to be instituted by Christ and no more and sure then the man may count two and need not complain for want of the number numbring Secondly It 's necessary to Salvation to believe all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal but by the Scripture it cannot be made out plainly and clearly which Books are the word of God and which are Apocryphal First Your own Doctors distinguish betwixt an affirmative believing and a negative disbelief and though they make it damnable to disbelieve any one point when sufficiently represented to the understanding as revealed by God yet do they not make it necessary positively and expresly to believe all or any of the Books of Holy Scriptures to be so revealed and suppose they did it matters not sith it 's evident that the Scriptures themselves make believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and not believing all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God to be that Vnum necessarium that one thing necessary to Salvation And the Fathers in the Primitive times had differences and doubts about several Books of Scripture now commonly received for Canonical and yet were saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as we 2. Christians convinced by any means whatsoever that such and such Books in themselves Apocryphal be the word of God ought during that conviction believe them to be so and it is so far from being necessary to Salvation for them rebus sic stantibus to believ otherwise that it were obstinacy and interpretatively a denying of Gods veracity for them not so to believe formally as Chillingworth though not materially an Heresie 3. True it is that it cannot be made out by Scripture as by a Testimony or Argumentum inartificiale which Books are the Word of God and which be Apocryphal yet may this be made out plainly and clearly by Scripture Tanquam per Argumentum artificiale scilicet The Divine Characters that God himself hath imprinted on those Books that be indeed the Word of God nor need we trouble your Churches Authority though we confess our selves much beholding to the Churches ministry for the finding of them out Thirdly It is necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but there is no Text or Texts of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word 1. It is necessary for you and me to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we are perswaded though upon several grounds that they be so but that it is necessary for all persons so to believe will not be granted till you further explain your necessary and add proof for the evincing of it And yet however 2. There is a Text of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word For if there be a Text that expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God there is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word But there is a Text which expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God ergo There is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word The major is evident from universal Tradition assuring us that the Scriptures we now have be the same that the Jews and Christians had then The minor is evinced from that of Paul to Timothy whose Mother was a Jewess and Father a Greek all Scripture is divinely inspired 2 Tim. 3. Fourthly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted for if they be corrupted they cease to be the Word of God and then they cannot be any rule or sure guide to us But of this we have no assurance in Scripture 1. It is not necessary as hath been said to know the Scriptures to be the Word of God and therefore not necessary sure to know they are not corrupted Scripture or Writing is no more than one special means whereby God is pleased to make known and preserve in the World the knowledge of his Will if he do it any where by another Medium that will suffice Nay suppose as the man seems to do all along that the Scriptures be corrupted it cannot be necessary to know that they are not corrupted unless it be necessary to know that which is not possible to be known and so all men be necessarily damned 2. When we say the Scripture is the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies it is usually restrained to such controversies as do not concern the Scripture You will not allow us to argue the Church is no infallible Judge or Rule because the Church is forced to seek for other and higher proof than her own words to prove her self to be Infallible and if so why should we argue the Scripture to be no Rule because we cannot have assurance in Scripture that it is not corrupted it will be sufficient that we have assurance some other way 3. Scripture may be said to be corrupted in Essentials or Accidentals in whole or in part It may be corrupted in Accidentals the Words mis-spelled Sentences misplaced Words or Letters inserted or omitted and yet the mind and meaning of God what it is all that notwithstanding be evident from thence Every Book almost after its most perfect Edition hath Errata's and yet the Authors meaning may be plain enough Nay further Scripture may be corrupted in some parts and yet remaining pure in others Scriptura per Scripturam Scripture may be corrected by Scripture as a Jesuit of your own hath well observed Fifthly It is necessary in order to the knowing of the true mind meaning and will of God and what he intended by such and such a Text that we know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when mystically but this cannot be understood from Scripture as daily experience informs us 1. The Scripture supposes men to have the use of sense and reason and if so they may easily conclude as sure as God is truth the Spirit spake by the Prophets and Apostles accordingly as he meant the Prophets and Apostles writ according as the Spirit spake and writ for that end that the true mind meaning and will of God might be known and understood which could not be without perpetuated new Revelation except we might and ought to take that for his mind and meaning which the words in their literal construction hold out unto us Eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur De verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 certum est esse sensum Spiritus Sancti That says Bellarmin which is immediately gathered from the words is certain to be the sense of the Holy Ghost And therefore 2. vainly does he enquire and fondly distinguish of several senses of this or that Text whenas it is
Revelation and though of two contraries one sense only can be true and he that refuseth that sense which he knows to be true does deserve Damnation yet that God will certainly damn him or that the not believing in case he had not known were a sin damnable is more I think than God ever told you 3. Such controversies as are necessary to be decided in the use of lawful means have been are and may be decided by Scripture without either compleating it by or introducing in the stead thereof any other Rule and for the rest a mutual forbearance of the Controvertors were far better than your Pretorial decision of the controversies Eighthly It is necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not that is as you say what is fundamental and what not fundamental and to be informed of this plainly lest we erre and be damned but in this the Scripture is silent 1. If it be necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not How comes it to pass that your Church only declares negatively what is not to be believed or what must not upon pain of Damnation be disbelieved and yet never tells affirmatively what is purely and absolutely necessary for us to believe True you will have all believe affirmatively implicitly what ever your Church believes but that is nothing to this business where knowledge of the what in an explicit Faith is necessarily required All your Doctors conclude Somewhat must be explicitly believed and you say It is necessary to know the Particulars and yet will not your Church ever be gotten to declare unto us which they be let her do it when it shall seem good unto her in the interim I shall tell you plainly That 2. So much of the what is fundamentally necessary to be believed as is needful to bring such or such a person to believe in the who and rest on the foundation Jesus Christ and consequently more may be necessary for one than another and not necessary at all that the particulars should be determined For 3. Saving and Damning depends not upon a precise knowing and believing just so many points and no more but upon a hearty believing or not believing in Jesus Christ He that believeth in the Son of God hath eternal life He that believeth not c. He that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life 1 John 5.12 Ninthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by the Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that 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 I refer to consideration whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture If they were it had been almost impossible for so many divisions to have hapned about them as have done amongst persons on all sides admitting the Scripture to be the word of God 1. I refer it also to consideration Whether all these points be not plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture And wish you to consult with almost any large English Catechism or common Place book concerning it 2. The Heart of man is desperately wicked and many are possessed with a Spirit of blindness It is one question whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture and another whether all persons that admit the Scriptures to be the word of God can or will so search as to find them to be there Both Jews and Christians admit the Books of the Old Testament for Divine and yet differ about the weightiest and as we say the clearest point You say the Scriptures are plain and evident for the Churches Infallibility and yet the Protestants that admit the Scriptures for the Word of God as well as you do all deny it 3. Those so manifold divisions in the Primitive Church make more against the Churches being a Pretorial Judge than against Scripture being a perfect Rule It had been sure altogether impossible that such and so many points should have been so long controverted but that either the generality of Christians did not then judge a Pretorial decision of controversies necessary or that there was none then impowered so to decide them Howbeit 4. Is it necessary to believe these points implicitly or explicitly if but implicitly it is not necessary in order to the constituting of Scriptures an adequate object or rule of believing than these points should be plainly contained in them For plainness respects knowledge of the particulars to be believed which this kind of Faith supposeth not and if it be necessary to believe these points explicitly knowingly your own Doctors will not deny but that the Scriptures do plainly and perspicuously contain and teach them We deny not saith Costerus that those chief heads of the Faith which are to all Christians necessary to be known to Salvation are plainly and perspicuously comprehended in the Writings of the Apostles Enchirid. c. 4. p. 49. Cujusmodi sunt mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis incarnationis Filii Dei Of which sort be the mystery of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God The Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the Antient Prophets planè instruunt nos do plainly instruct us what is to be thought concerning things Divine Therefore hostile discord laid aside let us take the explication of Questions from the words Divinely inspired says Constantine to the Council of Nice And now what think ye does Bellarmine reply why See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 1. he takes occasion hence to suspect Constantine for a person unbaptized that as yet non noverit Arcana religionis had not been acquainted with the secrets of Religion howbeit better considering answers 2. That there be Testimonies extant in the Holy Scriptures of all the Doctrines which appertain to the nature of God and that concerning these Doctrines we may be plenè planè fully and plainly instructed out of the Holy Scriptures Tenthly It is necessary the Church of England saith that Infants should be Baptized and Women should receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and Christians should observe the Lords-day and yet none of these points are clearly and particularly proved from Scriptures 1. It matters not much what you say elsewhere this passage sufficiently manifests what sort of Nonconformists you write against scil not Nonconformists to the Church of England but to the Chair of Rome for if otherwise wherefore should you urge them in this case with The Church of England saith c. And yet however 2. You must know that if the Church of England say It is necessary that Infants should be Baptized it is upon a supposition that the affirmative
THE Popish Proselyte THE GRAND FANATICK OR AN ANTIDOTE AGAINST The Poyson of Captain Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Non-conformists And many other Signs and Wonders truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that in believing you might have life through his name John 20.30 31. London Printed for Samuel Tidmarsh at the Kings Head in Cornhill next House to the Royal Exchange MDCLXXXIV TO THE READER AN exact answering of the whole Epistle by Paragraphs would have swelled my intended little Book into a great Volume nor did I conceive it needful and that because the Captain himself hath contracted the pith of all that is pertinent into his sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule His Argument from Heaven for the Roman Church being Judge and Guide and his six Queries supposed utterly destructive to and altogether unanswerable upon the grounds of Protestants and now all these be at large transcribed examined and solved And yet lest the less intelligent Reader should stumble or the Adversary insult I have in an admonitory prefatory discourse so far taken notice of all his mostly seeming important conclusions and objections as to make it apparent that they have nought else save ignorance inadvertency selfishness and strong delusion to support and give rise unto them Nor yet have I made it my only business to pull down though that must needs be their great work that have to do with Babel-builders but have all along ascertained what I would or should establish from such common principles of Religion and Reason as are assented to by Papists Protestants and the Vniversality at least of Christians As for reviling had not his own guilt put him on to caution against it I should never have thought of it what is of personal concern is occasioned by his own writings circumstant to the matter under debate and all contained in one single Page the whole is closed with a vindication of the Great Saint Augustin from favouring the proceedings of so grand an Apostate as Robert Everard Joseph Harrison An Answer to Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Nonconformists I Shall at present suppose Robert Everard to be no Romish Jesuited Priest Pag. 91. but Quondam Captain to a Troop of Rebellious Souldiers and do conclude from his own Printed papers attended with some obvious circumstances that four things did chiefly concur to the shipwracking of his Faith First Ignorance Secondly Inadvertency or Imprudence Thirdly Self-interest Fourthly A just judgment of God in sending such strong delusions that they should believe a lie The mans ignorance appears First in that he cannot construe credo Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam I believe the Being but renders as if he had read credo Sanctae c. I believe the saying of the Holy Catholick Church sets hence in the front of his Book and urges all a-long the Churches and in the issue the Roman Churches pretended infallible declaration for the foundation of Faith When yet the very Creed teacheth him First To confess I believe in God the Father in the Son and in the Holy Ghost as that which must necessarily forego and found his believing first that there is a Holy Catholick Church as well as that there is a Communion of Saints nor doth it give any more ground to conclude the one than the other for to be infallible Secondly Though the Captain before the closure of the Book be so well taught as to prove the Roman Church infallible in teaching from certain stories about Miracles no more than pointed at out of Breerleys Index no more than surmised to be done by S. Francis S. Dominick and the Monk Austin with such like to confirm and that but some few of her superstitious Doctrins Nay can chide such as Persons destroying Faith Pag. 78. taking away all humane converse c. that shall refuse upon such fallible Testimonies to believe stories so extreamly improbable yet is he such a Novice in the beginning that he cannot so much as offer an argument for the truth of Christianity from all the undoubted Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles Pag. 6. for no other end save the confirming thereof Heb. 2.3 4. recorded in Sacred Writ that we might believe John 20.31 not denyed by the Adversaries of our Faith and most celebriously attested by the unanimous consent of all Christians in all succeeding Ages Nor has he a word to say to the Gentleman that in opposition to the Evangelist calls Faith thus founded an opinion an humour But instead of that gratis grants that unless we know what ex parte rei is impossible to be known our selves or those that teach us to be infallible Christianity as to us can be no more than probably not most probably true Jews Turks and Pagans may be as well perswaded of their several ways as we can be of ours both upon a fallible certainty Not knowing sure that the Christians certainty hath no fallible save that they may the Jews Turks and Pagans fallible no certainty save that they do imagine it And secondly that it is irrational thus to argue à Doctore ad Doctrinam from the Person to the thing from what may be to what is Euclid may be fallible and yet his demonstrations not deceive we may know our selves and those that teach us to be subject to mistake and yet know too that in this or that particular neither they nor we are mistaken Christianity as to us may be certainly true certainly so demonstrated to Jews Turks and Pagans and yet every Man confessed to be a liar every Church ex parte sui in a possibility to commit an error in this thing But 3dly The man cannot distinguish betwixt the internal testimony of the spirit vouchsafed sometimes unto some and that constant historical evidence which is afforded unto all When he was a Quaker it 's like he confounded the original Cause and the original Language and now he cannot make a difference betwixt the efficient cause of our believing and the formal object ground or Reason of Faith He discourses with a man sensual as if he had the spirit and imagines that the Holy Ghost which is sent to witness with our spirits that we are the children of God should in the same manner and measure witness the Divine truth of every particular Book and Text of Scripture And hence instead of Firstly telling the sensual Lay Gentleman that he believed the Scriptures to be the word of God fide Historica by an Historical Faith upon the account of universal Tradition He talks with him about an inward infallible Testimony of the Spirit and makes that spiritual sense and feeling which is peculiar to Gods Elect sealing up their interest in Christ to be the common convincing ground of that being indeed the Spirits
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
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
visible body Politick different from that invisible Church which is Christs mystical body the Texts you cite Acts 20.28 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Col. 1.24 2 5. Mat 16.18 do import no such thing for the four first distinguish betwixt the Church and the Overseers Officers or Ministers thereof seeming thereby to suppose that the Overseers not as Overseers in their Politick capacity but as believers respect had to their spiritual Union be truly members of the Church there mentioned and for the fifth if by Rock might be understood Peter it would as to this business be of the same import Augustin de verbis domini secund Mat. Serm. 13. Chamier Tom. 2. l. 11. chap. 23. And if by Rock with the great St. Augustin we understand Christ and so we ought and may as is made appear by Chamier the remoteness of the antecedent notwithstanding that Text relates to the Church builded the Church which is Gods own workmanship Eph. 2.10 holding out that to be it against which the Gates of Hell whether sin or death or the power or policy of spiritual Adversaries shall not prevail Secondly Your Doctors usually blame us for making two Churches the one visible and the other invisible And now you seem offended because we do not However without regard to either we affirm that the same Holy Catholick militant Church is both visible and invisible invisible respect had to its union and visible respect had to its profession of Faith in Christ Thirdly Yours I think do and therefore sure should you in this case distinguish inter Ecclesiam judicantem docentem betwixt the Church judging or defining and the Church teaching and have pleaded for that not this to be infallible as and for ours though its true they do affirm that the Church while teaching conformable to Scriptures teacheth Doctrine infallibly true yet do they never say that the Church in any sense is or ought to be denominated infallible No Sir the Church hath other precious priviledges other benefits by these promises and the Doctrine of Christ as hath and shall be made appear is and may be abundantly otherwise confirmed you need not for fear of debasing the Church below the Devil suppose her thus guilty of robbery in making her self equal with God Equal I say with God because infallibility is not an effect or fruit like love peace but an essential attribute of the Holy Ghost no more communicable to or predicable either of you or us than Omnipresence or Omnipotency It 's God alone that cannot lie Titus 1.2 howbeit in some cases others through his grace shall not Fourthly The books of Scripture Pag. 83. which you are pleased to accept as Gods written word and Divine revelations were first delivered unto you by Catholicks and accepted of by your Ancestors upon the score and word of Roman Catholicks Priests and Monks together with the same sense and interpretation which the Roman Catholick Church now teacheth and which was then confirmed by miracles as aforesaid First You confess Pag. 84. Querie the third that there is a Greek Church and an Ethiopian Church distinct from yours and we can tell you out of Reinerius cont Haeret. cap. 4. of Leonists or Lollards that were dispersed into all Countries have continued ever since the Apostles lived justly and believed all the Articles contained in the Creed Our Ancestors might receive the books of Scripture as Gods written word from Catholicks and yet never be beholding to the Romanists for it But be it so that our Ancestors did as you say what then Did not the Primitive Christians receive the books of the Old Testament from the Jews and yet rejected their Traditions nay disputed against the Jewish Traditions out of those very books How ever Secondly These books were not accepted as aforesaid upon the score and word of the Roman Catholick Priests and Monks for our Ancestors had the Priests and Monks word for the Apocrypha books as well as for the Canonical and yet did they reject those and accept these because they found convincing reasons so to do Thirdly True it is your Priests are sworn not to interpret Scripture against the sense which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold but that they do so or ever delivered unto our Ancestors any such an interpretation much less any confirmed by Miracles remains for you to prove and is a fable we know nothing of though yet Fourthly If you your Priests and Monks or any body else can bring us to the certain knowledge thereof or any other traditions so confirmed we shall without further ado accept of hold them as fast as we can and in the mean while no little marvel that you knowing so well of such a sense should spend time in troubling us with your own private glosses Nor yet is the last the least sign of a brazen forehead the Apostate blushes not to tell to all the world that he has now learned to hate and abhorr Rebellion and Treason as much as Hell and Damnation Pag. 86. notwithstanding that First The general approved Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third decrees that if the Temporal Lord being required and admonished of the Church shall neglect to purge his Country of Heretical defilments the Pope may from thenceforth denounce his Vassals absolved from their fidelity and may expose his Country to be seised on by Catholicks who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and keep it in the purity of Faith The Popish Bishops and Priests declare and swear extra hanc veram fidem Catholicam non est salus out of this true Catholick Faith there is no Salvation The summ of all the Captain has learned and would have us to learn is to believe as the Church believes and consequently is so far from having learned to hate and abhor rebellion as Hell and Damnation as he believes all such shall be damned to Hell as do not hold it lawful such procedure first had by the Church and Pope to rise up in Rebellion against their Lord and King Secondly The Oath of Allegiance was composed and imposed on purpose to distinguish the Loyal and disloyal Romanists the Popes power of Excommunication not at all therein touched no point of doctrine inserted and yet is the Popish Religion so near allied to Rebellion that it commands her Vassals rather to suffer death than bind themselves by Oath to perform Allegiance to their Lord and King though yet to say truth Thirdly The Papists in this deal more candidly than in any other thing that I know of for should they take this Oath as sometimes some of them in policy may do it were no better than taking Gods name in vain The Pope if antecedently he have not may yet at pleasure absolve them from it they may this notwithstanding be free to rebel so soon as there is an opportunity and â—ill there be an opportunity it is not likely that men so wise
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