then to declare all Catholicks ever owned what he teaches Since I have good reason to question whether our Author be of that number And that 1. Because all true Catholicks ever held the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour to be things which concern Faith and as such to be plainly contained in Scripture But our Author on the contrary saith these are not plainly contained in Scripture and then either according to St. Austin they should not concern Faith or our Author is none of those Catholicks that own what St. Austin teaches 2. The Church of Rome which whatever others think I question not but the Prover holds to be Catholick owns not what St. Austin teaches for she affirms there is a Word Unwritten as well as Written and that this Unwritten Word is as necessary as the Written Forasmuch as there are things relating to Faith and Manners in the Unwritten Word that are not contained in the Written But here our Author has prevented me for he will prove this also to be the sense of St. Austin and both consistent as thus All Catholicks own what St. Augustin teaches that all things which concern Faith and Manners are plainly contained in Scripture For as the same St. Augustin observes about true Baptism which he held absolutely necessary to Salvation that we have no proof in this case from Scripture Yet c. That is the Scripture contains all things necessary relating to Faith and Manners for we have no proof from Scripture for a point absolutely necessary to Salvation which is as if he should say England is a Country that abounds in all things necessary to Life for it wants Bread which is absolutely necessary to it This is in our Author's phrase Pag. 5. a special piece of Logic. I will for the honour of St. Austin and in charity to our Author suppose he turned not to the place in that Father when besides this impertinence he charges upon that Learned Writer he reads we have no proof for we have no example and speaks so darkly of the case it self I will direct him to it it 's Contr. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. let him read it at his leisure and compare it with Ch. 33. And in the mean time I shall furnish him with another saying of the same Father Whether concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to Faith and Life I will not say If we who are not to be compared with him that said Though We but if an Angel from heaven shall teach besides what ye have received in the Prophetical or Evangelical Writings let him be accursed But the case in this first Question as it appears stated by the Addresser is Whether all things necessary to Salvation are immediately and expresly contain`d in Scripture or drawn thence by an evident Consequence Our Answerer proves they are so by the three following Texts his Proofs I will set in a due form that their force may lie open to all The first Text is taken out of Joh. 20. 31. where the Evangelist having premised v. 30. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book says v. 31. These which he had set down are written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that believing you may have Life in his Name Now what Conclusion can be drawn from this Text to our present purpose but one in one of these two forms First thus The signs set down by St. John Ch 20. are sufficient to make us believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God but precisely to believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God is all that is necessary to have Life in his name or to Salvation therefore the 20th Chapter of St. John contains all things necessary to Salvation Or else thus in the Answerer's words All that is as sufficient in its kind to beget Faith in us as Faith is to save us contains all things necessary to Salvation But the 20th Chapter of St. John`s Gospel as it appears by ver 31. is as sufficient to beget Faith in us therefore that 20th Chapter contains all things necessary to Salvation A special piece of Logic However his Conclusion eases the Members of his Congregation from the Obligation of reading any part of Scripture besides the 20th Chapter of St. John 's Gospel Our Author from his love to Logic and his Skill in it undertakes to set the Answerer's Proofs in a due form But by his leave I shall put in a small Charge or two against it As The first Charge I have against what he calls a setting the Proofs in a due form is that his Conclusion is false in its form as his Syllogism has four Terms in it For saith he The signs set down by St. John 20. are sufficient to make us believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God but Precisely to believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God is all that is necessary c. For precisely to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is to believe that and no more Whereas by that Phrase the Scripture implies the believing the whole Gospel So Joh. 11. 27. I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God. Acts 8. 37. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 1 John 5. 5. Who is he that overcometh the World but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God 2. He puts his Query too extravagantly Now what Conclusion can be drawn from this Text to our present purpose but one therefore the 20 th Chapter of St. John contains all things necessary This is a Conclusion of his own forming and before he can infer it must ask two or three things which he may be sure will never be granted him 1. He takes it for granted that by these in St. John are to be understood only the Signs set down in that Chapter Whereas 1. St. John in the former Verse speaking of the Signs done by Jesus saith they are not written in this Book but these are written Where Not in that Chapter for to say the truth on 't whatever our Author thinks St. John did not divide his Gospel into Chapters but in that Book And thus inded Bellarmin understands it But 2. The Apostle further enlarges this Phrase Chap. 21. 24 25. This is the Disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things And there are also many other things which Jesus did And so what is true of the Signs is also true of the other things wrote by that Evangelist 3. Tho St. John spoke this more especially of the things writ by himself yet the same is applicable to what was wrote by the rest of the Divine Writers And it might be said of what was written by them as well as of what was written by him These are written that ye might believe And this was the
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
use made of this place of St. John in the Answer viz. to shew what was the end the Scripture was written for and the sufficiency of Scripture in order to that end and this that Quotation proves for if any part and much more the whole of Scripture was written that they might believe Surely then they might believe by reading what was written Thus it was argued in the Answer p. 3. The Scripture must fail of its end and we of the Salvation therein revealed if that be not as sufficient in its kind to beget Faith in us as Faith is to save us For saith St. John These things are written c. So that instead of our Author's Conclusion I shall give him two other which contain the force of what was there said they are these The end for which the things are written in Scripture is that we might believe but the things written would fail of the end for which they were written if they are not sufficient to beget that Faith in us which they were intended to be the means of Again If by the belief of what is contained in Scripture we come to be saved as St. John saith then the Scripture must contain all those things which are necessary to be believed But saith the Prover St. John saith all this of the Signs written in that Chapter But that I have already prevented or if I should say so it 's as tolerable as it is for Bellarmin to affirm that all the useful ends for which Scripture was wrote are to be found in the 2 d Epistle of St. John the shortest Book of Scripture But however here is a dreadful Charge at the heels of it For saith the Prover The Conclusion eases the Members of his Congregation from the Obligation of reading any part of Scripture besides the 20 th Chapter of St. John 's Gospel We may guess to what Church our Author belongs when he will have it an ease to the People to be discharged from reading the Scripture Tho at the same time I wonder how he came to stumble upon the word Obligation For how is this to be reconciled to the Practice of that Church which eases the People of the whole and permits them not to read the 20 th Chapter of St. John nor any other part of Scripture tho they are under a Divine Obligation so to do But in the Name of Logic and the University our Author was of how comes this Conclusion on That if all things necessary to Salvation are contained in the 20 th Chapter of St. John That therefore the People are eased from the Obligation of reading more I remember Bellarmin at this place argues much at this rate If St. John 's Gospel contains all things necessary then the rest of Scripture is Superfluous But the same Bellarmin when press'd another way asserts There are many things in Scripture which of themselves do not pertain to Faith that is which are not therefore written because they are necessary to be believed And again There may be things sufficient for Baptism but which suffice not absolutely for the Church So that it seems there are things necessary and sufficient in one respect and not in another some necessary for Salvation absolutely some for Edification And therefore it follows not that because all things absolutely necessary are contained in some part of Scripture therefore the others are Superfluous and there is no Obligation to read them For then it would also follow that because all things necessary are contained in the New Testament therefore the Church in our Author's Phrase is eased from the Obligation of reading the old And because three thousand were converted by one Sermon Acts 2. therefore all besides what was contained in that Sermon would have been Superfluous The second Text of Scripture is 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 where the Apostle having thus warned Timothy immediately before v. 14. Continue in those things which thou hast learnt and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learnt by which words he renews the commands he had given him O Timothy keep the depositum have a form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in Faith The said Apostle minds him that in his Infancy he had read the Old Testament which bears sufficiently witness that Christ was the Messias v. 15 16. Because from thine infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures which can instruct thee the Protestant Version hath make thee wise to Salvation by the Faith that is in Christ Jesus All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in Justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good work Hence the Minister argues thus The same Apostle that says all Scripture i. e. each part of Scripture is given by Inspiration of God says that the Scriptures are able to make us wise to Salvation But men cannot be wise to Salvation without knowing what is necessary to salvation Here he leaves us but I will make up the Syllogism Therefere the Old Testament alone nay every part of Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation Thus you see the Minister rests satisfied with the first Chapter of Genesis for his whole Rule of Faith. The truth is that St. Paul only teaches there that the Testament or any part of Scripture is of good use is profitable to instruct any one in the concerns of his Salvation What 's this to the containing of all necessaries to Salvation Bread is of very good use to preserve Life and enables a man to perform all the duties of it is therefore nothing else necessary What pitiful shifts are these Here I must take leave to charge our Author with notorious Sophistry not only from the false Construction of his Syllogism whether out of Ignorance or Design I know not but also for the falseness of the matter contained in it The Answerer indeed undertook to prove the Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation and that we are as sure of its sufficiency in that kind as we are of its Divine Authority forasmuch as the same Apostle that said all Scripture is of Divine Inspiration doth also immediately before as positively affirm that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15 16. This is the whole of what the Answerer said upon this place and now with what Conscience could our Author charge this following Consequence upon him Hence the Minister argues thus The same Apostle that says all Scripture i. e. each part of Scripture is given by Inspiration of God says that the Scriptures are able to make us wise to Salvation but men cannot be wise to Salvation without knowing what is necessary to Salvation Is this He that said he would set down the Answerers Proofs in due Form Then God deliver us from such Undertakers In short it 's very evident that the Argument in the Answer reduced
will set him right and leave him to his Cell for the rest The Answerer's Argument is this when set in due form If all questions and doubts relating to Salvation are to be resolved by Scripture then all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture but all questions and doubts relating to Salvation are to be resolved by Scripture as appears from the Texts quoted above therefore c. I shall here return him my words again because in repeating he has perverted them He takes up with such a sort of Arguments which how useful soever they may prove I will recall it and say with him tho not useful to make some men of their Religion have a plainer tendency to not as he corrupts them may very well make others of none Q. 2. Whether all things necessary to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture Ans From Scripture not a word However he condescends to deliver His sense and that of his Church on this Qnestion It is That all persons cannot immediately learn all the necessaries to Salvation by meer reading of Scripture that many other helps are necessary to wit attention consideration to be cleared from prejudices and prepossessions from pride love of the world interest obstinacy partiality sloth and besides all this the assistance of teaching Guides and a dependency from God for the Wisdom he hath promised such promises I find made to the Church but not any to particulars that shall refuse to be absolutely guided by the Church So that Scripture is plain in this sense only that by these means it may be apprehended Now by Guides he means not false ones such as Christ bid us beware of and consequently till a Protestant hath a reasonable conviction that his Church-Teachers tho' divided from the Catholic Church and condemned by General Councils tho' Abettors of a Religion of not 150 years settlement tho not in Communion with one Bishop in the whole World out of His Majesty's Dominions yet still are true Guides and till he be morally sure that he wants not himself any one of the ten other dispositions requir`d is to persuade himself that he may very well be one of those who wrest the Scripture to their perdition and consequently hath no good ground for any one Act of Faith. This will create but small comfort to any Protestant Less yet will he find in St. Cyril's Sentence The things that are easie are yet to Heretics hard to understand especially if all those be Heretics according to St. Augustin who when the Doctrine of Catholic Faith is declared to them chuse to oppose it and rather embrace what is their own sense if the Catholic Faith be according to the same Dr a Communion with the whole world so that according as his Scholar St. Prosper defines it a Christian when in Communion with this General Church is a Catholic when separated from her an Heretick I wonder how this man was so confident as to name that word Heretic which his Brethren are usually as much afraid to mention as a murtherer to come up to the murder'd Corps lest by its bleeding he be betray'd He saith that as to this second Question there is from Scripture not a word in the Answer And what needed it when the same Texts that were brought to prove the Scripture contains all things necessary do prove that it plainly contains them As for instance Joh. 20. 31. These are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life Where the end for which they were written which was that they might believe and the persons for whom they were written for all Christians sufficiently prove that they were for the manner so exprest as well as from the matter so evident that they might believe So again 2 Tim. 3. 15. The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto Salvation If they were the Scriptures that Timothy knew from a child and were able to make him wise unto Salvation surely they were plain in those things So again Luk. 10 25. What is written in the Law How readest thou must needs imply the Law was plain to be read and understood So Luk. 16. 29. They have Moses and the Prophets But to what purpose if Moses and the Prophets were not to be understood by them But 2. What proof would he have of this Can he have any plainer proof than from the things contained therein Tolle lege will shew there is a God and God alone is to be worshipped That the Soul is immortal That there is a future state and that a state of rewards and punishments That man is fallen That Christ redeemed him That Christ is the Son of God. That he became man. That he was Crucified and died a Sacrifice for us That he rose from the dead ascended into Heaven is there our Mediator c. of which and the like we may say as Justin Martyr did to Trypho the Jew Attend to what I shall rehearse out of the holy Scriptures proofs which need not to be explained but only to be heard But he goes on However the Answerer delivers his sense on this Question It is That all persons cannot immediately learn all necessaries by meer reading of Scripture that many other helps are necessary to wit attention consideration And can he say any thing to the contrary Some things are so plain as that with the meer reading of them they are immediately understood Others require attention and consideration and yet be plain though not equally as plain as the former The Answerer further proceeded to shew the mind ought to be clear'd from prejudices And doth this detract any thing from the perspicuity of Scriptures For the Propositions may be plain but yet be obscure to him that is under prepossessions as was shewed at large in the Answer All which were there sum'd up thus If men come with an honest heart and use a competent diligence with a dependence upon God's assistance for the wisdom he hath promised I know nothing necessary to Salvation but what is plainly taught in Scripture and may be learn'd from it What hath the Prover to say to this Such promises of obtaining wisdom from God I find made to the Church but not to any particular that shall refuse to be absolutely guided by the Church But is not this promise made to particulars without any mention of the Church that he is to learn it from What thinks he of the place the Answerer had his eye upon Jam. 1. 5. If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God and it shall be given him What of Joh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God Now it should have been according to our Author's projection If any man lack wisdom or would know whether the Doctrine be of God let him go to the infallible Church to the Vicar of Christ or a Council called by him or to the
that one of these Phrases is more fit to express a Natural than a Moral Union that is they are One doth more aptly express it than they agree in One And therefore whereas they are One may sometimes signifie a Moral Union and may then be interpreted by they agree in One yet agree in One cannot be interpreted by they are One. 3. From hence we have an answer to that Question of his Whether this second clear Text concerning the Three that bear witness on Earth and which we know to be only Morally One doth not expound what that Vnity is that is found in the Three which bear Record in Heaven I answer No for tho One sometimes signifies a Moral Union yet here if so understood it would quite destroy that distinction betwixt the one Three and the other and the Preference that the one Three had above the other Three in their Union 4. By this we are prepared also to answer to his other Argument when he saith that when our Saviour prays John 17. 21. that all believers may be one as he and his Father are one may seem to expound John 10. 58. I and my Father are one and then Christ and his Father will be one only Morally as all the Believers are one In answer to which 1. It 's granted that the Father and the Son may be said to be one in a Moral Sense as one in consent But 2. It doth not follow that because the Father and Son are thus One that therefore they are no otherwise One and that all Believers are as much One as the Father and Son are One. 3. It 's evident from what is spoke by way of Explication in that place that it 's otherwise for when ver 22. Christ prays that they may be one as we are one it 's added ver 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same Phrase as 1 John 5. 8. that they may be made perfect in one implying that the Unity betwixt Believers is of another nature than the Unity betwixt the Father and the Son. 4. The Union of Believers in John 17. cannot be applied to the Union betwixt the Father and the Son in John 10. 50. because this latter is a Union of Essence as well as Will And for confirmation of this the Answerer offered an Argument from the Text it self to take off the force of which the Prover in repeating it leaves out a main branch of it for thus he frames it for the Answerer 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 But the Inference in the Answer was this It follows that neither did our Saviour speak nor the Jews understand him to have spoken of a Moral but a Natural Vnion The first and the main Branch was That our Saviour himself spoke of a Natural Union the next was That the Jews understood him also to have spoken of it And for the first I referred him to the Book called The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared but it wants an Answer and so he cautiously takes no notice of it But because he is herein so reserved let me recommend him to his Friend Bellarmin who concludes this Argument with Constat eos rectè intellexisse It 's evident the Jews rightly understood our Saviour But it seems this Advice comes too late for faith he I will let my good nature I wish he could say sincerity work upon me for once and for quiets sake I will let this discourse pass as allowable Whence is it that all o' th' sudden he is in so good a humour and so forward in his allowances The good man could not contain himself longer for from a small advantage he espied and which is somewhat rare with them now-a-days and therefore not to be let slip he will yield tho the thing he yields be never so impertinent and absurd Let this pass What then In return of Courtesie saith he I hope each sober Protestant will own this following Argument to be at least of as good alloy When Christ said John 6. Vnless you eat the Flesh c. the Jews c. understood that he spake of his Natural Body therefore Christ did really mean they should corporally feed on his Natural Flesh But surely sober Protestants are for Reason Pertinence and Sincerity but however his Argument shall be allowable if he can make it as evident the Jews did not mistake when they understood Christ spake of his Natural Flesh and a corporal feeding on it as it may be made appear they did not mistake him when they thought by his calling himself the Son of God that he meant he was essentially of the same Nature and one with God. Q 5. Is the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ clearly exprest in Scripture Or can it be clearly made out by Scripture that those words John 1. The Word was made Flesh own'd by all Christians to be true are to be understood in such sense that Both Natures were in one Person so that what is said of the Man Christ Jesus be truly said of the Son of God for example that the B. Virgin was mother of God and not as the Nestorians understood them to wit that Christ was indeed a true man made of the Seed of David and that the Eternal Word true God was indeed in him but not by a strict Personal Union Ans Not one word from Scripture What indeed all the Nestorians supposed he proves but as to the Unity of One Person uniting these two Natures not one word This man any one may see is of those who take the Nestorians to be a part of the Catholick Church and no one will grudge their Congregation the Title of such a part of the Catholick Church that is a Member severed from the One Body of Christ The Prover saith What all the Nestorians supposcd he proves but as to the Vnity of one Person c. not one word Put case the Answerer had proved no more than what our Author now saith Nestorius supposed if he proved what was sufficient to confute what the Addresser supposed for Nestorius and then the Answerer could as far as the Addresser then knew be no Nestorian Let us then see how the Addresser represented this Heresie Nestorius saith he and others denied that word is made Flesh to signifie a strict Incarnation But what then did he and others hold but either a Moral Vnion or a meer External appearance of a man. He tells us not whether both of these or which of these was the opinion of Nestorius but I shall not take this advantage but suppose he meant the first a Moral Vnion And what is that He tells us p. 3. and as quoted in the Answer p. 20. that is he was a Man who had the Authority
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.