Rom is No Rule — Jeremiah Ives

Rom is No Rule · Jeremiah Ives

Rome is no Rule: OR, An Anſwer to an Epiſtle publiſhed by a Roman Catholick who ſtiles himſelf Cap. ROBERT EVERARD.

BEfore I ſhall engage againſt the main body of this diſcourſe, I ſhall take a view of its Front and Rear, I mean the Title and Poſt-ſcript: In the Title you have the ſuperſcription of An Epiſtle to the ſeveral Congregations of Non-conformiſts.

Here I would gladly be informed who you mean by this term of diſcrimination, Non-Conformiſts, either you mean all that Conform not to the Church of Rome, or all that Conform not to the Church of England; if you mean all that Conform not to the Church of Rome, then the Church of England is concerned in this Epiſtle, and reckoned by you among all other Sects and Hereticks: but if by Non-Conformiſts you would diſcriminate all that Conform not to the Church of England, then your Mother the pretended Holy Catholick Church is concerned in your Epiſtle, they being Non-Conformiſts to the Church of England, as well (or rather as ill) as others; and good reaſon ſhe ſhould be concerned, ſince ſhe hath furniſhed you with all your Weapons for this Warfare out of here Armoury: and it is but a piece of gratitude to direct that to her which you ſo lately received from from her: for he that hath a hand to take, and not a tongue to return thanks, deſerves for the future to be both lame and dumb.

Having viewed the Superſcription, I come to the Subſcriber, and he is no leſs then a Captain, Captain Robert Everard. But where was he a Captain, and whom did he command? Let him ſpeak for himſelf he is old enough. He tells us he was at the head of a Troop in the rebellious Army: See his Poſt-ſcript, p. 40.

But what a ſhame is this, that this Honour was not laid in the duſt, rather then prefixed in the Title of a Book? Surely had you been truly humbled for that Rebellion, as you pretend, you would have ſaid of all the honour that you acquired thereby, as Ephraim ſaid of his Idols; What have I to do any more with you?

In the next place I cannot but obſerve the place where this Epiſtle was printed, and if you will believe it, it was printed at Paris. I ſee you have learned one, if not all the the three things which a learned man obſerves Children ſoon learn of their Mothers, Pride, Revenge, and Lying: this laſt appears in that you have made a Lye your refuge, by ſaying your Epiſtle was printed at Paris. But let me ask you the Queſtion which you ask your Reader, p. 20. who will adventure (ſay you) to make oath the Scriptures we have, agree with the Originals? So ſay I, Who will adventure to make oath that this Epiſtle was printed at Paris? Surely we are like to meet with little truth in the Houſe when a Lye in Capitals, and a Capital Lye is inſcribed on the Porch, as a London Printer will witneſ, to your …ace, if occaſion ſerve.

I come now to the Poſt-ſcript, …herein you caution your Reſpondent, p. 39. to ſet down your own words as they lye intirely, without maintaining them: and alſo, if he anſwers by Paragraphs, to ſet down your whole Paragraphs.

Sir, give me leave to tell you, that you require a thing impoſſible; for there is in your Epiſtle ſo little of you, as any one may perceive (by your own words) and by comparing it with the Book Entituled, (The Queſtion of Queſtions, and Fiat Lux) that it is hard to ſay whether any thing by yours beſides theſe three words, CAPTAIN ROBERT EVERARD, and therefore if you would have had a diſtinct Anſwer to all your Arguments, you ſhould have diſtinguiſhed what had been yours, from what was other mens, by a different Character, as is uſual in ſuch caſes.

You go on in your Poſt-ſcript and forewarn your Reſpondent, that be ſet not up a Puppit of his own in ſtead of Anſwering. If he doth ſet up a Puppit of his own, he hath done more then you, who have ſcarce ſet up any thing of your own, beſides your name. But (what) if be ſet up a Puppit of his own and call it yours, (you ſay) he will not make your Arguments, but his own ridiculous. Truly he may poſſibly make his own, but he cannot make your Arguments ridiculous, becauſe he knows not any one that is yours in all the Epiſtle.

The next thing you caution your Reſpondent is, That he would forbear all reproaches and ſlanders againſt the Catholick Church, or Catholicks in general, or in particular, which (ſay you) is a fault Protestants are too much in general addicted to.

Sir, I perceive this Counſel is eaſier given then taken, elſe why do you reflect reproach upon Proteſtants in general in the ſame breath, in which you invite them to forbear reproaches?

Again, You ſay, That the Presbyterians and Independents do by the Catholicks as they did by his late Majesty of glorious memory, and with our moſt dread Soveraign that now is, and their Party, (viz.) to impute crimes to them without end, and errours innumerable, without taking care to examine whether what they charged was true or falſe.

Sir, I have four or five things to ask you; 1 Whether you did uſe to do ſo by the Kings Majeſty when you were an Independent, and at the head of your Rebellious Troop? 2 Whether you believe the Kings Majeſty hath pardoned you and all that were ſo wickedly minded? 3 Whether ſince you were pardoned, you would have any to upbraid you with thoſe pardoned Crimes? If not, then 4 Why do you that pretend to ſo much Charity, do that to others, you would not be done unto? Laſtly, Why do you violate the Law of your Soveraign, who hath forbidden upon a penalty, that thoſe things ſhould be remembred againſt any that he hath been pleaſed to bury in Oblivion? But Sir, if you were not a Novice in the Catholick Way, you might know that the people you are now fallen in with, have been the moſt guilty (in ſpeaking evil of, and doing evil to men in Authority) of any that ever mentioned the Name of Chriſt; witneſs their traducing King Henry 8. for that ever to be admired, and to be remembred work of his, in throwing off the Popes Supremacy; how have the Romaniſts reported it as a Conſequent of his Luſt and Levity? How then can they have any regard to the preſent Rulers, who daily revile their Predeceſſors, wherein any of them have acted againſt their Intereſts? witneſs both the Gunpowder Treaſon, and the Iriſh Rebellion. And what good Allegiance can his Majeſty that now is expect from you? Who forſaking a People that deſtroyed one King, and pretending repentance for that, go and joyne with a people whoſe Principle is to Depoſe and Deſtroy Kings.

Paſſing from your Title and Poſt-Script, I now come to Encounter with the main Body of your Epiſtle: In the Front whereof You place a Text out of the great St. Austine againſt Manicheus, whoſe Words are theſe; 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 yield Obedience to them, when they perſwade me not to believe Manicheus.

Thus ſpeaks Auſtine, and more to the ſame purpoſe: lo which I Anſwer, That this Text out of Auſtine may be applyed to any Church as well as to yours; And if the Church of England ſhall perſwade any one that is a Jew, to turn, and become a Chriſtian, may he not ſay he did well to believe them when they perſwaded him to believe the Goſpel? Why therefore ſhould he not believe them when they perſwade him not to turn Roman Catholick? But to this Text I ſhall ſubjoyne Two Texts more out of the ſame Authour againſt the Donatiſts: The Queſtion (ſaith he) between Us and the Donatiſts, is, where is the Church? This is the Queſtion, between the Proteſtants and the Romaniſts; He Anſwers, Let not theſe Speeches be heard among you; This I ſay and this thou ſayest, but let us hear what the Lord ſayes: There are certain Books of God, unto whoſe Authority we both conſent. There let us try our Cauſe; There let us ſeek the Church: And again in the Scriptures, have we learned Chriſt; In the Scriptures, have we learned the Church, Ep. 166. ad Donatift. Whoſoever ſhall compare theſe Texts out of Auſtine, may eaſily ſatisfie himſelf. What his Judgment was in the Queſtion between You and Us, (viz.) whether we ſhould learn Chriſt and the Scriptures from the Church, or whether we ſhould learn Chriſt and the Church from the Scriptures? To this purpoſe Epiphanius ſpeaking of a Heritick, Saith; This Man is found differing from the HOLY SCRIPTURES, as will appear to all Men that Read attentively: If he then diſſent from them, he is altogether an Alien to the Holy Catholick Church, Epiphanius Tom. 1. lib. 2. haer. 48. It ſeems in his time, all men were permitted to read the Scriptures attentively, to inform iheir minds in the Truth; whatever is now a dayes pretended to the contrary.

I proceed now to the Epiſtle it ſelf; In the beginning whereof, Page 1. You give an account of the Reaſons of its Publication; which are; To Anſwer Expectation, to prevent the World from cenſuring, and to manifest your charity to your late dear Brethren, from whom you have received returns of Aſſection.

I did expect that among thoſe Motives that prevailed with you to publiſh the grounds of your change; I ſhould have found you ſaying, that the Glory of God had been the chief moving Cauſe: But I finde not a word of that, and therefore however you may have Anſwered the Expectations of others; I am ſure you have not anſwered mine.

But further you ſay, you publiſhed your Epiſtle, To prevent the World from cenſuring: Sir, whatever you promiſed your ſelfe in the beginning of your Book, your heart failed for fear of obtaining, when you had finiſhed it; And therefore you are forced to Ride Poſt after your Reader, and pray him, That he would not up-braid you; As if you had ſome private ends of your own, in your preſent change: See the Poſt-Script in Page 40.

Which plainly ſhews that you had ſome miſ-givings of heart, that all you had ſpoken throughout your Book would not Anſwer your end, (Viz.) Keep the World from cenſuring. And as for that other end, which you pretend in the publiſhing of your Book; Namely, Charity to your late Brethren. Truly whatever you pretend, they will ſcarce believe you, becauſe in your Poſt-Script you uncharitably impute the Calumnies and Slanders that were caſt upon his late Majeſty, and his Majeſty that now is, to the Preſbiterians, and Independens Indefinitly without exception: Is this Charity? And this uncharitableneſs of yours, is grievouſly aggravated; Firſt, Becauſe it is baſely remembred by you, who were in the ſame Condemnation with others; And, Secondly, Becauſe it is mentioned after it hath been pardoned by the Kings Majeſty; And is this your gratefull return for that love which your late Brethren have manifeſted to you? If ſo, ſurely the charity of a Catholick, and the mercies of the wicked, are alike cruel.

You proceed like a Romane Catholick, and in the latter end of page the 1. Sound a Trumpet in your own praiſe, by ſaying, That your carriage was alwaies ſuch, (while you was in Communion with them (meaning your late Brethren) As gave them ſufficient reaſon to believe that you was not Byaſſed by world intereſts and ſelfiſh conſiderations. But if any body believes ſo, they may erre; becauſe they do not believe as the Church believes.

In the Second Page, you tell us, how you came to be acquainted with a Lay Gentle-Man of the Catholick perſwaſion, and how he interrogated you about the grounds of Chriſtian Religion: The ſubſtance of his Queſtions was to this purpoſe; Whether you were ſure the Christian Religion in General was more true then the Religion of Turks, Jews, or any others, &c? The Reaſon he gave for this queſtion was, that if neither your ſelf, nor thoſe that taught you, that Chriſtianity was the only ſafe way to Salvation was infallibly certain; or were capable of any mistakes or errour in this thing: Then it followed that Chriſtianity was but probable, and not certain.

From Page ſecond, to the eighth, you recite what Arguments your Catholick Friend uſed to prove theſe things to you, (Viz.) That we could not convince a Turk or a Jew of the certainty of Christianity but by the Churches Infallibility; Which I forbear to make a reply unto, partly becauſe it is but a Narrative of a private Conference between you and that Catholick Gentle-Man; And chiefly becauſe I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeake to the very ſame things in my following Anſwers to your Arguments, to which I refer the Reader.

You come in the latter end of the 8. Page, to tell us what Effects this Conference had upon your underſtanding; as that thereupon, You reſolved to have Recourſe to Almighty God by Prayer for his Divine aſsiſtance, and to make it your buſineſſe according to your skill and underſtanding, to take a full view of the Catholick Faith, and of Chriſtianity, and laying aſide all Prejudices, Pride, and Humours; You Reſolved to embrace (by the aſsſtance of God) whatſoever you ſhould underſtand to agree to his moſt Holy Will and Pleaſure.

Hereupon let me aske you a few queſtions; Firſt, how are you ſure you had a Divine Aſſiſtance in this choice, as an Anſwer to your Prayers, ſince when you made theſe Prayers, you were not a member of your pretended Catholick Church? Secondly, How are you ſure, ſince the heart of Man is deceitfull, that your heart did not deceive you, when it inclined you to Popery? Thirdly, When you ſay you made this ſearch according to the uttermoſt of your underſtanding, how do you infallibly know that your underſtanding was not depraved, and that you were not given over to an injudicious mind? Fourthly, Did you not pretend to have uſed the ſame means to find out the true Church when you turned an Independent, as you did when you did turn Papiſt? Laſtly, If ſo, how are you more able to Anſwer the Turk or Jew now, then you were when your Catholick Friend began to diſcourſe with you?

In the latter end of p. 8. and the beginning of the 9. You ſay, that You gathered from Heb. 1….6. Mark 16.16. Eph. 4.5. 2 Cor. 10.45. Heb 10.13. From all which scriptures (where God requires Faith) you ſay) you thought it did naturally follow that there muſt be ſome means appointed by God, by which we may know this true faith from all falſe Opinions, or elſe you ſay, p. 10. that propheſie would be ineffectual, Eſay 35. Say to them that are of a fearfull heart, Be ſtrang, fear not, hebold your God will come and ſave you: Then the eyes of the blind ſhall be opened, and the eares of the deaf ſhall be unſtopped, &c. There ſhall be one high way, and a way, and it ſhall be called the holy way; the way faring men, though fools ſhall not erre therein.

Now ſince God hath appointed ſuch a way; Your great difficulty (you ſay) is to finde out the Rule and the Judge, ſince one party propoſeth the ſpirit to be his guide; a Second, propoſeth Reaſon to be his Rule; A Third, propoſeth Scriptures; The Fourth aſſigneth the Holy Catholick Church, &c.

You anſwer to the Firſt, and ſay, That the ſpirit bearing witneſs with our ſpirts, or in plain terms, the private ſpirit is not that judge: Your reaſon is, becauſe any one, whether he be Jew, Pagan, or Chriſtian, if he have but confidence enough may pretend to the Spirit.

But ſince (you ſay) the great difficulty is to finde out the Rule, I would gladly know how this difficulty ſhall be infallibly reſolved? For if the private ſpirit within me muſt not reſolve me, nor my reaſon muſt not be my Rule, nor the Scriptures my Guide; then I have no light left me to ſhew me the Church, but the Church. Thus they deal like thieves, put out all other lights, that ſhould diſcover them but their own dark lanthorn; But if you ſhall ſay that you prove the Church by Miracles; How ſhall I be ſatisfied that thoſe Miracles are not deluſions? Since as many pretend to the ſpirit that have it not; So many pretend to miracles that have them not: Then we muſt have faith to believe thoſe miracles are true, and if they are true, they are no otherwiſe true but by the ſpirit of God: Then it is the ſame abſurdity to believe miracles by the ſpirits teſtimony, as it is to believe the Scriptures by the ſpirits teſtimony: But this alſo implies a contradiction, for if I muſt finde the Church by the light of the ſpirit, perſwading me that ſhe doth thoſe miracles by the power of God, then …ave you contradicted your ſelf, by ſaying, The ſpirit is not the guide: But further, may not a man as well ſay that he believes he hath the ſpirit by the ſpirit; and that he believes the Scriptures by the Scriptures; as you ſay, you believe the Church by the Church. I am ſure the laſt is the greateſt abſurdity, and may not a Turk ſay the ſame for his way, that he believers Mahomet by Mahomet, and the Alcoran by the Alcoran, (as you believe) the Church by the Church. Now if you ſhall ſay, you believe the Church by the Scripture, then the queſtion will be, how you know them to be the Word of God? If you ſay, becauſe the Church teaches they are ſo; then you run round (like a horſe in a Mill) proving the Church by the Scripture, and the Scripture by the Church.

You give another Reaſon, why the ſpirit witneſſing within us, is not the guide appointed by God, (becauſe by this none that ever pretended to it did reconcile differences.

Pray let charity begin at home; if your Church be ſo infallible; why do not you decide the differences that are between the Jeſuites, and the Dominicans? hath not as endleſs controverſies ariſen among you? Hath not as many Errours, and Schiſmes ſprung from you, as from any People profeſſing Chriſtianity? And would not your diviſions be greater, if the power of the Sword did not prevail more then your pretended Infallibility? And whereas you ſay, St. John preſcribeth a Rule to know the Spirit of Truth, from the Spirit of Errour, 1 Joh. 4. We are of God, he that knoweth God heareth us, and he that is not of God, heareth not us; Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth, from the Spirit of Errour. Now what is this to your purpoſe, unleſs you would ſtill beg the queſtion; That your Church and her Doctors, are intended in thoſe words, WE and US? But what if it be proved that you do not hear the Apoſtles? Then it follows by the Text, and your own Argument, that you have the Spirit of Errour. Now the Apoſtle taught that a Man ſhould examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; but you deny the cup to the common people; is this hearing the Apoſtles? The Apoſtle allows the Biſhops to be Huſbands of one Wife; but you forbid that they ſhould have any at all. The Apoſtles would not have Prayers ſaid in a Language that the People underſtood not; but you command it. Chriſt and the Apoſtles commanded a diligent reading, and ſearching of the Scriptures; but you forbid it, and yet you are the only Men that muſt be heard, though you teach contrary to Scripture.

You go on, and ſay, That Reaſon muſt not be our Judge, becauſe it muſt ſubmit to the Judge as a Subject, &c. I pray, what was your Judge? who reſolved the queſtion which you ſay, had ſo much difficulty in it (viz.) who ſhould direct you whether any Church was Infallible, or no? or where that Church was to be found? Did your reaſon guide you in this ſearch or no? If it did not, I do not wonder you made no better choiſe, but you ſay, Reaſon is not your Rule, becauſe it was to ſubmit as a Vaſſall to that Rule and Judge. But Sir, Though the Church of Rome, (which you call your Judge) do exerciſe ſuch a Lordſhip over the reaſons of Men, I am ſure you have given no reaſon why it ſhould be ſo. You ſay Reaſon is apt to miſtake; and therefore we ought not to be governed by it: But Sir, what if I ſay the Pope is apt to miſtake; and therefore I ought not to be governed by him. I am ſure, if that be made to appear in the judgment of Reaſon, then Reaſon will guide me to decline following ſuch a blind Guide. As for example, Liberius that was Pope about the year 350 fell into Arianiſm, and ſubſcribed to the unjuſt excommunicating Athanaſius.

Again, The Council of Constance depoſed Pope John 23. where it was proved that he held there was no eternal life, nor Immortality of the ſoul, nor Reſurrection of the dead.

Pray Sir, let Reaſon judge whether I may follow ſuch a Catholick Guide.

You add a third Reaſon to prove that Reaſon is not judge in matters of Faith, for then (ſay you) it would follow that it is poſſible to pleaſe God, for Reaſon would teach us how to pleaſe him.

May not a man from the ſame Premiſes infer that your Church is not the Judge? becauſe then it would follow that it is poſsible to pleaſe God without Faith, becauſe the Church would teach us how to pleaſe him. But you will ſay the Church doth teach us to pleaſe God by Faith; I ſay it is well if ſhe do: But what is this to the purpoſe, ſhe did not teach us to pleaſe God by Faith before it was required, and made known to us that God would be ſo pleaſed. In like manner, Reaſon will direct a man to do the ſame when he is informed God requireth ſuch a duty. But muſt not the Scripture, nor my private Spirit, nor my Reaſon judge? I pray then tell me how I ſhall be the better for all you have written? for if my Reaſon muſt not judge of the fallibility, and infallibility of your Arguments, then you had as good have told your late Brethren thus: My B…tren, I ſee that there is a great difference and contention among us, whether the Roman Church be infallible or not; This Controverſie cannot be judged by a private Spirit, for that may ſail; nor by Reaſon, becauſe mens Reaſons are uncertain, and ſubject to variation; neither are the Scriptures an infallible Judge of Controverſies, therefore they cannot judge of this: Let me therefore adviſe you of a way to decide this queſtion. Firſt, Agree that the Roman Church is infallible, and then your contention, whether the Roman Church be infallible, will ſoon be ended. An excellent advice, becauſe (you ſay) all other ways to judge and decide controverſies are fallable.

You now come in the third place to enquire whether the Scripture be ſufficient to teach us the true Faith, &c. (You ſay) You found this highly contended for, and ſeveral reaſons urged for it. Firſt, The words of our Saviour, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them you think to have eternal life, and they are they which teſtifie of me. To this Text (you ſay) you found ſeveral anſwers given which were ſatisfactory; I That it doth not appear whether this in the Original be the Im perative or the Indicative Mood, St. Cyril (you ſay) with whom Beza agrees) takes it in the Indicative Mood.

What a ſtrange Mood are you in then, to give an Anſwer to a Text which (you ſay) you were ſatisfied withal? And in the ſame breath (you ſay) it doth not appear whether it be the Imperative or the Indicative Mood. Do you think infallibility had any aſſinity with this Anſwer? Nay, you further ſay, that they are ſo farr from being a Command to all to road and ſearch the Scriptures, that they RATHER SEEM a Reprehenſion to all that ſhall frame that Conceit of them. But how can this ſenſe of that Text be Catholick, when in ſtead of an infallible Expoſition, you tell us it RATHER SEEMS to be ſo then otherwiſe? But what if I ſhould tell you that thoſe words (Search the Scriptures) rather ſeem a Command then a Reprehenſion? I ſhould rather ſeem to be infallible then you. You ſay, If it be the Indicative Mood, the ſenſe will run thus. You do ſearch the Scriptures, and ſo it ſeems to be a Reprehenſion. But this is a ſenſe contrary to Chryfoſtome, Hom. 39. in Joan. Chriſt (ſayes he) ſends us to the teſtimony of the Scriptures; then it cannot be that he ſhould reprehend them. And the Colledge of Rhems tranſlating the Text as we do, give this Interpretation of it, He (viz.) Chriſt reprehendeth the Jews (not for reading but) that reading dayly the Scriptures, and acknowledging that in them they ſhould find life; that yet they viewed them ſo ſuperficially, that they could not find therein him to be Chriſt, their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour. And in the Marginal Note upon this Text, they ſay, that neither Jews nor Hereticks find the truth, becauſe they ſearch not the Scriptures deeply, but read ſuperficially. See Rhemiſh Annot. upon John 5. Now ſee how you contradict your ſelves, you ſay the Scriptures are ſo far from being a Command to all to read and ſearch, that they rather ſeem to be a reprehenſion to all that ſhall frame that conceit of them. And your Rhemiſh Commentators ſay that they are reprehended becauſe they did not ſearch deep enough, for if they had, they might have found Jeſus to have been their Chriſt, their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour. And how can the ſaid Annotators give that as a reaſon, why the …ews and Hereticks did not find the Truth, becauſe they did not ſearch the Scriptures deep enough. If either of theſe two opinions of your be true, 1 That men are reprehended for ſearching the Scriptures. 2 That the Scriptures are not an infallible guide to direct us to find the Truth, if the whole Colledge have tranſlated and interpreted truly, then ſurely you and many of your Authors ſpeak falſly. But if you ſhall ſay the Scriptures may direct Jews and Hereticks to the truth, becauſe they direct them to the Church, which is the Pillar of Truth: then it follows, 1 That both Jews and Hereticks ought to ſearch the Scriptures deeply, to find out the true Church. 2 It muſt reſt upon their private judgments of diſcretion to determine within themſelves, whether the Romaniſts or the Proteſtants be that true Church, after they have made this deep and diligent ſearch. 3 It follows that the Scripture is an infallible guide, being deeply and diligently ſearched; and that the reaſon why both Jews and Hereticks err, is not the fallibleneſs of the Scriptures, but want of diligent and deep ſearch; which being uſed, they might have found Chriſt to have been their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour; they might have found the Truth, and the Church, and conſequently all things neceſſary to Eternal life.

You come in the 14 pag. to give a ſecond reaſon why the words (ſearch the Scriptures) cannot extend to prove the concluſion; becauſe (you ſay) if they were uuderſtood in the Imperative Mood (which cannot infallibly be proved becauſe) they cannot be profitable to work Faith in them that cannot read, which (you ſay) are the greateſt part of Mankind. (You ſay) it cannot infallibly be proved that thoſe words, ſearch the Scripture, are in the Imperative Mood: but have you that pretend to Infallibility, proved that they are in the Indicative Mood. What a madneſs is this, that you ſhould exact infallible Interpretations from thoſe that do profeſs fallibility, and not perform an infallible Interpretation, when you pretend to be guided by a Church that is infallible! But you ſay that if they were underſtood in the Imperative Mood, they cannot work Faith in thoſe that cannot read. But then it ſeems they may work Faith in them that can read, becauſe (as the Rhemists ſay) they can ſhew both Jews and Hereticks the Truth, if they ſearch deeply and diligently. But ſecondly, How can general Councilsſhew the Truth and beget Faith, ſince (if they are infallible) every body cannot read their Decrees and Canons? If you ſay they underſtand thoſe Decrees and Canons, by the general Conſent of thoſe that can read, then by the ſame means may a man that cannot read the Scripture be guided by them.

3 You ſay, that by thoſe words (ſearch the Scripture) cannot be underſtood, that the Scriptures ſhould be our Judge and guide, becauſe then they would have excluded Chriſt, and after him his Apostles from being the infallible means by which true Faith was to be taught to the World. But how doth this follow, ſince you ſay the Church under the Old Teſtament was a Judge, and an infallible guide. But did their being an infallible guide till Chriſt, exclude Chriſt from being a guide: and did Chriſts being a guide when he was on the Earth, exclude the Holy Ghoſt from being a guide when he left the Earth? In like manner it followeth not, becauſe the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament (for of them Chriſt ſpeaks in the place under debate) were a guide to inſtruct men into the knowledge of the Meſsiah, that they ſhould exclude Him, His Spirit, or Apoſtles from being Guides. But further it followeth by the ſame parity of Reaſon, that if the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament could not be an infallible guide, becauſe then they would have excluded Chriſt, and after him his Apoſtles from being infallible guides. I ſay it follows by the ſame reaſon, that if Chriſt and his Apoſtles were infallible Guides and Judges in matters of Faith, that then they have excluded the Church of Rome from being that infallible Guide and Judge which ſhe pretends her ſelf to be: and thus you have ſharpned a Knife to cut your Mothers throat.

You pretend pag. 14. and ſay, that the ſecond Reaſon that is urged for ſole Scripture being a guide, is 2 Tim 3.15. From a child thou haſt known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wiſe to ſalvation through faith, which is in Chriſt Jeſus. All Scripture is given by Inſpiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſs: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furniſhed to all good works.

This Text (you ſay) proves not what is intended (viz.) that the Scripture alone was the way, the rule, and means appointed by God to judge and decide all doubts, &c. your Reaſons pag. 15. are, Firſt, That though They might be profitable to ſuch a man as Timothy who had faith already, yet they could no way be profitable nor uſeful to one that had not faith, or did not believe them to be the Word of God; for Faith comes by hearing, not by reading.

To which I anſwer, Firſt, If the Scriptures are not a Guide to them that believe not, why do the Rhemiſts ſay that the reaſon why Jews and Hereticks do not finde Chriſt to be their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour, is, becauſe they did not ſearch the Scriptures deeply. Surely, you will not ſay, that Jews and Hereticks are Believers, and you ſay, they are no guide to Unbelievers; why then do the Rhemiſts ſay, Chriſt reprehended them for not fearching the Scriptures deeply? To what purpoſe then are Jews and Hereticks blamed for not ſearching the Scriptures deeply, if the Scriptures had been (as you ſay) no way profitable to them? but further, you ſay, they are not profitable to them that do not believe them to be the word of God. Suppoſe this were granted (which cannot be proved) doth it not follow that your Roman Church (by the ſame reaſon) is no way profitable, no way a Judge, nor an infallible Guide to any that do not believe her to be ſo: and by the ſame reaſon an Atheiſt may ſay All gods providences are no monitors to him, All his judgements are no examples to him, becauſe cauſe he doth not believe there is a God: Is not this as good Logick, as to ſay the Scriptures are no way profitable to them that do not believe them to be the Word of God.

You proceed to give another reaſon why this Scripture 2 Tim. 3.15. is not a proof for what is pretended, becauſe then if the Scriptures more ſolely ſufficient which Timothy knew from a child (they being but the Scriptures of the Old …eſtam…nt) it would follow that Christ, and the Now Teſtament, and the Sacraments, and the Apoſtles, are at leaſt not neceſſary.

I anſwer, if by the Scriptures ſole ſufficiency, (you mean) that they are ſufficient to bring men to ſalvation without Faith, Repentance, and Obedience, then this is a Puppit of your own (as you Phraſe it) for where is there any Proteſtant of that mind; therefore you do but bark againſt the Moon.

But we ſay they are ſolely ſufficient to direct us to thoſe ways by which we may obtain ſalvation. But then (ſay you) What needed Chriſt and the Apostles, and the New Teſtament, if the Scriptures Timothy had learned (which were thoſe of the Old Teſtament) were ſufficient? But then I anſwer as before, if Chriſt and the Apoſtles were ſolely ſufficient, what need is there of your Pope and Council? So that by this Argument you either make Chriſt and his Apoſtles not ſolely ſufficient; or if they were, then what need this waſte of a General Council? But you may ſay, that a General Council was to direct people in ſucceeding Ages. So were the Scriptures much rather, for whatever was written aforetime was written for our Learning, upon whom the ends of the World are come.

In the laſt place, you ſay pag. 15. The word All Scripture muſt either ſignifie every Scripture, as the Original word … ought to be rendred, or All Scriptures that ever were; or All Scriptures that were when this Text was written; or All that we now have. If it be to be underſtood of every Scripture (or any Scripture) then you ſay it doth prove too much, becauſe then all the Scriptures ſave one Book, are uſeleſs.

Though what hath been ſaid doth ſufficiently anſwer this innumeration, and therefore I might be excuſed from anſwering any farther: yet becauſe you intimate a farther proof of what you now urge, I ſhall therefore when I meet with it give a further Anſwer.

You come in the 16 page to tell your Reader, That you met with no Arguments for the ſole ſufficiency of Scripture among thoſe that were uſually urged, and therefore you reſolved to ſee what could be ſaid againſt this common General opinion of all who oppoſe the Church of Rome, why the Scriptures could not be this Rule and Judge.

You ſay, you have not met with any Arguments to prove the ſole ſufficiency of Scripture to be our guide; but it was becauſe you did not make a deep & diligent ſearch into them, which is the reaſon (as your Rhemiſts ſay) Hereticks never find the Truth. But why do you beguile your unwary Reader with this word, (viz.) That the Scriptures are not a SOLE Guide? thereby to let him think that you allow them in ſome ſenſe to be a guide; when indeed your following Arguments do manifeſtly declare that you would not have them to be any guide at all.

Your firſt Reaſon why the Scriptures are not a Guide is, becauſe they do not anſwer the end, (viz.) the reconciling differences: for thoſe who pretend most to conſult the Scriptures, do moſt of all diſagree in matters of faith; and interpreting the Scriptures.

To this I anſwer, Firſt, May not a Heathen or a Jew alledge the ſame Argument againſt Chriſtianity it ſelf, and ſay that the Chriſtian Religion is no ſafe way to happineſs, becauſe of the differences that are among the Profeſſors of it?

2 May it not be ſaid that the Apoſtles themſelves were no certain Guides, becauſe they had diviſions and contentions among them? and that they had, appears by the teſtimony of St. Paul himſelf, Rom 16.17. Mark them that cauſe diviſions and offences contrary to the doctrine, &c. And the ſame Apoſtle tells the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 3.3. and 1 Cor. 11.19. That there was among them envyings, ſtrife, and contention, ſome holding of Paul, and ſome of Apollo, ſome of Cephas. Nay, he further tells them, there must be Hereſies among you, that they that are approved, might be made manifeſt.

3 May it not as well be ſaid of the Church of the Jews (which, you ſay, were infallible) that they were no Guide, or at leaſt, no certain Guide, becauſe there were differences and contentions among them, as there was between the Phariſees, Sadduces and Eſſavaus; it is ſaid that the Sadduces denied the Reſurrection, Angels, and Spirit: as you ſay the Scriptures are no Guide to true faith, becauſe men differ and and diſagree in matters of Faith: But,

4 May you not as well ſay that Chriſt is not the Saviour of the World, and that he came not into the World to the end that the World might be ſaved, becauſe it doth not appear that all ſhall be ſaved: as, ſay the Scriptures are no Guide to end Controverſies, becauſe all Controverſies are not ended.

5 May you not as well infer that the grace of God doth not teach men to deny ungodlineſs, becauſe ſome turn the grace of God into wantonneſs: as ſay the Scriptures are no ſure Guide to faith and ſalvation, becauſe many wreſt them to their own deſtruction?

6 May you not as well ſay, that the Primitive Church were no infallible Guide to true faith, becauſe they had diſagreements and contentions among them: as the ſtrife between the Eaſtern and Weſtern Churches about the keeping of Eaſter, and they excommunicating one another? And the Queſtion of Re-baptizing bred the like differences between the Biſhops of Rome, and the Weſtern Biſhops of one Party, and Cyprian, Dionyſius, and Firmilianus, with, moſt of the Eaſtern Biſhops of the other Party, Euſeb. Hiſt. lib. 5. c. 21. lib. 7. c. 3. Cyp. Ep. 74, 75. Soc. lib. 6. c. 17. Soc. lib. 6. c. 21. I ſay, may not one more truly infer theſe were no Guides, becauſe they had diſſentions and diviſions among them: as you may ſay the Scriptures are not a Guide, becauſe of the differences that are amongſt Proteſtants.

7 And laſtly, May I not infer as well from the like Premiſes, becauſe there is and hath been differences among the now-pretended Catholicks, as I have already ſhewn, that therefore their Church is no infallible Guide: as you may ſay the men that conſult Scriptures do not agree among themſelves, therefore the Scriptures are not the Guide.

Your ſecond Reaſon followeth in the 17 pag. which is but the ſame in effect with the firſt, therefore the former Anſwer may ſuffice; onelyonly you tell us a ſtory of an Arian, or, (as the Queſtion of Queſtions hath it) an Arian Cobler; how that if you were to diſpute with him about the Deity of Chriſt from Job. 10.30. I and my Father are one; by this Text (you ſay) you ſhould think you had proved the Queſtion. But then (you ſay) your Arian would compare this Text with john 17.21. where Chriſt prayeth to his Father, that his Diſciples might be all one thing, as thou (Father) are in me, and I in thee. But if you ſhould urge the Arian further, and tell him the Council of Nice gave the ſame Interpretation which you do: (you ſay) the Arian would anſwer as the Proteſtants generally do, that they have a worthy eſteem of Councils, as far as they agree with the Word of God; but where they diſagree, in that he muſt contradict them all.

To which I Anſwer, (ſetting aſide the contraverſie between the Arians and Athanaſians, as not coming within the verge of our preſent queſtion) that if the Arian Cobler had been as Orthodox in all his other Opinions, as he is in his opinion about the Holy Scriptures, and Councels (viz.) to think reverently of Councels, and agree with them, as far as they agree with the World of Truth: I ſay, if this had been all this Arian Coblers Errour, I ſhould have judged him a better Chriſtian then a Roman Shoo-maker, or the Catholick Collier, who could ſay no more for himſelf, being tempted by the Devil at the point of death, what his faith was? Anſwered, I believe, and dye in the faith of Chriſts Church: Being again demanded what the Faith of Chriſts Church was? Anſwered, The faith that I believe in: See Apology Tranſlated by Staplet. p. 53.

But you ſay, That you can urge against an Arian the Authority of the Councel of Nice, and their Interpretation of the Scripture, by which they Infallibly decide the controverſie; And here you think you have a more certaine guide and ground of your Faith then others, becauſe they adhere to private ſpirits, and private judgements up on the Scriptures; whereas you adhere to general Councel.

To which, I Anſwer, Firſt, Doe you think that General Councels did ſpeak and teach in more plainneſs of Speech, and that they uttered words leſs ſubject to be wreſted by wrong interpretations, then the words of the Prophets and Apoſtles were, who ſpake as they were inſpired by the ſpirit of God.

Secondly, How do you know that you have the true ſenſe and meaning of the Councels determinations, ſince their Decrees are as lyable, if not more lyable to miſ-interpretations then the Holy Scriptures.

The reaſon of this queſtion is, becauſe you did not hear them your ſelf, and if you had heard them, you might have miſ-underſtood them, but if you ſay you have read the Councels and ſo came to be informed: I do further demand how you do believe by a Divine Faith, that you do not miſ-underſtand the Councels in what you read, and ſo collect a falſe ſenſe.

Thirdly, If you ſhall ſay you have a Prieſt to teach you the ſenſe of the Councels, by which you underſtand what Doctrines are Catholick, and what Expoſitions of Scripture are true, and what are falſe then I demand.

Fourthly, How do you believe with a Divine Faith, that what this private Prieſt teacheth is according to the Infallible Doctrine of the Church, ſince he is a Man, and may err, and ſo teach his own private Opinion, for the Infallible Doctrine of the Church.

Fifthly, Whether you may not be more ſubject to miſ-underſtand the Scriptures, either by the errour of the Prieſt in Preaching, or the frailty of your underſtanding in hearing, then others are in the reading of the Holy Scriptures: And if ſo, why ſhould you ſay the Scriptures are no guide, becauſe they may be miſ-interpreted? For ſhame forbear to blame the uſe of a thing becauſe of the abuſe of it: What if ſome are to blame, in that they have wreſted the Scriptures to ſerve their own intereſts; Are not you more to blame to wound theſe men through the ſides of the Scripture? What if (as one well obſerves) That ſome are blind, and miſs their way, and others are drunk, and stagger out of it: Muſt we all conſpire to wiſh the Sun out of the Firmament, that we might follow a Will with a Wiſp? And yet this is your kind of reaſoning, that becauſe ſome are perverſe and froward, and others are full of darkneſs, prejudice, and corrupt affections, by which they cannot perfectly and infallibly judge of every truth, that is contained in the Scripture; therefore they muſt throw away the bleſſed word of God from being their rule and guide.

You proceed in p. 18. and tell us, That the third Reaſon which you thought was forcible, was, that thoſe who are thus far for ſole Scripture, do not ſay that one, or any particular number of the Books of Scripture, but all Scriptures written by inſpiration of God do, being joyned together make up this Rule and Judge; Hence (you ſay) you concluded that if any of theſe Books were lost, this Rule was not perfect; Now that many of theſe Books were loſt (you ſay) you proved from thoſe that remain, Num. 21.14. The Book of the Wars of the Lord (and this (you ſay) is loſt.) It is ſaid of Solomon, 1 King. 4.3, 2. that he ſpoke 3000 Proverbs, and his Songs were 1000 and 5; You conceive (you ſay) that upon a juſt reckoning ſome of theſe will be wanting: We finde named, 2 Chron. 9.29. The Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Propheſie of Ahijah, and the Viſions of Iddo; (theſe (you ſay) are loſt) as alſo thoſe named, 1 Chron. 29.29. The Book of Samuel, the Book of Nathan, the Book of Goda, and it is clear from Mat. 27.9. That part of Jeremy is loſt; So alſo from Mat. 2.23. Where it was foretold that Christ ſhould be called a Nazaren; and 1 Cor. 5.9. Tells us that the Epistle which our Canon calls St. Pauls Firſt Epiſtle was not truly his firſt; for there he ſayeth, I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with Fornicatours: St. Paul alſo wrote an Epiſtle from Laodicea, and yet (you ſay) you do not finde this Epiſtle.

In Anſwer hereunto I cannot but take notice that you ſay you THOUGHT this Anſwer was forcible; but where was your Mother that ſhe did not inable you to ſay, you were SURE it was forcible.

But let us ſee wherein this force lyeth; you ſay, Proteſtants do not believe a certain number of Books to be their guide; but all the Scriptures written by Inſpiration from God, make up this Rule and Guide; and many of theſe Books are loſt, therefore this Rule is not perfect.

I Anſwer, Firſt, That the Law of the Lord is perfect, and every word of God is pure; and therefore there can be no imperfections in the word of God: but

Secondly, How doth it appear that any of thoſe Books which (you ſay) were loſt, had a Divine Image and Superſcription upon them; or that they that did write them we…e inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt in the writing of thoſe particular Books? For it is very poſſible that they wrote many things upon particular occaſions, as Hezekiah wrote to Ephraim; and that ſometimes their writings were of no more inſpiration from Heaven, then Davids Letters were that he ſent to Joab by Uriah, or then Peters practiſe for which Paul withſtood him to the face: But

Thirdly, What Infallible reaſon have you to prove that theſe ſayings recited out of theſe Scriptures may not refer to the Books of Samuel and the Kings which we have extant, rather then to any Books that are loſt.

Fourthly, How do you know that thoſe writings (however the Pen-men were inſpired) were intended by God for the perpetual uſe of his Church in all Ages.

Fifthly, How do you Infallibly know, that all the Canons or your Church, even of thoſe which (you ſay) are neceſſary to Salvation are preſerved, and that ſome very material things are not loſt.

Sixthly, If you ſay there is none loſt, then whether you do not make God in his wiſe providence more carefull to preſerve intire and unmaimed the Canons of your Councels, then he hath been to preſerve the Writings of his Holy Prophets, and Apoſtles; And if you ſuppoſe any of the Decrees of your Councels hath been loſt or maimed, then how do you know Infallibly, whether ſome that are loſt, are not as material as thoſe you have? Thus the edge of your ſword is turned againſt your ſelf: But

Seventhly, If any of the Books of the Old Teſtament were loſt, that were by God intended for the perpetual uſe of that Church to whom his Oracles were committed, how then can you ſay that the Church of the Old Teſtament was infallible, ſince ſhe failed in that truſt that was committed to her, (viz.) the keeping of the Scripture? And if this was not a failing in her, in that ſhe loſt part of the Scriptures, then ſhe had not failed, if ſhe had loſt all; and then it followeth, that the Scriptures are ſo far from being a ſole Guide, that they are no guide at all, for if they are a guide, and a directer in any ſenſe, or if they are of any divine uſe, then it muſt be an errour either of ignorance, or wilfullneſſe, to ſuffer them to be loſt or maimed.

Eighthly, Whereas you ſay, that the Epiſtle of St. Paul which your Canon calls the firſt to the Corinthians was not TRULY his firſt: I Anſwer then, your Canon doth falſely call it the firſt, and then how ſhall we believe when your Canons are true? You had beſt tell your Mother ſhe lyes as ſoon as you can ſpeak, and then ſhew a reaſon for it, by telling her That St. Paul ſaith, he writ to the Corinthians an Epiſtle before: Ergo, there is an Epiſtle before that which your Canon calls the firſt: But Chryſoſtome underſtands it of the words going before, wherein he had charged them to deliver the inceſtious perſon to Satan, and to purge out the old leaven.

And that you may ſee how little cauſe you have to enveigh againſt Proteſtants for their private doubtfull, and uncertain expounding of Scriptures; Let me give you the expoſition of a whole Colledge of Catholicks upon this very Text under debate: Either (ſay they) St. Paul means this Epistle in the words before, or ſome other: See the Rhemiſts marginall Note upon the place. Surely this is infallible indeed; it is either this or ſome other: At this rate of Infallibility any private ſpirit ſhall interpret Scriptures all day long, (viz.) either this is the ſenſe, or ſome other.

Ninthly, and Laſtly, If any Canonical Scripture be loſt will not this redound to the prejudice of the Romane Church: Since they acknowledge that they only are the Church, and that the Church is the keeper of Divine Truths, and that they have been the conſervatours of the Scriptures to poſterity. Now if any Books be loſt (as you ſay there is) how have they infallibly kept what (they ſay) was long ſince committed to their truſt? Thus you deſperatly venture to wound the reputation of the Scriptures, though you make the Sword, by which you do it, to paſs through the reins of your darling infallibility.

In pag. 19. you come to a Fourth Reaſon, Why the Scriptures cannot be a guide to conveigh Divine and Infallible faith to all; and that is, becauſe they cannot be underſtood by all, nay, (you ſay) they are very ſubject to be miſ-underſtood, if we will believe the 2 Pet. 3.16. Where ſpeaking of St. Pauls Epistles, (he ſaith) there were ſome things hard to be underſtood, which they that are unlearned, and unſtable wreſt as they do alſo the other Scriptures to their own deſtruction. It is in vain (you ſay) to urge that the Scriptures are plain and eaſie in fundamentals, and in what concerns ſalvation; for we have here a plain teſtimony that they are wreſted to their own destruction; therefore they cannot be a ſafe rule, nor any rule at all to the ignorant &c.

Though this Argument be anſwered already, yet I anſwer further, in the words of a learned man, That if the Scriptures are ſo hard to be underſtood, and the Pope can infallibly interpret them, what a madneſs and childiſhneſs is it for the Catholicks themſelves to lie ſwaggering and contending with one another, before all the world with fallible mediums, about the ſenſe of Scripture, when they have one among them that infallibly can interpret them, and that with ſuch Authority, as all men are bound to reſt in, and contend no further? And the further miſchief of it is, that of all the reſt, this man is always ſilent as to expoſition of Scripture, who alone is able to part the fray. Now methinks this argues a great want of good nature, that the Pope can ſee his Children ſo fiercely wrangle about the ſenſe of Scripture, and yet will not give out the infallible meaning of every place, and ſo ſtint the ſtrife among them, ſeeing he can do it if he will.

But again, how doth it follow, that becauſe the Scriptures are hard to be underſtood, and are by ſome wreſted to their damnation, that therefore they are either no Guides at all, or at the beſt but uncertain ones. Pray let me ask you a queſtion or two, May you not as well ſay that Chriſt was no infallible Guide, becauſe many of his words were wreſted by the Jews to their deſtruction? as that of his deſtroying the Temple and building it in three days? Job. 2.19. And did not they wreſt his words to their own deſtruction, when Chriſt ſaid, Mat. 26.64, 65. that he was the Son of God, and they thereupon ſaid he had ſpoken blaſphemy, and therefore needed no other witneſs againſt him: and likewiſe they ſaid, he blaſphemed when he told the man that was ſick of the Palſie, that his ſins were forgiven. So that ſpeech of Chriſt was hard to be underſtood to learned Nicodemus, Job. 3. Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Doth it follow from hence that Chriſt was not an infallible Guide?

Again are the Canons and Decrees of General Councils more ſecure from being miſinterpreted then the Scriptures; or do they uſe more plainneſs of ſpeech then the Spirit of God uſed in the Scriptures, or is nothing that they determine of neceſſity to ſalvation? If ſo, then why may not their words be wreſted to the deſtruction of thoſe that are unlearned or unſtable, as well (or rather as ill) as the Scriptures. And if ſo, I demand whether this be not as good, nay a better Argument againſt themſelves, (viz.) ſome wreſt the judgment and definitions of the Church to their deſtruction; Ergo, the Church is not an infallible Guide to all, nor indeed any Guide to the ignorant, which are the greateſt part of mankind? Is not this the ſame (if not a better) argument, then to ſay, the unlearned wreſt the Scriptures to their own deſtruction; Ergo, the Scriptures are not an infallible Guide to all, nor any Guide at all to the ignorant.

I come now to conſider your 5 Reaſon, which is, That if the Scriptures be a Guide, Rule, and Judge, it must onelyonly be meant of their true Original and Authentick Writings, and not of corrupted Copies; and therefore if we have not the true Originals, our rule is imperfect. And again pag. 20. you ſay, If we had the Originals, it would be hard to find a man that doth ſo infallibly underſtand the Originals, as to give us a true tranſlation. This you endeavour to prove out of ſeveral Proteſtant Writers, pag. 20. & 21. (viz.) That we have not the Originals themſelves, nor undoubted Tranſlations, and therefore the Scriptures are not an infallible Guide.

To which I anſwer, That though what hath been ſpoken already might ſuffice to this Argument, yet to make full meaſure running over, let me add, that this very Objection lieth with the like force againſt General Councils. For, firſt, how do you know with a divine certitude, that you have the true Original and Authentick Writings, wherein thoſe Decrees were contained? Secondly, How do you know with a divine certitude, whether the Scribe that committed them to Writing was an honeſt man or not? Thirdly, How do you know with a divine certitude, that theſe Councils, Decrees, and Canons, are truly and infallibly tranſlated, ſince they were written in a Language that I know not. If you ſay I have them tranſlated by private Doctors, then I query if private Doctors are infallible? If they are, what need is there of a Pope, or a General Council? If they are fallible, why may they not fail, when they tell me they have faithfully interpreted and tranſlated the ſenſe of Councils and Fathers? But if they being private perſons can give the true ſenſe of Councils and Fathers, why may not men of the ſame ability for Learning and Piety give as perfect a Tranſlation, and as infallible an Interpretation of the Scriptures of the Apoſtles and Prophets? So that the Argument cuts as much with one edge as the other. If the Scriptures be guide and rule, it muſt be meant of Authentical and Original Writings, or of infallible Tranſlations of them into ſeveral Languages, &c. ſay you. In like manner I ſay, if the Decrees of General Councils are infallible, it muſt be underſtood of the Original and authentick writings wherein thoſe Decrees are contained, or of infallible Tranſlations of them into ſeveral Languages, ſince they were not given out in a Language that the Common people underſtand. Now none will ſwear (to uſe your own words, pag. 20.) that theſe are the Originals of the Decrees of thoſe Councils, ſome of them being more then a thouſand years old. Neither will any ſwear that the Tranſlations of theſe Decrees agree with their Originals: Ergo, The Decrees and Determinations of Councils cannot be an unqueſtionable and infallible Guide to true faith.

Thus you make people believe that if they come to your Church, they ſhall have every thing certain; but I do demand (if any ſhould follow your advice) how they ſhall be thus aſſured, ſince your Church hath been ſo palpably negligent, as to ſuffer whole Books to be loſt, and to ſuffer the Originals of thoſe that remain, to be corrupted, and alſo to ſuffer infinite variety of reading to come into them; by which you ſay, It cannot be diſcerned infallibly which is the true reading, and which is the falſe. And whereas you ſay, That we are ſo far from having St. Mathews Original, that we know not what Language it was writ in; or whether he who tranſtated it into Greek was an honeſt man or not.

I anſwer, If your Church were (as you pretend) the ſole Keeper of the Scriptures, they are worthy to die (as David ſaid of Abner) becauſe they kept their Maſter no better. Are they the Church to which no unfaithfulneſs can have acceſs, when they have loſt the Original of St. Mathews Goſpel? Theſe are worſe then the unprofitable Servant; for in the day of accompt, though he did not improve his Talent, yet he did not loſe it; but could ſay to his Maſter, take that which is thine own. But you that have been entruſted with the heavenly treaſure of ſacred Writings, it ſeems, cannot acquit your ſelves at this rate; for you have loſt the Original, and cannot tell whether that Tranſlation that you have was done by an honeſt Man or a Knave.

But further, If this be true, what becomes of that Text which you cite, as the firſt-born of your ſtrength, Mat. 16.18. upon which you found your Churches infallibility: for if one ask you, how you prove the Church infallible? you ſay by that Text, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt it. But how do you prove it from this Text? if (as you ſay) the Original is loſt, and you cannot tell whether he that tranſlated it into the Greek was an honeſt man or no?

You come now, pag. 22. to a ſixth Reaſon, which is but the ſame in effect with the former, (viz.) That whatſoever is a ſufficient rule, muſt be plain and clear in all neceſſary points: the Scriptures (you ſay) are not plain and clear in all neceſſary points; therefore &c. This is the ſum of your Argument, and for this you give divers inſtances of things neceſſary to ſalvation, that are not ſet down in Scripture, The firſt is, in pag. 22.23. That it is not ſet down in Scripture what a Sacrament is, and how many there be, or whether there be any or no?

To this I anſwer, That you ſtrive about words; for it is not neceſſary to ſalvation to believe that thoſe inſtitutions ſhould be called Sacraments, which are uſually ſo called; and if it were, then it would be neceſſary that we ſhould know what and how many Inſtitutions ſhould be ſo denominated: but it ſufficeth that thoſe Inſtitutions which we call Sacraments, are plainly ſet down in Scripture, together with the perſons who ſhould obſerve them, and the manner how they ſhould be obſerved.

You come to a ſecond thing neceſſary to be believed that is not in Scripture; namely, That all the Books of the Holy Scriptures be the word of God. This ſay is not abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation; for it may be poſſible for one to believe all the matter of the Bible to be the Truth of God, and thereupon be ſaved, who may yet doubt, whether every one of the Pen-men did write by inſpiration. And again, When it is ſaid and believed that all the material Objects of Faith, and thoſe divine Verities which Chriſt revealed to his Apoſtles, and they to the Churches, are laid down in Scripture. It is manifeſt that the Scriptures themſelves are excepted, they being not received as the material objects of our faith, but as the means of conveying them unto us: and if a man did believe the Doctrine of ſalvation contained in the Scripture, it ſhould not hinder his ſalvation, though he knew not whether there was any Scripture or no?

Again, Many of thoſe whom you Canonize, did not allow of ſome part of the Scriptures; and many whole Churches differed about the Authority of ſome Books; which Churches muſt all be damned, if the believing thoſe Books had been neceſſary to ſalvation.

You proceed and ſay in the third place, That it is neceſſary to ſalvation to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but this (you ſay) is not plainly ſet down in Scripture.

I anſwer as before, This belief cannot be neceſſary, where the Scriptures are not propoſed; for God doth not require men to believe upon pain of Damnation, when he hath not given means in order therunto.

But 2. Whoever ſhall conſult the excellent precepts, the glorious promiſes, together with that great Spirit of Holineſs and Self-denial that is contained in the Scriptures, muſt needs ſay, that they have the image and ſuperſcription of heaven upon them; and from thence be as certainly perſwaded that God was the Author of them, as if it had been written with the beam of the Sun, that ſo many Books are the Word of God: nay, and more certain, becauſe That one ſentence might ſooner have been expunged, or defaced out of the Scriptures then that Spirit of Light and Truth which breaths in the faces and conſciences of men, from all the quarters of them.

Your other inſtances that follow, are ſuch as we have either taken notice of already, or elſe they are ſuch that are not neceſſary to ſalvation, and therefore are impertinently alledged to weaken the guidance and conduct of the Scripture in order to that bleſſed end. But ſince you are ſo able to lay ſtumbling blocks in the way of the Scriptures, that thereby men might ſtumble and fall, let me ſee if you are as able to remove ſome ſtumbling blocks that lieth in the way to your infallible Church.

Firſt, Is not the Sacrament of Pennance, as your Church teacheth, neceſſary to ſalvation?

But ſecondly, How can you be infallible that this Sacrament is adminiſtred by a true Prieſt? for if it were not done by a true Prieſt, then it is ineffectual, and ſo you muſt die without abſolution, or elſe you muſt grant that others beſide a lawful Prieſt may remit ſins. But if none can do it but a lawful Prieſt:

Then Thirdly, How ſhall you be infallible of thoſe things that are neceſſary to make a true Prieſt? as firſt, that he was lawfully baptized with due matter and due form of words; and that the Biſhop which Ordained him a Prieſt, did Ordain him compleatly, with due matter, form, and intention? You muſt know that the Biſhop that made him a Prieſt, was a Prieſt himſelf. But ſuppoſe theſe doubts were aſſayled, which cannot be; and that you are certain, he that is to abſolve you were a true Prieſt; yet ſtill the doubt will remain, whether he will do you that good he can? and whether he will pronounce the words of abſolution with an intent to abſolve you? For perhaps he may bear you ſome ſecret grudge, and project your damnation for a revenge. He may, for ought you know, be a ſecret Jew, or Anti-Trinitarian, and ſo far from intending your forgiveneſs of ſins, and ſalvation by this Sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all theſe things, and thinks ſin nothing, and ſalvation but a word. All theſe doubts muſt be clearly reſolved before you can (upon your Roman Catholick grounds) aſſure your ſelf that this man that abſolveth you is a true Prieſt, and that he giveth you true and effectual abſolution; or elſe when you have done all this for your ſalvation, you may have the ill luck to be damned; which makes ſalvation a matter of chance and not of choice; and if ſo, what are you the nearer for being a member of a pretended infallible Church. Much more to this purpoſe might be urged, and yet you cry out, that the Salvation of Proteſtants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. Whoever would be further ſatisfied in this matter, I ſhall deſire him to read that learned Treatiſe of Mr. Chillingworth, Intituled, The Religion of Protestants, a ſafe way to Salvation. Your next inſtance is, The Contradiction, that ſeems to appear in Scriptures, which (you ſay) argues them to ſeem untrue, and for this you inſtance, 2 King. 8.26. compared with 2 Chron. 22.5. and Mat. 1.17. compared with Luke 3.35, 36. which places (you ſay) ſeem to contradict each other.

I Anſwer Firſt, If they are but ſeeming contradictions, then they do not weaken the reputation of Scriptures.

Secondly, The reſolving thoſe ſeeming contradictions are not neceſſary to ſalvation, becauſe it is not neceſſary to ſalvation to know when Ahazia began to Reign, not whether there were 41 or 42 Generations between David and Chriſt; and therefore thoſe Objections weaken not the guidance of the Scriptures in all things neceſſary to ſalvation, which is the thing in queſtion.

But laſtly, why doth your Church put her candle under a Buſhel, why doth not ſhe ſet forth an infallible tranſlation of the Bible? For it may be thoſe ſeeming contradictions in thoſe fore-cited places was occaſioned by the errour of the Scribe, or the errour of the Tranſlatour. But hath not greater inconveniences attended the keeping the Canons of your Church? If they have not, how comes it to paſs that there is contradictions in Scripture, and none in Councils? It ſeems your Church hath faithfully preſerved all things uncorrupted for the benefit of poſterity, but the word of God. You proceed, pag. 25. to a ſeventh Reaſon, Why the Scriptures are not a ſole guide, becauſe then they would have been ſo in the Apoſtles dayes; and if they had, then the Authority of the Apoſtles (you ſay) muſt have ceaſed ſo ſoon as they had made an end of writing?

I Anſwer, That it doth not follow that the opinion of the Scriptures being the ſole guide, ſhould exclude the Apoſtles from being guides when they were living.

May not a Man as well ſay, that Peters being the ſole head of the Church (as you pretend) did exclude Chriſt (that gave him his Authority) from being head while he was yet living on the Earth; and that a man that directs and ſolely guides you by Epiſtles, how to negotiate your affairs, ſhould thereby ceaſe to be a guide if he were preſent with you, or that he ſhould thereby be rendred unable to reſolve any doubtfull word in that direction. No more doth it follow, that the Scriptures being held to be the ſole guide, ſhould exclude the Pen-men from either being guides, or giving an infallible interpretation of their own words, while they were yet alive. But what is all this to the Romane Church being an infallible guide? The Apoſtles might be guides to the Churches while they lived, both by their words and writings; But ſince they are deceaſed, we know no furer guide then their words, to which to do well to take heed, as to a light that ſhineth in a dark place.

And for thoſe other things that you ſay follow in probability upon the Scriptures being our guide; I ſhall ſay nothing to them, becauſe they are but probable conjectures of your own brain.

Your laſt reaſon which you urge, why the Scripture is not a ſole Judge, is, Becauſe (you ſay) in effect it is to make it no judge at all, but to make every man and woman to be their own judge, to take upon them to read and understand them.

May you not as well ſay, that your Church is not the judge, becauſe every man and woman muſt judge for themſelves, whether ſhe be ſo or no, before they joyne in Communion with her: As ſay the Scriptures are not ſo, becauſe a man muſt judge for himſelf, whether he rightly underſtand it or no?

Is there not as great a controverſie in the World, which is the true Church among all the pretenders to it, as there is, which is the right ſenſe of Scriptures among the various readings and interpretations thereof? Now how doth a mans judging for himſelf, after he hath weighed Arguments and compared Text with Text render the Scripture to be no guide, any more then your hearing and examining all the Arguments and Reaſons which are alledged for the True Church among all pretenders to it and afterward according to your underſtanding judge which is true, renders your ſelf, and not your Church the true guide. And yet this is your Argument, Every man judgeth for himſelf which is the true ſenſe; therefore the Scriptures are in themſelves no judge at all.

In the cloſe of this Argument, p. 26. You conclude, That if God loved the ſouls of Men, he would have provided ſome ſure means by which they might have been aſſured of the true faith, &c. without leaving them to the Scriptures to be interpreted by each one, as he thinks beſt.

May not I reply as before, That if God loved the ſouls of men, he would have left them ſome ſure means to finde the True Church among the many falſe pretenders to it, and not have left it to themſelves to chooſe which Church in their private Judgement they ſhall think is the true one.

Having done with your negative poſitions, viz. That the private ſpirit, Reaſon, and Scripture is not the ſole Judge; you come to infer from the whole, That the Catholick Church is this judge, and that God had alwayes ſuch a Church.

This you endeavour to make good by ſaying, God had ſuch a Church Two Thouſand Years before any Scripture was written; And to demonſtrate this you ſay; Circumciſion was brought in by Abraham, and practiſed by the Church without Scripture to try it by, &c.

I Anſwer firſt, If the Pope will bring in any new Law or Canon with that Authority as Abraham brought in Circumciſion, we will believe him without a Council, or deſiring him to prove it by Scripture. But

Secondly, It ſeems here is ſome other Rule and Guide beſide Reaſon, Scripture, the private Spirit, and the Church; for here is no Council to decree Circumciſion, nor private ſpirit to ſuggeſt it, nor reaſon to contrive it; But here is God appearing to Abraham, and commanding it by an immediate voice from Heaven; So that this was Gods way of guiding his People then, and not by General Councils, and of this opinion is Chryſostome Hom. 1. in Mat. who conceives God might uſe other means; and this agrees with that ſaying, Heb. 1.1. God in ſundry times, and in diverſe manners ſpake to our Fathers by the Prophets.

Laſtly, If the Scriptures are lyable to many exceptions (as you ſay) by which they are rendred uncapable of being our infallible Guide, then I demand how you know what was tranſacted in the World the firſt 2000 Years, and whether there was any Church at all in thoſe times. If you ſay you are by the Hyſtory of the Scriptures guided to believe what was done 2000 Years before the firſt Pen-man was born; I demand how you can believe this, ſince they are ſo fallibly and ſubject to ſo many exceptions as you ſay? But further, may I not with more certitude believe what Moſes and all the Pen-men of Holy Scriptures writ of things they were eye-witneſſes of, then you can be of what Moſes writ the firſt 2000 Years that were expired before he was born?

You come in pag. 27 to a ſecond Argument, Namely, That the Church of the Jews, were ſo the Jews, (I ſuppoſe you mean an infallible guide) after the Scriptures were written; and for this purpoſe you cite, Deut. 17.8. The man that will do preſumptiouſly, and will not hearken to the voice of the Prieſt or unto the Judge that man ſhall dye. I anſwer, The Scripture ſaith, Pro. 16.10. A divine ſentence is in the lips of the King his mouth tranſgreſſeth not in judgement; Doth it follow from hence, that all Kings are infallible in their judgments: But how and by what Rule were theſe prieſts to judge whom the People were to obey upon pain of death. Ezekiel tells us, Chap. 44.24. And in Controverſie they ſhall stand in judgement, and they ſhall judge it according to my Judgement, they ſhall keep my Lawes and Statutes in all their Aſſemblies, and hollow my Sabbaths. But did theſe Prieſts and Judges always judge according to Gods Law? were they always infallible in their Sentences? How comes it to paſs then that Aaron ſinned in hearkening to the voice of the People, when they required him to make them a Calf? Exod. 32.2. and v. 7. It is ſaid, They had corrupted themſelves. Where was this Churches infallibility at this time? and v. 8. They turned aſide quickly out of the way, which I commanded them. And again, where was the infallibility of the Prieſt, when he appointed them v. 3. To break off their earing which were in their eares to make a Calf? Surely in this they were an excellent type of the Romane Church, who were quickly corrupted from their Primitive Purity. Again, Ezek. 22.26. It is ſaid, The Priests have violated my Law, they have prophaned my Holy things, they have put no difference between the Holy and Prophane, neither have they ſhewed difference between the Clean and the unclean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbath, and I am prophaned among them: Neither was this the fault or a few, but the Text tells us, v. 30. That God ſought for a Man among them, that ſhould make up the hedge, and ſtand in the gap before him for the land, but he found none. Where was the Prieſt; and the infallible church all this while, whom the People were to hear upon paine of death? So that the Text by you cited, Deut. 17. is abuſed; for they had plain Laws written, which were to be a guide to Prieſt and People; which if the Prieſt did not judge accordingly, (as many times they did not) the People were not to hear them.

Your other Text is Mat. 23.2, 3. the Scribes and Phariſees ſit in Moſes Chair, all therefore whatſoever they bid you obſerve, that obſerve and do.

I Anſwer, If by ſitting in Moſes's chair, you underſtand their teaching the People according to Moſes Law, we are of your mind, for ſo it appears in the forecited Text in Ezekiel, and in all ſuch things the People were to hearken to them. But if by ſitting in Moſes Chair you underſtand their Publick Authority, and that whatſoever they ſo taught was infallible; This I deny, for they did ſometimes like the Pope, Mark 7.7 Teach for Doctrines the Commandments of men, and v. 8. Laid aſide the Commandments of God (as you do the Scriptures) that they might hold the traditions of men, and v. 13. Made the Word of God of none effect by their traditions. But if the Church of the Jews which was repreſented in the great Synedrion could not erre, then it followeth, that all Chriſtian Religion muſt be diſcarded. For if ſhe was infallible in that judgment, ſhe made of Chriſt and his Doctrine, then there remains nothing, but that we renounce both him and it, and turn either Jews or Pagans.

But laſtly, It appears that Chriſt himſelf had not this opinion of the infallibility of the Jewiſh Church, which you have, becauſe then he ſhould have referred all he taught to be decided by them, whether it were true or no. But inſtead thereof he appeals to the Scriptures, and offers Himſelf and his Doctrine (as we do at this day) to ſtand or fall by their verdict, and to their Authority of the Church he oppoſeth that of the Scripture, to which he knew the other ought to give place, John 5.39.46. Mat. 22.42, 43, 44. Luke 24.27.

You come in the third place, in p. 27.28. to prove that there ſhall be an infallible Church under the New Testament, your Texts are Eſay 2.23, 3. Eſay 35.8.54.3.13, 17. Eſay 59.21. Eſay 60.10, 12.

To which I anſwer, Firſt Why are theſe Texts brought to prove an infallible Church, when the Texts themſelves (you ſay) are no infallible guide, how then can they guide us to your infallible Church? But,

2. How doth it appear that theſe Texts are to be applied to the Church of the New Teſtament? Much leſs doth it appear, that they are to be applyed to your Roman Church.

3 Theſe promiſes to the Church are made upon condition, like that promiſe, Ezekiel 36.27. I will put my Spirit within you, and cauſe you to walk in my statutes; here (to uſe your own words) is the Spirit of Truth promiſed to preſerve them from errour. But this is not abſolutely promiſed without condition; for the 37 ver. ſaith, For all this he will be enquired of them. And to this agrees thoſe Texts in the New Teſtament, Act. 5.32. The holy Ghoſt which God hath promiſed to them that obey him. Luke 11.13. My heavenly Father ſhall give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. By all which it appears that God did not promiſe to guide the Church abſolutely and irreſiſtably, whether they would or no: but upon their faithful adhering to what they had been taught, he promiſeth his Spirits continual ſupply for their continual inſtruction.

But 4. Whereas it is ſaid, Eſay 35.8. that there ſhall be away that fools ſhall not err therein, (which is a Text ſo much inſiſted on by you.) I demand whether this Text doth imply an impoſsibility of erring? If ſo, then we may as well go to a Fool to be guided, as to a Pope, becauſe it ſaith; The wavering men though. Fools, ſhall not err therein: ſo that this Text as truly concludes infallibility in any body, as in the Pope and his Council.

But 5. To ſpeak ſomewhat in particular to that Text, Eſay 59.21. As for me this is my Covenant with them (ſaith the Lord) my ſpirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, ſhall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy ſeed, nor but of the mouth of thy ſeeds ſeed from heneforth and forever.

To this Text I anſwer, That theſe words are rather a charge that Gods Word ſhould not depart from them and their ſeed, then a promiſe of any ſuch thing. And therefore Mr. Calvin (whom you ſometimes produce upon the like occaſion) grants that the words will bear an Imperative conſtruction, God requiring them thereby not to quench his Spirit, which he puts into them, nor forſake his Word which he ſhould teach them; ſo that as the Covenants on his part to give them his Word and Spirit, ſo he requires on their part that they ſhould not reſiſt nor quench it; and to this agrees Junius, and therefore he tranſlates thoſe word; in the beginning of the verſe, As for me, De me autem, i. e. but as much as concerns me: thereby ſhewing, that as God had concerned himſelf in putting his Word and Spirit into them, ſo they were concerned to ſee that it did not depart from them. And therefore unleſs you can prove that the Church of Rome is the Church here propheſied of: and alſo that theſe Texts are not underſtood conditionally; and if conditionally, that the Church of Rome hath obſerved theſe conditions, you have but beaten the air in the citation of them.

You proceed to a fourth Argument to prove that there muſt be an infallible Church, from ſeveral Texts of the New Teſtament; the firſt is, Mat. 16.19. Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it.

To which I anſwer, Firſt, that you have loſt the Original of St. Mathews Goſpel, (as you confeſs) and therefore you know not whether this Text be ſo in the Original, and this further appears becauſe you ſay, pag. 20. that you cannot tell whether he that tranſlated it was an honeſt man or not.

But 2. The words upon which this Controverſie depends (viz.) the Rock and the Gates of Hell are a Metaphorical expreſsion, from whence Logically you cannot infer your concluſion.

3. No Scripture is of private interpretation: Now to interpret the prevailing of the gates of Hell, for the prevailing of Errour, is a private interpretation, firſt, becauſe Errour and Hereſie is never ſo called in all the Scripture: 2. Becauſe Sheol, which the Greek tranſlates haiden or haides, and we in Engliſh Hell, is frequently taken for the Grave.

And of this mind was Chryſoſtom, who paraphraſing upon theſe words of Chriſt, ſaith, If the gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt the Church, much more ſhall they not prevail againſt Chriſt; therefore be not troubled when thou ſhalt hear that I am betrayed and crucified. By which it doth appear that this Author underſtands by the gates of Hell prevailing, that Death and the Grave ſhould neither prevail over Chriſt nor his Church, and therefore he could not underſtand thereby that it was a promiſe the Church ſhould not err, and that the gates of Hell is underſtood for the gates of the Grave, ſee Eſay 38.10. Hezekiah ſaid when the fear of death came upon him, that he ſhould go to the gates of Sheol, i. e. Grave. So Job 38.17. Pſal. 9.13. Pſal. 107.18.

4 Again, As the gate of Hell cannot be underſtood for Error, ſo the Rock here ſpoken of, cannot be underſtood for Peters perſon, becauſe it is more agreeing with the ſenſe of the place, being compared with other Scriptures, and the Analogie of Faith to underſtand it of Chriſt, who is the Rock of Ages, and the chief Corner-ſtone, Epheſ. 2.20. and 1 Cor. 10.4. they drank of that ſpiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Chriſt.

So that Peter having profeſſed Chriſt to be the Son of the living God, our Lord tells him, that Upon this Rock (or Chriſt, whom he had made profeſſion of) he would build his Church; and that though he might be put to death (to uſe the words of Chryſoſtome) yet Peter ought not to be troubled, becauſe death ſhould not have dominion over him, the gates of death ſhould not prevail againſt him, who will ſwallow up death in victory.

But laſtly, What if we pity the poor, and grant you that which you are never able to prove, (viz.) that by the Gates of Hell not prevailing ſhould be underſtood, that Errour and Hereſie ſhould not prevail againſt the Church: Yet it doth not follow from hence, that the Church ſhall be preſerved from all Errour. Might you not as well ſay, that none that believe can ſin, becauſe ſin ſhall not have dominion over them; and that it was impoſsible for Saints to die, becauſe Chriſt hath promiſed them the victory over death: as ſay, that becauſe Chriſt hath promiſed Errour ſhall not prevail over them, that therefore it is impoſsible the Church ſhould err in any thing.

Your next Scripture is, Mat. 18.17. He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican.

I anſwer, 1 It doth not follow from hence that the Church cannot err, no more then it followeth from your former Arguments, that the Scribes and Phariſees could not err, becauſe Chriſt commanded to hear them; But,

2 This Text proves more then you allow; for it proves, that particular Churches cannot err; for of ſuch a Church Chriſt ſpeaks, and not of the Church repreſentative in a general Council; my reaſon is, becauſe one that is offended with his brother, if he cannot reclaim him, he muſt tell the Church, which cannot be underſtood for any, but that particular Church among whom he reſides; which, you ſay, are ſuch as may err in judgment.

3 By the ſame parity of reaſon, a ſingle private man cannot err, becauſe the Text ſaith, he ought to be heard if he admoniſh his brother of his fault, ver. 15, 16, 17. and that it is his brothers ſin if he do not hear him: and the Text further ſaith, If his brother do hear him, that he hath gained his brother.

But if this brother might err, then he might err in admoniſhing, and the admoniſhed perſon in ſtead of being gained to the Truth, might be gained to an errour. This is the ſum of your Argument, I am to hear the Church, therefore the Church cannot err; might you not as Logically infer, that becauſe I am to hear a ſingle private brother, therefore a ſingle private brother cannot err; and by this you would make all the Sons of your Church infallible, like the Pope your Father; and by this rule Parents are infallible, becauſe they muſt be heard by their children.

Your next Scriptures are, Mat. 28.20. Lo I am with you always to the end of the world: and Joh. 24.16. I will pray the Father, and he will ſend you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, which the World cannot receive: and ver. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghoſt which the Father will ſend in my name, he ſhall teach you all things, and bring all things into your remembrance whatſoever I have ſaid unto you: and Chap. 16.17. I have many things to ſay unto you, but you cannot hear them now; howbeit, when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth.

From which you infer, that if Chriſt and his Spirit ſhould be with his Apoſtles for ever, to lead them into all Truth; it follows, they ſhall be preſerved from all errour.

To which I anſwer, 1. That this Text in St. Mathew cannot be a good argument for you, becauſe (you ſay) you have loſt the Original of St. Mathews Goſpel, and cannot tell whether he that did tranſlate it, was an honeſt man or no.

2 The Spirit of Chriſt might preſerve the Apoſtles from all Errour, and yet not be engaged to ſecure the Church from erring to the end of the World.

But 3 I anſwer further, If this promiſe was made that the Holy Spirit ſhould lead the Church in all Ages, into all Truth, it doth not follow (as I have ſaid) that it ſhould lead them irreſiſtably; though it might lead them ſufficiently.

But 4. May I not as well infer, that becauſe the Spirit was promiſed to convince the World of ſin, becauſe they believe not in Chriſt, that therefore all the world cannot be but effectually and irreſiſtably convinced, as you may ſay, that becauſe the Spirit is promiſed to lead into all Truth, that therefore the Church cannot err, but muſt be effectually ſo led.

5 It is called the Spirit of Truth which the World cannot receive, meaning notorious and wicked men. Now then this Spirit ſome of thoſe Popes which you call the Apoſtles ſucceſſors, could not have, becauſe many of them have been notoriouſly and confeſſedly wicked; all which doth plainly ſhew, that this promiſe of the Spirit was made to direct and guide us into a further knowledge of the Truth, till we come to be perfect in Chriſt, upon condition that we are faithful in what we already know. Like unto that promiſe, Joh. 17.17. If any man do his will, he ſhall know of his doctrine: and to this agrees the Rhemi… Teſtament, tranſlating that Text of John 14.15, 16. If you love me keep my comandements, and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever. Now how can I be infallible that the Pope is thus guided, unleſs I do infallibly know that he loves God and keeps his Commandements?

6 You ſay, … into all Truth, implies preſerving from all errour: but this follow, not, not more, then becauſe the Scriptures ſay, Gods goodneſs leads to Repentance, that therefore all men ſhould be preſerved from impenitency.

And laſtly, If leading into all truth, implies preſerving from all Error, how comes it to paſs, that ſince your Church (as you ſay) is an infallible guide into all Truth, that ſhe doth not preſerve all her ſons from all Errour? And if you ſhall ſay ſee doth guide them all ſufficiently though not efficiently, although that be falſe, yet you have anſwered your ſelf. For though Gods Spirit and goodneſs be ſufficient to lead to Truth and Repentance, yet it doth not follow, but there are (as ſad experience teacheth) multitudes of erring and impenitent perſons.

Your next Text is, Epheſ. 4.11. He gave ſome Prophets, ſome Evangeliſts, ſome Pastors, and ſome Teachers, for perfecting the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtry, for the edifying the body of Christ till we come in the union of the faith; and ver. 14. that we be no more children in underſtanding, &c. From which Text you would prove that the ſucceſsion of the Apoſtles in the Church, was to preſerve people from being toſſed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, but what then? doth this prove the Church cannot err? This means was uſed by God for the perfecting of Saints, and yet we ſee that they are full of imperfections. Thus God may teach, and the Church not learn; Gods Spirit may lead, and the Church (like Rome) may be refractory.

Your laſt Text is, 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church of the living God, the Pillar and ground of Trust. Hence you would infer, that the Church cannot err, becauſe we may ſecurely relye upon her, as upon a Pillar. To which I anſwer, That theſe words do not reſpect the univerſal Church) as you would have it, but the particular Church which Timothy had the overſight of, in which Paul admoniſheth him how he ſhould behave himſelf.

But 2. If this were granted that the univerſal Church is here meant, and not a particular Church; I anſwer that this proves nothing to your purpoſe becauſe Churches and People receive their denomination ordinarily from what they ſhould be in point of Duty, and not from what they are by neceſsity. Thus the Diſciples are called the Salt of the Earth, becauſe they were in duty to be ſo, and not that there, was a neceſsity that they could not have been otherwiſe; elſe it had been in vain to threaten them that if they loſt their ſavour they ſhould be good for nothing, but to be trodden under foot. In like manner the Church is the Pillar of Truth, and ground of in point of Duty, and yet this doth not hinder, but ſhe may neglect and violate this Duty, and become the Teacher of Errour.

But laſtly, The Church may be the Pillar and Ground of Truth, not only becauſe ſhe ſhould be ſo, but becauſe in all Ages ſhe is ſo, in that ſhe teacheth and maintaineth all things neceſſary to ſalvation, but yet ſhe may for all that erre, and be miſtaken in ſome profitable points; and as a Man may be a man that hath ſome lameneſs and deformity of Body, ſo may the Church be a true Church, though it may be corrupt in Doctrine and Practiſe, which it will hardly be freed from till the day in which ſhe ſhall be preſented to her huſband a chaſt ſpouſe without ſpot or wrinkle, or any ſuch thing.

You proceed, and in p. 30. Aſſigne a fifth Argument, That the Church of God was the Rule and Judge, and the Infallible Guide, when Chriſt and his Apoſtles was upon the Earth, From whence you would infer, that it is ſo ſtill; Sir, I can very well own the Antecedent, and deny the Conſequence: But you ſay, There is no Reaſon why the Church ſhould not be ſo still, unleſs it be ſaid that the Apoſtles were Infallible Guides till the Canon of the Scripture was finiſhed, and that then Infallibility ceaſed, &c. But then (you ſay) what will be the Conſequence; if that the Canon of the ſequence; if that the Canon of the Scripture which the Apoſtles finiſhed be now uncompleated by the loſs of thoſe Epiſtles, and Parcels of the Apoſtles Writings, which (you ſay) you have proved to be loſt.

I Anſwer, It will not follow that we ſhall need your bind guide, if what you ſay were true: But Secondly, It follows that your Church is fallible, becauſe ſhe hath not faithfully kept thoſe Epiſtles, that ſhe ſaith, were committed to her truſt, as I have told you once, and again.

Thirdly, Whereas you ſay, p. 31, If we had the whole Canon, yet it were not ſufficient to decide all Controverſies now on foot in matters of Faith. Sir, this is but the ſame over and over, for doth it follow, that becauſe all Controverſies are not decided, that therefore the Scripture is not ſufficient to decide them? Surely then it follows, your Church is not ſufficient to decide all Controverſies, becauſe the Controverſie between the Jeſuites, and the Dominicans, and the Franciſcans, and the Dominicans are not yet decided.

But Laſtly, You may as well ſay, that the Grace of God doth not ſufficiently teach Men to deny ungodlineſs, and worldly laſt, becauſe the world lyes in wickedneſs, as ſay the Scriptures are not ſufficient to decide Controverſies In Faith, becauſe Controverſies in Faith are not decided. This is your Romiſh Reaſoning.

You come to your laſt Reaſon, in pag. 32. and tell us, Tell none of thoſe difficulties that were propoſed to prove the Scripture not to be the Rule, are capable of being objected againſt the Church.

This Argument I have already Anſwered, by ſhewing that the ſame and greater abſurdities are objected againſt your Church. But however I will Examine your Firſt Reaſon, ſince I have not yet met with it, and that is, Becauſe the Church (you ſay) is capable of anſwering thoſe, ends, for which it is propoſed, in that all that ſubmit to it, are of one Faith.

I Anſwer, Then the Church of England may be this True Church, for all that ſubmit to her are of one Faith, and if any are not, it is becauſe they ſubmit not.

Your other Reaſons have fallen under conſideration in the Anſwering of your Arguments about the invalidity of the Scripture, to which I refer the Reader.

You proceed to Anſwer an Objections pag. 32. which you ſay, is, made by thoſe of the ſeparation (viz.) that theſe Texts, which you have urged, are to be understood by the Church Triumphant, and not of the Church Militant in the World; And after you have ſet up this pupper of your own (as you phraſe it) or man of ſtraw, you ſpend your 33, 34, and 35 Pages to fight againſt it, and therefore I ſhall do nothing to part the fray, becauſe that ſuppoſed notion is no friend of mine; therefore I ſhall leave you to ſtruggle with it as well as you can.

Having taken it for granted, that there muſt be an infallible Church, you come in the laſt place, pag. 36. to reſolve which is this Church, and this (you ſay) is the Roman Church; the ſumm of your Argument, is this; God hath appointed ſome Church upon Earth to be our Infallible Judge; Ergo, the Roman Church muſt needs be this Infallible Church, becauſe no Church differing from it (that is none but the Roman Church) can be this Infallible Church.

I Anſwer, That this in effect is a Womans Reaſon, to ſay, that you are Infallible, becauſe you are Infallible; for you ſay, The Roman Church muſt needs be ſo, becauſe none but the Roman Church can be ſo. No marvel you tell us Reaſon muſt not be our Judge, for fear it ſhould condemn ſuch un-manlike Arguing: But you add further, pag. 37. That the Church which is appointed by God to be this Infallible Judge, must needs have this condition, that ſhe own her Infallibility.

To which I Anſwer, That then there was no True Church the firſt 300 years, becauſe that there was none that ever owned Infallibility in your ſenſe, unleſs it were the Church of Laodicea, who like Rome, ſaid ſhe was rich, and increaſed in goods, and had need of nothing, whereas ſhe was poor, and miſerable, blind, and naked.

So that the whole Argument is made up of preſumption, for you preſume ſome Church is Infallible, and then you preſume your Church muſt needs be ſo, becauſe no other Church own themſelves to be Infallible; but you muſt needs give us a better Reaſon, or elſe, while we make any uſe of Reaſon, we ſhall not believe it to be ſo; for what if any Church ſhould have the confidence to call themſelves Infallible, then your Argument would fall to the ground, and the Queſtion would then be to be decided either by the Word, or by the Sword, which of the two were truly Infallible.

Having Anſwered your Arguments, I ſhall propoſe a few Queſtions to conſiderations, wherewithall I ſhall conclude.

Whereas you ſay, There muſt be an Infallible Church on Earth to judge of all differences?; and that this Church conſiſts of a Pope reciding in, and defining with a general Council, in which it is repreſented by its Paſtours out of all Nations; I querie firſt, How was the Church guided for the firſt 300 years, in all which time there was no ſuch general Council?

Secondly, In what time and place was the Church ever ſo univerſally repreſented by her Paſtours out of all Nations, if not, then how could ſhe be Infallible, being not ſo repreſented?

Thirdly, If the Church be no otherwiſe Infallible, but by general Councils, as aforeſaid, then how can we be guided, when there is no General Councils as at this day?

Fourthly, If you ſay we may be guided by thoſe Canons and Decrees which they made in their reſpective Seſſions; Then I demand how I ſhall rightly underſtand, that thoſe Laws and Canons are truly Tranſlated and Interpreted ſince they were given out in a Language that I underſtand not?

Fifthly, If you ſhall ſay, I may know them from the mouth of the Pope, or Chief Paſtour, then I querie whether it may not be poſſible for him to erre, ſince many Popes have been Hereticks, and have taught contrary to the Law of God, as that Pope did that told King Henry the 8th, he might marry his Brothers Wife.

Sixthly, But ſuppoſe the Pope did not erre in giving me the true ſenſe of Councils, and their Decrees, then I querie, How every private perſon ſhall have his judgment informed in the Truth without going to Rome?

Seventhly, If you ſay he may be reſolved at home by the Paſtours in ſeveral places; then I querie, whether thoſe Paſtours may not erre, ſince it is manifeſt, that the ſeveral Paſtours and Churches of Aſia did erre; and then how can the members of this Church be ſure, they are under an Infallible conduct to Eternal Life, and that theſe Paſtours teach according to the Doctrine of the Infallible Church?

VIII. Since you ſay, that General Councils Lawfully Called by the Pope, their chief aſtour cannot erre, I querie, How I ſhall be infallibly aſſured, when Councils are ſo called? Since ſometimes the Pope may come in by Simony and Uſurpation, as Boniface the 3 did, and ſometimes be a Heritick, as Lyberius was, who ſubſcribed the Excommunication of Athanaſius, in which caſes they ceaſing to be lawfull Popes, I would then know how I can be ſure of a lawful Council?

IX. Since there muſt be alway a lawfull ſucceſſion of Popes, to make a lawfull ſucceſſion of True Miniſters; How ſhall I know infallibly that the Miniſter that I heat did lawfully ſo ſucceed; and this I would know, becauſe if he be not a lawfull Miniſter, I may not lawfully hear him; And ſince that ſometimes Hereticks have been Popes, and ſometimes the Chair hath been Uſurped, and once a Woman was Pope, and ſometimes there hath been two at once; How ſhall I that am to hear a private Paſtour know whether his Ordination did ſucceed from a lawfull Pope, and not from ſome of theſe?

X. How ſhall I know what Council I may infallibly adhere unto, ſince one Council hath oppoſed another, and ſome cleave to one Council, and ſome to another; the Roman Church they teſt in the Niceen Council; the Greek Church they reſt in the Council of Arminum, both which, are contrary to the other: how ſhall any one be aſſured of the truth of all thoſe things with a divine certitude? And yet you make the world believe that all your wayes are ſo plain, that a fool cannot erre in them, and that the Scriptures are doubtfull guides, when no Religion in the World is perplexed with more doubts then yours.

XI. If your Roman Church be this Infallible Church, and all her Doctrines Infallible, then I querie, if it be not ſinfull to doubt of the Truth of what ſhe teacheth?

XII. If it be not a ſin to doubt of what your Church teacheth, then why do you blame us for queſtioning your Infallibility?

XIII. But if it be a ſin to queſtion the Churches Doctrine, then how came the Baraeans to be commended for ſearching the Scriptures to ſee if what Paul preached was ſo or not; and whether might not their ſearching the Scriptures have run them upon all thoſe inconveniencies of miſtaking by falſe Pointings, corrupted Copies, falſe Interpretations, to the multiplying of Sects and Hereticks, if it might, why are they commended for ſearching?

XIV. How can the reaſon of the Jews erring be, becauſe they did not know the Scriptures, if the knowledge of them would not have been a ſufficient guide to the Truth?

XV. But if you ſhall ſay, we cannot know the Scriptures but by the true Church, then I querie, how ſhall I know the true Church, ſince there are as many different opinions about which is the true Church, as there is about which is the true ſenſe of Scriptures?

XVI. If you ſay the Scriptures decide the queſtion, and guide us to the true Church, then whether this be not to ſpeak Daggers, to prove the knowledge of the Scriptures by the Church, and the knowledge of the Church by the Scriptures?

XVII. But if you ſay we know the Church by univerſal Tradition, then I querie, whether your Church can be ſo known, ſince a great part of the Chriſtian World, hath and doth diſown her; witneſs the Greek Church, together with moſt of the Churches in Europe?

XVIII. Whether then you can ſhew ſuch an univerſal Tradition for your Pope and Church, as we can do for the Scriptures, to which we do well to take heed, as to a light that ſhineth in a dark place till the day dawn, and the Day-ſtar ariſe in our hearts.

XIX. Where was the Infallibility of the Roman Church in the time of Athanaſius, when he complained, totus mundus Arianizat, that the whole world Ariantized.

XX. I demand, Where will be the Viſibility and Infallibility of your Roman Church in the time of the great Antichriſt? which your Rhemiſh Annotators ſay ſhall come towards the end of the World, and aboliſh the publick Exerciſe of all Religion, wherein conſiſteth the worſhip of the true God, and ſhall pull down all kind of Religious worſhip ſave that which ſhall be done to himſelf alone: See Rhem. Annot. on 2 Theſſ. 2.4. How will your Church appear conſpicuouſly and univerſally to be a guide to Fools infallibly in thoſe days?

FINIS.

End of the text · Jeremiah Ives, Rom is No Rule (1664)

Rom is No Rule, Text

p. 1Rome is no Rule: OR, An Anſwer to an Epiſtle publiſhed by a Roman Catholick who ſtiles himſelf Cap. ROBERT EVERARD.

Rome is no Rule: OR, An Anſwer to an Epiſtle publiſhed by a Roman Catholick who ſtiles himſelf Cap. ROBERT EVERARD.