The sixth reason against the Scrip­tures being a Rule, examined.

THe sixth reason I meet with, was whatsoever is a sole and sufficient rule,Pag. 42. must be plain and clear in all necessary points, at least, which relate unto faith, or the Means by which salvation is to be had, which the Scripture is not; and a­bove all things it must not contra­dict it self, which the Scripture seems to do. To prove this, I shall give some few instances, which I think can never be infringed.

The man comes here home to the point, waves his impertinent sophi­stical jumbling in of Judge and Guide; and most industriously indeavours to prove from the Scriptures deficien­cy and obscurity, that it is not the sole sufficient Rule, nor is it any mar­vel that we find him now so serious and earnest; for if this argument [Page 60] fail, all his other seven Antiscriptu­ral reasons come to nothing with it: for though Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, &c. should disagree in matters of Faith, raise different senses to serve their several interests, can­not all of them understand, and some of them do desperately wrest several places to their own destructi­on, the Scripture supposed plain and clear in all necessary points, the fault and folly is their own. The Scrip­ture all this notwithstanding, may and does still remain as it was, a sole sufficient Rule; or if some Books be lost, all Copies corrupted, and several Texts mistranslated, yet what's this to the purpose, while we can and shall evince, that the Books we at present have, are so in­tire, the Copies so pure, and the Translations so true, that all points necessary at least be therein plain and clear; nor will it avail to tell us of the Primitive Christians consult­ing with the Apostles, and that it is all one to judge by our own rea­son, and by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason: For we might suppose the Apostles with all their [Page 61] Authority now in being, go and consult with them, or in their ab­sence with the Pastors of the se­veral Churches as the great Mode­rators of all controversies, and yet the Scriptures if plain and clear still remain a sole sufficient Rule, accor­ding to which the controversies might and ought to be decided: Nor need we in this case be trou­bled with interpreting of Scriptures according to our own reason, sith 'tis supposed, and shall be proved, that the Scripture is so clear in all necessary points, that it needs no in­terpretation, though yet you may take notice by the way, that to judge by our own reason as the on­ly rule, is not the same with judg­ing by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason as one special means: your Argument would perhaps strike at that; but this is all that in any case we practise and so do; be­cause Christ bids us search the Scrip­tures, and the Apostle adds, judge ye what I say, comparing spiritual things with spiritual; however, sith the faith or means by which salvation is to be had, is a believing on Christ [Page 62] the foundation, as hath been said, not a believing of just so many as you or others are pleased to call fundamental points: If the Scriptures be plain and clear, as without perad­venture they are in their testifying of him according to Joh. 5.40. they are plain and clear in what necessa­rily relates to Faith, or the means by which Salvation is to be had accor­ding to John 20.31. and consequently what ever becomes of all the other, whether necessary or unnecessary points, may be a sole sufficient Rule according to the tendency of this your present discourse, the seeming contradictions shall after your infrin­gible instances, come now to be dis­cussed.

Pag. 42.That they are not plain and clear, as aforesaid, consider all Christians generally (except some few) do agree that the Sacraments of the Gospel are necessary in order to Sal­vation. Now as to these, the Scri­ptures are so far from being clear that they do not so much as denomi­nate what a Sacrament is, how many Christ ordained, or whether there be any Sacrament or not.

First, All Christians may agree that the Sacraments are necessary, and yet they not be so; for it's Christs saying that they are, not at all the Christians agreeing, that can make them necessary. Did not all Christians generally agree for six hundred years together, that the Eucharist was ne­cessary for Infants, and yet now the Church concludeth otherwise. But 2. it is here granted that some Chri­stians deny the Sacraments of the Gospel to be necessary, and if some may be Christians and yet deny the necessity of Sacraments, it's an argu­ment sufficient that they are not neces­sary. Nor indeed does the man assert that Sacraments be simply necessary, but qualifies it with, in order to Sal­vation, and limits it to Sacraments of the Gospel: perhaps he may think there be two ways whereby God brings his people to Salvation, one ordinary with, and the other ex­traordinary without Sacraments; nor shall I say more of that, but tell him that if Women and Male Chil­dren under the Law might, much more the Catechumeni and Infants under the Gospel may be saved by [Page 64] grace without Sacraments to confer or convey it. 3. Though it be not the Scripture mode to observe Lo­gick rules in framing definitions, nor always Arithmetical in making up of accounts: Yet is the nature and end of these Ordinances we call Sacraments, described in Scripture so far as is meet for us to know: The number numbred, Baptism and the Lords-supper said to be instituted by Christ, and no more; and sure then the man may count two, and need not complain for want of the number numbring.

Secondly, It's necessary to Salvati­on, to believe all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God, and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal; but by the Scri­pture it cannot be made out plainly and clearly, which Books are the word of God, and which are Apo­cryphal.

First, Your own Doctors distin­guish betwixt an affirmative believing and a negative disbelief; and though they make it damnable to disbelieve any one point (when sufficiently re­presented [Page 65] to the understanding as revealed by God) yet do they not make it necessary, positively and expresly to believe all, or any of the Books of Holy Scriptures to be so revealed; and suppose they did, it matters not, sith it's evident that the Scriptures themselves make believ­ing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not believing all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God, to be that Ʋnum necessarium, that one thing necessary to Salvation. And the Fathers in the Primitive times had differences and doubts a­bout several Books of Scripture now commonly received for Canonical, and yet were saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, even as we. 2. Christians convinced by any means whatsoever, that such and such Books in themselves Apocryphal be the word of God, ought during that conviction believe them to be so, and it is so far from being necessary to Salvation for them, rebus sic stantibus, to believ other­wise, that it were obstinacy and in­terpretatively a denying of Gods ve­racity for them not so to believe for­mally, [Page 66] as Chillingworth, though not materially an Heresie. 3. True it is that it cannot be made out by Scri­pture as by a Testimony, or Argu­mentum inartificiale, which Books are the Word of God, and which be Apocryphal; yet may this be made out plainly and clearly by Scripture, Tanquam per Argumentum artificiale, scilicet, The Divine Cha­racters that God himself hath im­printed on those Books that be in­deed the Word of God: nor need we trouble your Churches Autho­rity, though we confess our selves much beholding to the Churches ministry for the finding of them out.

Thirdly, It is necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but there is no Text or Texts of Scripture to prove that the Scri­ptures which we have, are Gods Word.

1. It is necessary for you and me to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, because we are per­swaded, though upon several grounds, that they be so; but that it is neces­sary [Page 67] for all persons so to believe, will not be granted till you further ex­plain your [necessary,] and add proof for the evincing of it. And yet however, 2. There is a Text of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word; For if there be a Text that expresly de­clares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Pri­mitive times, were the Word of God, there is a Text to prove that the Scri­ptures which we have, are Gods Word: But there is a Text which expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God; ergo, There is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have, are Gods Word. The ma­jor is evident from universal Tradi­tion assuring us that the Scriptures we now have, be the same that the Jews and Christians had then. The minor is evinced from that of Paul to Timothy, whose Mother was a Jewess, and Father a Greek; all Scri­pture is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. 3.

Fourthly, It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted, for if they be corrupted they cease to be the Word of God, and then they cannot be any rule or sure guide to us: But of this we have no as­surance in Scripture.

1. It is not necessary, as hath been said, to know the Scriptures to be the Word of God; and therefore not necessary sure to know they are not corrupted. Scripture or Wri­ting is no more than one special means whereby God is pleased to make known, and preserve in the World the knowledge of his Will; if he do it any where by another Me­dium, that will suffice. Nay suppose, as the man seems to do all along, that the Scriptures be corrupted, it can­not be necessary to know that they are not corrupted; unless it be ne­cessary to know that which is not possible to be known, and so all men be necessarily damned. 2. When we say, the Scripture is the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies, it is usually restrained to such con­troversies as do not concern the [Page 69] Scripture. You will not allow us to argue, the Church is no infallible Judge or Rule, because the Church is forced to seek for other and higher proof than her own words to prove her self to be Infallible; and if so, why should we argue the Scripture to be no Rule, because we cannot have assurance in Scripture that it is not corrupted? it will be sufficient that we have assurance some other way. 3. Scripture may be said to be corrupted in Essentials or Acciden­tals, in whole or in part: It may be corrupted in Accidentals, the Words mis-spelled, Sentences misplaced, Words, or Letters inserted or omit­ted; and yet the mind and meaning of God what it is, all that notwith­standing, be evident from thence. E­very Book almost after its most perfect Edition, hath Errata's, and yet the Authors meaning may be plain enough: Nay further, Scri­pture may be corrupted in some parts, and yet remaining pure in others, Scriptura per Scripturam, Scri­pture may be corrected by Scripture, as a Jesuit of your own hath well observed.

Fifthly, It is necessary in order to the knowing of the true mind, mean­ing, and will of God, and what he intended by such and such a Text, that we know when a Text is to be understood literally, when figura­tively, when mystically; but this cannot be understood from Scripture, as daily experience informs us.

1. The Scripture supposes men to have the use of sense and reason; and if so, they may easily con­clude, as sure as God is truth, the Spi­rit spake by the Prophets and Apo­stles accordingly as he meant; the Prophets and Apostles writ according as the Spirit spake; and writ for that end, that the true mind, meaning, and will of God might be known and understood, which could not be without perpetuated new Revelation, except we might and ought to take that for his mind and meaning which the words in their literal construction hold out unto us. Eum sensum qui ex verbis immedia­te colligitur, De verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 3 certum est esse sensum Spiritus Sancti. That, says Bellarmin, which is immediately gathered from [Page 71] the words, is certain to be the sense of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, 2. vainly does he enquire, and fond­ly distinguish of several senses of this or that Text, whenas it is ap­parent from the very writing of it in letters, and the confession of our adversaries, that each Text is to be understood literally. Nor is that he calls figurative,Literalis est duplex; alius sim­plex, alius figuratu [...]. Bellar. ibid. any other than a species of the literal sense: The mystical, an uncertain remote in­tendment of the things, and not the immediate argumentative meaning of the written Words or Text, which we are now enquiring after.Augustin. [...] Doctrina Christiana, l. 2. c. 9. However, 3. In iis quae aperte in Scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem morésque vi­vendi: In those things which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures, all those things are found which ap­pertain to Faith and Direction of Life. Dark figurative Texts, and mystical meaning of things may in some sense be useful, yet it is not necessary in order to the knowing of the mind of God, so far as is requisite for us to know, that we [Page 72] should be able to unfold them; Exponat si cui Deus concesserit: As Cajetan of the Revelation. And yet further, 4. There is a diffe­rence betwixt being ignorant of such and such a Text, and wresting or wilfully perverting it to a wrong sense: This even in Scriptures not materially necessary to be known, must of necessity be avoided. It is Heretical, it is Soul-destructive, 2 Peter 3.19. that anent Texts holding out points commonly called Fundamental, may consist with sav­ing knowledge; for it is the know­ing the true mind, meaning and will of God as to such a particular that is necessary, and not just the know­ing it by such and such a Text: you may perhaps know it by one Text, and I by another; or you by oral practical tradition, and I by wri­ting.

Sixthly, It is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translati­ons of the Scriptures which we have, and upon which we ground our selves, are certainly true: for if they are not, we build upon uncertain­ties, [Page 73] and consequently have no sure foundation for our Faith; yet we cannot be assured, nor have so much as any information as to this particular from the Scri­ptures.

First, The Man does not deny either the being or possibility of knowing, That there be Copies and Translations certainly true; only he asserts, That we have not so much as any information as to this par­ticular, from the Scriptures, which we might, as hath been said, easily grant; and yet upon just Grounds maintain that the Scripture is a rule both plain and perfect, howbeit.In hac ger­mani textu [...]s pervestiga­tione salis perspicuè inter omnes constat, nul­lum argu­mentum esse certius ac firmius quam anti­quorum pro­batorum codicum latinorum fidem, &c. in praefat. we need not do it: for in the per­vestigation of the true genuine Text, says Sixtus Quintus, There was no Argument more firm and certain to be relyed on, than the Faith of the antient Books: Nor is there a better way, says a great Rationalist, for the ordi­nary sort, whether of Papists or Prote­stants, than to compare their and our Translations together, and where there is no real difference, there to be confi­dent they are right: where they differ, [Page 74] there to be prudent in the choice of their Guide. 2. There is a certainty Mathematical, Moral, and Spiritual. Mathematical, either touching Co­pies or Translations of Scripture, is not now to be had. Certainty Moral, such as the nature of the thing will bear, and as much as humane Testimony and industry can afford us, we have: Nor is the building thereupon a founding our Faith upon uncertainties but upon most strong probabilities, such as especially in a matter of Fact and Skill it were extream imprudence and obstinacy, not to rest satisfied withal. Cer­tainty Spiritual, whether of Sci­ence or adherence, beyond that which the best rational Evidence can give ground for, is to be had, and some­times by, but not from us; you must by Prayer seek unto God for it, every good Gift and every perfect Gift is from above. And if God vouchsafe to give it you as to this particular, touching the whole or part, well; if not, for ought I know, or you are able to evince, you must be content to be without it. How­ever, [Page 75] 3. You do ill to call the Scri­pture, quà Scriptura, as copied and translated, the foundation of Faith; and worse, to conclude from its un­certainty, as such, that our Faith has no sure foundation: For Scri­pture under that notion is not the Material, much less either the For­mal or Salvifical object of Faith; nor any more save choicely instru­mental in the producing thereof; and I think we may safely affirm, That an Instrument in it self fallible, may be mainly subservient to the su­preme Cause, in bringing us both to believe Divine Truths, because Di­vine, and to acquiesce in him who is the Foundation indeed, and Truth it self, Jesus Christ. Your English Priests are fallible, yet instrumental sure, by Preaching, Translating, Wri­ting, to bring persons certainly to believe those Proposals, and to fix upon that Authority, which is sup­posed in it self to be infallible. How shall they believe in him on whom they have not heard: And how shall they hear with­out a Preacher? Rom. 10. Not how without an infallible Proposer. [Page 76] But, 4. I much admire the Man should hold it necessary to know, &c. sith it is evident that in Austin's time, the Latin Translations of the Scri­pture were innumerable, nor could any man have said this or that is cer­tainly true: The Septuagint, said to be used by the Apostles, is confes­sedly faulty: and though some of the present Romanists may be arrived at that height of impudence, as perem­ptorily to affirm; yet none can ratio­nally make it out, that they know any one Translation that is perfect, or Copy that is uncorrupt. The Coun­cil of Trent indeed did decree, That the Vulgar Translation should be re­ceived for Authentick; but which she meant by Vulgar, or what by Authentick, no body can yet tell: there was bellum Papale, after, about the Editions, Sixtus against Clemens, and Clemens against Sixtus. Nor can their Doctors yet conclude, whether it is better say, the Translation is free from all errours, or only such as relate to Faith and Manners.

Seventhly, It is necessary that the many manifest controversies about [Page 77] the true sense of Scripture should be decided, because where two con­trary senses are imposed and urged, and both affirmed to be the meaning of God, and his Revelation, one only can be true, and he who re­fuseth that which is true shall be dam­ned: yet these controversies cannot be decided by Scripture.

1. If it be necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture, should be deci­ded; sure your Supream Infallible Judge is far to blame, that hath not yet decided them, but suffers your own Doctors to controvert the sense of almost every Text of Scri­pture.

2. We urge, it's true, by Argu­ments, but it is you alone that Ma­gisterially impose your own meanings as Divine Revelation: and though of two contraries, one sense only can be true, and he that refuseth that sense which he knows to be true, does deserve Damnation; yet that God will certainly damn him, or that the not believing in case he had not known, were a sin damnable, [Page 78] is more I think than God ever told you.

3. Such controversies as are ne­cessary to be decided in the use of lawful means have been, are, and may be decided by Scripture, with­out either compleating it by, or introducing in the stead thereof any other Rule; and for the rest a mu­tual forbearance of the Controver­tors were far better than your Pre­torial decision of the controver­sies.

Eighthly, It is necessary to know, what is purely and absolutely ne­cessary to Salvation to be believed, and what not; that is, as you say, what is fundamental, and what not fundamental; and to be informed of this plainly, lest we erre and be damned: but in this the Scripture is silent.

1. If it be necessary to know what is purely and absolutely ne­cessary to Salvation to be believed, and what not, How comes it to pass that your Church only declares ne­gatively what is not to be believed, or what must not upon pain of Dam­nation [Page 79] be disbelieved, and yet never tells affirmatively what is purely and absolutely necessary for us to be­lieve? True, you will have all be­lieve affirmatively, implicitly, what ever your Church believes; but that is nothing to this business, where knowledge of the [what] in an explicit Faith, is necessarily requi­red. All your Doctors conclude, Somewhat must be explicitly believ­ed; and you say, It is necessary to know the Particulars; and yet will not your Church ever be gotten to declare unto us which they be: let her do it when it shall seem good un­to her; in the interim, I shall tell you plainly, That,

2. So much of the [what] is fun­damentally necessary to be believed, as is needful to bring such or such a person to believe in the [who] and rest on the foundation Jesus Christ; and consequently more may be necessary for one than another, and not necessary at all that the particu­lars should be determined. For,

3. Saving and Damning depends not upon a precise knowing and be­lieving [Page 80] just so many points, and no more; but upon a hearty believing or not believing in Jesus Christ. He that believeth in the Son of God, hath eternal life: He that believeth not, &c. He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life, 1 John 5.12.

Ninthly, It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten; that God the Son is not made but be­gotten by the Father only; that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten, but doth proceed, and that from the Father and the Son; that Christ is of one substance with the Father, and that these three are one, and that one three. I refer to conside­ration, whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture: If they were, it had been almost impossible for so many divi­sions to have hapned about them, as have done amongst persons on all sides, admitting the Scripture to be the word of God.

1. I refer it also to consideration, Whether all these points be not plainly and clearly to be found in [Page 81] Scripture: And wish you to con­sult with almost any large English Catechism, or common Place book concerning it.

2. The Heart of man is desperate­ly wicked, and many are possessed with a Spirit of blindness: It is one question whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture? and another, whether all persons that admit the Scriptures to be the word of God, can or will so search as to find them to be there? Both Jews and Christians admit the Books of the Old Testament for Divine, and yet differ about the weightiest, and as we say, the clear­est point. You say the Scriptures are plain and evident for the Chur­ches Infallibility: and yet the Pro­testants, that admit the Scriptures for the Word of God as well as you do, all deny it.

3. Those so manifold divisions in the Primitive Church, make more a­gainst the Churches being a Pretori­al Judge, than against Scripture being a perfect Rule. It had been sure altogether impossible that such [Page 82] and so many points should have been so long controverted; but that ei­ther the generality of Christians did not then judge a Pretorial decision of controversies necessary, or that there was none then impowered so to de­cide them. Howbeit,

4. Is it necessary to believe these points implicitly or explicitly? if but implicitly; it is not necessary in order to the constituting of Scri­ptures an adequate object or rule of believing, than these points should be plainly contained in them. For plainness respects knowledge of the particulars to be believed, which this kind of Faith supposeth not; and if it be necessary to believe these points explicitly, knowingly, your own Do­ctors will not deny but that the Scri­ptures do plainly and perspicuously contain and teach them. We deny not, saith Costerus, that those chief heads of the Faith, which are to all Christians necessary to be known to Salvation, are plainly and perspicuously comprehended in the Writings of the Apostles. Enchirid. c. 4. p. 49. Cujus­modi sunt mysterium sanctissimae Trini­tatis & incarnationis Filii Dei; Of [Page 83] which sort be the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and Incarnation of the Son of God. The Evan­gelical and Apostolical Books, and the Oracles of the Antient Pro­phets, planè instruunt nos, do plainly instruct us what is to be thought concerning things Divine. There­fore hostile discord laid aside, let us take the explication of Questions, from the words, Divinely inspired, says Constantine to the Council of Nice: And now what think ye does Bel­larmine reply? why,See Bellar­min. de ver­bo Dei, l. 4. c. 1. he takes oc­casion hence to suspect Constantine for a person unbaptized, that as yet non noverit Arcana religionis, had not been acquainted with the secrets of Religion; howbeit better conside­ring, answers, 2. That there be Testimonies extant in the Holy Scriptures of all the Doctrines which appertain to the nature of God, and that concerning these Doctrines, we may be plenè & planè, fully and plainly instructed out of the Holy Scriptures.

Tenthly, It is necessary (the Church of England saith) that Infants should [Page 84] be Baptized, and Women should re­ceive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and Christians should ob­serve the Lords-day; and yet none of these points are clearly and par­ticularly proved from Scriptures

1. It matters not much what you say, elsewhere, this passage sufficiently manifests what sort of Nonconformists you write against, scil. not Nonconformists to the Church of England, but to the Chair of Rome; for if otherwise, where­fore should you urge them in this case with, The Church of England saith, &c. And yet however, 2. You must know that if the Church of England say, It is necessary that Infants should be Baptized, it is upon a supposition that the affir­mative may evidently be proved from Scripture; for if you or any else shall evince that Infants-Baptism cannot be proved from the Scri­ptures, the Church of England, Ar­ticle the sixth, hath expresly decla­red against the necessity of it. 2. You cannot but have heard of haec homo, [...], Let a Man [Page 85] examine himself, &c. 1 Cor. 11.28. Women as well as Men are there required, (self examination and not Auricular confession first had) to receive the Eucharist. Nor, 3. Can you be ignorant that there is a dif­ference betwixt the Lords-day be­ing necessary to be observed, and its being necessary that Christians should observe the Lords-day: That would imply a Doctrinal; This no more than an obediential necessity: That if held by any, the Church of England will tell you, ought to be proved particularly from Scripture; This needs no more but a general warrant.

Eleventhly, It is a sin, (as the generality of Christians agree) an heresie to re-baptize any one, which hath been baptized by an He­retick, where doth the Scripture say so?

1. Those that hold it a sin and heresie to rebaptize any one,Videtur quod Bap­tismus pos­sit iterari; sed contra est quod dicitur, Eph 4. una fides, unum bap­tisma. A­quinas 3. quaest. 66. Art. 9. &c. found their opinion upon Scripture, One Faith, one Baptism, Eph. 4.5.2. Cyprian held, such ought to be re-baptized, dyed in that opinion, and [Page 86] yet dyed a Saint and Martyr. 3. The Thesis here laid down without restriction is apparently false, con­tradicting the Nineteenth Canon of the Council of Nice, Si quis con­fugit ad Ecclesiam Catholicam de Pau­lianist. & Cataphrygiis, statutum est rebaptizari. If any one of the Pau­lianists and Cataphrygians fly unto the Catholick Church, it is De­creed, That they ought to be re-baptized.

And now it being evident that neither your Argument nor in­stances make against, but for the Scriptures being a sole sufficient Rule; let us try what they'll do on that account against, or for your Romish Church. Whatsoever is a sole sufficient Rule must be plain and clear in all necessary points, at least which relate to Faith: But the Roman Church is not plain and clear in all necessary points that re­late to Faith; Therefore the Roman Church is not the sole sufficent Rule. The major is your own, nor shall I need to trouble any body else for instances to prove the minor.

First then it is necessary, you say, to know how many Sacra­ments Christ ordained; and yet your Church leaves it doubtful, whether anointing with Oyl was ordained by Christ a Sacrament or not; Insinuated, she says, it was,Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 1. Mark 6. but does not, dare not, say, it was there or any where else, instituted as such.

Secondly, It is necessary to salvati­on, you say, to believe all the Books of the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God, and to be­lieve nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal; And yet as to this, Your Church is so dark and dubious,See Bellar­min. de ver­bo Dei, l. 1. c. 7. that though Bel­larmine contend that the Council of Trent did define the additaments to the Book of Hester to be ca­nonical; Sixtus Senensis believes otherwise, and brings Arguments against it. Nay, if it be necessary to know which Books be the Word of God and which Apocryphal, it is ne­cessary sure to know which Tradi­tions be Dominical or Apostolical, which not; and yet concern­ing [Page 88] this your Church is silent.

Thirdly, It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrup­ted; it is necessary to know when a Text is to be understood literal­ly, when figuratively, when My­stically; it is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translations of the Scriptures which we have, and upon which we ground our selves are certainly true; it is necessary that the many manifest controver­sies about the true sense of Scri­pture should be decided; it is ne­cessary to know what is Fundamen­tal, what not: and yet as to none of these your Church is plain and clear.

Fourthly, It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begot­ten; that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only; that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son; that Christ is of one substance with the Father, and that these Three are One, and that One Three: and yet suppose these points not plainly and clearly [Page 89] to be found in Scriptures, how possibly could the Church for the first three hundred years be said to be plain and clear concerning them? for during that time there was no General Council whereby she might explain her self, and if she did ex­plain her self in General Councils after, that implyed her former dark­ness and deficiency, with respect to those very points.

Fifthly, It is a sin and heresie, you say, to re-baptize any one who hath been Baptized by an Heretick; and yet as hath been said, your Church, that I mean you take the boldness to call your Church, is so far from being plain and clear in this, that she hath defined the contrary: Nay, plainness and clearness owned as it is, and ought to be, for an essential property of the Rule of Faith,P. 54, 56. the whole of what you have said in be­half of the Church (if granted true) will amount to as much as nothing. For suppose Christ judge the Na­tions not by his Word and Spirit in the mouths of his Ministers, but, as you phrase it, by his Churches Tri­bunal [Page 90] in passing of Acts and pro­nouncing Anathema's; suppose the Church to be what you would have it, and not only led, if she will, but so drawn that she follow the Spirit into all truth, & sic de caeteris, yet what were all this to the purpose? For it would not necessarily follow thence that she is plain and clear in all necessary points: the Apostles sure, if any, might so judge and were so drawn,Pag. 37. and yet you say that they in their Epistles are defective, dark, very subject, and that in fun­damentals, desperately to be misun­derstood. Nor do you trouble us with telling that the Church is always in being,Pag. 61. and capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense; For 1. If we cannot certainly under­stand the Apostles, when explaining and declaring their sense and mean­ing, how shall we be able certainly to understand your Church, when explaining and declaring hers, sith the Church hath no other way to explain her meaning, save by words most in­telligible, which way the Apostles [Page 91] had, and did make use of as is evi­dent from 1 Cor. 14.2. The questi­on is, whether the Church be actu­ally plain and clear in all necessary points; not whether the Church be capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense: being plain and clear, and capable upon demand to explain and declare, be different things; this belongs to an Interpreter, of no concern here, it's that that is pertinent and the property of a Rule. And yet 3. The Church diffusive is not capable either of explaining or of being demanded to explain its own sense: Council or Church re­presentative, there has been none at your own account for a whole Cen­tury of years, nor likely to be any more, and it cannot be imagined that by Church you should mean the Pope, because, other reasons at present omitted, you referr to a Church always in being: However, 4. Frustra est potentia quae non redu­citur in Actum: What are we near­er having, or the Church nearer be­ing [Page 92] a Rule of Faith, for her being capable of doing that, which by no means she'l be gotten to do? Often has she been demanded, I now de­mand, and desire you to demand her, to explain her self touching the points forementioned, as also touch­ing those after instanced in the close of my answer to the third Querie; and if she do explain her sense as to those points, we shall conclude that hitherto she hath not been a sole sufficient Rule, for want of that ex­planation; if she do not, at the best she'l be but remotely capable of be­ing hereafter, and at present be no Rule of Faith; nor yet indeed is she capable at this account of being here­after, or rather, would you speak properly, making such a Rule, be­cause disenabled by the first general Council at Ephesus from ever mak­ing tanquam de fide any such an ex­planation.Can. 7.

That there are in the Scriptures several places which to common reason seem contradictions, and con­sequently some parts of Scripture [Page 93] seem untrue, is easily proved: And I shall here give you some few plain instances for example, to which ma­ny more might be added.

First, It's well you distinguish be­twixt private and common Reason; for though you exempt each mans pri­vate Spirit or Reason, from meddling about interpreting of Scriptures, you'l sure admit common Reason to be of special use, unless you'l say that Reason ought to be abused for finding out of contradictions in Scriptures, but must by no means be employed ei­ther in unfolding or reconciling the difficult places that occur there­in.

Secondly, Either Reason can judge of things and propositions, when con­tradictory, or not: if not, wherefore do you tell stories of several places seem­ing to common Reason to contradict one another, so seeming that there­upon▪ Scripture must be rejected from being a Rule; and if Reason can thus judge, wherefore should not your Church be rejected from being a Rule as well as Scriptures, sith her [Page 94] Doctrines seem to Reason, and often to common Sense too, to be more contradictory than any of these Texts. A Council is above the Pope: A Council is not above the Pope: hoc this scilicet bread or nothing, is the bo­dy, is really Christs body at London, at Rome, on Earth, in Heaven, the very same moment. Every man is a lyar; The Pope as Pope is a man, (unless he be either Accidens or animal irrationale) and yet the Pope as Pope is no lyar, in no possibility to be mistake. Nay further, these very places you say seem contradi­ctory, your Church teaches to be certainly true in her Authoritative approval of the Canon of Scripture: so that if upon this account you'l reject Scripture, upon the same account you may, must reject the Church from being a Rule: and yet rather the Church than the Scripture, for the Scripture barely presents us with the places; your Church passeth sentence, says they are all true: un­less you'l tell us your Churches say­ing can make contradictions true at [Page 95] once, and warrant you to believe it; howbeit Gods saying cannot do so.

Thirdly, Had you had many more plain instances, it is not like you would have troubled the Reader with these: your task is to prove, that the Scripture is not plain and clear in all necessary points: and is it not then for want of some more pertinent, that you present us with doubts and difficulties about Chronologies and Genealogies, concerning which the Apostle forbids us to dispute: you had better have said with the great Master of Reason, Grotius, afflatu Dei locutos quae locuti sunt, scripsisse quae scribere jussi sunt Prophetas; de scriptis Historicis & Moralibus Hebraeorum sen­tentiis aliud puto.

In 2 Kings chap. 8. verse 26. you read thus,Pag. 45. Twenty two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his Mothers name was Athaliah, the Daughter of Omri. But 2 Chron. chap. 22. verse 2. you will read thus, Forty and two years old was Ahaziah [Page 96] when he began to reign, and he reign­ed one year in Jerusalem; his Mothers name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. Now against the infallibility of Scripture, Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demon­stration, viz. No one who speaketh two things, the one contrary to the other, can be said to be infallible in speaking: but to affirm of the same person that he began to reign when he was two and twenty years old, and that he was two and forty years old when he began to reign, is to speak two things, the one con­trary to the other; therefore saith Reason, the Scripture is not infallible in speaking.

First, I am glad to find you in hand with infallible demonstrations: for if demonstrations Theological be to be had, and may be owned as infallible, I hope there will be no great need amongst sober per­sons, of your judicial Decisions, unless you can get licence to demon­strate against, and we neither for, by, nor from the Scriptures.

Secondly, Your Major is denyed; for heat and cold are two things contra­ry one to another, and yet I hope God himself may be infallible, notwith­standing he hath said, Summer and Winter, heat and cold, Gen. 8.22. You would say if you could speak, No one that delivereth two propositions, the one contrary to the other, can be said to be infallible; though yet this will not do neither, for you your self might speak and write too these two propositions, Ahaziah began to reign when he was forty and two years old: And Ahaziah began to reign when he was twenty and two years old, and yet this notwithstanding, did nothing else hin­der, be infallible. But that it may be sense and pertinent, your Major must be supplied from your Minor: No one that affirms two things of the same person that are contrary the one to the other, can be said to be infalli­ble in speaking: But to affirm of Aha­ziah, that he was twenty and two years old when he began to reign; and that he was forty and two years old when he began to reign, is to speak two things [Page 98] contrary the one to the other; yes, and more too, or else nothing to the purpose, scilicet, to affirm of the same person two things contradicto­ry one to the other,See Light-foots Har­mony in [...]oc. which yet this Scripture doth not: for the Book of Chronicles in this place meaneth not that Ahaziah was so old when he began to Reign; but these two and forty years, have relation to ano­ther thing, namely to the Kingdom of the House of Omri, and not to the Age of Ahaziah; for count from the beginning of the reign of Omri, and you find Ahaziah to enter his Reign in the two and fortieth year from thence.

The Original words therefore Ben arbagumi Ʋshethaiim Shunah are not to be translated as they be, Ahaziah was two and forty years old, but Ahaziah was the Son of the two and forty years, as Sedar Olam hath acute­ly observed long ago: nor should you tell us now of our different transla­tions, unless it could be made ap­pear that the Church in all ages had, and of necessity ought to have one authentick Translation. Or,

Secondly, that our Translations do not clearly and with one consent deliver to us all points necessary to be believed, differing only in some punctilio's of an inferiour concern. Or,

Thirdly, That it may not be as lawful for us to propose what seems agreeable to Reason for the remov­ing, as 'tis for you to urge what seems contradictory to Reason, for the rai­sing of objections against a book of Scripture so universally received for Canonical: And your Minor thus mended, is denyed; for contradicto­ries must be ad idem, in the same respect, as well as de eodem, See Peter Martyr▪ in loc. concern­ing the same person. Ahaziah be­gan to reign with his sickly in­firm Father when he was twenty and two years old, and the same Ahaziah was forty and two years old when he began to reign him­self alone: or if this will not satisfie, you may consult with your own Cornelius de lapide upon the place, he'l tell you of the Syriack and Arabick Translations, both those of Antioch or [Page 100] Mount Sinai, the Alexandrian or Cop­tick, that for forty two, have twenty two; and he that is offended at the other, may use this reading. Nor is it, saith he, the interpreters, but the Scripture it self that corrects it self, corrupted by the Transcribers: The book of Kings corrects the book of Chronicles: nor need we go further than Scripture for salving of the other difficulties; for 1 Chron. 3.16. will teach you to insert Joechim or Jachim betwixt Josias and Jeconiah, Mat. 1.11. and so compleat your number of forty two; and Gen. 10.22. will tell you to put out Cannai from betwixt Sem and Arphaxad, put in upon special Reason, as is conceived by the Seventy,See Light-foots Har­mony in loco. and retained as is likely by S. Luke chap. 3.36. the better to win upon the Gentiles.

The Argument from Heaven, for the Roman Churches being Judge and Guide, solved.

ANd now that I may con­clude my whole proof with an Argument from Heaven,Pag. 74. and by a Testimony of the highest nature make it evident to you, that this Roman Catholick Church must be this Church, which God hath ap­pointed to be this Guide and Judge, I shall insist upon the gift of Mira­cles; this was that Testimony which our blessed Redeemer did himself produce, as his Letters of Credence, and as both necessary and sufficient to prove his mission, If I had not (saith our Lord, Joh. 15.24.) done among them the works that no other man did, they had not had sin, namely, in not be­lieving me to be the Messiah. God [Page 102] therefore hath decreed it as a Law, that whosoever refuseth to believe and submit unto that authority, unto which he sets his hand and Seal, by bestowing on it the gift of Mira­cles, that Person committeth sin: the reason is given in the same Text, viz. because he thereby shew­eth that he hateth God, namely by not believing him. Now I urge, But the Roman Catholick Church hath done Works and Miracles a­mongst us, such as no other Chri­stian Church upon Earth hath done; Therefore if we give credit to any o­ther Church or Churches, and disbe­lieve or refuse to believe her, we shall have sin, and shew our selves to be haters of God.

First, You pretend here to con­clude your proof with an argument from Heaven, and yet have you not hiththerto produced so much as one Testimony of the lowest na­ture; somewhat you have said in­deed, which is already touched, to prove what we grant, scilicet, that no other Church can be; but have [Page 103] not said a word to make good what you your self affirm, viz. that the Roman Church is, this infallible Rule, Judge and Guide. And let me tell you by the way, either you can prove this your Church infallible, or you cannot: If you cannot, wherefore should we believe it? If you can, either by Revelation, or by Reason: Divine revelation, it's apparent, you nei­ther do, can, nor attempt to pro­duce: and as for Reason, you have already proved it to be fallible; so that at best, how much soever you may seem to be taken with your own fallacies, your Church can be proved but fallibly to be infallible. But,

Secondly, There is a difference betwixt the gift, and the power of working Miracles. You do, it's true, insist upon the gift, but should make it out that your Church has power of working Miracles, if you'l evince her, Christ-like, to be infallible: this was necessary; that had not been sufficient to have proved his mission: It is therefore somewhat loose arguing, for you to conclude, the [Page 104] Jews committed sin, were haters of God, for not believing Jesus to be the Messiah, who did amongst them the work which no other man did, viz. wrought Miracles by his own power; and therefore Christians commit sin, shew themselves haters of God in not believing the Roman Church to be infallible, because she has the gift, can do works (howbeit, none among us) like other men, viz. work Miracles in the name and pow­er of another. And hence,

Thirdly, We deny Gods having decreed any such a Law as you tell of;1 Sam. 10. Numb. 11. for though an Authority, to which God sets his hand and seal, by bestowing on it the gift of Mira­cles, may be rendred thereby (like that of Saul and the Seventy, by the spirit of Prophecy) more than ordinary venerable; and whosoever refuseth to believe and submit to an Authority, knowing it to work Mi­racles by its own power, that per­son committeth sin, and sheweth himself an hater of of God: yet may an Authority divinely signed [Page 105] and sealed by having that gift, be disbelieved (however, submission still due whether it have the gift or not) without contracting any such a guilt: not disbelieved, do I mean, in a particular Doctrine, that it shall actu­ally and visibly confirm by Mira­cles; but disbelieved, when teaching it self and all other Authorities that have that gift, to be disbelievable upon that account, or de debito believed in all that they should dictate forth unto us: That being indeed a Doctrine never confirmed by Miracles, nor delive­red by him that had the power of working of them. Though yet,

Fourthly, It cannot be made out that Christ did set his hand and seal either to this or that Authority, by bestowing on it any such a gift; for particular believers had that gift be­stowed upon them, as well as the A­postles; these signs shall follow them that believe, &c. Mark. 16.17. Nor did the Apostles work Miracles by virtue of their Authority, but by Faith; If ye have Faith as a grain of Mustard-seed, &c. Matt. 17.20. And though [Page 106] I have all Faith, &c. 1. Cor. 13.2. And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the People, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though we by our own Power and Holiness, had made this man to walk? His name through Faith in his name hath made this man strong, &c. yea the faith which is by him, hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all, Act. 3.12, 16. And hence sure it is, that in your Minor you leave out Authority, mention neither Seal nor Gift, but barely urge and assume — Now the Roman Catholick Church hath done, &c. not now God hath set his hand and seal to the Authority of the Roman Catholick Church, by bestowing upon it the gift of Miracles: Nor is it any marvel that you do so, for if that gift were bestowed upon that Authority, the Pope and Council that are inve­sted with it, should work Miracles, which yet they do not, nor do you insist on any such a thing; and yet if that gift be not bestowed up­on [Page 107] that Authority, it cannot bestow [...]t upon inferiour Officers: it wants Gods Hand and Seal, and may ac­cording to the tenor of your own Argument be disbelieved, be dis­obeyed, without either committing sin, or shewing hatred against God. However, 5. If a Church may pro­perly be said to work Miracles, when yet indeed it is not the Church, but some particular believer that works them, and that not in the name of the Church, but in the name of Christ; Other Christian Churches have done as great Works or Miracles in former Ages as the Roman Church ever did; witness the Church of Corinth, that came behind in no gift, 1 Cor. 1.7. and yet were not they reputed thereupon either Judges of controversies, or infallible; nor does the present Ro­man Church do any greater Works or Miracles than other Christian Churches now on earth. What does she, what can she do here amongst us, more than our Prote­stant Church doth (amongst you,) [Page 108] save make louder lying boasts of what she has done elsewhere? And therefore shall not we refuse to believe them, or resolve to give credit unto her upon any such ac­count, and conclude our so doing to be warrantable, and well enough consistent with the love we owe un­to the Lord; wishing you yet with­al to remember, That the Question is not solely or chiefly whether this or that Church ought to be believed or disbelieved in their Doctrinal teach­ing; but whether the Roman Church be the infallible Rule, Judge, and Guide of Faith? Doctrinal cer­tainty will not infer Judicial Au­thority, nor è contra: Nay suppose your Church were Doctrinally in­fallible, and had universal Jurisdicti­on, yet would it not necessarily fol­low that she is the Rule of Faith. The Prophets of old, you will say, were infallible, and the High Priests had judicial power, and yet to the Law and to the Testimony, Isaiah 8.20. It was therefore prudently done of you to alter the Question, [Page 109] First leave out Rule, and un­dertake to prove no more by your Argument from Heaven, but that the Roman Church was Judge and Guide; and then find­ing after a while, that that would not do neither, you leave out Judge or Authority, and tell us of be­lieving and disbelieving, as if it would follow, The Roman Church ought to be believed in all that she says, and therefore has she plainly said all that we ought to believe, is a Rule of Faith compleat and e­vident; howbeit indeed, had she authoritatively and infallibly so said, not she, but her sayings in propriety of Speech were to be owned for the Rule.

Now that the Roman Church hath done these works or Miracles,P. 76. is a thing so evident both by the testi­monies of the Holy Fathers, and authorities of approved Historians, that those who deny it must shew themselves either not to be Men, or Men who purposely shut their Eyes against the truth; yea, Heathens [Page 110] and Atheists will be as justifiable in their denial of the Miracles re­lated in the Old and New Testa­ment, as those will be who deny these. The Magdeburgenses, who were all professed and known Lu­therans, do almost in every one of their Centuries recount multitudes of Miracles wrought by persons whom they affirm to have been infected with what they call Popery. Namely, S. Bernard, S. Malachy, S. Dominick, S. Francis, and the like; as you may particu­larly see in Brerely, if you ex­amine the several places to which his Index at the word Miracles will refer you: By which it will ap­pear, That most of those Miracles were done not in confirmation of those Points and Articles of Faith which you hold with us; but even of those Points and Doctrines which you call Popish Superstitions and Idolatries, as the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, the respect and venera­tion which is given to Saints, Re­liques, Images, &c. Certainly there [Page 111] are few amongst you, but have heard and read, how and what Christian Faith was first brought into England amongst our Progeni­tors the Saxons, and by whom brought in: It was by S. Austin a Monk of S. Benets Order, and his fellow Monks, sent hither by S. Gre­gory the then Pope of Rome; and it was the same Faith that Catholicks now teach, which was then con­firmed by wonderful Miracles from Heaven, as is testified by our own Writers, Venerable Bede and others; yea and by our Protestant Chrono­logies, Holingshead's Chronicle, the last Edition, Vol. 1. Book 5. Cap. 21. Page 100, 102. Fox's Acts and Monuments, Printed Anno 1576. Pag. 117. Stow's Annals, Printed 1592. Pag. 66. Goodwin in his Ca­talogue of the Bishops of England, Pag. 4. Also Fox in his aforesaid Book, at the Word Miracles in the Index. To this I shall add the Au­thorities of our own late Protestant Writers, for proof of undoubted Miracles wrought in this latter Age. [Page 112] In the Book entituled, A report of the Kingdom of Congo, a Region of Africa, Printed Anno 1597. Pub­lished by Mr. Abraham Hartwel, Servant to the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, mention is made, Lib. 1. Cap. 1. of the discovery of that Kingdom, 1587. by Odoardo Lopez, and of the conversion thereof to the Christian Faith, Lib. 2. Cap. 2. and of the great and undoubted Miracles shewed by God in the pre­sence of a whole Army, Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Insomuch that the said Hartwell, in his Epistle there to the Reader, confesseth, That this con­version of Congo was accomplished by Massing Priests, after the Ro­mish manner; and saith he, this action which tendeth to the glory of God, shall it be concealed and not committed to memory, be­cause it was performed by Popish Priests and Popish means? God forbid. In like manner Mr. John Pory of Gonvile and Cajus Colledge in Cambridge, in his Geographical Hi­story of Africa, published Anno [Page 113] 1600. Pag. 410, 413. commendeth Mr. Hartwel for publishing the a­foresaid Miracles, and acknowledg­eth the same.

1. The common people may, must be deluded by lying Won­ders: but sith you are so sober as not to insist upon our English Po­pish Priests, either throwing in, or throwing out of Devils; you did wisely, when giving in your Cata­logue of Miracles done by the Ro­mish Church, to leave out [amongst us] and yet suppose the Roman Church hath done these Miracles, and done them [amongst us] it is little to the point; for if she did them in her own name and power, she is no more a Church but a God, the Messias; and if she did them in the name and power of Christ, it will evince Christ, in whose name and power the Miracles were wrought, to be the Son of God, and consequently infallible; but leave your Church subject to mi­stakes as formerly she was. How­ever, 2. It is one thing to say, it is [Page 114] evident both by Testimonies of Holy Fathers and approved Histo­rians; and another thing to pro­duce those Testimonies: and yet if you had, those Testimonies could be no more than Humane, capable of mistake, in a possibility of being erroneous, and consequently the thing as to us, be no more at your own account, than probably true; our belief, or opinion rather, no better founded than the perswasi­ons of the Jews, Turks, or Pa­gans; all upon a fallible certainty. Nor yet, 3. Can it be said either with truth or modesty, that the Heathens and Atheists will be as justifiable in their denials of the Mi­racles revealed in the Old and New Testament, as those Men will be that deny these. For though the relation of the Miracles in the Old and New Testament be brouhgt down to us by humane means, yet such as be in no wise (morally) questionable; and besides, all is ul­timately resolved into Testimony Divine: Whereas these reports of [Page 115] yours, first and last, have no firmer a Basis than the Testimony of Men blinded, byassed by interest, and that could not certainly know a true Miracle from a lying Wonder, had they stood by at the working there­of. 4. It may be true that the Mag­deburgenses, with some others, writing the Churches general History, re­count as from your own Authors, several Miracles to have been done by persons infected with Popery: But it is as true that they themselves account of them all as no better than either illusions of Daemons, or false narrations. And well may we grant with Abraham Hartwell, John Pory, and some more of ours, True Miracles to have been wrought by Popish persons; and not conclude with you, Popish, but Christian Doctrine to have been confirmed by them: For if they did Miracles, it is apparent they did them as Chri­stians, and not as Papists, in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Pope; nor need you stumble at such a distinction.Bellar. de Notis Eccles. l. 4. c. 14. For Bellarmin [Page 116] unto the Miracle of Novatianus the Heretick, answereth, the Miracle to have been wrought not for the con­firmation of the Faith of Novatia­nus, but of Catholick Baptism. And yet suppose Miracles wrought to confirm the truth of certain Popish Doctrines, what is that to the in­fallibility of the Popish Church? that learned Cardinal saw the non sequitur well enough; and there­fore labours by Miracles to prove the verity, not the infallibility of that Church, and to prove it by them credibly, not certainly. For saith he, before the approbation of the Church, it is not evident or cer­tain with the certainty of Faith con­cerning any Miracle that it is a true Miracle. However, 5. The most antient Author you or your Index pretend to quote, is Beda, who flou­rished Anno 720. the most antient Miracle-Monger, the Monk Austin, who came into England about the Year 600. an evident sign that your Popish Doctrines, if brought forth, yet were not confirmed from Hea­ven [Page 117] for the first six hundred years after Christ: Nor were those you instance in, ratified on Earth by any General Council for a long time af­ter that. The first pretended for Image-Worship is the second of Nice, Anno 705. condemned by that of Frankford, Anno 794. And the first for Transubstantiation was that of Lateran, 1215. For the most notori­ous of the rest you must come down as low as the Council of Trent, be­gun since Luther's death. And for a Miracle neither England, France, Italy nor Spain can furnish you with one; but you are forced to run as far as Congo, a Kingdom in the Regi­on of Africa, and there resolve your Faith into a Book, said by John Brerely, Anno 1664. to have been published Anno 1597. by Abraham Hartwell Servant to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury (without any leave from his Master) which Book yet, for ought appears, neither mentions Miracles done to confirm the truth of any Popish Doctrine, nor the Infallibility of the Roman Church.

Pag. 78. If any of you should chance to say, That this Testimony of Mi­racles is nothing to you, because you have never seen a Miracle: I answer, Either you grant what these Authors report, to be true, or you deny their Testimony, re­fusing to believe what you have not seen. If you grant the truth of these things, and yet remain out of the Communion of the Holy Catholick Church, upon which God hath conferred this Gift, you have sin, and hate God, according to the argument framed by our Lord him­self, which I have before cited. If you refuse to believe what you have not seen, First, You destroy Faith, Which is an evidence of things not seen. Secondly, You take away all hu­mane conversation; no man must believe another. Thirdly, you make it unjust for Civil Magistrates to punish Transgressors or Felons: for where there is no Law, there can be no breach of a Law; and if there be no Law to him who did not actually see the very Statute [Page 119] which was passed in Parliament, and hear the King and both Houses agree unto it (as in this case there is no Miracle to him who did not see it) how can you with Justice condemn and execute a Malefactor, who shall urge at the Barr that he never saw the Statute upon which he stands Indicted; nor had any knowledge or notice thereof other­wise than by hear-say, and the re­port of Authors and Books; which, since they are no sufficient proof of Gods setting his Hand and Seal to a Law by Miracles, he sees no rea­son why they should be proofs for passing that Statute; and consequently, that as to him that Statute is not in force. What you would reply to one who should give this for his Plea, upon such an Indictment, suppose as said unto your self in the case of Miracles not seen by you, but reported by good Autho­rity. Lastly, this would excuse all Infidels who have been since the A­postles times, even those that lived in their times, in case they saw [Page 120] no Miracles. But if any of you shall further say after the learned Chillingworth, That God in his Justice may permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude Men who have forged many: I answer, That by this you help the Jews who re­fused to believe the Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, notwith­standing their Miracles. For why may not they say; God in his Ju­stice for our sins might permit those true Miracles to be wrought by Je­sus Christ and his Apostles to de­lude us who have forged many? I hope this Answer will satisfie any rational person; but if it do not, I have another answer to give out of Mr. Chillingworth's own words, Pag. 144. It is impossible that God should lye, or that the Eternal truth should set his Hand and Seal to the con­firmation of a falshood; or of such a Doctrine as is partly true and partly false: the Apostles Doctrine was thus, (viz. by Miracles) con­firmed; therefore it was intirely true, and in no particular false or [Page 121] uncertain. If you reply, this con­tradicts Mr. Chillingworth's former position: I must answer, That if Mr. Chillingworth be found to con­tradict himself, relying upon his own reason, it is not my fault, nor doth it make any thing against our Church.

1. If you will have us guilty of Sin, and Haters of God, for refu­sing to believe on that account; it is necessary, according to the tenor of your own law, that the Mi­racles be done amongst, and seen of, us. If I had not done amongst them, the works which no other Man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. And yet I think it is by chance indeed, if any say, That this Testimony is nothing to them, meerly because they have not seen a Miracle; it is the Testimony it self that they except against. And yet, 2. There is a difference be­twixt remaining out of Communi­on, and remaining out of subjecti­on, to that you call the Holy Ca­tholick [Page 122] Church: Suppose we grant­ed the truth of these things, it might perhaps be a sin to remain out of her Communion, and yet a duty to remain out of her subjecti­on. Miracles, as hath been said, may evince the truth of such and such a Church; and yet make no­thing at all in order to the proving of her either Supreme or Infallible: though yet, mistake me not, by Communion, I do not mean a com­munion total or local in all her Doctrines and polluted modes of Worship; but partial Spiritual in those Doctrines and Performances, supposed to be confirmed by those Miracles. However, 3. It is well you make it no worse with them that refuse to believe these things they have not seen, than to destroy Faith, and take away all humane converse, &c. I was afraid you would have charged them as Christ did the Jews, with sin against the Holy Ghost; though yet, as it is, your charge is so high, it can never be made good. For may not Faith, [Page 123] think you, evidence things not seen, upon the account of Divine Reve­lation, unless we believe what we never saw, upon the report of Abra­ham Hartwell and John Brerely? May not one Man believe another about worldly things with a humane Faith, unless one Man believe another a­bout Heavenly Doctrines with a Faith Divine? Or can Thieves and Traytors ever imagine, that a Law publickly promulged by the King, and practically attested by the whole Nation, may as warrantably be pleaded against by them, as the private Testimony of a few ignote Travellers may be excepted against by us, especially when they dis­course largely about Miracles; which, if your own Doctors say true, neither they, nor any Man else can with certainty distinguish from lying Wonders? We have notice of the Reigns and Acts of the several Kings and Queens of Eng­land, no otherwise than by hear-say, and by Authors and Books; and we have notice of the Lives and [Page 124] Acts of Bevise of Southampton, Robin Hood, and Little John, by hear-say, Authors, and Books; and will any conclude the one is to be credited as well as the other, because they have seen neither, and both come to us reported by that, you may have the forehead to call, a good Authority? Your grand Argument as is before observed, comes to nothing, because we have not seen your Miracles; howbeit we give a ground for no such inferences as these, but are ready to proportion our belief according to the worth and weight of the Testimony, be it Divine or humane. Nor yet will the Infidels be excused, for that they have not seen the Miracles; for in the Apostles time, Their sound went into all the Earth, and their words unto the utmost parts of the World, Rom. 10.18. And now in these days, besides the universal Tradition of the Church, we have reasons and Records undeniable, to evince the truth of Christianity, and of Mi­racles having been done to con­firm [Page 125] it: Howbeit those who have not heard at all, or heard no better proofs for the truth of Christian Religion, than you bring for your Popish Miracles, if excusable for not believing before; doubtless may yet remain in the same venial con­dition as they were.

And now for a close, 4. Give me leave to mind you, 1. That in the beginning of this Epistle, you would have Faith destroyed, transformed into Fancy, Humour, and Opinion, if built on any foun­dation save Divine Revelation, or what we did certainly know to be infallibly true. And now here you will have a total destruction of Faith, unless it may be built upon the private Apocryphal reports of Abraham Hartwell, John Pory, John Brerely, and such like Men, not only fallible, subject to errour, and in a possibility to be mistaken in this very thing; but Men that cannot be concluded with any pro­bability of reason to be in a capa­city to know the certain truth of [Page 126] what they say, they do affirm. 2. You can now present us with an argument from Mr. Chillingworth, sufficient at once both to convince an Heathen of the truth of Christi­anity, and to prove the Divinity of the Scriptures. It is impossible that God should lye, and that the Eternal Truth should set his Hand and Seal to the confirmation of a fals­hood, or of such Doctrine as is part­ly true and partly False. The Apo­stles Doctrine was thus, (viz. by Miracles) confirmed: Therefore it was intirely true, and in no particular false or uncertain: And yet in your Discourse with the Lay Gentleman, you had not a word to say for the truth of Christianity upon Prote­stant Grounds; nor any thing for Scriptures being the Word of God, save that the Spirit witnessed with your Spirit, they were so. 3. The Gospel, Scripture Doctrines we preach, are like your universal es­sential predications, Eternal; once confirmed by Miracles in them­selves, or their Principal, they need [Page 127] no more. This proposition, The Ro­man Church is infallible, has a per­sonal mutable individuum for its subject, changes every Age, may change every year; and therefore still stands in need of new miracu­lous confirmations: insomuch that would we give you leave to sup­pose Miracles wrought in Bede's time, not simply to confirm the Doctrine taught, but the then Ro­man Churches infallibility in teach­ing; yet would that make nothing at all to prove, either that the now Roman Church is infallible, or her new devised Doctrines certainly true. 4. The former position you father on Mr. Chillingworth, will be taken for your own, till such time as you quote the Chapter, Section or Page, where you had it; and if then, as much may not be done for Mr. Chillingworth against you, as Mr. Chillingworth in the like case hath done for Bishop Ʋsher against Knott, we shall confess him a Man; what would you more? and fallible; and yet withal tell you, [Page 128] that his Arguments remain unan­swered, nay unanswerable by your Church; nor will so wise a man's contradicting of himself make any thing at all against, but for the establishing the Doctrine of ours, Let God be true and every Man a Ly­ar, Rom. 3.4. Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10.5.5. Clodius accusat Moe­chum: You tax Mr. Chillingworth with contradicting of himself, and yet you are taken in that very act; you blame that learned Writer for rely­ing too much upon his own reason, and yet you would have us build our Faith upon yours; we must have reasons forsooth, without revelation, for conversion and submission to the said Church.

The Six Queries answered.

BUt yet all after this,Pag. 84. I fear some of you will blame me for hav­ing joyned with this Catholick Church, to which by Gods mercy I am united, and judge me as hav­ing taken the wrong way. To those who shall remain so perswaded, I make this humble request, and con­jure them by all the Obligations of Brotherly Love, and as they have any charity for my Soul, that they will please to tell me, First, &c.

First, Fear of blame argues a sense of Guilt; you confess your having joyned with [this] Catho­lick Church, and that implies your having separated from [the] Ca­tholick Church, the very thing your old Brethren do, and that upon just grounds, blame you for. And [Page 130] therefore, 2. Do not take Gods name in vain; never say that it was by Gods mercy, but because of your own sin and folly, that you are now divided from the commu­nion of Christians, that are all one in Christ Jesus, according to Gal. 3.28. and are become united to a Sect of Papists, that center in nought else save three Words, which you cannot construe, Roman, Catholick Church, without either Christian or Holy.

Thirdly, How can you but judge your self to have taken a wrong way, when as you know you have left Gods way, an explicit Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and have taken up a way of your own, viz. an implicite believing as the Church believeth? When the poor Jaylor enquired, Acts 16.31. What shall I do to be saved? Pray now, did the Apo­stle direct him to go that way you have taken, or that way you have left? Howbeit, indeed you can­not rightly be said to walk in that wrong way you have taken, or to [Page 131] believe as the Church believes, be­cause the Church hath one manner and Rule of believing, and you ano­ther; unless you'l say, what yet I think you will not, that the Church, like you, believes she neither knows what, nor in whom, and is a Rule of believ­ing unto her self. 4. Humble re­quests and Brotherly love we shall let alone till another time, but out of Charity to your Soul, and ten­derness of many others, a solution is endeavoured to all your Quae­ries.

First, Whether they themselves are certain, past all possibility of be­ing mistaken, that the Christian Religion is the only safe way to Salvation: i. e. Whether they are infallibly sure of this point, and how come they to be so infallibly as­sured?

1. It is not so proper to say, Chri­stian Religion, as that Christ is the only way to Salvation; I am the way, John. 14.6. nor need there should be any addition of [safe] as if there were other ways to Salvation though some­what [Page 132] dangerous: For there is no other name under Heaven given amongst men, whereby we must be saved; neither is Salvation in any other, Act. 4.12. Bellarmins saying, tutissimum est, was well for a Papist, yet would ill be­come the mouth of a Protestant. 2. Though we shall not say that we are certain of this point ex parte nostri, beyond all possibility of mi­staking; for that were to make our selves Gods pure Acts, not men compounded ex actu & potentia, of what we are, and what we may be: Yet we say we are ascertain­ed hereof ex parte Dei, beyond all possibility of being mistaken; because God that cannot lie, hath declared it, and taken away the actual hurt of that mist, that yet naturally we are still prone unto. And hence, 3. Though we do not say that we can infallibly assure our selves, nor dare say that we are infallibly sure of this or any other point; Yet we affirm that we are most sure of this point, Historically, Morally, as men; so sure, as the best Authentick Histories, [Page 133] Universal Traditions, and the most rational Arguments can make us sure, with a certainty, cui non subest dubium, exclusive of all doubt: Though yet, this notwithstanding, as some do, and we may surmise, potest subesse falsum, there is a possibility of its being otherwise, a possibility of our being mistaken.

2. We are assured hereof infal­libly, spiritually, as Christians, find­ing in our selves a faith of adhe­rency freely given beyond, and be­sides that of evidence by natural means to be obtained; nor will it be either reasonable or charitable for you to call this our faith fan­cy: for sith we make it out, that what we believe is true, objectivè, beyond all contradiction of Rea­son; wherefore should you questi­on the goodness of the God of truth in confirming us subjectivè, especially when we, who know our own Hearts, if not well enough, yet better than you, affirm, that from time to time we experience [Page 134] it, are ready to seal it with our lives, and that Ancient godly Book, called the Bible, hath many speeches and promises of such a ten­dency?

Secondly, Whether they have the same assurance, and from the same grounds, or from what grounds, that this sort of Christianity, wherein I now wor­ship God, is erroneous and damna­ble?

1. We do not say, that sort of Christianity wherein you worship God, is erroneous and damnable; but that that sort of Popery wherein you worship Images, invocate Saints, adore a piece of bread, &c. is so. 2. That this sort of Popery is erro­neous and damnable, we are cer­tain from divine Scripture ground, Thou shalt not make to thy self any gra­ven Image, &c. thou shalt not bow down thy self unto them, Exod. 20.4, 5. When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven, Luk. 11.2. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him on­ly [Page 135] shalt thou serve, Matt. 4.10. In vain do ye worship me, teaching for do­ctrins the commandments of men, Mat. 15.9. 3. True it is we have the same grounds of assurance for all points of Christian Religion, affirmatively, nega­tively, respect had to their Verity; and yet have we not the same grounds for all, respect had unto their Charity; and therefore may we have assurance for all upon the same grounds, yet not the same assurance. 4. The Spi­rit is sent in a special manner to convince the world of sin, for not believing, and to perswade all the Elect to believe in Jesus Christ. But which, or how many other points the Holy Ghost will certain­ly give in evidence for, or against, I shall not determine.

Thirdly, Suppose I were willing upon their perswasions, to re­linquish this way, wherein I now am; what sort of Christianity (viz. whether the way of the Lutheran or Calvinist, of the Greeks Church, or of the Armenian, or Ethiopian, or [Page 136] whether the way of the English In­dependents, or Anabaptists, or Quakers, or of the Fifth monarchy-men, or the way of the new Arrians, or Socinians, or any other, and what) shall I fol­low, and why, as the only secure way to salvation? or is it enough to secure my salvation, if I be a Christian opposing the Roman Church, and believe, or disblieve what I please, so it be in contradi­ction to the Roman Church?

1. I can easily suppose you con­vinced of the naughtiness of the way that you are in, and yet at present can­not suppose you willing to relinquish it for any of those ways you menti­on; indeed there is another way you seem to be thinking of, because you say nothing of it; and had not your perfidiousness been such, that the Chieftains thereof will not allow you preferment, I little question but they have Motives that might work upon you. 2. The way (as you call it) of the Lutherans, the way of the Calvinists, Arminians, English [Page 137] Independents, be not several sorts of Christianity, or several ways to sal­vation; but several opinions held out, several forms of Government under which several Christians live, that are all in the same secure way to salvation, viz. Jesus Christ: and therefore, 3. I shall not perswade you first or last, to be of any of these ways, but, as you say well, to become a Christian, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and him alone for salvation: and then as to other points, believe, or disbelieve, not what you please, but what God in an hum­ble use of lawful means shall be pleased to make known unto you; Lord what wilt thou have me to do? Acts 9.6. And then though I can­not tell which of the ways fore­mentioned you'l be for, may be for none; yet certain I am you'l stand up with me in contradiction to the Church of Rome: because she above all other Sects, sets her self most notoriously to contradict our only Lord Jesus Christ; will needs sit as God in the Temple of [Page 138] God. However, 4. suppose I were willing upon your perswasions to relinquish this way wherein I now am, what sort of Popery (viz. whether the way of the Dominicans, Jesuits, or Franciscans, or the way of the French or Italian, or the way of your Thomists or Scotists, nominal or reals, or whether the way of J. S. who makes Tradition, or the way of R. E. who makes the Church the Rule of Faith, of any other and what) shall I follow, and why, as the only secure way to salvation? or is it enough to secure my Salvation, if I be a Papist opposing the Protestant Churches, and believe or disbelieve what the Priest my Confessor pleas­es, so it be in contradiction to the Protestant Churches?

If't be said, that yet for all this you do not differ in points of Faith: We answer, First, you differ in what is more considerable, the foun­dation and Rule: J. S. and his party holding Tradition; R. E. and his party holding the Church to be [Page 139] the Rule of Faith: And then in a subdivision, the Italians holding the Pope; The French maintaining that the Council; and R. E. again that the vast community of all Christians, &c. ought to be meant by the Church. Nor does it end thus; Bellarmin holds that by Miracles the Church can be proved true no more than credibly; you'l needs prove your Church by Mi­racles to be the universal Judge, and the infallible Guide of Faith, and that certainly certitudine fidei, directly con­trary to, and far enough beyond what Bellarmin ere attempted. 2. The differences betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans, Whether God pre­determinate every action, Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight, be about points of Faiths, and more material than any point in Controversie betwixt Pres­byterians, Independents, and Anabap­tists: If you say you agree in all points your Church has defin'd to be of Faith, it's not simply and una­nimously, as you pretend to agree in all points of Faith: but in all your [Page 140] Church has defin'd or can agree that you should agree in, whose definiti­ons and politick Arbitration, to­gether with your irrational forced submissions, be nothing to us, nor to the Question. However you use to tell us herewithal, that an agree­ment in the letter or words is worth nothing, unless there be an agree­ment in sense. And now you con­trovert the sense of almost all your Churches definitions.Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Due Honour and veneration, saith your Church, must be given to Images, and then one sort of you conclude the Image in it self must not in any manner be worshipped,Bellar. de Imag. sanct. l. 2. c. 20. but only the exem­plar be worshipped before the Image: Another sort, that the same honour is due to the Image, as is due to the exemplar: And a third sort, that the Images in themselves, and pro­perly, ought to be honoured, but with a lesser Honour than the ex­emplar it self: and if you urge yet, that you all agree the definitions to be true in the sense intended by the Church her self, we reply that you your [Page 141] selves be the Church, that thus falls out about the sense, do not know what's your own meaning; and add further, that we all agree the Scriptures to be true in the sense intended by God, yet will not that content you.

Fourthly, Whether they, who would teach me that sort of Chri­stianity to be the only Religion, wherein Salvation is to be attained, which they would have me follow and imbrace, be infallible in their teaching of this particular?

We do not tell you of this or that sort of Christianity being the only Religion, wherein, but of Jesus be­ing the only Christ, through faith, in whom Salvation is to be attained; and though we dare not say, that we are infallible in teaching this particular, yet are we certain that this particular which we teach is true infallibly, and that one infalli­ble according to Christs own pro­mise, Matt. 28.20. goes along with [Page 142] us in teaching thereof; your Priests want such company, and therefore not being able their Ministry pow­erfully to evidence in mens under­standings, the verity of what they set themselves to Preach, they labour to set up an infallible visible Authority, unto which they most im­pudently aver, that all persons must and ought to yield a blind obedience.

Fifthly, Whether they are infal­libly sure, that all who do not follow and imbrace that fort of Christianity which they would have me follow and imbrace, shall be damned?

1. You are always in hand with your several sorts of Christi­anity, an expression ill becoming one, that hath Christian for his name, and Catholick for his Sir­name, and therefore disclaimed by us.

[Page 143]2. We tell you that all those that imbrace Jesus Christ by Faith, and follow him in love, so far as shall be made known unto them whom we perswade you to imbrace and follow, shall be certainly saved, and those that do not, shall be cer­tainly damned.

3. Such Sectaries as you, that make several sorts of Christianity, and maintain it to be necessary to Salvation, in all things to obey and follow this or that sort of Christianity, do certainly de­serve for that very thing to be eternally damned: But what God will do either with you or them, lest herein we should be like you, I shall not determine.

Sixthly, Supposing that they are not infallible in these particulars, whether will it not rationally, and necessarily follow, that possibly I may at present be in the right way, and they in an errour; and if so, [Page 144] what reason can they give, why I should forsake my present Guide, whom I believe to be infallible, to follow them who confess they may be, and therefore, for ought they know, are at present mista­ken in what they believe and pra­ctise?

First, If we neither did, nor could bring any other proof for these particulars, save our own Testimony (fallibility on our part supposed) it would rationally and necessarily follow quoad nos, that possibly at least you might be in the right way, and we in an er­rour: Though yet, quoad rem ip­sam, the sequel, this notwithstand­ing, be impossible, because these particulars might be in themselves infallibly true, and we neither know, nor be able to evince it.

Secondly, You may strongly ima­gine, but if your own principles abide firm, you cannot, do not be­lieve, that the Roman Church your [Page 145] present Guide is infallible: For Faith, according to you, is an in­fallible assent of the understand­ing, submitting it self obediently to the revelations of God: And therefore sith you have no reve­lation of God for, but one express against, the infallibility of the Roman Church, Rom. 11.22. Your own definition will tell you, it is impossible that your understand­ing should exert an Act of Faith about it; nor yet, suppose you had divine Revelation for it, or that God himself should say to you, the Roman Church is infal­lible, were you ere the nearer. For it's possible you may com­mit an errour, nay err in your understanding of those words; and consequently your understanding ne­ver give an infallible assent to that which God intended by them. Howbeit,

Thirdly, We can tell you as for­merly, that à posse ad esse non va­let Argumentum: it follows not, we [Page 146] may be, therefore we are; or we con­fess we may be, therefore for ought we know at present, we are mi­staken, &c. for though we still confess we may be mistaken in what we believe and practise, re­spect had to our desert, and natu­ral proneness, yet do we know that God of his mercy, through the Ministery of his word, hath at present fully satisfied us, that as to the main we are not; and if in some things we differ and wander, yet doubt we not but God for Christs sake, will pardon our errours, as well as our other sins, and cause us to keep the unity of the Spirt in the bond of peace, Never­theless whereto we have already at­tained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. Phil. 3.16. However,

Fourthly, We do not desire you to forsake your present Guide and fol­low us; but to forsake your pre­sent Guide, us, and your own sel­fish humour, and follow the Lord [Page 147] Jesus Christ. You pretend and would have us to believe the Romish Church to be infallible independently on the Scriptures, because God by Miracles, as you imagine, has confirmed it so to be; and sith so, we would have you at least allow us to believe Scrip­tural Doctrines, confessedly so con­firmed independently on that Church, or else excuse your self from being an Heretick, sith you'l believe, nay, press others to believe one proposition, and refuse another equal­ly proposed at your own account: Not may this be retorted upon us either by Mr. Johnson or you. For,

First, Though we own all the gifts Christ gave unto Men for the perfecting of the Saints, and work of the Ministry, according to Eph. 4.11, 12. yet do we neither claim nor admit of such a propounding Authority, as you without any divine warrant pretend unto.Pag. 9.

[Page 148] 2. Though your Church equally impose all her Tenets, respect had to her own usurped power; yet does she not equally propose all, respect had to the evidencing of their truth. For some she proposes as Divine, but does not prove them so to be, as her Doctrines about the real Presence, and Pur­gatory:Pag. 81. others she not only pro­poses as such, but evidently e­vinces them to be Divinely re­vealed; as the Doctrine of the Tri­nity and the Incarnation: to these we assent, those we except against as not sufficiently represented to us: And yet say,

3. That two propositions may be equally proposed to, and not equally work upon the understand­ing: preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, and preaching the Gos­pel to the Jews, were both pro­posed with equal evidence and Authority, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel unto every Crea­ture, [Page 149] Mark 16.15. and yet did Pe­ter with a thousand others believe that, and disbelive this without any crime of Heresie, if of pre­judice or inadvertency imputed to them.

If there be any who hath any value for the Authority of the great S. Austin, I shall beseech them to read this following Text of that Saint, and to consider whether I have not in my pro­ceedings observed his Rule and Method; and let them but change the word Manichaeus into John Cal­vin, and how nearly it will concern them.

S. Augustin against the Epistle of Manichaeus, which they call funda­mental, cap. 5. edit. Paris. Tom. 61.46. If thou shalt find any one who doth not as yet believe the Gospel, what wilt thou do when he shall say unto thee, I do not believe? But neither had I believed the Go­spel, [Page 150] unless I had been thereun­to moved by the Authority of the Catholick Church: Those therefore to whom I submitted, when they required me to believe the Gospel, why should I not also yield obedi­ence unto them, when they direct me not to believe Manichaeus? Take your choice; if you tell me I must believe the Catholicks, they give me advice not to give cre­dit to you; and therefore if I be­lieve them I cannot but refuse to believe you. If you tell me I must not believe the Catholicks; you proceed ill, when you go about by the Gospel to perswade me to believe Manichaeus, because it was from the Preachings of the Ca­tholicks, that I believe the Gospel it self. If you tell me I did well when I believed the Catho­licks praising the Gospel, but I do ill when I believe the same per­sons decrying Manichaeus, do you take me to be so stupid as with­out any reason given unto me I should believe or disbelieve what [Page 151] you please? &c. But if you have any Reason to offer unto me, lay aside the Gospel; if you hold your self to the Gospel, I shall adhere to those upon whose com­mands I believe the Gospel, and so long as I obey them I shall not believe you. But if by accident you should find any thing in the Gospel most evidently touching the Apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken the Authority of the Catholicks in my esteem, who require me not to believe you; but that being weakened I shall not be­lieve the Gospel, because I believe that by them: so that whatsoe­ver you bring from the Gospel will be of no force with me. Wherefore if nothing be found in the Gospel for the manifestation of Manichaeus his Apostleship, I shall rather give credit to Catho­licks than you. But if any thing shall be there found manifest on the behalf of Manichaeus, I shall neither believe them nor you: Not them, because they told me a lie [Page 152] of you; nor shall I believe you, because you urge that Scripture to me, which I believe upon their Au­thority, who told me a lie in rela­tion to you, &c.

1. S. Augustine may be consi­dered either as a Witness acquaint­ing us, what the Church then held, or as a Doctour rationally de­ducing and proving of conclusions: had you quoted him under the for­mer notion, I should not have questi­oned the truth of any thing that Great Augustine had said, with­out undeniable evidence to the contrary. But sith you cite him as Doctor, I shall value S. Austins Authority, as S. Austin had learn­ed to value the Authority of other pious learned Doctors of, or be­fore his time, not credit what he saith, because he saith it, but be­cause he proves it true, either by Canonical Authorities or probable Reasons. Howbeit,

2. You observe the Rule and [Page 153] Method not of Saint Austin, but Mr. Knot, substituting John Calvin, for Mani­chaeus; and I might by the same Rule observe the Method of Mr. Chillingworth, substitute Arians, as great pretenders then, as the Papists are now, for the Catholick Church; put Goth or Vandal converted by them for S. Austin, for Manichaeus write Homousians, and then try whe­ther the Argument, if but first fit­ted to your purpose, be not, as he says, like a buskin that will fit any leg: but I shall wave this, and in a just parallel let you see plainly how far different your pro­ceedings are from those of the great S. Austin. First then S. Austin speaks of an Infidel that did not as yet believe the Gospel; you direct your speech to Christians, Protestants, that do already believe it, and that up­on the account of Universal Traditi­on, the Scriptures, and the Divine Attestations of Miracles, far bet­ter grounds than your Popish prin­ciples can or will allow. Secondly, S. Austin supposes such a one to [Page 154] come and say I do not believe, and thereupon seeks to bring him to, and establish him in the faith: you deal with such as say they do believe, and seek to overturn their faith established as aforesaid, aver­ring it's no better than fancy and an humour: thus did not Austin. Thirdly, S. Austin speaks in the sin­gular number, and preter Tense, Nei­ther had I believed the Gospel, unless I had been thereunto mo­ved by the Authority of the Ca­tholick Church: You speak in the plural and present Tense, we must not, do not, believe the Gospel, unless our Faith be found­ed upon the Authority and infal­libility of that society of Christi­ans, which is in Communion with, and in subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Fourthly, those to whom Austin submitted, required him to believe the Gospel and disbelieve Manichaeus, who held two first Principles, and consequently two Gods, and maintained several other er­rous apparently repugnant there­unto: [Page 155] those to whom you have sub­mitted, require you to believe the Real presence, Purgatory. Image-worship, with other such like Hu­mane inventions, and disbelieve Cal­vin, who teacheth the Gospel, and declares against all such Doctrins as do not accord therewith. Fifthly, We do not advise you to believe the Romanists, nor did you at the first believe the Gospel by the Ro­manists Preaching, but by the preach­ing of the Protestants: And there­fore if you'l adhere to those upon whose grounds you did at first be­lieve the Gospel, so long as you o­bey them, you shall not believe the Romanists; and if they say (what one would think they should) you did well when you believed the Prote­stants preaching of the Gospel, but do ill when you believe the same persons decrying the Romanists, are you so stupid as without any reason given unto you, to believe or disbe­lieve what they please? &c. Had you indeed been bred a Papist, and then could have proved the Papists [Page 156] the only Catholicks, and Protestants as gross Hereticks as the Manichees, there might have been some ground for your parallel with S. Austin; as it is, you proceed upon a three­fold disadvantage and disparity.