem who require me not to believe you but that being weakened I shall not believe the Gospel because I believe that by them so that whatsoever you bring from the Gospel will be of no force with me Wherefore if nothing be found in the Gospel for the manifestation of Manichaeus his Apostleship I shall rather give credit to Catholicks than you But if any thing shall be there found manifest on the behalf of Manichaeus I shall neither believe them nor you Not them because they told me a lie of you nor shall I believe you because you urge that Scripture to me which I believe upon their Authority who told me a lie in relation to you c. 1. S. Augustine may be considered either as a Witness acquainting us what the Church then held or as a Doctour rationally deducing and proving of conclusions had you quoted him under the former notion I should not have questioned the truth of any thing that Great Augustine had said without undeniable evidence to the contrary But sith you cite him as Doctor I shall value S. Austins Authority as S. Austin had learned to value the Authority of other pious learned Doctors of or before his time not credit what he saith because he saith it but because he proves it true either by Canonical Authorities or probable Reasons Howbeit 2. You observe the Rule and Method not of Saint Austin but Mr. Knot substituting John Calvin for Manichaeus and I might by the same Rule observe the Method of Mr. Chillingworth substitute Arians as great pretenders then as the Papists are now for the Catholick Church put Goth or Vandal converted by them for S. Austin for Manichaeus write Homousians and then try whether the Argument if but first fitted to your purpose be not as he says like a buskin that will fit any leg but I shall wave this and in a just parallel let you see plainly how far different your proceedings are from those of the great S. Austin First then S. Austin speaks of an Infidel that did not as yet believe the Gospel you direct your speech to Christians Protestants that do already believe it and that upon the account of Universal Tradition the Scriptures and the Divine Attestations of Miracles far better grounds than your Popish principles can or will allow Secondly S. Austin supposes such a one to come and say I do not believe and thereupon seeks to bring him to and establish him in the faith you deal with such as say they do believe and seek to overturn their faith established as aforesaid averring it 's no better than fancy and an humour thus did not Austin Thirdly S. Austin speaks in the singular number and preter Tense Neither had I believed the Gospel unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholick Church You speak in the plural and present Tense we must not do not believe the Gospel unless our Faith be founded upon the Authority and infallibility of that society of Christians which is in Communion with and in subjection to the Bishop of Rome Fourthly those to whom Austin submitted required him to believe the Gospel and disbelieve Manichaeus who held two first Principles and consequently two Gods and maintained several other errous apparently repugnant thereunto those to whom you have submitted require you to believe the Real presence Purgatory Image-worship with other such like Humane inventions and disbelieve Calvin who teacheth the Gospel and declares against all such Doctrins as do not accord therewith Fifthly We do not advise you to believe the Romanists nor did you at the first believe the Gospel by the Romanists Preaching but by the preaching of the Protestants And therefore if you 'l adhere to those upon whose grounds you did at first believe the Gospel so long as you obey them you shall not believe the Romanists and if they say what one would think they should you did well when you believed the Protestants preaching of the Gospel but do ill when you believe the same persons decrying the Romanists are you so stupid as without any reason given unto you to believe or disbelieve what they please c. Had you indeed been bred a Papist and then could have proved the Papists the only Catholicks and Protestants as gross Hereticks as the Manichees there might have been some ground for your parallel with S. Austin as it is you proceed upon a threefold disadvantage and disparity FINIS
reason comes to argue against the Churches Infallibility then must it Vassal-like submit not dispute not wait for an effectual conviction according to Christs promise and procedure And when he is come he shall convince c. but yield forthwith to what the Church says nay to whatsoever an ignorant English Romish Priest can have the confidence to say their Church hath sufficiently proposed or if Reason offer to produce arguments to prove the truth of Christianity and evince the Scripture to be the word of God urge Miracles Universal-Tradition conclude from Topicks internal external in other cases cogent and demonstrative yet then Reason is fallible subject to error a private spirit a fancy can make things at best appear no more than probable Jews Turks and Pagans may be as fully perswaded and upon as good rational grounds of the truth of their Religion as we can of ours But now if reason will be corrupted become an Advocate for Rome her very sophisms shall be cryed up as sufficient grounds for us to found our faith upon God will not be defective in necessaries and therefore there must be an infallible visible Judge Christ is the only absolute independent head of the Church but may and therefore hath appointed a dependent head derived from him It is most rational in business of civil concernment to rely on a Council of wise and learned men And therefore in things spiritual which God usually hides from the wise and prudent and the natural man receives not we ought to rely on a Council of Popish Prelates The Eunuch could not understand the Prophecy of Isaiah till ministerially expounded by Philip the Deacon And therefore cannot we understand that Text though already expounded no nor any other till Authoritatively interpreted by the Roman Church The Apostles Elders and Brethren when sent to sent out a Temporary Decree about things indifferent made then by circumstances in some places antecedently necessary binding only in those places and pressed with an if ye do these things ye do well And therefore the Cardinals Bishops and Abbots may and ought to frame an everlasting Law about points of Doctrine make that necessary for all men which God never made necessary for any and press it under the dread of an Anathema or pain of Eternal damnation Nay though God say to the Law and to the Testimony the Law of the Lord is perfect the Scripture able not only to make wise to Salvation but so far profitable that the man of God the Pastor may be throughly furnished unto every good work Hominem Dei vocat Doctorem Episcopum ut dixi Ep. 1. C. 6. ver 11. Cornel à Lapid yet it Reason can find any thing to say against the Scripture's being a Rule it shall be heard The Scripture then must not be a Rule and why Has God any where contradicted himself and said it must not Has he any where appointed another No but here 's a first reason and a second reason and a third reason c. and therefore it must be none and yet the sum of all no more than this Some Christians are dim-sighted some perverse many are carnal walk as men will not be ruled and therefore the Scripture is not the Rule Ruler sure he would have said some people are contentious Lawyers corrupt and differ in their opinions and therefore the Law of the Land is not what it is scilicet the Law of the Land according to which controversies may and ought to be decided and now The Church before under and since the Law will she nill she must always have been and for ever be this Rule when as yet it is evident that the Word was a rule both to Adam and Eve before the Church had Being it shall bruise thy head Genes 3.15 God said to Abraham so shall thy seed be and he believed in the Lord c. Gen. 15.5 6. Nor was it written for his sake alone but for us also Rom. 4.23 24. Ye shall not add to the word I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it was given in charge to the Church of the Jews Deut. 4.2 And if any man says the Apostle Preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received let him be accursed Gal. 1.9 These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name Joh. 20.31 Nor yet is it the question whether the Scripture accidentally taken or the Word as written but whether the Scripture taken Essentially or the mind of God communicated at sundry times and in divers manners to and by the Prophets Preached by the Apostles Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis cognovimus quà m per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postremò verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum nobis Iren. I. 3. c. 1. and now committed and conveyed down to us by Sacred writing always hath is ought to be owned for the rule of Faith or whether indeed because it seems you long to have the question stated with that advantage even in Abrahams and the Apostles times others as well as Sarah Gen. 21.10 and the Beraeans Act. 17.11 might not have urged demanded and without the just controul of any then visible authority have believed and acted according to the prescript of that Rule your own instances Page 53. of extraordinary actions done and Commands given by Gods directions by the mouths of several particular Prophets submitted to as you say without further enquiry do plainly evince as much and also intimate that the will or word of God which way soever it be made known whether immediately or mediately whether by Prophecy Tradition or Writing is and always has been the supream Rule both of Faith and Practice and its adequation as to matters of Faith as now contained in and expressed by the Scripture Sure footing for Christianity page 18. 20. shall be after cleared However the Church as your own J. S. well observes being a Congregation of the faithful must needs presuppose the notion of faithful faithful the notion of Faith Faith of the rule of Faith an evident argument that the Church is and ought to be regulated in believing and consequently she her self cannot be the rule of belief nor any more save as the same man says of Fathers Doctors and great Scholars and might as well have said the same of Tradition too a means to bring others to the knowledge of it But Secondly The man will needs seat authority in the Holy Catholick Church notwithstanding that authority Supream Magisterial formally as well as radically is seated in Christ All authority is given to me Matt. 28.18 Nor is the Church the subject but the object of the Ministerial Power He gave some Apostles some Pastors for the perfecting of the Saints
the only way to Heaven and that Spirit which he hath promised and gives in the Gospel ministry is the means appointed to teach and establish us in that way with certainty If I depart I will send him unto â—…on and when he is come he shall convince the world of sin because they believe not in me They shall be all taught of God all shall know me c. In whom after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise Eph. 1.15 And now you instead of reviling such Christians as humbly own their having received the anointing or troubling your self and others with that monstrous notion of an universal infallible governing Church should examine your self whether you have been so convinced taught and sealed by that spirit through hearing the word of truth the Gospel of your salvation received ye the spirit by the hearing of Faith Gal. 3.2 Pag. 33. Secondly It is impossible for any one of these parties meaning Independents Presbyterians Anabaptists Fifth-monarchy men Quakers which I must now crave leave to call Sects with reason to censure or condemn any of the others although never so different from themselves even in points by them esteemed fundamental since each of them have their uncontroulable Plea for themselves that their faith is in every respect conformable to what they understand to be the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures which they agree to be the sole and only Rule and Judge Nay which of these parties can deny the others the Title of Protestants or convince them of Heresie Since to be a Protestant no more is required or if it be I would gladly know what it is than to admit the Scriptures interpreted according to their best understanding and Conscience to be the sole and only rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies Is not he that professeth and followeth this principle allowed by all to be a perfect good Protestant though never so much differing in Faith from others who make the same profession The Quakers because your Allies in the grand point of justification and an uncharitable sentencing of all save their own Sect shall for me stand or fall to their own Master but for the rest that you mention I say that you suppose what you cannot prove scilicet that they differ in points that be or are esteemed by them to be fundamental Do they not all own the Creed called the Apostles and all conclude that therein be contained all the fundamental points at least Nay do they not all own the doctrinal part of the 39 Articles insomuch that you who would seem to revere the Doctrine established by Law dare not say they be Hereticks but are fain to crave leave to call them Sects Secondly It 's true they all agree the Scripture to be the sole and only Rule and yet mean the Scripture taken in the sense intended by God not as privately interpreted by any of them nor is their faith or present perswasion according to their grounds or pleadings uncontroulable sith what they hold in a supposed conformity with or understand to be the true sense and meaning of any Text is humbly submitted unto what can be made out with greater evidence more nearly to accord with or be the very sense and meaning intended by the Holy Ghost Apollos was ready to yield to Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18.26 and they to you or any else that shall expound unto them the way of God more perfectly But Thirdly It matters not much whether these parties can or cannot deny to one another the title of Protestant so they see ground for and do allow to one another the name of Christian Protestant is no more to us than Papist to you though yet you seem not well to know either who or what is meant by Protestant And therefore shall Mr. Baxter at your desire instruct you A Protestant is a Christian that holdeth to the Holy Scripture as the sufficient Rule of Faith and Holy living and protesteth against Popery Or if this like you not take your own definition with some little amendment A Protestant is a Christian that professeth with S. Augustin in those things which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures all those things are found which appertain to faith and direction of life and further admitteth of the Scripture where needing interpretation as interpreted according to his best understanding and Conscience that he has or in the use of lawful means may have for the intire Rule of what he as such ought to hold and practise And yet suppose all that and only that required to the Being of a Protestant which you insert The parties you tell of may at that account convince of Heresie such amongst them as shall appear to be guilty of it may they not use means by opening alledging and reasoning out of the Scripture according to Act. 17.2 3. better to inform and reclaim such a one May they not do as the Lay gentleman did with you and you now in writing this Epistle do with your old Brethren or may they not mind him as Christ did the Sadduces ye err not knowing the Scriptures Matt. 22.19 and make such a like challenge as Augustin did to Maximinius August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 14. But now neither ought I to produce the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum as going about to prejudge neither am I detained by the Authority of this nor thou of that set thing with thing cause with cause reason with reason by authorities oâ— Scriptures not proper to either but common witnesses to us both and iâ— after apparent conviction or stopping of the mouth by Scripture Testimony that man will not relinquish but persist groundlesly to maintain his grosly erroneous Tenet it is an evident sign that he does not indeed admit of Scriptures interpreted according to his best understanding and conscience to be the Rule but obstinately adheres to the perverse wilful reasonings of his own fleshly mind is not a Protestant according to the tenor of your own description but one that is or ought to be rejected by them And although I know well enough you have other means for condemning and killing such you please to call Hereticks yet am I to learn what better means you have whereby to convince them of Heresie or discern who they be A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself Tit. 3.10 11. However you might have done well to have distinguished betwixt a Protestant and a perfect good Protestant He that professeth to follow this one principle so diametrically opposite to the fundamentals of Popery may perhaps be admitted by all or most for a Protestant yet if he differ in points of faith tradited by the four first General Councils and commonly received by Christians or to be of a vicious life he is not at least ought not to be owned by
may evidently be proved from Scripture for if you or any else shall evince that Infants-Baptism cannot be proved from the Scriptures the Church of England Article the sixth hath expresly declared against the necessity of it 2. You cannot but have heard of haec homo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a Man examine himself c. 1 Cor. 11.28 Women as well as Men are there required self examination and not Auricular confession first had to receive the Eucharist Nor 3. Can you be ignorant that there is a difference betwixt the Lords-day being necessary to be observed and its being necessary that Christians should observe the Lords-day That would imply a Doctrinal This no more than an obediential necessity That if held by any the Church of England will tell you ought to be proved particularly from Scripture This needs no more but a general warrant Eleventhly It is a sin as the generality of Christians agree an heresie to re-baptize any one which hath been baptized by an Heretick where doth the Scripture say so 1. Those that hold it a sin and heresie to rebaptize any one Videtur quod Baptismus possit iterari sed contra est quod dicitur Eph 4. una fides unum baptisma Aquinas 3. quaest 66. Art 9. c. found their opinion upon Scripture One Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5.2 Cyprian held such ought to be re-baptized dyed in that opinion and yet dyed a Saint and Martyr 3. The Thesis here laid down without restriction is apparently false contradicting the Nineteenth Canon of the Council of Nice Si quis confugit ad Ecclesiam Catholicam de Paulianist Cataphrygiis statutum est rebaptizari If any one of the Paulianists and Cataphrygians fly unto the Catholick Church it is Decreed That they ought to be re-baptized And now it being evident that neither your Argument nor instances make against but for the Scriptures being a sole sufficient Rule let us try what they 'll do on that account against or for your Romish Church Whatsoever is a sole sufficient Rule must be plain and clear in all necessary points at least which relate to Faith But the Roman Church is not plain and clear in all necessary points that relate to Faith Therefore the Roman Church is not the sole sufficent Rule The major is your own nor shall I need to trouble any body else for instances to prove the minor First then it is necessary you say to know how many Sacraments Christ ordained and yet your Church leaves it doubtful whether anointing with Oyl was ordained by Christ a Sacrament or not Insinuated she says it was Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 1. Mark 6. but does not dare not say it was there or any where else instituted as such Secondly It is necessary to salvation you say to believe all the Books of the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal And yet as to this Your Church is so dark and dubious See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 7. that though Bellarmine contend that the Council of Trent did define the additaments to the Book of Hester to be canonical Sixtus Senensis believes otherwise and brings Arguments against it Nay if it be necessary to know which Books be the Word of God and which Apocryphal it is necessary sure to know which Traditions be Dominical or Apostolical which not and yet concerning this your Church is silent Thirdly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted it is necessary to know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when Mystically it is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translations of the Scriptures which we have and upon which we ground our selves are certainly true it is necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided it is necessary to know what is Fundamental what not and yet as to none of these your Church is plain and clear Fourthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth from the Father and the Son that Christ is of one substance with the Father and that these Three are One and that One Three and yet suppose these points not plainly and clearly to be found in Scriptures how possibly could the Church for the first three hundred years be said to be plain and clear concerning them for during that time there was no General Council whereby she might explain her self and if she did explain her self in General Councils after that implyed her former darkness and deficiency with respect to those very points Fifthly It is a sin and heresie you say to re-baptize any one who hath been Baptized by an Heretick and yet as hath been said your Church that I mean you take the boldness to call your Church is so far from being plain and clear in this that she hath defined the contrary Nay plainness and clearness owned as it is and ought to be for an essential property of the Rule of Faith P. 54 56. the whole of what you have said in behalf of the Church if granted true will amount to as much as nothing For suppose Christ judge the Nations not by his Word and Spirit in the mouths of his Ministers but as you phrase it by his Churches Tribunal in passing of Acts and pronouncing Anathema's suppose the Church to be what you would have it and not only led if she will but so drawn that she follow the Spirit into all truth sic de caeteris yet what were all this to the purpose For it would not necessarily follow thence that she is plain and clear in all necessary points the Apostles sure if any might so judge and were so drawn Pag. 37. and yet you say that they in their Epistles are defective dark very subject and that in fundamentals desperately to be misunderstood Nor do you trouble us with telling that the Church is always in being Pag. 61. and capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense For 1. If we cannot certainly understand the Apostles when explaining and declaring their sense and meaning how shall we be able certainly to understand your Church when explaining and declaring hers sith the Church hath no other way to explain her meaning save by words most intelligible which way the Apostles had and did make use of as is evident from 1 Cor. 14.2 The question is whether the Church be actually plain and clear in all necessary points not whether the Church be capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense being plain and clear and capable upon demand to explain and declare be different things this belongs to an Interpreter of no concern here it 's that that is pertinent and the
Chillingworth That God in his Justice may permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude Men who have forged many I answer That by this you help the Jews who refused to believe the Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles notwithstanding their Miracles For why may not they say God in his Justice for our sins might permit those true Miracles to be wrought by Jesus Christ and his Apostles to delude us who have forged many I hope this Answer will satisfie any rational person but if it do not I have another answer to give out of Mr. Chillingworth's own words Pag. 144. It is impossible that God should lye or that the Eternal truth should set his Hand and Seal to the confirmation of a falshood or of such a Doctrine as is partly true and partly false the Apostles Doctrine was thus viz. by Miracles confirmed therefore it was intirely true and in no particular false or uncertain If you reply this contradicts Mr. Chillingworth's former position I must answer That if Mr. Chillingworth be found to contradict himself relying upon his own reason it is not my fault nor doth it make any thing against our Church 1. If you will have us guilty of Sin and Haters of God for refusing to believe on that account it is necessary according to the tenor of your own law that the Miracles be done amongst and seen of us If I had not done amongst them the works which no other Man did they had not had sin but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father And yet I think it is by chance indeed if any say That this Testimony is nothing to them meerly because they have not seen a Miracle it is the Testimony it self that they except against And yet 2. There is a difference betwixt remaining out of Communion and remaining out of subjection to that you call the Holy Catholick Church Suppose we granted the truth of these things it might perhaps be a sin to remain out of her Communion and yet a duty to remain out of her subjection Miracles as hath been said may evince the truth of such and such a Church and yet make nothing at all in order to the proving of her either Supreme or Infallible though yet mistake me not by Communion I do not mean a communion total or local in all her Doctrines and polluted modes of Worship but partial Spiritual in those Doctrines and Performances supposed to be confirmed by those Miracles However 3. It is well you make it no worse with them that refuse to believe these things they have not seen than to destroy Faith and take away all humane converse c. I was afraid you would have charged them as Christ did the Jews with sin against the Holy Ghost though yet as it is your charge is so high it can never be made good For may not Faith think you evidence things not seen upon the account of Divine Revelation unless we believe what we never saw upon the report of Abraham Hartwell and John Brerely May not one Man believe another about worldly things with a humane Faith unless one Man believe another about Heavenly Doctrines with a Faith Divine Or can Thieves and Traytors ever imagine that a Law publickly promulged by the King and practically attested by the whole Nation may as warrantably be pleaded against by them as the private Testimony of a few ignote Travellers may be excepted against by us especially when they discourse largely about Miracles which if your own Doctors say true neither they nor any Man else can with certainty distinguish from lying Wonders We have notice of the Reigns and Acts of the several Kings and Queens of England no otherwise than by hear-say and by Authors and Books and we have notice of the Lives and Acts of Bevise of Southampton Robin Hood and Little John by hear-say Authors and Books and will any conclude the one is to be credited as well as the other because they have seen neither and both come to us reported by that you may have the forehead to call a good Authority Your grand Argument as is before observed comes to nothing because we have not seen your Miracles howbeit we give a ground for no such inferences as these but are ready to proportion our belief according to the worth and weight of the Testimony be it Divine or humane Nor yet will the Infidels be excused for that they have not seen the Miracles for in the Apostles time Their sound went into all the Earth and their words unto the utmost parts of the World Rom. 10.18 And now in these days besides the universal Tradition of the Church we have reasons and Records undeniable to evince the truth of Christianity and of Miracles having been done to confirm it Howbeit those who have not heard at all or heard no better proofs for the truth of Christian Religion than you bring for your Popish Miracles if excusable for not believing before doubtless may yet remain in the same venial condition as they were And now for a close 4. Give me leave to mind you 1. That in the beginning of this Epistle you would have Faith destroyed transformed into Fancy Humour and Opinion if built on any foundation save Divine Revelation or what we did certainly know to be infallibly true And now here you will have a total destruction of Faith unless it may be built upon the private Apocryphal reports of Abraham Hartwell John Pory John Brerely and such like Men not only fallible subject to errour and in a possibility to be mistaken in this very thing but Men that cannot be concluded with any probability of reason to be in a capacity to know the certain truth of what they say they do affirm 2. You can now present us with an argument from Mr. Chillingworth sufficient at once both to convince an Heathen of the truth of Christianity and to prove the Divinity of the Scriptures It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternal Truth should set his Hand and Seal to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly False The Apostles Doctrine was thus viz. by Miracles confirmed Therefore it was intirely true and in no particular false or uncertain And yet in your Discourse with the Lay Gentleman you had not a word to say for the truth of Christianity upon Protestant Grounds nor any thing for Scriptures being the Word of God save that the Spirit witnessed with your Spirit they were so 3. The Gospel Scripture Doctrines we preach are like your universal essential predications Eternal once confirmed by Miracles in themselves or their Principal they need no more This proposition The Roman Church is infallible has a personal mutable individuum for its subject changes every Age may change every year and therefore still stands in need of new miraculous confirmations insomuch that would we give you leave to suppose Miracles wrought in
which they most impudently aver that all persons must and ought to yield a blind obedience Fifthly Whether they are infallibly sure that all who do not follow and imbrace that fort of Christianity which they would have me follow and imbrace shall be damned 1. You are always in hand with your several sorts of Christianity an expression ill becoming one that hath Christian for his name and Catholick for his Sirname and therefore disclaimed by us 2. We tell you that all those that imbrace Jesus Christ by Faith and follow him in love so far as shall be made known unto them whom we perswade you to imbrace and follow shall be certainly saved and those that do not shall be certainly damned 3. Such Sectaries as you that make several sorts of Christianity and maintain it to be necessary to Salvation in all things to obey and follow this or that sort of Christianity do certainly deserve for that very thing to be eternally damned But what God will do either with you or them lest herein we should be like you I shall not determine Sixthly Supposing that they are not infallible in these particulars whether will it not rationally and necessarily follow that possibly I may at present be in the right way and they in an errour and if so what reason can they give why I should forsake my present Guide whom I believe to be infallible to follow them who confess they may be and therefore for ought they know are at present mistaken in what they believe and practise First If we neither did nor could bring any other proof for these particulars save our own Testimony fallibility on our part supposed it would rationally and necessarily follow quoad nos that possibly at least you might be in the right way and we in an errour Though yet quoad rem ipsam the sequel this notwithstanding be impossible because these particulars might be in themselves infallibly true and we neither know nor be able to evince it Secondly You may strongly imagine but if your own principles abide firm you cannot do not believe that the Roman Church your present Guide is infallible For Faith according to you is an infallible assent of the understanding submitting it self obediently to the revelations of God And therefore sith you have no revelation of God for but one express against the infallibility of the Roman Church Rom. 11.22 Your own definition will tell you it is impossible that your understanding should exert an Act of Faith about it nor yet suppose you had divine Revelation for it or that God himself should say to you the Roman Church is infallible were you ere the nearer For it 's possible you may commit an errour nay err in your understanding of those words and consequently your understanding never give an infallible assent to that which God intended by them Howbeit Thirdly We can tell you as formerly that à posse ad esse non valet Argumentum it follows not we may be therefore we are or we confess we may be therefore for ought we know at present we are mistaken c. for though we still confess we may be mistaken in what we believe and practise respect had to our desert and natural proneness yet do we know that God of his mercy through the Ministery of his word hath at present fully satisfied us that as to the main we are not and if in some things we differ and wander yet doubt we not but God for Christs sake will pardon our errours as well as our other sins and cause us to keep the unity of the Spirt in the bond of peace Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things Phil. 3.16 However Fourthly We do not desire you to forsake your present Guide and follow us but to forsake your present Guide us and your own selfish humour and follow the Lord Jesus Christ You pretend and would have us to believe the Romish Church to be infallible independently on the Scriptures because God by Miracles as you imagine has confirmed it so to be and sith so we would have you at least allow us to believe Scriptural Doctrines confessedly so confirmed independently on that Church or else excuse your self from being an Heretick sith you 'l believe nay press others to believe one proposition and refuse another equally proposed at your own account Not may this be retorted upon us either by Mr. Johnson or you For First Though we own all the gifts Christ gave unto Men for the perfecting of the Saints and work of the Ministry according to Eph. 4.11 12. yet do we neither claim nor admit of such a propounding Authority as you without any divine warrant pretend unto Pag. 9. 2. Though your Church equally impose all her Tenets respect had to her own usurped power yet does she not equally propose all respect had to the evidencing of their truth For some she proposes as Divine but does not prove them so to be as her Doctrines about the real Presence and Purgatory Pag. 81. others she not only proposes as such but evidently evinces them to be Divinely revealed as the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation to these we assent those we except against as not sufficiently represented to us And yet say 3. That two propositions may be equally proposed to and not equally work upon the understanding preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles and preaching the Gospel to the Jews were both proposed with equal evidence and Authority Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every Creature Mark 16.15 and yet did Peter with a thousand others believe that and disbelive this without any crime of Heresie if of prejudice or inadvertency imputed to them If there be any who hath any value for the Authority of the great S. Austin I shall beseech them to read this following Text of that Saint and to consider whether I have not in my proceedings observed his Rule and Method and let them but change the word Manichaeus into John Calvin and how nearly it will concern them S. Augustin against the Epistle of Manichaeus which they call fundamental cap. 5. edit Paris Tom. 61.46 If thou shalt find any one who doth not as yet believe the Gospel what wilt thou do when he shall say unto thee I do not believe But neither had I believed the Gospel unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholick Church Those therefore to whom I submitted when they required me to believe the Gospel why should I not also yield obedience unto them when they direct me not to believe Manichaeus Take your choice if you tell me I must believe the Catholicks they give me advice not to give credit to you and therefore if I believe them I cannot but refuse to believe you If you tell me I must not believe the Catholicks you proceed ill when you go about by the