Five captious questions propounded by a factor for the papacy answered by a divine of the Church of God in England by parallel questions and positive resolutions : to which is added an occasional letter of the Lord Viscount Falkland to the same gentleman, much to this present purpose.

Fourth Section, containing an Examination of the foregoing Reply made by the Romanist; which was comprised in a Letter to the Gentleman assaulted. Mr. F. M.

SIR,

I Received the Papers, which you conveyed unto me by many Ambages, on the 12th. of April; since which time I have been intangled in several businesses, that al∣lowed me no leisure to consider the Cavils of the Factors, for the Court of Rome, who are like the Clients of * 1.1 the Idol God of Ekron, the Flies, not only for their insinua∣tion into secrets; but also for their restless importunity, who though beaten off from the flesh, they would taint and corrupt, yet return again. But now, though e∣nough hath been lately published by eminent persons in

our Church, to stop the mouths of gainsayers or at least to secure prudent readers from the dangerous practises of those, who like Elymas cease not to pervert the streight waies of the Lord; * 1.2 yet I have taken some spare time to examine what is returned to that Paper, which you know Sir, I writ in your Dining-room whilst you staid a while for your company to dinner. Upon the perusal I find no∣thing, that may render the defence of mine own former writing so difficult to me, as it may be tedious to you. For you will see that Oracle of Solomon verified, * 1.3 The beginner of strife is like one that opens a passage to waters. As wa∣ters let in at a small breach quickly spread to a deluge: so you may observe, how contentions about Religion begun by admission of a few questions swell to Volumes that cloy, or tire rather then instruct readers, except they be such lovers of Truth, as to seek it with patience. But least my silence might give some occasion to the Adversarie of triumphing over our Church, (whereas indeed neither the validity of our cause or profession, nor the credit of our Church depends on so weak a Basis, as the acting of one of the meanest of her Children) I shall endeavour to re∣pair this breach, and to retrench these bitter waters of Romish contentions against the Truth into their own channels. And that you may not be affrighted with the very bulk of my Reply, I shall not enlarge my discourse to disprove every particular, which these Papers may tempt me to contradict, but make short animadversions upon whatever occurs and appears material to our present Queries.

My first Querie ministers no occasion of dispute. The second, in which he rightly apprehends the main force of my instance against his Queries to lie, is attacked by him confidently, with such weapons, as I may safely trust you to judge of their validity. And indeed you that are as∣saulted in the possession of the truth of Christian Religion, conveyed unto you by the light of Gods Word in the Scri∣pture, which is held forth by a Ministerie, that doth not

pretend to Infallibility, but professeth legitimate Autho∣rity to instruct all under their charge in the Doctrine of the Gospel, must be Judge in the Court of your own conscience, whether the Roman Questionist, or I, speak that which is agreeable to the common Rules of Truth. And your Reason assisted with the blessing of God, the Father of Lights, who freely and liberally gives wisdom sufficient to salvation unto all, that with humility, meekness and resolution of obedience implore his holy Spirit of understanding, must be permitted to be your Guide in discovering the True Church from the False; and may as well and safely be allowed to distinguish the whole∣some Doctrine from the corrupt and noxious: since this may be easier and sooner discerned by the agreeableness of any Doctrine to the sence of Scripture, in which all things necessary are plain, then the truth of a Church can be dis∣covered by those Notes commonly given by the Papists, which are uncertain, variable, difficult to be examined, and (which is of most importance) not infallibly known to be the infallible Notes of a True Church, nor infallibly applied to their Church, except you will take their Testi∣mony of themselves to be infallible, which is the thing in question.

But not to make unnecessary excursions, I shall betake my self to examine his Answer to my second Querie. I will not waste time to unfold the Logical term, Ignoratio Elenchi, though I can shew how unjustly this fallacy is charged upon me, and how easily it may be retorted upon him. I shall appeal to your reason, and leave you to de∣termine, who is guilty of mistaking the Argument in de∣bate, or of proceeding fallaciously. He thinks, he hath convinced me of such a sophistical dealing, by saying, That the Queries about the Christian Church, to which those propounded by me ought to correspond, proceed not upon any particular Kingdom, no nor upon any particu∣lar Church. But I desire you to consider, whether there be not an exact analogy (as to the sufficient way and

means of salvation) between the Christian Church under the Gospel diffused through all Nations, and the Jewish Church, which was the only Nation, which had then the peculiar priviledge to be in Covenant with God, and to enjoy the living Oracles of truth; and whether there be not a just correspondence in the obligation, that lies up∣on the members of either Church, both to serve God sin∣cerely according to his will revealed in his Word, and al∣so at the same time to yield obedience to their Superiors in the Lord, and according to that Law, which was given to Prince and Priests and People. The whole Kingdom of Israel at first, as it was undivided, was the only Church of God: And the Kingdom of Judah, after the Rent, was the only Spouse of God, till she had a Bill of Divorce for her spiritual whoredoms. And therefore let any indiffe∣rent Reader judge, whether I proceeded not upon a good ground, when I compared the present Catholick Church, with the only Church, though then confined to one Nati∣on, since both are equally furnished by God with suffici∣ent means to preserve Religion, and both are equally lia∣ble to corruption in their members, and if you will be∣lieve St. Paul's warning to the Church of Rome, * 1.4 the visible Roman Church is more then equally with that of the Jews obnoxious to a grand apostacy and excision.

[There is indeed one difference between the particular members of the Jewish Church under the Law, and parti∣cular Christians under the Gospel, for which the conditi∣on of Gods servants under the Old Testament was much harder, then ours is under the New. For the prescript service of God being of old tied to the Temple at Hierusa∣lem, and the people being bound to worship God there, when the Temple was shut up, and the worship of the Lord wholly laid down, as under King Ahaz, (read 2 Chron. 29.7.) or when the City and Temple were polluted and prophaned with the execrable Altars and Images of Baal, of the Sun, and of the Host of Heaven, and Devil-wor∣ship which were set up by Manasseh, who required obedience

of Priests and People, and filled Jerusalem with the blood of them who chose to obey God rather than Man, (See 2 Chron. 33.3,9. 2. Kings 24.4.) Gods faithful ser∣vants must needs have been in a sad streight between their zeal for Gods House and service, and their obligation to their superiors, who caused, at least urged them to err, and to do worse then the Heathen (as the Holy Ghost speaks in that story) when there was no appearance (as this Ro∣manist fondly dreams) of a standing Council assistant to the High Priest resident at Hierusalem, as a Visible guide in Gods way, but the Priest that shewed their heads were all Sycophants and Seducers. * 1.5 But now the Service of God being spiritual and not tyed to any one place, nor the Law of Christ confined to one Bishops chair only, but the Church being spred throughout all nations, and every Church, that is associated orderly in any Kingdom, or Nation, or being endowed with a sufficient power of con∣duct and government, (in which the Christian Magistrate is concerned) if a prevalent party of Governours be not only corrupted in matters of Religion, but also so abu∣sive of power, that the communion with that Church be unsafe, Christians are much more at liberty than the Jews were, because by removal of their habitation they may leave a gangrened limb of the Catholick Church, and joyn to a sounder part, where they may, be it in the East, or in the West, offer a pure oblation and incense unto God with acceptance upon the Altar Christ Jesus. * 1.6 This ad∣vantage of freedom and safety for the Service of God, and working out their own salvation, a Christian gains above a Jew by the propagation of the Gospel unto the Gentiles, and the settlement of particular Churches in several Ter∣ritories under several jurisdictions. But still the parallel holds between Jews and Christians, both in regard of their duty to God, and their Governours, and in respect also of the provision for their eternal Salvation, when the i∣niquity of the times is such, that their Governours will either make the people committed to their charge drunk

with the poysoned wine of their fornications, or make themselves drunk with the blood of Martyrs]* 1.7

But he goes on to tell us, that his Queries proceed upon the Representative Catholick Church in a full and lawful meeting of the chief Pastors to teach the Church diffusive what she is to believe as matters of Faith, or to reject as errors in Faith; when Questions arise about any of them.

1. Now Sir, again I appeal to your reason, 1. whether you did apprehend, or could divine, or by any thing in those Queries imagine, that by the Visible Catholick Church (which he supposes must be consulted as the Guide of Sal∣vation) is to be understood a truly general Council law∣fully assembled.

But now you may be satisfied, that when the Papists make a noyse, with crying up the Catholick Church, they do not mean the Body of the Christian Church diffusive over the whole earth, which though it cannot err in mat∣ters of Faith necessary to Salvation (for then, it should cease to be a Church by not holding the head Christ Jesus) yet can not this be a Guide, because it cannot be consulted by particular Christians, or others, who having got an incling of the truth, and desirous of Salvation, may be inquisitive for a Guide. And though every Christian which is a sound member of the Catholick Church, by holding the true Faith, and being ready to joyn upon every good occasion with all his Fellow-members in the worship of God through Christ Jesus according to the Rules of the Gospel, be obliged to communicate his Light to any man that wants it, yet is not every man that agrees with the Catholick Church, an Infallible Guide: And less than Infallibility will not serve a papists turn when he talks of a Guide, though the poor souls in that Synagogue never see any but such Guides, which are confessedly fallible, because Infallibility is not the Lot of particular Priests.

And now being instructed to take their meaning (which was a secret not to be foreseen) for their saying, I hope

you have not forgot, what you have heard my Lord Falk∣land often say, The Pastors assembled in Council, though a governing part, are still but a part of the Church Catholick; and this may be secured from the gates of Hell, though they may be permitted to err in matters of Faith.

2. But allowing all due honour of Reverence and Obedi∣ence to a truly General Council lawfully assembled in the name of Christ, and proceeding sincerely by the assistance of the Holy Ghost; I desire you to consider, how particular Christians are by this mans explication of the word, Church, set forward in the way to find that which is pretended to be absolutely necessary; to wit, an Infal∣lible Guide in matters of Faith, and holy Life. You know, that, after the Apostles had finished their course, the Church subsisted upon the stock of their doctrine, with an ordinary Ministry erected and supported by Christ in several Churches respectively, for many years, and some ages without a general Council. Yet particular Christi∣stians had all that while a sufficiency of certain means for the conduct of their Souls in the wayes of Truth, Peace, and Holyness, unto eternal life. And therefore doth it not appear evident, that there was Salvation attained without a Church in the sense of this Querist? But never was there Salvation out of the Catholick Church. I pray marke now, who is ignorant of, or wilfully mistakes the Argument we treat of, the Querist, or the Re∣spondent?

3. Thirdly, I desire you to consider, in what a wilder∣ness you are intangled, without certain path, or issue, if once you be perswaded to forsake your ordinary Guides, who lead you not by their own light, but by the Lan∣thorn they hold forth, which enables you to judge of their leading and your own walking in the right way, and then to look for this Chimerical Guide called the Church. For you know, 1. General Councils are not standing Guides. 2. And how shall particular Christians be infallibly assu∣red, (and less then that, according to the common Hypo∣thesis

of Papists, will not serve for a ground of divine Faith) that a Council when it is assembled is truly a full meeting of only lawful Pastors, and that they proceed so as to be assisted by the Holy Ghost, since the Learned are not agreed on the Conditions requisite to make the Body of an Assembly fit for the spirit of Infallibility; and the un∣learned are never able by disquisition to be assured that the Council which pretends to be their Guide is justly quali∣fied to be so.

3. Again 3. Remember how silent Councils are in cases of conscience, and particular matters of holy life; in which there is as much danger, if you mistake the way, of rush∣ing into Hell, as in matters of Faith. If reason and or∣dinary Pastors, without any fancy of infallibility, can ap∣ply Scripture-Light to guide our feet certainly in the way to Heaven, why is there more necessity of a Council to teach us matters of Faith, than to instruct us in holyness of life? Mistake me not: I acknowledg the Authority of Councils as useful for the preservation of Peace, and for the more vigorous suppression of false teachers, which corrupt the truth. But I see no absolute necessity of that extraordinary power to teach the Church diffusive the form of wholesome Doctrine established now by the Consent of Ages to the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

4. But supposing a general lawful Council to be the only teacher, to be trusted, how shall particular Christians be infallibly assured of their Doctrine, the knowledg where∣of is conveyed by no other means, but such as are con∣fessedly fallible? And therefore you will still be to seek for a sufficient Guide according to the Sense of this Grand-Signior. All the objections made against the Holy Scrip∣tures as they are used for instruments to discover the truth and the will of God (which certainly they were by God designed to be, for the benefit of the People as well as Pa∣stors) will be more forcibly urged to the disenabling the Canons of Councils from being a certain Rule of Faith,

than they can be to the degrading of Scriptures from that dignity in the Church: Since the words of a Coun∣cil in the original cannot be planer nor more expressive of the mind of God, then those which the eternal Wisdome and Holy Spirit of God immediately directed the Pen∣men of Scripture to endite: And their Translations in∣to Vulgar Languages are subject at least to as many uncertainties as the Translations of the Bible; And last∣ly there will still be wanting a living infallible Judg, that shall expound and apply the Canons of Councils to particular Christians, which may be called with less dan∣ger of Blasphemy, a Dead Letter and a Lesbian Rule, then the Holy Scriptures are, when they are defamed by such disparaging Characters fastned upon those Holy Oracles of God by Popish writers, who are, as the antient Hereticks, Lucifugae Scripturarum.

But notwithstanding his reprehension of me for a feig∣ned correspondence between the Jewish and Christian Church, yet at last to maintain the infallibility of gene∣ral Councils (which, if granted, comes very short of ma∣king good his design, that we should mistake the Roman Church for the Catholik, and the factious Conventicles of Italy packed by the Pope to serve the interest of the Court of Rome for Legitimate Councils) He will be an Advocate for the Synagogue. And rather, then the Suc∣cessors of the Scribes and Pharisees (who imitate their crimes, and inherite their woes denounced by our blessed Saviour against them) shall lose their priviledg of Infalli∣bility, the Jews, that in their confistory persecuted David, murdered the Prophets, set up Idolas in the Temple of God, corrupted. Religion, and condemned our Saviour the Truth it self, shall have the Gift of Infallibility fined upon them. What short-sighted men are other Papists in com∣parison of this Illuminado, who derive the Pedegree of an Infallible Guide from St. Peter; when this man de∣duces it from the Scribes and Pharisees, * 1.8 whom Christ calls openly Blind Guides, and from the Sanhedrim at

Jerusalem, * 1.9 who, as the Holy Ghost says, took counsel against the Lord and against his anoynted?

Observe what he says; viz. If I had proved efficaci∣ously, that the High Priest with his forenamed Council taught the people Idolatry or any other breach of Gods Law to be lawful, &c. I had overthrown the whole fa∣brick of his Queries.

Indeed I offered no large proof of it to you Sir, whom I know to be so very well versed in the Law and the Pro∣phets, that you could not be ignorant of the story and the Sermons, * 1.10 which record plainly and reprove sharply, the horrid crimes of the Priests and Elders, (whether in Coun∣cil, or out of Council, it matters not; since neither place, nor company did change their manners) in corrup∣ting Religion, in seducing the People (which certainly was done by doctrine as much as by example, and by Au∣thority abused in both) in persecuting the Prophets, and in complying with Idolatrous Kings to the erecting Idols and Altars to them in the house and City of God, to the shutting up of the Temple, and extinguishing the Lamps, and which is worse than all this, to the rejecting of the ve∣ry Books of the Law, that the people might not see that Light, which would reprove their deeds of darkness. I may ask the Querist, as St. Paul did K. Agrippa, * 1.11 Belie∣vest thou the Prophets? But I dare not answer for him as St. Paul did for the King, I know that thou believest them. For indeed the Prophets assure us, that the Priests, (whose lips should have kept knowledg, and should have taught the people the true way of serving God, and there∣fore the people were bound to seek the law from the mouth of Gods appointed Messenger; * 1.12 but were not tyed to re∣ceive chaff instead of wheat, much less poison instead of wine) were themselves departed out of the way, and cau∣sed many to stumble at the Law, and broke the covenant of Levi. * 1.13 And notwithstanding their vain presumption, controlled by the Prophet Ezekiel (which you see is taken up by their successor) that the Law should not perish, from

the Priest, * 1.14 yet they that handled the law knew not the Lord, the Pastors also were brutish, and transgressed against God. But though the prevarications of the Priests in the Law, and their seductions of the credulous people to their ru∣ine (for if the blind lead the blind, and none were so blind as Gods servants and messengers, were in the Prophet Esays daies, that they not both fall into the ditch) * 1.15 be writ∣ten with a pen of Iron, and graven with the point of a diamond upon the horns of their altars, yet this Querist would have told a Jew that inquired for the good old way, that the Prophets of the Lord were mistaken. For he says he hath clearly shewed a Jew of those times, that the High Priest then in being (suppose for example, Ʋriah the Priest who to please King Ahaz set up an Illegitimate Altar ac∣cording to the pattern of one at Damascus, and set aside the Altar of the Lords appointment) with his crew of Court-parasites was the true visible Church, to whose word and practise the whole people of God were bound to stand and conform.

SIR, I know not what apprehensions you may have of this mans extolling the Jewish Priest with contradicti∣on to Gods Prophets: But I cannot without horror look upon the discourse, because I foresee the consequence of it, and discover the drift of it, which is to palliate, yea too justify, the Doctrines of Devils taught, and the Superstitious and Idolatrous practices in the present Church of Rome, which are as reconcileable to the second Commandement, and that of Christ, Thou shalt wor∣ship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, * 1.16 as the Calf in the desert, and those at Dan and Bethel, and the worship of Baal were consistant with the Law of Moses.

But that which the Prophets have done, he says is im∣possible for me to do, unless I enervate the words of our Saviour, Mat. 23.2,3. God forbid, that I should at∣tempt to enervate the words of him that is the Truth it self; but give me leave to shew you, if you do not already clear∣ly

perceive, that there are no sinews in his discourse strong enough to tye Infallibility to the Chair, in which the Scribes and Pharisees sate.

To pass by the observation of some learned expositors, that by the chair of Moses (our Saviour did not mention the chair of Aaron, the High Priest, to whom alone this man no friend to Soveraign Magistrates confines the re∣course of Gods people) is meant, not so much the Spiri∣tual Authority, (as the Querist presumes) as the Civil Power, the Remains whereof yet indulged by the Roman Conqueror to the Jews our Saviour would have preserved. Let us allow that Christ enjoyns Obedience both to the Ci∣vil and to the Spiritual power then exercised by the Go∣vernors of that Nation. What then? Do precepts of Obedience to our mortal superiors necessarily infer In∣fallibility in Parents, who are but the Fathers of our flesh; or in Princes, who though they be the Sons of God, and as the Angels of God, yet may fall as one of those cele∣stial Princes? Are they thereby so priveledged, that they can never enjoyn any thing so repugnant to Gods word, as that the inferior shall be driven for tryal of his Faith to the choice of obeying God, rather than man? But though Kings are not made infallible, when they are in∣vested with a divine power, albeit Solomon says, * 1.17 that a Divine Sentence is in the lips of the King, and his mouth transgresseth not in judgement, and their subjects are ty∣ed by the Oath of God to keep the Kings commande∣ment; * 1.18 yet Priests, it may be, have a priviledg above Kings. You see, what these men would be at, and you may quick∣ly discover their intention to seclude Magistrates from medling with Religion, when he says, that the Jews in questions about Religion were not to have the last refuge to the Kings. But the sacred History informs us abun∣dantly, that the Kings of Gods people were the Guardi∣ans of the Law, and governed the Priests; and the Re∣ligious Kings by their severe edicts established the true Re∣ligion, and reformed the Church, as well as the State,

and prest the Priests (of themselves otherwise backward) to attend their charge, and to teach the people, so that a zea∣lous Jew might with better success have made his resort to an Ezekiah, or a Josiah, then to some cheif Priests and Pastors, that had been infected with the fashions of an Idolatrous Court.

But not to insist more on that, consider the impudence of this man, who fastens upon our blessed Saviour that which he was so far from saying, that he says elsewhere the contrary. For he affirms, that Christ sayes that the Scribes and Pharisees were infallible, because they sate in Moses's Chair, and so governed the Church of God successively and faith∣fully in matter of doctrine, whence he concludes, that neither their predecessors, nor they, could teach Error in faith or manners. As I have evinced by the Prophets, that the Predecessors of the Scribs and Pharisees (or rather the Priests and Elders which commonly bear the name of the Church) were so far from Infallibility, that God himself for their teaching lies, overthrew their Chair; and for their propha∣ning the Temple, in which they vainly trusted when they turned it into a den of thieves, God deserted his own habita∣tion, and laid it wast: So he that reads the Gospel will quick∣ly perceive this figment of Infallibility; (not so much usur∣ped by Scribs and Pharisees, themselves, as pinned upon them by Papists,) overthrown by our Saviour Christ were they secured from error in expounding the Law, and teach∣ing the people the sense thereof, * 1.19 whose partial righte∣ousness our Saviour condemns as inconsistent with true justice, and whose corrupt glosses Christ confutes, and op∣poses his own authority to their comments which adulte∣rated the meaning of Gods law. But because it may be said, that this was a defect in them for want of light and spiritual obedience was the proper Doctrine of the Gospel, so that this is not enough to convince the Scribes and Pharisees of error in Doctrine; I answer, * 1.20 that St. Paul says the Law is in it self spiritual, and it was a gross seducing the people in faith and manners, to teach such carnal Doctrines as

incouraged and hardned men in sin, and kept them from repenting of their vain thoughts and vile lusts, which lodged in their hearts. But to go a step further. Christ that commanded obedience to them, (which necessarily must be limited by the standing and known Laws of Gods people) * 1.21 expresly warns his Disciples to beware of the Leaven of their Doctrine. If Christ did by the Precept alledged evidently suppose (as the Querist says) that the Scribes and Pharisees could teach the people no error in faith and manners, then why did our Saviour go about to secure his Disciples by such a Caution, whereas they had no reason to suspect that which the Scribes and Pharisees offered them for the food of their souls? Their very sitting in Mose's Chair was a sufficient assurance, that they were as faithful in the House of God as Moses, (if you will take this mans word, Christ meant and said so) and were so wise as they could not be mistaken, and so honest as they would not give sowr Leaven instead of heavenly Manna. Oh brave Patron of the accursed Scribes and Pharisees! But Sir, I believe you have read the 23 Chapter of St. Matthew throughout, wherein our Saviour sets out those blind Guides, and abominable Hypocrites, * 1.22 who had the Key of knowledg (as the Pope pretends to the custodie of St. Peter's Keys) in such detestable characters, as are inconsistent with Infallibility. But some will say, their corruption in manners doth not infer their erroneousness in Doctrine, and therefore Pope Alexander the 6^th. though a Devil incarnate, might be infallible in the Chair, as a learned Lady of the Romish side, whom you knew, once told me. I answer, that it will be hard to perswade a so∣ber Christian that hath reverent apprehensions of Gods holy Spirit, * 1.23 that the Spirit of Discipline will abide with such unrighteousness and uncleanness, * 1.24 or that persons immersed in worldly lusts should enjoy the constant pre∣sence and influence of that Spirit which leads humble and holy men into all truth. But he that can perswade you that they, * 1.25 whom Christ calls blind Guides, were not only

fit but also infallible Directors, may with the same confi∣dence and arguments make you believe that the Sun shines in our Horizon at midnight.

I do not forget, that it is not the Pope's Infallibility, but a Councils, which the Querist pleads for by the exam∣ple of the Scribes and Pharisees, albeit they were perhaps Doctors of the Law, but few of them members of the great Council. But I touch this briefly, because it may be the next Papist, that creeps into your familiarity, will he for the Pope; or perhaps this person, who hath in his second Paper resolved the Catholick Church into a Council, will in his next Paper melt down a Council into the Pope, which is the more likely to be a Guide, because a living person to be consulted with, if many reasons did not hin∣der our acceptance of him for an infallible one.

But that the Scribes and Pharisees were guilty of teach∣ing for Doctrines obligatory of conscience, * 1.26 the traditions of men, and did by their devices annul the Commande∣ments of God, and encourage men under pretence of Re∣ligious Vows, to disobey their parents, and by false Do∣ctrines involved souls in the guilt of perjury, is evident by our Saviours convicting and condemning them. * 1.27 Can you now be of the opinion, that this ungodly fraternity of Villains could make up an infallible Consistory by pos∣sessing the Chair of Moses? If you can entertain such a concelt, you bless whom Christ hath cursed, and put darkness for light, and call blind Guides the Seers, * 1.28 and so draw down the woe upon your self. Indeed such Guides are fit for them, who wilfully wink against the light, and make themselves slaves to the enemies of true Religion, who put out the eyes of their captived Proselytes, that they may with quiet grind in their Mills.

I will conclude my Reply to this Paragraph with one Proposal. This Querist defers such honour to the Jewish Priesthood, that the Priests ought to be simply believed upon their word till Shiloh came, because they or at least a Council of them could not erre in faith.

I will not instance in the Council that condemned our Saviour, because, although some plead for Caiphas by vertue of his Priesthood to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost which alwayes assisted the Chair, yet perhaps this Querist will not extend the continuance of Infallibility thus far: And yet he that hath feigned Christ to assign it to the Scribes and Pharisees, cannot give a good and solid account how Caiphas and his Confederates came in that cri∣tical hour to lose it, or why the people without a manifest Declaration of God to abrogate their Authority, should not then also be bound to believe their sentence, though it were blasphemy, and tended to the murder of the Son of God; or how Joseph of Arimathea could be absolved (ac∣cording to this mans principles) from being an Heretick and Schismatick, for not consenting to the counsel and practice of the High Priest with his Assembly, for which very thing the Gospel commends him to be a good and a just person; * 1.29 since at that very time the whole Nation of the Jews were obliged, (according to this mans asserti∣ons) by Christs own injunction, to rest in the Doctrine and Determination of the Council of Jerusalem, as infal∣lible in matters of Religion, and consequently to deny Jesus to be the Christ. Think of this seriously. But there is another instance which I aim at. It is well known, that in the degenerate estate of the Jews there started up a powerful Sect of the Sadducees. * 1.30 These, though pretending to adhere unto the Law of Moses, yet are noted to have been infected with pernicious errors in Religion, for they believed not any would of Spirits pre∣sent or to come; and therefore denied the existence of Angels or Spirits departed, and the re••urrection of the body by the return of souls to refume their earthly taber∣nacles repaired. * 1.31 The heads of this Heresie were the chief of the Nation, and as it fell out in the vicissitude of Priests, (whose office was made venal by the Court) the High Priest himself was sometimes a Sadduces. (Read Act. 4.1. and 5.17.) when such an Heretick possest the

Chair of Moses, or Aaron, who understood not Moses aright, (as our Saviour ascribes the error of the Saddu∣cees to their ignorance of the Scriptures) you may be sure that men of the same judgement made up the greater part of the Sanhedrim. For the animosity of the Sadducees against the Pharisees, together with their interest in the Nobility, was such, that they would not allow many birds of another feather to pearch upon the same branch of Authority, though one Pharisee Gamaliel once was permit∣ted to be of the Council. Now then if a Jew loth to rely on his own understanding should desire to be instructed in this main Article of Religion, which is the chief root of obedience and supporter of patience, to whom should he repair, and whom should he believe? * 1.32 If you will take the Querists word, The High priest with his Council was the true visible Church to be hearkned unto. But if they de∣clared their own sense (and no body can reasonably ima∣gine that they would contradict themselves, or as Balaam once was so they all being met together in Council should by a powerful Enthusiasm be constreined to speak contra∣ry to their own mind, and deliver that Truth which they did not approve in their own consciences, and should in speaking Truth lye by the power of the Holy Ghost) the inquisitive Jew was bound (contrary to the general senti∣ment of the 12 Tribes, which did in the Expectation of a Resurrection (called the hope of Israel) serve God day and night) to become a Sadducee, to disbelieve Moses, and to condemn himself to an everlasting death, which should swallow up his person and his piety, and separate him for ever from having any communion with the God of Abra∣ham, Jsaac, & Jacob. If the Council it self should happen to be divided by factions, and interrupted by clamour and vi∣olence from determining any thing, as it was the fate of the Council, to which the Apostle Paul appeared, * 1.33 then what is become of the Visible Guide? Or how shall the Jews conscience be satisfied of this fundamental doctrine? Certainly he must remain a Sceptick, and that is next de∣gree

to Atheist, if he do not find a clear Rule and a firm Rock, whereon to build his holy faith, which is the ground of a holy life. And if he do, he need not look for an Infallible Guide, which if he have yet the vain curiosity to seek for, he will never have the good hap to find.

I leave you now to judge of this mans resolution of my Queries.

And though he be like the Scribes and Pharisees in his industry to make Proselytes, yet I have no fear of you, but that you can discern the fraudulent course he takes to perswade, and discover the sad end to which he leads his abused followers.

Since now I have out of Gods word evinced that the Priests of the Jews, high and low, were not only cor∣rupt in their private manners, but also grossely ignorant of Gods Law, * 1.34 and seducers of the people from the true service of God, and suborners of false prophets (for that also may justly be taken into consideration) for the support of their credit and power with the people, * 1.35 and imployed their Judicial power to condemn the true Prophets, I have done enough (mine Adversary himself being Judg) to overthrow the frame of his Queries, which were set up, as a Gate or Bulwark of Hell to maintain the Devils devise, The Infallibility of the Church of Rome masked with the specious Title of the Catholick Church. And because I have also by our blessed Saviours sermons and sentence shewed the impiety as much as absurdity of honouring the Scribes and Pharisees with a priviledg of Infallibility, I have said all that I conceive requisite concerning his answer to my second and third Queries, which he resolves thus: The Jewish Church understood ut supra, (that is, the Pa∣stors of the Church representing the whole, and acting with authority for the government of the people) could not teach any error as matter of divine Faith or Religion. Only take this Corollary. He must have a mind able to swallow and concoct Transubstantiation, that can be∣lieve,

these Idolatrous Pastors, so often complained of by God, could do all this mischeif in the Church, if they had been as dumb dogs in the Devils cause, as they were in Gods, and as silent for teaching any error in matter of Religion, as they were in the instructing of men in the true way of God: Or that these ignorant and debau∣ched Priests being consulted concerning the Law of God would, or should of necessity by a secret and powerful instinct of an Infallible Genius perpetually waiting upon them, at least inspiring them upon such occasions, teach the people contrary to their own perswasions and prac∣tise.* 1.36

To the fourth Querie, &c. The vanity, falshood and impiety of the precedent Answers to my 3 counter Queries being sufficiently evidenced, it may seem superfluous to disprove what he builds upon the sand, because this will sink of it self with the unsound foundation. But because from that absurd supposition of Infallibility settled in the Jewish Priesthood, he inferrs, that the Jewish Church (he means the Priests, or chief Pastors thereof: for he is much in proving that the people had very little to do with the Bible) by divine direction preserved the Holy Scrip∣tures intire without mutilation or addition of any thing uncanonical, I shall briefly consider this Consequence, which imports that the preservation of Scriptures depends upon the Infallibility of the Priests, or the Church that keeps it. I confess that Gods gratious providence is re∣markable in preserving his pretious Word, conteined in the Book of the Law. But I pray you consider how lit∣tle the Priests above mentioned contributed their care to the conservation of the Scripture. For in the reign of Idolatrous Kings, who sometimes profaned the Temple with Idols, sometimes shut-up the doors of it, the Priests, who basely flattered and officiously served their Kings, were so far from considering the Law at all (and much more from reading and teaching it publickly that it might be the rule of Gods service) that in Josiahs time the Penta∣teuch,

or the whole Law of Moses, or (as some think) the Book called Deuteronomie being casually found in the ru∣ines and rubbish of Gods house; and then read by the High Priest, was looked upon as * 1.37 a strange thing, which they were not acquainted withal. But though Priests were sometimes careless Depositaries, yet God inspired such a Love of the Law into many of his People, both Priests, Levites, and Laicks, that that inestimable Juel was never lost, which God would have preserved to be the Standard of his publick worship, the measure of private devotion, and the constant light to their walking with God and with men in the fear of God.

And notwithstanding the scandalous corruption of the Holy Order it self for a time, pious persons could then be, and were rationally assured, that the Book of the Law, as well as the law of the Lord, was perfect and uncorrup∣ted. And I desire you to take notice that this is the Prin∣cipal thing which is aimed at by way of instance or retor∣tion to his fift Querie. For if a direct true Answer be given to my fourth Querie, it will follow by Analogie, that Christians may be as perfectly ascertained of the in∣tegrity of the Canon of Scriptures, though the major or more eminent part of Bishops (the Bishop of Rome not exempted) should be infected with Arianism, as once it happened, and although all the Bishops of the Roman Church (which the Querist would fain have us to take for the Catholick; but can never perswade us that a mem∣ber of a Body is the whole, as we can never believe that The Tyrrhene Sea is the whole Ocean) do teach errors as matters of Christian Faith. Now this being the design of my Question, by getting out of a Papists mouth an An∣swer for a Jew to furnish a good Christian with an Answer to a Popish Cavil, and to ensnare the Querist in his own ginn, he craftily slips the Question out of the way, and without making any direct answer to the Jews inquirie, as he offered to do in handling the former Queries, turns aside to make an impertinent Harangue concerning private mens use of the Scriptures.

Mark, I pray, my fourth Querie, and compare the re∣turn; and you will see nothing of an Answer in this; That the infallibility of the Jewish Church was the means to preserve the Scriptures entire. The question was not about the means by which the Book of Moses was preser∣ved, but about the manner how a Jew might be assured of the integrity of it. Now the truly pious Jew, who with Jeremy bemoaned the corruption of the Church by the errors and seducements of the Priests, could not make that Infallibility (which he did not believe, because he saw the contrary) the reason why he believed the Scriptures to be preserved in purity and integrity.

And it is as impertinent to any of my propositions, to proceed, (as he doth) that it follows not thence, that e∣very private person should find out every particular point of Religion by particular or express proofs out of the written word alone.

For I neither make, nor suppose any such Inference from any thing premised in my fi•…•… Querie. But Sir, I would have you take notice, that when we make the Holy Scrip∣tures the Rule of Religion, and Instrument to make us wise unto Salvation, we do not exclude the Authority of those persons whom Christ hath made dipensers of Holy Mysteries; but alwaies suppose the Mynisterie to be a Means appointed for the edifying us in our Holy Faith. Again we allow particular Christians, that are endowed with the Spirit of understanding, which is one of the gifts which Christ received without measure; * 1.38 but hath impar∣ted to all his living members according to his good plea∣sure in a certain measure, to try the Spirits and as the Bereans did, to examine the agreeableness of their lawful pastors Doctrine to the Scripture. And if a Priest (though the highest in a Church) tells Christians, that the Blessed Cup in the Eucharist is not to be given to all them that re∣ceive the Holy Bread, or that God may be represented by any picture or devise of men in any shape whatsoever, or that any meer Creature is to be worshiped with religious

worship, the Sheep of Christ, that know their chief Shep∣hards voice, may use their talent of reason to try these doctrines by the touch-stone of truth. But we do not af∣firm, that it is necessary for every Christian to deduce and prove every particular point of Religion out of Scripture. But since the faith once delivered to the Saints with the rules of Holy Life are now written for our instruction and direction by God himself, on purpose, that they may be a Light to our feet, and make wise the sim∣ple, and therefore the Testimonies of the Lord are clear, sure and plain in all things that are necessary to be be∣lieved and practised; therefore every one according to the circumstances of his condition and calling, is bound more or less to use the means vouchsafed him by Gods providence, and may by diligence satisfy his conscience in building his Faith and Obedience upon Scriptum ect, It is written.* 1.39

Now let us see what our Querist sayes to prove, that a * 1.40 Jew was bound to rest upon the Authority of the Priests, (though they were Idolatrous, or infected with Saddu∣cism,) he endeavors to invalidate my allegations of the Prophet † 1.41 Esay, who expressely sayes in the place alledged, The leaders of the people caused them to err, and they that are lead of them are destroyed. Is it not evident, that leaning upon their leaders hand, and resting upon their Authority was the peoples ruine? God therefore, not only to secure them from sorcerers (as this man restrains the caution) but also from all seducers whatsoever, who surely would pretend divine warrant to gain credit to their erroneous doctrine (for never any one brought false doctrine upon the stage without a vizard) advises his peo∣ple to have recourse to the Law and the Testimony, not ex∣cluding the Ministerie of the Priest and Levite, who were faithful in things concerning God, if any such could be consulted with (and some such God did reserve in the worst times) but giving the people liberty, if the Grandees spake not according to that manifest Rule, to

disbelieve them, as destitute of true Light. The Pro∣phet indeed doth not forbid men to resort to the present Pastors of the Church, but allows them the judgement of Discretion, to try the words of their leaders by the Law, which shines brightly enough to enlighten their eyes, that they may discern Chast from Wheat, and false doctrine from true. Let the next Paper, if it can, shew the con∣trary: for this offers nothing to that purpose. Till then, and for ever, the Law and Testimony written by Gods special design stand for a Rule of Pastors teaching, and peo∣ples obeying.

Next he brings 2 proofs of his assertion out of Deut. 17.8.12. Mal. 2.4. The Devil could find Scriptures to ad∣vance his temptations. But Consider the violence offe∣red to Gods word by this racking it. As to that of Moses, there is indeed there an establishment of a High Court without appeal, to whose cognizance are referred all im∣portant Controversies about the Law of Moses, which be∣ing in the whole frame of it divine, gives a tincture of Religion to those causes, that were for the substance Ci∣vil, or concerned the outward estate or persons of the people.* 1.42

In that Court, the Priests and Levites, who by their of∣fice were bound to study the whole Law of God, and fit to expound the political Statutes given by the hand of Moses for the government of that Nation, but contrived, enac∣ted and endited by God himself, did sit with the Elders, as Judges. Now judg you, whether the submission re∣quired of all Jews being at difference about civil matters to the sentence of that Court, signify any thing to enforce upon Jews an obligation to believe and obey the Priests in all things, when common reason assured them, that their doctrine, practise, and injunctions were contrary to the Law of God? Submission to the sentence of a Supreme Court, (which was necessary for peace to put a period to contentions) did not oblige the party adjudged to believe the sentence to be just, though the aggrieved party had

no remedy till the judg of all the world appear to do right. That those Judges did often turn judgment into worm∣wood, it is evident by the Prophets; and it is well known that that Court setled at Jerusalem, having taken to them∣selves the power of judging Prophets, did very often con∣demn the Lords true Prophets. Now what Master of rea∣son can ever fairly deduce from the outward subjection, which was necessary both for wrath and Conscience to a∣Supreme Court of Gods institution, though the Judges were not infallible in judicature, That those Priests were Infallible teachers of Religion, whose word was to be taken and relyed on without refusal or so much as tryal?

As to that of the Prophet Malachi, it is subtilly done of him to touch it lightly, but fraudulently done to cite it imperfectly. It is enough that I have already shewed the full sense of the Prophet, who declares what the Priests were by their office obliged to do, and from their Digni∣ty and Duty aggravates the crime of the debauched Priests of that age, who abused both their power and also the peo∣ple. And this sharp reproof is far enough from proving them then to be infallible.

But this Querist surely presumes you to be a Papist already, and of that form that is unlicensed to read the Book of God. Else, he could not be so stupid, as to affirm that which any one but indifferently versed in the Scriptures knows to be false. Or it may be (and that is very likely,) he himself is very little acquainted with the Bible, but borrows both his citations of Scriptures by halves, and also his Answers to them, that are commonly alledged by us, from his deluding Ma∣sters. Otherwise how were it possible that a diligent reader of Scripture should say, (mark his words) It was far from the Ordinances of Moses, that every private believer had license to peruse the Scriptures; When no∣thing is more inculcated by God, and Moses, then that parents should learn, and teach their children the Law,

bind it about their arms, make Phylacteries of it, and by all means possible derive unto posterity the Ordinances of God and the History of his Providence, which are the subject of the Holy Scriptures. If it be said, that all this they might do without Book, because once in seven years, they heard the Law read, we must then allow the Jews quicker apprehensions and more comprehensive and tenacious memoties then we have in our generations. But see the unpardonable ignorance or impudence of this cross-grained Querist, who says the Law was to be read once onely in seven years, Deut. 31.10,11. Doth that pre∣cept, which enjoyns the Law to be read in the Panegyris at the Feast of Tabernacles in the Sabbatical year; include a Prohibition of the Jews to read the Bible by themselves, and to meditate in the Law, day and night, as occasion serves, which is a blessed imployment, Psaal. 1.1,2. Would Moses deprive them of this happiness? Or was that Statute broken by the Jews every Sabbath day, as of∣ten as Moses was read in the Synagogues, in every City, as St. James tells us it was the Custome of old so to do? * 1.43 Mark then the Sophistry of this illiterate impostor, and his companions; I say, Illiterate, because he says, that passage of Moses, and the story of Esdras, Nehem. 8.12,13. was all, We (that is, Papists) read in Scripture of the common Peoples knowing the written word. Blessed be God that We Protestants may and do read more, that assures us, that the word of God did dwell plentifully a∣mong the Jews, and ought to do so with all Christians, without Bushels set over the Light, as in the Church of Rome. Yet we do not affirm, that every Idiota, or pri∣vate servant of God could by his private study attain to the full meaning of every hard sentence. None of us thinks this necessary, or possible. Yea, we make a questi∣on at least, whether any High Priest, or Council, under the Old or New Testament ever fully understood all the things hard to be understood, or hard to be interpreted in the Law, and Prophets, or in the * 1.44 Evangelical and Aposto∣lical

writings. It is enough (as to my purpose, and in∣deed for the safety of Gods people) that the Faith and Duty of every one was written with a su••-beam, and lay open to be read and understood by the common people with the help of a good Guide, though he were below In∣fallibility. And it was a grievous fault in the despisers of the riches of Gods Grace, that God had written for them the great things of his Law, * 1.45 and they were coun∣ted as a strang thing. This Querist doth bewray his ig∣norance by another mistake, of some consequence in his design to make the Levites and People dependent on the High Priest for the sense of Scripture. He says, Esdras the chief Priest interpreted the Law to the Levites, and enabled them to expound it to the people. Indeed Ezrah was a Priest, and a perfect Scribe, by whose industry and Gods special assistance the Books of Moses, the Psalmes, and Prophets were collected into one body of Oracles, which was in trust committed to the custody of the Jews. * 1.46 But not Ezrah, but Jehoshuah was then High Priest, who no doubt was diligent in the discharge of his sacred office, whiles Ezrah was active in interpreting, that is, tran∣slating the Law written in the Hebrew Language, which was well-nigh lost with the vulgar in their long captivi∣ty, who were accustomed to the common speech of the Chaldeans their Lords, and rendring it intelligible in their familiar tongue, and also in expounding and apply∣ing the Law to their present use, and in assisting the Levites, that they might be well instructed to perform their office of teaching the people. Now this work of Ezrah did much help, but not hinder or obstruct the com∣mon people in their private study of the Law; and the use of their own particular judgment was fairly consistent with the attendance on the publick Ministery, which was then sincere and uncorrupted; but was not so throughout the whole course of the Jewish Politie. And for this reason nothing can be concluded from Ezrah's age and actions to strengthen the pretended Infallibility of the Jewish Priest∣hood for ever.

Now the Jews indeed wanted the beneficial Art of Printing, and this defect made the Copies of the Law less frequent, then the Bible is now adayes. Y•…•… such was the zeal and diligence of pions men in that Nation, that the Law was not so rare a thing, as this man would per∣swade you. There was then no prohibition of the High Priest or Sanhedrim either to transcribe, or to translate the Law and Prophets, or to read them in their Original, or translated, no not in our Saviours Age, when he sent his Auditors to the Scriptures, to search for testimonies of him; when indeed it had been in vain for the people to have made their recourse to the Scribes, Pharisees, Priests and Elders, who through ignorance of the Scriptures de∣nied Jesus to be the Christ, and out of malice excommuni∣cated all those that understood the Scriptures better then themselves, and by their light were sed to own Jesus to be the Glory of Israel. I hope you will apprehend this to be sufficient to vindicate your title to the Scriptune, and your power to use it according to that judgement of dis∣cretion, which every Christian, that stands bound to give an account of his faith, cannot be denied, without usurping a dominion over faith; the very suspicion whereof, St. Paul, * 1.47 although he were truly infallible, yet did carefully decline.

The Querist treads the beaten path of Papists in debasing the holy Scripture, and divesting it of the fitness and power to be a compleat Rule, and an effectual instrument of faith, that he may make room for a new Quack: of which impious way to diminish the credit of Gods Word, I leave you, or any sober Christian that loves and reve∣rences that invaluable pledge of Gods love, to make a judgement without my further censure. But give me leave to propound briefly some remarks of this Discourse.

1. [First I observe, that he often joyns the Rule and Means of Faith together, and confounds them so, as if they were one and the same thing. But the distinction of these two is of great importance to the preventing: or to the ending of frivolous Disputes.

The Rule of Faith is that publick standard of Christian Religion, which includes things of belief and practice, both in the service of God, and also in conversation with men. The adequate Rule of Faith for Christians is the Word of God revealed by Christ, or the Gospel which was first preached, and then written by the instinct of the same Spirit, (Rom. 10.8. 1 Pet. 1.25) The Gospel in this sence doth include in it the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, the divine Authority whereof it affirms, and confirms by the harmony of both. * 1.48 This Rule is one and immoveable, and so entirely delivered by the A∣postles, that it is uncapable of addition, and the attempt of addition or mutilation or any corruption makes the fal∣sifier of this Rule liable to a dreadfull Anathema denoun∣ced by St. Paul, Gal. 1.8,9. Now because the holy Scri∣ptures in their fulness contain this Gospel, therefore they are usually called by the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, the straight, unerring, unswerving Rule of Faith, that can deceive none, and needs no correction. This Rule contains and like a Light holds forth the object of our Faith, and is not the less a Rule of Faith, because this holy Scripture comprehends many other things of great use for our instruction and spiritual delight; as a Carpenters Rule justly carries that name, and serves the turn of mea∣suring stuff and work, though it be set out with ornamen∣tal and useful Tables.

You may now apprehend what we mean by the Rule of Faith. But the Means of Faith signifie another thing. For whatsoever by its nature and efficacy doth serve to bring man to the knowledge, right understanding, and full assurance of the saving Truth, comes under this Noti∣on, the Means of Faith. The holy Scripture as it conveys unto us the Gospel, which it contains and preserves, is in∣deed a principal instrument of God to work that faith which is his gift. Moreover God hath in his wise govern∣ment of the World and his Church appointed many means, which according to the course of his providence contri∣bute

to the working of faith in our hearts. There are some outward, whereof the chief is the publick Ministry, which is compared to a Candlestick that holds forth the light to the houshold of faith. And not only Pastors are the means of faith, but also Parents, and Masters of Families, and every good Christian, which is, as Christ says of his Dis∣ciples in general, (for the twelve Apostles were not then selected out of the multitude) the light and salt of the earth, * 1.49 by communicating the Word unto others, are ve∣ry often the happy propagators of the faith. Besides men, some things, as Books, are instrumental to promote our knowledge and faith. There are some inward means of faith, as our sense and rational faculties, in the exercise whereof if there be not an actual certainty allowed, the whole frame of civil society will be dissolved into consusi∣on, and the foundation of Religion will sink, since faith is a reasonable service, and was first built upon their sight which were eye witnesses of the Gospel, and now comes by hearing, (Rom. 10.17.) which two senses are the in∣struments of Discipline. * 1.50 Neither will I exclude Oral or Practical Tradition from being a means to propagate the faith. But this is so slippery a way, so changeable, un∣certain, and liable to corruption, and forgery, as ap∣pears by the superstitions of Heathens and Jews, for the divine Authority of all which Tradition was pretended, that without Scripture to support it Tradition is too weak to hold up faith. Thus it appears that the Rule of faith can be but one, and it must be common to all, as the * 1.51 faith and salvation are common, and it must have the unmovea∣ble certainty of a Rock for man to build on. And this firmness you may call, if you please, Infallibility, for this property of God, who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Tit. 1.2. Heb. 5.18.) can neither be deceived, nor deceive, is commu∣nicated to his Word, which is the Truth it self, and therefore the Rule of faith. But the term. Infallible, is a Scholastical Novelty, which neither Scripture, nor the ancient Fathers used to attribute unto the Church; but

now it makes such a noise in the world with the incessant ringing of Papists, that it stupifies many mens senses and understandings. But the Means of faith are manifold, which, where God himself by his Spirit manages them, are effectual to beget a saving faith, though many of them are far short of Infallibility, though Papists in their confused way of talking require Infallibility in the Ground, Rule, and Means of Faith equally.]

2. Again, Pray note his unprosperous fraud in the abate∣ment of the Scriptures perfection and all sufficiency to teach us the whole mystery of godliness, without setting us to seek out elsewhere for a remnant of faith, or an un∣written Word. For he confesses the Scriptures to be a profitable, but a partial Rule, which contains many of the most important points of Religion clearly and expresly enough, to satisfie any capacity, but wilful pertinacy; and for the rest which are not thus expressed, it refers us to the Church, and the Governors thereof, &c. For certain the Monarchy of the Pope, and the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, are the fundamental stones of the Ro∣mish Religion; and if they could be proved true, are of the most importance to the ease of conscience and the peace of Christendom in that sluggish and servile way, wherein Pa∣pists would lead us: and therefore it is no wonder that Pa∣pists who are true to their interest, contend earnestly for these that are such points, as being once admitted they fa∣cilitate the reception of all other Doctriens whatsoever. Now let the Papists shew these two clearly expressed in Scripture, or shew us a good reason why the Apostle should have a greater mind to tell the after. Ages of the Church of his Cloak and Parchments, then to inform them of those points which according to their opinion are ne∣cessary to preserve the Church in peace, especially then and there when St. Paul had it in his design to recount all the grounds, motives, and means of Christians keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, * 1.52 and yet hath left out the Headship of the Pope, and the Magistery of

the Infallible Guide, the Roman Church. What reason imaginable can be given, why Christ and his Apostles should not have an equal kindness for all the important points of Religion, and an equal care to conserve their memory by writing? or indeed what need was there of writing any thing at all of particular points, when one Reference of us to the Church for all, would have served the turn? would not one precept writ∣ten of, Ask the Church, that is the governors of it; or, instead of Search the Scriptures, Inquire for the univer∣sal Tradition of Christendome, have been convenient and sufficient for our satisfaction in all points as well as in some? Ah, how palpable is the folly of vain and proud man, when he opposes the wisdom of God? But when I seriously consider what this man writes of the Scriptures referring us for the rest of our Faith to the Church, or universal Tradition, I cannot but wonder at his con∣fidence of your credulity, if you were bound to take his word; who offers no proof of what he af∣firms.

But we shall justly conclude him to bely the Scripture, till he or some body for him produce some place of Scrip∣ture, which expressely referrs us for some important points of Religion unwritten to the oral teaching of the Church, or to the universal Tradition of Christendom. If this Querist be asked the Question, Where hath Scrip∣ture made the partition of the Faith into the Word of God written, and the word unwritten, and set up a Christi∣an to stand (as the Angel in St. John's vision) stood with the right foot on the Sea, and the left foot on the land) * 1.53 with one foot on the unstable waters of Tradition, and the other fixed on the firm ground of Scripture, he must be as mute as the man without the wedding garment was.

But after all this pray observe, how irreconcileable this mans allowance of Scripture to be a Rule clear e∣nough for many weighty points of Religion, is with

his Conclusion, That the sole Rule general for all persons and all points of Religion is universal Tradi∣tion.

3. Whereas he spends time to oppose a Christians receiving and knowing what he is to believe, what not, by his sole perusal of Gods written word, he fights not against any assertion of ours, but against his own Jackstraw: we advise Christians to make use of faithful guides as well as the light, and to learn the use of the Rule by con∣ferring with spiritual builders, that can inform them in the application of it, and not to neglect any meanes which God offers them for their conduct in the way of truth.

4. The common Objections against the dignity and effica∣cy of Scripture, which Papists repeat, usque ad nauseam, to the Scandal of Christianity, and the advancement of Atheism, are abundantly answered by the Champians of our Religion; to which I would refer you, if I did not know you able to discover their impertinency and impie∣ty together. But I will put you in mind, that the unlear∣ned Protestants, if they depend upon the credit of o∣thers, what are the words of Scripture, (when the La∣ick that cannot read hears the Minister that doth, and may ask his neighbour that can read whether the Minister read right, and the ignorant may ask the learned, and the weak Christian may ask the strong, and all men by some means or other may be satisfyed of the words of Scripture being faithfully delivered unto them) are in no worse conditi∣on, then unlearned Papists, who depend upon the cre∣dit of surly (and very often silly) Priests, or interested Bishops, for knowing what is the universal Tradition of Christendome.

5. As to the learned, whom the Querist takes into con∣sideration, I pray observe, whether the Scholars of both the opposite sides do not dissent as much about the univer∣sal Tradition of the points in dispute, as about the sense of Scriptures urged on either side. If so (as you

will be sure to find it) then upon the same ground which this man layes as sufficient for the removal of Scripture from being a rule, Tradition also must be cashiered. Re∣member that the learned Papists who differ about the Con∣ception of the blessed Virgin Mary, do on either side urge for their defence universal Tradition.

If then it be not sufficient to determine this controver∣sie, why should it be set up to justle Scripture out of its Seat to make room for another means of determining con∣troversies, which is as uneffectual, and indeed infinitely more unfit? If a Papist say, that the determination of this point is not necessary, (which is a gross absurdity, be∣cause this remaining undetermined no small part of Po∣pish worship of the Virgin Mary, as the Feast of the Im∣maculate Conception, hath no certain ground of Faith, and by the Apostle St. Paul's sentence is Sin) * 1.54 we may with more reason say, that the determination of the points in controversie between us is not necessary: Or if it be necessary, that determination is to be regulated now, as the decision of things in dispute was of old in the general Councils, by the Scripture, or written word of God, by which Tradition it self is to be measured and judged; as St. Paul made the Scriptures the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or measure of truth between * 1.55 the Tradition of the Jews on the one side, and the Christians on the other side concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

6. [Because here is frequent mention of Tradition, and the ambiguity of the word is apt to beget mistakes; and confusion therefore give me seave to unfold the Senses of the word, that we may have a clear apprehension of the matter in hand. Tradition is sometimes put to sig∣nify the thing delivered, whether the way of delivery be writing or speaking, and Tradition thus taken materi∣ally is indifferent to the being written, or unwrit∣ten: for the same Tradition, or Doctrine of the Gospel which was at one time unwritten, might have been written, and for certain was at another time writ∣en.

And the Jewish Traditions, which for many genera∣tions past by a successive conveyance without Book, have been by the Rabbies committed at length to vvriting for their better Security. And the Papists now make no scru∣ple of vvriting their Traditions, vvhich they call the un∣vvritten Word of God; (let them justify the presumption as vvell as they can). * 1.56 Novv as the Traditions of the Elders mentioned in Scripture signify the doctrines and Ceremo∣nies, that vvere delivered by the Fathers; but vvere distinct from the Law vvritten: So when vve speak of Traditions in the Christian Church; vve do now in these latter ages commonly understand some particular do∣ctrines or Rites or matters of fact delivered with a pre∣tence of divine or at least Apostolical Authority for their reception, which are not expressed in the written word of God.

These Traditions once accepted and commended by the present Church of Rome the Conventicle at Trent, hath ve∣ry severely enjoyned to be received and embraced with an equal affection of holy reverence, wherewith we en∣tertayn the sacred Scriptures themselves. But to keep up the mystery of iniquity with the liberty of laying aside old Traditions, and giving credit to new inventions; as their interest and occasions may require, they who determined the Canon of Scriptures, and numbred the Books; yet would not reckon up and determine the Traditions of the Church, that Christians might know what is the perfect and fixed Rule of Faith.

Thus Romanists, though they have a larger Object of Faith, then we have, yet they have no certain measure; because the Traditions of the Roman Church are like the Moon subject to decreases, (as the giving of the Eu∣charist to Infants was once held by D. Innocentius 3. as a Doctrine of Faith, and a Tradition of the Church; * 1.57 but after 600 years practise wore out insensibly, and hath been condemned by the Councils of Constance, and Trent with an Anathema) and to increases also, and therefore their

Religion is indeed Irregular. But concerning Tradi∣tions as the word signifies particular points of beliefe or practise in Christian Religion, these 3 Rules are worth Observation.

1. Whatsoever is offered to us or enjoyned to us in be∣lief or practise under colour of being a Tradition, if it be repugnant to the written word of God, or destruc∣tive of Gods precepts, ought to be rejected by Christi∣ans. Christs reason together with the refutation of Pha•…•…aical Traditions confirms the Truth of this Rule.* 1.58

2. Whatsoever is obtruded upon us under the pretext of being a Tradition, that is neither clearly delivered in, nor fairly by good consequence deduced out of Gods written word, needs not, and ought not to be received as a matter necessary to Salvation. The manner of conve∣niency, or necessity, wherein things which are strangers to Scripture are held, is carefully to be taken notice of. For several practises have been in early times introduced under shew of conveniency (as the Apostle says, some bodily exercises carry a plausible shew of wisdome) which ha∣ving once obtained credit by the favourable commendati∣on of eminent persons and custome, have been in suc∣cession of time adorned with the Title of Tradition and grown up from being thought convenient to be accoun∣ted and prest as necessary to Salvation. This danger is to be prevented by circumspection. And the perfection of Scripture as it is a compleat Rule of Religion proves the truth and usefulness of this second Rule.

3. Doctrines of Faith and divine Worship being secu∣red by Gods written word from intrusions of humane in∣ventions: if any Rites or Ceremonies can be proved by fair Testimonies of Antiquity to have been practised by the Church universal of primitive times, and are still con∣tinued by the Authority of Church Governors as tending to edification, or the free and open profession of our Faith, whether they be called Traditions or no, are not lightly to be rejected; much less violently opposed by private Chri∣stians.

Thus much for Traditions, as meaning Matters of Religion delivered down from former times to posterity.

But Tradition often bears another sence, and is taken formally for the manner of conveyance of matters that concern Religion, which is partly oral partly practical. The joynt agreement of Doctrine and practice continued by succession of one Age after another, whilst one genera∣tion derives to another the whole body of Religion, is now called Tradition, and of late is asserted by Papists in this Kingdom to be the only Principle and Rule of ••aith, and affirmed to be of its own nature infallible and incor∣ruptible, and to be evident by its own light. And thus the order of inquiring for the ancient dayes and old wayes is quite inverted: for now we need only (as they teach) mark what the present Church of Rome doth, and because Tradition cannot fail nor vary, therefore the Popes Court at this day, with the Church, Altars, Pictures, Wafers, mangled Eucharist, adoration of the Virgin Mary, Invo∣cation of Angels and Saints, offering of a real Sacrifice for Souls in Purgatory, and offering of the Masse to God for the honour of Saints, is a true Glasse, wherein you may see the face of the Church when St. Peter sate Bishop of Rome. This is the aim of the Querists Discourse to set up this Tradition instead of Scripture. If you will not be∣lieve him, you may choose, because he tels you plainly it is not his work to prove any thing. But I will give you a little touch of proving the vanity of this pretence. The experience of all Ages before the flood, after the flood, in the Jewish Nation, and in the Christian Churches, doth manifestly shew, that the derivation of Religion from mouth to ear, from hand to hand, from Fathers to chil∣dren, from Priests to Successors, from Age to Age, this course of Tradition, which is opposed unto and preferred before the Scriptural way of preserving and propagating and recovering of Religion, hath been and may be quickly corrupted, often interrupted, and hath suffered notorious changes, and may do at any time, when sloth, and senscality,

and neglect of the light, and vanity of mind set forward by the Devils malice and cunning make men weary of the true Religion. But I will add another Argument to another pur∣pose. * 1.59 St. Paul by word of mouth taught the Thessalonians what he thought not expedient to write, to wit, what hin∣dered the Man of sin from being revealed. Here was a mat∣ter of consequence that concerned the Church delivered by word of mouth, which if it had been written as well as that Character of the Man of sin, the same Scripture, which preserved and conveyed the one, would have also secured the knowledge of the other to posterity. If now an emi∣nent Church failed in deriving one point of Doctrine to after. Ages, which with little difficulty might have been kept and taught, but is now lost for not being recorded in Scripture, what likelihood is there, that the whole body of Christian Religion was, or could be traduced entire and pure meerly by oral Tradition, without dependance on the Scripture, for 1600 years? For my part I think still, that as the Church of the Jews were either more or less pure, and their Religion more or less flourished in truth and sinceri∣ty, as the Governors gave heed more or less to the light of the Law written; in like manner according to the degrees of Pastors attendance to the holy Scriptures the Tradition of Christianity hath varied. Therefore the Script ures are the only fixed and stable Rule of Religion.]

7. Lastly, Let us allow the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, non est erratum, sed traditum; That which hath been taught every where, always, and by all Pastors of the Church, is not an error, but a true Tradition. If we make Antiquity, Universality, and Con∣sent, twisted together, the measure of our faith, for certain we shall have a very short Creed, and that large Assumen∣tum, that new piece of Italian stuff which was woven in the Shop at Trent, and by the Popes stitching is added to the old garment of the Church (the Constantinopolitan Creed) must of necessity be pared off, and thrown away. But the main thing to be considered at present, is the difficulty of applying

this Rule, for the examination of the Doctrines which pre∣tend to Tradition; * 1.60 and the tryal of the Spirits, even of all Doctrines, before we trust any Teacher, is alwayes an act of Christian prudence, so long as the world is pestered with false Prophets. For can you, or any reasonable man imagin, that Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church is more evident in it self, and more conspicuous to learned and un∣learned, and easier to be applied by particular Christians, then the Scripture, the study whereof for the discovery of so much as is necessary to be believed and done, requires infinitely less pains, then is requisite for the certain know∣ledge of what the Church in all ages and places hath taught as matter of faith necessary to salvation? You Sir are pret∣ty well versed in Books, and have been inquisitive into An∣tiquity, and I believe you will conclude it much easier, to know the mind and will of God, (which is the measure of spiritual wisdom, and the Ʋnum necessarium, the One thing necessary for us to seek after) * 1.61 then to learn the sence of the Church, that is, still according to the Querists Exposition, of the chief Pastors in all Ages, concerning the points in de∣bate between us. To close up this Discourse, try whether you find not within your self enough of reason to consent to this resolution; he that by attendance on Gods Ordi∣nances dispensed by a faithful Ministry and by private stu∣dy of Gods Book hath learned the Gospel of Christ, and is a good practical Scholar of the saving Grace of God which hath appeared unto all men (a Catholick Light, common as the Sun) * 1.62 teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we live soberly, righteously, and religiously in this present world, this man (I say) being * 1.63 taught of God, doth know à priori, before-hand, and by the very seed, and in the first principle, what the true Church Catholick holds. For that Word of God which lives and abides for ever in Heaven (Psal. 119.8,9.) in the hearts of believers, (2 Cor. 3.3. 1 Joh. 3.9.) in the Scriptures, * 1.64 and in the Church, is that incorruptible seed by which the Church Catholick is begotten, and by which it lives. Since then the Church is no longer, or fur∣ther

a Church then as it believes the Gospel, and the faith∣ful Pastors in all ages do teach that Gospel, it must needs be, that whosoever knows the Gospel, knows what is the sense of the Catholick Church, though he never spend an hour in the reading of history, whereas if he spend Methusalahs age in tumbling over the Fathers, Schoolmens Ecclesiastical Histories and other Volumes, he may weary his flesh, and yet not know by them what was the Faith of the Catholick Church.

Now to the mans conclusion; He acknowledges that a direct fit and true answer to my Queries (mutatis mutandis) would be an answer to his captious questions, which he pro∣pounds with the same mind, as his admired Masters the Scribes and Pharisees did trouble our Saviour Christ with Interrogatories, thinking (but in vain) that we should be intangled in our ovvn Ansvvers, whereas indeed he had been catched, if he had given appo∣site Answers. But after mine examination which I resign up to your discretion, I desire you to transform your self by the power of imagination for a while into the person of a well-minded Jew, that seeks for satisfaction in Religi∣on in a distracted estate of the Church, and try whether this Querist being forced to turn Respondent hath fully and fit∣ly answered my Counter-Queries.

My next Task is to examine his exceptions against my Categorical Answers. I shall not contend about words, nor much crave excuse for want of accurate expression in that hasty delivery of my Conceptions to comply with your request at that time.

1. As to the first, he excepts against the term Christianity, as dubious to make my Answer acceptable, I will insert the Term he desires, and say, True Christianity. But I fear the addition will dispel no mist of doubtfulness, if there were any such about the answer. For Hereticks alwaies pre∣tend to Truth as much as to Christianity; and would be taken for the only true Christians. But to satisfy his nice and curious palate I answer as fully as he desires.

There was, is, and shall be till the worlds end, a Catho∣lick Church, that in every age is visible by profession of true Christianity to the persons then living. That is to say, In all ages God had, and will have and preserve some Christians, who shall so profess the Truth according to the doctrine of the Gospel, that their light of Faith shall shine to the men of their generation respectively.

But I cannot so easily admit another addition sliely made by the Querist to my Answer, viz. in their whole profession. —Latet anguis in herbâ. * 1.65 He that pro∣fesses true Christianity may build hay and stubble upon the foundation, and yet not miscarry in his person, whilst he holds fast his profession of the saving truth unto the end, though he be saved through the fire, and loose his superstructure, as St. Paul assures us. It is not there∣fore necessary that any person, or Church which main∣tains true Christianity, should profess it in such an abso∣lute purity, as that water should never be mixed with the wine. It is enough, that poyson is not admixed with the liquor of life.

But because I perceive, that there is much ambiguity in the termes of the Query, for which it deserves to be called Fal∣lacia plurium interrogationum, a sophistical trick of asking many things under one word, that hath two faces under a hood, I will weigh the vvords over again, and mould my answer anevv, fitted to his explication of the vvord Ca∣tholick, In common speech Catholick is no more than Uni∣versal: * 1.66 Justin Martyr, vvho vvith many others of that age believed a particular Resurrection of some that should rise and reign 1000 years, before the end of the World calls the last Resurrection 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Catholick or in plain English Universal Resurrection. There is al∣so a Catholick Faith, vvhich is common to all Christians and comprises all that is necessary to Salvation. And the Church of Christ novv unconfined to any one place or nation; but spreading like a fruitful vine her branches throughout the carth is called Catholick that is not Natio∣nal; as the old Church of the Jevvs vvas, but Universal,

since the Gospel is preached to all the vvorld indifferently, and the voice of the Apostles vvent forth into all the earth, and their vvords unto the ends of the habitable vvorld. * 1.67 It is not to be omitted that in a secondary and borrovved sense the word Catholick is applied to them that hold the true Faith which is common to all Christians and there∣fore Catholick. In this sense not only a particular Church, but also a singular person may be called Catholick, mean∣ing one that professes the Catholick Faith. But the Querist who hath a peculiar language, and though he speaks En∣glish, yet means Italian, hath taught me since I first read his Questions, and answered them according to the common usage of the words, that he meant by the Catholick Church the Representative Church in a full and lawful meeting of the Priests and Pastors to teach the Church diffusive. Now according to this sense of the words, Catholick Church, I do turn my Affirmative Answer into a Negative, and say; There is not in all ages a visible Catholick, Church, mea∣ning a general Council lawfull assembled. If this be E∣quivocation, you see who teac hes me to be double tongued.

The exception against my second Answer is, that I add the word, ordinarily, and he supposes that I might mean, that some may be saved in extraordinary cases out of the visible Church, and therefore he takes my Answer to be Af∣firmative; That some may be saved out of the Catholick Church, and this he thinks is contrary to the stream of An∣tiquity. * 1.68 If he had not had the malignant disposition rather then the quick-sighted eye of a Serpent, he would never have espied a fault in my Answer, and fancied an Affirma∣tive sentence in a Negative Proposition. For if he had not been forward to cavil, he might have easily conceived a ve∣ry obvious reason of my putting in the word Ordinarily. Be∣cause we know not how God will deal in judging all out of the pale of the Church, and we that live within it are con∣cerned to give an account onely for our selves, and for the use of our Light and Talent, I said that, Ordinarily out

of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation. This nega∣tive, which resolves nothing positively concerning Gods extraordinary acting cannot without unjust violence to my words be taken for an affirmative sentence, That some may be saved out of the Church. And I hope, you will ex∣cuse, if not justify, my unwillingness to limit the spirit and mercies of God, which blows and shine where God pleases. As for Christian Antiquity, you know that many antient Doctors have been very favourable in their judgment, not only of them who lived by the law of nature in a commu∣nion with God, when the Covenant of Grace was first ra∣tified with the Hebrew Patriarchs, though those worship∣pers of God were not of the stock of Israel; * 1.69 but also of them who lived in latter ages in the acknowledgment of one God with a constant observation of Truth and Justice, such as were Socrates and Aristides.

But according to the Querists explication of the Church Catholick, I shall now change the shape of my second An∣swer also, and say; That Christians may attain salvation out of a Representative Church, which he gives to be the mean∣ing of a Catholick Church in the Querie, and charges me with sophistry because I will not understand it so. The members of a general Council being but few, (and that not agreed, who have right to be so) it were hard with Chri∣stendom, if all who are extra Concilium, out of that compass, were excluded out of Heaven. I add, that the Church Ca∣tholick may stand, and all the members of it may be saved without a Church Representative.

Now because all that he says is but beating the Air, and very impertinent to his design of making a Convert, (which is the thing aimed at) I add a Proposition, which though it be not a direct Answer to his Question, yet it shall strangle or stifle his intended Conclusion in the conception, and it is this;

A Man may be a member of Christs body (which we now call the Catholick Church) and be in the Ark, out of which there is no Salvation, though he be not in communion with the

chief Governors of the Roman Synagogue. Let him deny this, if he dare make an open forfeiture of his charity: Let him disprove it, if he can. There was a visible Church, and Salvation attained in it, before there was a stone laid at Rome of a spiritual Temple, (for Jerusalem was the mother and Mistress of all Churches, and not Rome, as the Father of lies teaches Papists to say and swear) and it may be so again, when Babylon the great, the City seated on seven hills is fallen as a milstone cast into the bottom of the Sea. In the mean time, the old position of Dr. Jo. Reynolds is wor∣thy of Remembrance, The Roman Church is neither the Catholick Church, nor a sound member of the Catholick Church.* 1.70

My Answer to his third Querie is very magisterially, but ridiculoussy censured by him to have nothing of a Cate∣gorical Answer. The Proposition is for certain Categori∣cal, because it is not hypothetical: Let the Question and the Return be compared, and this will appear defective in no∣thing necessary to an Answer. The demand is this,

I desire to know by designation, which, amongst them all which pretend to be the Catholick Church or a part of it, is now the Catholick Church.

The Answer runs thus; That is the Holy Catholick Church which professeth that one Holy Catholick Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints, &c. ut supra.

He says, I give no designation of any particular professi∣on or professions of Christians: That is to say, (if I mistake not his meaning) I do not name Protestants, or Papists, the Church of England, or of Rome, or of Greece, or of Germany. Indeed if I had so done, I had then given an Answer, that could not satisfie any rational man. For no Church deno∣minated from the place of habitation, (which way of distin∣ction of Churches is usual in Scripture) or from some bond of union, which is not general to all Christendom, can pro∣perly and truly be called the Catholick, that is the Univer∣sal Church. But I that was at liberty to design it as well as I could; did give a significant Character of the Catholick

Church taken from its proper office and action. The Querist says, I tell what the holy Catholick Church is. Very good. But I do not design which of so many several professions in the world is now the Catholick Church. Now if he expect that I should play the fool, and say that a particular Church is properly the Catholick Church, I hope you will not be offended if I do not satisfie his expectation. And when I have designed the Church Universal so, that a man may understand what it is, I think with the same labour I have told him which is it, because the Church Universal is but one; as he that tels what the Sun is, designs which is the Sun, because there are not many Suns. And because the Church is a collective body, that is, one by aggregation of similar parts, each of which lesser Societies is called a Church, I have given him a Mark whereby he may know, whether any particular Society be a member of that Body, since the one faith runs through the one body, and is the life of that body and of every limb of it. But my fault is, that I design one obscure thing by another that is equally obscure I will mend my fault, if I do not justifie my self from having committed one. I confess all spiritual things are ob∣scure to men that are meerly carnal or natural, but where the Gospel shines, if it be attended unto, it brings light with it, whereby we may discern things that differ. For judging or discerning of a true Church from a false, we must first know in some measure what is Truth. * 1.71 For if we must dis∣cern a good tree from a bad by the fruit, as our Saviour di∣rects us to do, then we must first know what is good, and bad in fruit, and then consider what fruit the tree bears, and from thence give a judgement of the tree. This is the me∣thod, which we must take in the enquiring for a true Church. Till we know what is Truth, (and that is * 1.72 the Faith once delivered to the Saints) we cannot know what Church brings forth good or bad fruit. Profession of faith is bearing of fruit. The goodness of this fruit is Truth, that is, agreeableness to the Word of God. It is therefore neces∣sary that we know the Truth, before we can know a Church

to be true. Now though the Truth, or the holy Catholick Faith may be under doubt, and debate, yet hat God set it up in the Scriptures so conspicuously, * 1.73 that if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that perish. Therefore I added to the Character of the Church by which I designed it to be known, that is, the profession of faith, the means whereby we may know what the faith is, which being professed is the sole certain mark of a true Church. For the marks of the Church which Romanists commonly give are separable from the Truth, and if they be taken singly without truth are false and treacherous indices, whereas the true faith of it self is a sure note of a true Church. And I pointed at Scripture, which is the Rule of faith, on purpose in mine Answer, that I might not be thought to send a man to look for a thing in the dark without a light. And now Sir do you judge, whether I have deserved blame by my designation of the Catholick Church by professing the Catholick Faith. But to make mine Answer both applicable to the Question, and also useful to you, I shall a little explicate and enlarge my sence. It is presumed, that the enquiry after a Church is made by a Christian, that may be distracted in the variety of visible Societies differing one from another, but every one equally pretending to be a Church; but his distraction is the greater, because of all Societies, only the Roman Sy∣nagogue doth challenge to her self to be the Ark, out of which there is no salvation. There are three Reasons which may move Christians to enquire for a Church, or a visible Society of Christians: 1. That they may serve God, and of∣fer up the spiritual sacrifices of praise and prayer by Christ Jesus. * 1.74 2. That they may grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 3. That they may joyn with Gods people, and keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by communicating together in Gods holy Ordinances. To compass these ends a Christian is not concerned to en∣quire where the Catholick Church is, for it is confessedly diffused through the Nations, but so spread by Gods dis∣pensation of the light, that the Sun of righteousness doth

not at one time arise to all parts of the world. Besides, the Candlestick is moveable from any place, and the Kingdom of God may be transferred from one Nation to another, * 1.75 neither hath God by any the least indication of his will and pleasure encouraged any portion of mankind, or part of the world, to promise to themselves a perpetual esta∣blishment of the Church in that place and in that successive body of men, which at some time hath been, or is now irra∣diated with the Gospel. It is therefore not at all material to trouble our selves with delineations of the Catholick Church which hath no set or certain limits of extent. That which concerns us to know, is what Church pretending to be a member of the Church Universal (for no men but Pa∣pists, that can admit contradictions into their Creed, will speak such non-sense, with deliberation, as that is, when they call a particular society of Christians combined un∣der one-Bishop the Universal Church) is fit and safe to be communicated withal, that we must reap the benefits of a Christian Congregation. Therefore the Question is now, whether the Church, wherein I was born and baptized, and by Gods Providence am seated under its government, or another different society of Christians which invite me to their communion, be such a company as I may safely joyn with them in all publick offices of Religion. For if it be, I am bound to communicate with that Church as being a member of the Body of Christ, the unity of which Body I am bound to maintain.

The Truth therefore of the doctrine taught, the inte∣grity and purity of the divine worship celebrated, and the way of administring Ecclesiastical power must be examined by some Rule, and known to be agreeable to the Gospel of Christ, before a Christians conscience can be satisfied of the necessity of communion with that Church upon this account, because it is a member of a Church Catho∣lick. Since then it is the custome to call any publick socie∣ty of Christians, that are compacted together by a frame of political government into one body, a Church, that

particular Church is a member of the Catholick, which holds that Faith, the profession whereof constitutes the Church Catholick. He that sleights this Designation, would have dealt kindly with us, if he had discovered unto us, a better way, or a clearer Light by which we might find the Church, and discover a true Church from a vain pertender. Till he or some other do that office for us, we think it best to seek for a Church, if we were now to seek, by looking for the light of truth in it, which alwaies shines in the house of God. And because truth and peace are both the legacies of Christ bequeathed unto the Church, we may do well to try what society of Christians doth follow peace and edifica∣tion of the Body of Christ. If the Church of Rome that sets up Images of God, (which are the teachers of lies) in their Temples, and by her Anathemaes makes divisions in Chri∣stendome, be tryed by those two marks; I leave the event to any one, that will impartially pronounce sentence accor∣ding to the evidence of fact in the whole bulk of their do∣ctrines and Devotions, and in their publick Government.

My fourth Answer hath the same fate with the former, to be called not Categorical: I must learn new Logick, as well as new Theologie, to understand this Gentleman. But it is charged with defect, because it reflects not upon the whole Question, and takes no notice of the tail, wherein the sting of the Scorpion lies. I confess mine Answer comes short in that particular; because I did not apprehend then, the last clause of his question to be of any moment. For I thought it enough, that the Church Catholick is secured from any error that is destructive of Salvation. But because I am now informed, that the main force of the Querie lies in this, Whether the Holy Church so designed can teach any error as mat∣ter of Faith endangering of Salvation, I now make a return to that part, as well as to the former; and indeed to the whole Question.

• 1. Errors that endanger Salvation do not alwaies destroy it.
• 2. God hath promised to preserve his Church from de∣struction; but not from danger.

• 3. All errors when they are discovered are to be rejected.
• 4. No doctrines offered by any Church to her Children are to be received without examination.
• 5. The Catholick Church as it signifies the whole Body of Christendome is too big to be a teacher, that may be consul∣ted, and hearkened unto.
• 6. The Church in this mans sense and explication, that is, an Assembly of chief Pastors in Council may touch errors en∣dangering Salvation. Arianism hath been taught in as large Assemblies of chief Pastors, as the true Faith hath been.
• 7. But because it is the design of this man, that we should take the Roman Church for the Catholick, I stick not to say that the Roman Church teaches her children errors that en∣danger the attaining of Salvation.

5. My fift Answer is excepted against for the interposition of these words, [so long as it continues so] which looks like a con∣dition, and seem to suppose that the Catholick Church can cease to be so. The words are •…•…pable of another constructi∣on, viz. The Holy Catholick Church so long as it continues sacured from teaching destructive errors cannot even for that reason abuse the world with forged Scriptures. This was then my meaning, who had no intention that my last Answer should contradict my first.

Let us now see, what he draws from my Answer, if it were Categorical, and how rational his inference is. For now we are come to the bottom of his project. •• And he thinks he hath catched us so fast in his trap, that either we must give him the Cause, or be condemned out of our own mouths.

If mine Answer be, (says this new fashioned Logician) that the Church can never ohtrude false Scripture; &c. then you must grant that the Catholick visible Church is infallible in the dolivery if Scrip∣ture. If so, then is there an infallible Judge upon the earth concerning this point.

How rash this inference is, and how incoherent the con∣clusion with the premises, a few words will serve to discover. It is acknowledged on both sides, that the primitive Church, which received the Scriptures was not, and because Gods spi∣rit

guided and governed the Church in this important busi∣ness, could not be abused and mistaken in the receiving of Canonical Scripture. The Catholick Church being quickly after enlarged, and spred through many regions of the earth did together with the Gospel preached receive Copies of the Scriptures, which had been communicated by the particular Churches, to which they were directed at first, unto their neighbour Churches. These Scriptures were by all Churches reverenced and preserved as the Grand Charter of their Sal∣vation, and the Laws and Records of their Society; as the Church was the Kingdome of Christ distinguished from the world. The zeal of Christians for their Laws, and their know∣ledg of them, which were frequently read in the publick As∣semblies, according to an * 1.76 Appostolical order, to which we must add above all the Providence of Gods watching over the Church for the preservation of Scriptures, being more pre∣tious to God than to Man, and as pretious to God as the world it self, these being well considered may assure us, that it was morally impossible, that the whole Church of God should be cousened into the reception of any forged Scriptures. And if the Church in following ages could not combine together to coyn counterfeit Scriptures, then the Church universal could never obtrude any thing upon the world for Canonical Scripture which was not received from the Primitive Church at first. But how doth it follow from hence, that the Church is an Infallible Judg in this point? A creditable witness is not presently an Infallible Judg. A faithful Depositary that keeps Records is not the same thing with an unerring Judg. The Tradition of the Church Universal, which hath derived the Holy Scriptures from age to age, is not an Act of Judicature. The Nation of the Jews is at this day a credible witness of the divine Original and authority of the Old Testament, at least at the first plantation of the Church Christian, the Jevvish Church did preserve and deliver the Holy Scriptures in tire (so much at least as God thought necessary or expedient, and if any book vvere lost, that by being lost became unnecessary) and vvas secured by Gods Providence in the conveyance of his Oracles to Christians. Doth it hence follovv that the

People of the Jews was a visible Infallible Judg in that point and if so, then in all matters of Faith? For thus the Papist proceeds.

If so, I require some satisfactory reason (says the Querist) why the Church should be infallible in this, and fallible in other points of Faith, &c.

I have already shewed that the Case is not so, as this man ima∣gines; therefore I am not bound to give him the satisfaction which he requires. Yet for your further information, I add this: 1. The reception and tradition of Scriptures by the Church is a fact which God, orders as expedient for the pre∣servation of Religion. 2. The certain number of the Books written by inspiration is not a point of faith necessary for every Christian to know and believe unto Salvation. 3. The Catholick Church cannot err in any point of faith necessary to salvation. 4. But any particular Church may believe and teach erroneous Doctrine for matter of Faith. The Church of Rome (which is not the sole keeper of Scripture) may and doth err in several points of their Religion, and doth impose up∣on her children uncanonical Books for Scripture, and false Doctrines for matters of faith, as is evident by the Canons of the Conventicle of Trent. And yet it is not in the power of the Church of Rome to abuse the whole Christian world by the imposition of counterfeit Scriptures upon it. I shall yet persist in my reflexion upon the Jews, that I may shew that the kee∣ping of Scriptures without forgery, falsification, and corrup∣tion, is a thing distinct and separable from erring & teaching errors. The Jews cannot be denied to have been good keepers of the Books, even then when they corrupted the Religion en∣joyned by the Law written in those Books. Never yet was any man so weak, as to conclude that the Priests and Rabbies of the Jews were Infallible Judges of the Doctrine concerning the Messias, even those who condemned Christ the Son of God to be guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death, because they kept the Books of Moses and the Prophets. There is now less reason why we should take the present Church of Rome, which we evidently see to teach Doctrines and set up a worship as contrary to the Scriptures as darkness is to light, to be an in∣fallible

Judge of faith upon this account, because the Primi∣tive Roman Church in communion with other Churches did hand down to posterity the holy Scriptures, without any fal∣sification, since the Church of Rome at this day doth both ac∣cept and impose upon her own Children, and would but can∣not upon others, Apocryphal Books for Canonical.

I have now shewed that these Queries are not unanswerable by Protestants adhering to their own principles, or Axioms. I desire you to consider the result of the whole design: Except you allow him at first that the Roman-Church is in propriety of speech the Catholick Church, this disquisition can advance you not an hairs-breadth to a better opinion of the Roman Church for a Guide, then you had before. For after all the clamour made for resolution of these Queries concerning the Catholick Church, the main Question stands as it did, Whe∣ther the Church of Rome at this day be to be subjected unto, as an infallible Guide, and to be communicated with, all other Churches being abandoned, and particularly the Church of England, whereof you are now a setled member. Till this be resolved, you that know the frame of our Church and the module of our Religion may stay safely where you are.

It remains now that I examine his Answer to my conclu∣sive Querie. And I shall briefly note, what you may by your own reason or experience discover either absurd, or false in it.

He doth not require you to desert the Reformed Church of England for adhering to the Scriptures as the Rule of Faith: For the Roman Church doth that as well as the Protestant, as he says. If this Querist do not pretend to Infallibility and Au∣thority over you, he will out of modesty allow you to exa∣mine whether Papists do as well, that is as fully and firmly, adhere to the Scriptures as English Protestants. Certainly they do not well own them for a Rule, who accuse them of ob∣scurity and imperfection, and make it a point of faith, that the defectiveness of Scriptures must be supplied with unwritten Traditions. And as certain it is, that we who maintain the ful∣ness of Scriptures in delivery of all things necessary to salva∣tion, and the perspicuity in that delivery, and therefore admit

of no point of Religion that is a meer stranger unto the Scri∣pture, do more closely stick to that Rule, then the Papists. But because you are free to examine the adherence of Papists to the Scriptures in particulars by comparison with the English Protestants, try whether a mangled Eucharist, the real Sacri∣fice of Christ by a Priest that makes his Maker and eats his God, The publick service of God in a forreign and unknown language to the generality of the people that must say Amen to all, Pictures of God used in Religious worship, the superla∣tive worship of the Virgin Mary, Invocation of Saints, Purga∣tory, the ease of departed souls by offering of Masses, the bap∣tizing of Bels, the treasury of superabundant merits of Christ and holy persons, &c. be as agreeable to the Scriptures as our Liturgy, and the 39 Articles agreed on in our Church. If you find it otherwise, and Papists do not so much as pretend to make Scripture the Rule of these Doctrines and practices, what credit can be given to such an impudent boaster?

But the ground of deserting us he pretends to be this, That we will have the sole Rule of faith to be the Scriptures in ex∣clusion of Universal Tradition, and the voice of the Catho∣lick Church.

1. Suppose the chief Pastors and Doctors of England should dispute in the Schools about the Rule of faith, and exclude Tradition and the voice of the Church from that honour which they think due only to the Word of God in Scriptures, now since the decease of the Apostles, and the unhappy divi∣sions of Christians, that make it difficult, if not impossible to know assuredly, what is delivered by Universal Tradition, or taught by the Catholick Church; why must you upon that ac∣count, (or any man) desert the Church of England, where the worship of God through Christ Jesus is celebrated without any mixture of superstition, and the means of salvation are of∣fered to you in a sufficient measure for your conduct in the way of truth and peace? Let a Papist, if he can, prove that our making Scriptures the sole Rule of faith makes the communi∣on with our Church unsafe. Must you needs run out of our Church, as if it were a House visited with the Plague, meerly because it relyes only upon the Scriptures for a Religion? And

if you must do so, must you needs then at the next step run in∣to a Roman Assembly, that (as my Lord Falkland speaks) keeps her children from Scripture, as a Mother would keep her chil∣dren from Rats-bane? Think of both these, because the Gen∣tleman will not be pleased, if you desert us, but will not come to them. He will think himself still a loser, if any water go be∣sides his Mill.

2. This calumny thus impudently fastned upon our Church shews this Querist to deive the Devils trade several wayes, in tempting by impostures, and in falsly accusing the brethren. For I challenge any Papist to quote (if he can and will cite an Author faithfully and fairly) any Article of Religion, or Writing of a Bishop, or sentence of an Academy, wherein we disclaim Universal Tradition, or the voice of the Catholick Church. For mine own part I do openly profess, that if any point in controversie between us and Papists can be proved to have been taught by the Primitive Church as a matter of faith, and derived by the voice of the Catholick Church from age to age, and this Universal Tradition be ••anifested by as good evidence, as is usually produced for the divine original of the Scriptures which we receive for Canonical, I will em∣brace that Doctrine as the Word of God.

3. SIR, you cannot but know, that we constantly reject many of the Popish opinions, obtruded upon the Christian world, as Novelties, which not only want a sufficient war∣rant from the Scriptures; but also cannot be made credible and acceptable by Universal Tradition. Such are the Popes Universal Bishoprick, or Oecumenical Headship, (which Pope Gregorie the great called the character of Antichrist) the In∣fallibility of the Church of Rome, and many other points of Popish Religion, some whereof I recited above, and need not repeat. We have incessantly required the Advocates for the Papacy to prove the consent and conformity of the present Roman Church in these particulars with the Primitive Church, whose voice is the Precentor in the Quire, and the first circle in the diffusion of Universal Tradition Thus, let due esteem and credit be given to Universal Tradition, but you see how little it is in earnest valued by Papists, or how

far they are from making use of that Rule, (which they extoi so zealously as you hear) thereby to prove the truth of their religion. In fine, you may apprehend the No-reason to de∣sert the Reformed Church of England therefore, because she makes the Holy Scripture the sole Rule of Religion, when indeed she knows no other given by God to the Church, and looks upon Universal Tradition whensoever it appears fair and full with reverence, as being the sense of the Church.

He proceeds to abate the force of my dissuasive of you from entrance into the Roman Church, when the condition of your entrance is the renouncing of your senses, reason, and cha∣rity. For the two former, though the terms seem hard, yet his righour abates nothing of them. You must be contented to lose the use of your senses and reason, when you become a vassal to Rome. To mitigate the severity, he tells you, this is no more than Scripture and the Protestant Church requires. He abuses Scripture in two instances.

1. He says, was not Lot to deny his senses, when he per∣ceived them to be Angels, &c. I say no, and the Scripture doth not say any such thing as this man supposes. When God thought fit, either to appear himself to the Patriarchs in hu∣mane shape clad with flesh in a transitory manner, (which is generally taken to have been a Praeludium of the words, or the Son of God his incarnation) or to send Ange is invested with humane bodies, the servants of God, to whom those heavenly messengers were sent so fitted for converse, were not bound to renounce their senses; but by their reason, and their knowledge of Gods way of entercourse with his choice ser∣vants by Angels, they were to regulate the notices of the ob∣ject, which their senses represented unto them.

2. He cries out, How could our Saviour pass through a croud of People, and neither be seen, heard, or felt, with∣out a deception of the senses? Judg, I pray, whether it suits with the Faith and Reverence we owe to Chirst, the truth it self, in his Person, Doctrine; and Actions, to ascribe unto him the deception of the Peoples senses, which comes very near to the practise of Magicians, and will if admitted diminish the credit of Christs Miracles. Our Saviours passage through the

multitude so, that he escaped their fury, and left them in a∣mazement, might be wrought many wayes, which we are not concerned to imagine, and must not determine though we could devise, because the Gospel hath not recorded the man∣ner of it. But it is rashly and irreverently said to be effected with a deception of the senses. But how is Christs action at that time an obligation laid upon Christians to the worlds end, to deny their senses in the Eucharist, where Christ insti∣tuted the material objects of our senses to be the instruments of our faith, and the Bread and Wine are designed to be sensi∣ble Symbols of spiritual things even as the Water in Baptism is? Briefly, since our Blessed Saviour, the Angels and the holy Apostles, * 1.77 have made our senses competent instruments to as∣sist our faith and reason in judging of the truth and presence of Christs Body, even after the Resurrection, and Christ hath not any where by himself or his Apostles limited the free ex∣ercise of our senses, nor lessened the credit of their Verdict in the Sacrament of the Eucharist more then in Baptism, is it not a horrid tyranny over Christians, to require that we re∣nounce both senses and reason, and at the command of a Ro∣mish Priest believe that there is no Bread and Wine, where all our senses (almost) conspire to inform us of their presence, and the very nature of the Sacrament requires it; and on the other side to believe that Christs Body is in every consecra∣ted Host, and in every crum whole and entire, and continues one, though divided from it self in a million of places, when our senses can give us no information of this presence, and our reason assures us that it is inconsistent with many Articles of our Creed? But observe the confidence of this Factor, who with a fore-head well rubbed tels you, that Protestants re∣quire you to renounce your senses; whereas we think that our Saviours command, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, holds by proportion in the rest, * 1.78 He that hath eyes to see, let him see, with assurance, that the God of truth, who fitted man with senses for the service of his Maker as well as for his own bene∣fit, doth secure him from deceit in the use of them about their proper objects, in Religion as well as in civil conversation.

As for our Reason, this he would perswade you must be re∣nounced

in the belief of the Trinity, that you may renounce it for the easie swallowing the Camel of Transubstantiation. Think what advantage this man gives to Heathens, Socinians, Anti-Trinitarians, and indeed all the adversaries of the Go∣spel, by confessing, that the prime Article of our faith con∣cerning the God whom Christians worship is more opposite to reason, then the scandalous Monster of Transubstantiation. The Doctrine of three Persons in one God is indeed a sub∣lime mystery, which is beyond the discovery of reason before it is revealed, and incomprehensible by reason after revelati∣on, as many secrets in the very course of nature cannot be ac∣counted for by our dark and narrow understandings. Reason it self tels us, that the infinite nature of God is not to be mea∣sured by the limited being of the creatures, and also that the glory of the invisible God cannot be discovered but by his own manifestation of it, and that according to his own good pleasure with different degrees of light, as Gods wisdom thinks fit to impart unto man the knowledge of God: And lastly, Reason resolves that Gods Word, especially of himself, who like the Sun is seen by his own light, is to be believed without dispute. Since therefore God in his Word written hath clearly revealed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God, it is a kindly office of enlightened reason to bring down every vain thought and weak reasonings that lift up themselves against the knowledge of God, and to lead them captive under the obedience of faith. But there is no cause, why we should struggle with our reason, and un-man our selves, that we may admit the divelish figment of Transub∣stantiation, whereof there is not the least shadow in the Word of God. This subtil Sophister aggravates the difficulty that may be fancied in the Trinity to the greatest advantage of Atheistical cavillers, but he would lessen the absurdities of Transubstantiation by an imperfect and false representation of his own Doctrine, which hath no ground in Gods Word. All that is with any colour alleadged out of Scripture to give countenance to the lie, which we are required to believe, is the sentence of Christ, This Bread is my Body, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, * 1.79 or My Blood of the New Testa∣ment.

Mark now, what a vast difference between the speech of our Blessed Saviour, The Bread is my Body, (that is, signifies and represents my Body, as God himself says, Ezek 37.11. These hones are the whole house of Israel; and Ezek 25.3. * 1.80 This, to wit the Hair before-mentioned, is Jerusalem) and the definition of the Tridentine Fathers: The whole substance of the Bread is tur∣ned into the whole substance of Christs Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the whole substance of Christs Blood. Where is this Conversion recorded in the Gospel, or Apostolical Epistles, that we should offer violence to our rea∣son to work our minds to the belief of it? It is also false, that you are required only to believe that Bread is turned into Flesh. We do believe, and that without renouncing our rea∣son, that Christ who could turn stones into Bread, and did turn water into Wine, could turn, if he pleased, Bread into Flesh, and Wine into Blood, as easily as he did Water into Blood in Egypt. And if Christ should do this at any time, the change would be as evident to the senses, as it was in all mira∣culous conversions, and the Flesh would be as visible, as the Serpent was into which Aarons Rod was turned, and the Blood as truly obvious to the eye, as the sanguified streams of Egypt. But Papists require your unreasonable be∣lief of another thing, to wit, that the Sacramental Bread is turned substantially into the very Body of Christ which was before that born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and is now at the time of every conversion sitting at the right hand of God in glory above the Heavens. By the way, (because it is not my business now to refute this false Doctrine) remember that un∣questionable Axiome of true Philosophy, Nothing is before it is made, or whilst it is in making. But Christs Body was be∣fore the Sacrament, and is already when the Priest begins the first syllable of his Magical murmur, by which he pretends to make the Body of Christ. You see the manifest contradiction, which you are obliged by Papists to believe in this insensible conversion Now if you will, to please a Papist, renounce sense and reason, that you may be capable of this rare belief, I know no cause why you should not also take Ovid's Poem of Metamorphosis for a veritable History. He fraudulently minces

the matter again, when he speaks of the easinesse of believing that one Body is in more places at one time. I know that Tho∣mas Aquinas in his Quodlibets says that the subsistence of one Body in more places at one time is impossible, because that which is one in it self cannot be divided from it self without the destruction of its unity and being together.

But that is not all which you are bound to believe in this device: For you must believe, if you can, that the very Body of Christ which consists of limbs and lineaments distinguished by several proportions and situations, and at this time is now in a certain place in Heaven, clothed with glory brighter then the Sun, is now lurking, an invisible and indivisible Body, in all the Hosts that are consecrated, or inchanted rather, in the Pa∣pacy, and in every crum of every Wafer. This is the substance of the Popish Doctrine, which the Sophister rarifies into a thin cloud, but that hath still gross contradictions in it, which are enough to divert a man that would serve God with his reason and understanding from going into the region of darknesse, * 1.81 that is the Roman Church.

He would fain repair the breach which is made in their Charity. Here his jugling is unsufferable. He conceals the uncharitable condition of your admission into the Roman society. To joyn with Papists, you must break off communi∣on with all Christians that are not subject to the See of Rome. Can you leap over this stumbling stock, and think your self in a safe Sanctuarie when you have shut up your self in the Popes cloyster from converse with all Christians besides in offices of Religion? But all our complaint of their unchari∣tableness, he sais, is our mistake. You have read enough of that argument. I need say nothing now.

But see how untowardly this wolf puts on the Sheeps skin on his back. He thinks their Charity unreproveable, because they (as he shamelesly affirms) censure not Persons, but Do∣ctrine, and that maintained pertinaciously. Read the Canons of the Council of Trent, wherein this is the constant form of cursing their Adversaries, Si quis dixerit, If any person say so and so, let him be Anathema. And have not Armes been rai∣sed after that the Anathemaes were thundred, to extirpate

with fire and sword the doctrine of the Gospel by destroying the persons that profess it? What truth can you expect from such open lyers, as the men of this mould are?

He says further that neither Papists nor Protestants can ab∣solutely Judge, who maintains an error obstinately. Where then is their Charity, or Justice, when they do (as the Histo∣ries of Christendome sufficiently witness) adjudg Protestants to be Hereticks, and so render them up to the secular arm to be slaughtered, as the Executioners of Papal decrees think fit?

But the Papists do so abound in Charity, that it is only out of Charity that they endeavour our conversion by warning us of dangers. I will believe that Romanists seek our Souls Salvation, more than English money, when out of meer Cha∣rity they seriously undertake the conversion of the Strumpets in the Popes Dominions, who are in as great danger of being damned, as those whom they call Hereticks can be by their profession. But they that are the Popes creatures dare not ex∣ercise their Charity to the impoverishment of the Popes Ex∣chequer, to which the licensed Stewes afford no small contri∣bution. Neither will these charitable savors of Souls allow us the same exercise of our Charity in Spain or Italy, although we are as firmly perswaded of the danger, that Papists are in, as they are conceited of our perils, and have as much pi∣ty and kindness for poor Souls kept in bondage and blind∣ness in spiritual Aegypt, as Papists have for us. Till we can obtain the same freedome for us to employ our Charity, it is not agreeable to justice that Papists should be permitted such liberties as they now take to make an ostentation of their counterfeit Charitie, which is indeed carnal Policy to restore the Papal jurisdiction in England.

He proceeds in his falshood, and denies the profession of Faith expressed in the Pope Pius 4. his Bull dated A. D 1554: to be a new Creed. Do you not take that to be new, in Chri∣stianity, which is but a little above a h•…•…red years old? for the whole mass which is superadded to the antient Creed of the Church was never known for a Creed till that Pope gave it out for one. But what name will you find out for this Gen∣tleman, who says it is no Greed; but a Catalogue of points

to be professed by teachers in publick Academies, &c.

If you read the Bull it self, you will see that Credo, I be∣lieve, runs through the vvhole body of the form, and I ac∣knowledg, profess, assert, firmly embrace this and that are the expressions used in that Creed, which is there also called, The true Catholick Faith, without which no man can be saved. The Querist also knows as well as I, though he doth worse than dissemble his own knowledg, that the Popes Bull enjoyns this Creed to be sworn to by all Ecclesiasticks (vvhich are more then Teachers in Universities) all dignitaries in Churches, all Regulars, &c. and it strictly charges all Clergy-men to en∣deavour as much as in them lies, that all men under their care and charge shall learn and hold this Faith. These animadver∣sions I offer to your assistance in the giving a right judgment of the Gentlemans Reply to mine Answers.

If you please to offer a Copy of my Letter to the unknown person, you may do well. And if he shall return any thing that you shall think fit to impart unto me, I-shall peradven∣ture be at leisure to consider it, and tell you what sense I have of it as freely and plainly, as I have dealt in the examination of the precedent discourse. I conclude in St. Pauls words, * 1.82 The Lord give you a good understanding in all things. So I rest,

SIR,

Your very faithful Servant, C. G.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Beelze∣bub, the Lord of Flyes, 2. Reg. 1,2,3. the Prince of Devils. Musca est meus pa∣ter: clam illum ni∣hil haberi potest. Plaut.
• * 1.2

  Act. 13.10.
• * 1.3

  Prov. 17.14.
• * 1.4

  Rom. 11.18.—22.
• * 1.5

  Joh. 4 21,24.
• * 1.6

  Malac. 1.11. Heb. 13.10.15.
• * 1.7

  Apoc. 14.8. & 17.6.
• * 1.8

  Mat. 23.24.
• * 1.9

  Psal. 2 2.
• * 1.10

  Read 2. Chron. 36.14. Ezek 8.5. to the end.
• * 1.11

  Act. 26.27.
• * 1.12

  Jer. 32.28. Mal. 2.7,8.
• * 1.13

  Ezek. 7.26. Jer. 18.18.
• * 1.14

  Jer. 2.8. & 10.21.
• * 1.15

  Esa. 42.19,20. Mat. 15.14. Jer. 17.1.
• * 1.16

  Mat. 4.10.
• * 1.17

  Prov. 16.10.
• * 1.18

  Eccl. 8.2.
• * 1.19

  Mat. 5.20. &c.
• * 1.20

  Rom. 7.14.
• * 1.21

  Mat. 16.11,12.
• * 1.22

  Luk. 11.52.
• * 1.23

  Wisd. 1.5.
• * 1.24

  See Joh. 14.17.
• * 1.25

  Mat. 15.14
• * 1.26

  Mat. 15.3.—9.
• * 1.27

  Mat. 23.16,17,18,19,20.
• * 1.28

  Esa. 5.20.
• * 1.29

  Luk. 23.50,51.
• * 1.30

  Act. 5.17.
• * 1.31

  Mat. 22.23 Act. 23.8.
• * 1.32

  See Act. 26.6,7.
• * 1.33

  Act. 23.
• * 1.34

  See Jer. 5.31.
• * 1.35

  Mat. 23.37.
• * 1.36

  See Jer. 2.26, & 23.1,2. Read Esa. 56.10,11. Certainly blind watch∣men, dumb and yet gre••¦dy doges, Shep∣heards that could not un∣derstand, were but sorry Guides, and as far from be∣ing infal∣lible tea∣chers of Religion, as Hell is from Hea∣ven.
• * 1.37

  Hos. 8.12.
• * 1.38

  Esa. 11.2. Joh. 3.34. Eph. 4.7. Phil. 1.9,10. Col. 1.9. Act. 17.•…•….
• * 1.39

  Rom. 15.4. Hos. 8.12. psal. 19.7,8. Prov. 8.7,8. Esa. 35.8.
• * 1.40

  The Jews at this day are so en∣slaved to their Rab∣bies, that if a Rabbi or wise∣man tell them their Right hand is their left; they are bound to believe it. Now what difference is there between an obsti∣nate Jew, and an in∣fatuated Papist?
• † 1.41

  Esa. 9.16. Esa. 8.20.
• * 1.42

  Deut. 17.8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood & blood, be∣tween plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke &c.
• * 1.43

  Act. 15.21.
• * 1.44

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2. Pet. 1.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 5.11.
• * 1.45

  Hos. 8.12.
• * 1.46

  Rom. 3.2.
• * 1.47

  2 Cor. 1.24.
• * 1.48

  Tertul. l. de •…•…nd. virgin. speaking concern∣ing the Creed; Regula fi∣dei una omninò est, sola im∣mobilis, & irreforma∣bilis.
• * 1.49

  Mat. 5.13,14.
• * 1.50

  Luk. 1.2. Act. 4.20. 1 Joh. 1.1.
• * 1.51

  Tit. 1.3. Jud. v. 3.
• * 1.52

  Read Eph. 4.3. to 14.
• * 1.53

  Apoc. 10.10.
• * 1.54

  Rom. 14 23.
• * 1.55

  Mat. 26.15. Read 1. Cor. 15.3,4.
• * 1.56

  Mat. 14.2,3,6.
• * 1.57

  Maldonate on John 6. confes∣seth thus much.
• * 1.58

  Nihil credi Deus volu∣it, adversus Sc iptura∣rum autho∣ritatem. Aug. l. 13. cont. Faus. Manich. Mark 7.5,—13.
• * 1.59

  2 Thes. 2.
• * 1.60

  1 Joh. 4.1. 2 Thes. 5.21.
• * 1.61

  Rom. 12.2 Eph. 5.10,17.
• * 1.62

  Tit. 2.11,12.
• * 1.63

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Joh. 6.45.
• * 1.64

  1 Pet. 1.23,25.
• * 1.65

  1 Cor. 3.12,13.
• * 1.66

  Just. Mart. dial. cum Tryph.
• * 1.67

  Col. 2.6. Rom. 10.18.
• * 1.68

  Mage cer∣nit acu∣tum, quam aut Aqui∣la, out Ser∣pens Epi∣daurius. Horat.
• * 1.69

  Of this see Is. Ca∣saub. Ex∣erc. 1. ad Card. Ba∣ron. App. c. 1.
• * 1.70

  Read the Bul. of P. Pius 4. which en∣joyns all Clergy∣men, and all in Re∣ligious Orders to swear to the new Creed whereof this is one Article. I acknow∣ledge the Holy Ca∣tholick and Apo∣stolick Roman Church the Mo∣ther and Mistress of all Churches.
• * 1.71

  Mat. 7.16,17,18.
• * 1.72

  Thy (scil. Gods) Law is the Truth, Psal. 119.142. Gods Word is the Truth, Joh. 17.17
• * 1.73

  2 Cor. 4.3.
• * 1.74

  Heb. 13.15. 1 Pet. 2.5. 2 Pet. 3.18
• * 1.75

  Apoc. 2.5.
• * 1.76

  Col. 14.16.
• * 1.77

  Luk. 24.39. Joh. 20.27. Mat. 28.26. Act. 10.41. & 1.9. 1 Joh. 1.1,3.
• * 1.78

  Mat. 13.9. Apoc. 2.9.
• * 1.79

  Luk. 22.19,20. Mat. 26.26,28.
• * 1.80

  Concil. Tr••d. Sess. 13. c. 4.
• * 1.81

  Rom. 12.1 1 Cor. 14.
• * 1.82

  2. Tim. 2.7.