Rome is no Rule: OR, AN ANSWER To an Epistle published by a Roman Catholick who stiles himself, Cap. ROBERT EVERARD And may serve for an Answer to two Popish Treatises, the one Enti­tuled, The Question of Questions; and the other, Fiat Lux: out of which Books the Arguments urged in the said Epistle against the Authority of the Scriptures, and the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church are Collected. In which Answer, the authority of the Scriptures is vindicated, and the Arguments for the Romish Infallibility Refuted.

By J. I.

Prov. 8.17.

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Job. 6.25.

How forcible are right words, but what do your arguings reprove?

LONDON, Printed by T. M. for Livewel Chapman, at his Shop in Exchange Alley in Cornbil 1664.

TO THE READER.

Reader,

SInce the Word of God which he hath exal­ted above all his Name, to be as a light shining in a dark place, and as a Rule try Doctrines, whether they are of Heaven, or of Men, is by Roman Catho­licks cried down, as altogether insufficient for that purpose; by [Page]reason whereof they have, and do daily beguile unstable Souls: I shall therefore, as a preface to this ensuing Discourse lay be­fore you the Judgement of Christ and his Apostles, and diverse of the Antient Fathers (who trode in their paths) touching the Authority and Ʋsesulness of the Holy Scriptures, and com­pare them with the Judgements of the Romane Catholicks, that so trying all things, thou mayest hold first that which is best. In the first place, it was the Judgement of Christ (whose Judgement is believed by all Christians to be Infallible) That Men ought to search the [Page]Scriptures, Joh. 5.39. And that the reason why the Jews did erre in the Doctrine of the Resur­rection was, because they did not know the scripture, Mark 12.24. He judged that the rea­son why the Jews did not be­lieve him, was, because they did not believe the Scriptures, Jo. 5.46. He judged the Scrip­tures to be Armour of proof against the Devil, Mat. 4.6, 7. He confutes his Adversaries by them, Joh. 8.17. Mat. 12.4, 5. This was also the judge­ment and practise of the Apo­stles; therefore they commend the Bareans for searching the Scriptures, Acts 17.11. Hence [Page]it was that they mightily convin­ced the Jews, shewing by the Scriptures, That Jesus was the Christ, Acts 18.28. The A­postle informs Timothy, That they were able to make wise to salvation, and that they were profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, and for Instruction in Righte­ousnesse, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. And that if we fulfil the Royal law according to the scriptures, we shall do well, Jam. 2.8. That they were written for our ad­monition, upon whom the ends of the world are come, 1 Cor. 10 11. And that they were writ­ten for our learning, that we [Page]through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have Hope, Rom. 15.4. This was also the judgment of the Fa­thers, who followed the foot­steps of Christ and his A­postles. St. Augustine saith, upon the 8. Psalm, That God hath bowed down the scrip­tures to the capacity of Babes and Sucklings, that when proud men will not speak to their capacity, himself might.

And again, the same Authour saith, That our Faith would reel and totter if the Authori­ty of the scriptures did not stand fast, de Doct. Christ. Lib. 1. Cap. 37.

St. Chrysost. saith, The scri­ptures are easie to be under­stood, and are exposed to the capacity of every Servant and Plow-Man, and Widow, and Boy, and therefore God Pen­ned the scriptures by the hand of Publicans, Fisher-men, Tent-makers, Neat-heards, and Unlearned men, that none of the simple people might have any excuse to keep them from reading, Hom. 1. in Mat.

Again be saith, That what­soever is required to salvation is all set down in scriptures, neither is there any thing wanting there, that is need­full [Page]for mans salvation, Hom. 41. in Mat.

Justin Martyr saith, That we should hear the words of the scriptures, which are so plain and easie, that they need no Exposition, but to be re­hearsed, Dialogue cum Tri­phon. 213.

St. Hierome saith, What­soever things men find and feign without the Authority, and Testimony of the scrip­tures, as if they were from A­postolical Tradition are smit­ten by the sword of God, see Comment. in Hagg. Cap. 2.

On the other hand, the Ro­man Catholicks say, The scrip­tures [Page]are no certain Rule, no Infallible guide; and that all things necessary to salvation, are not contained in them; See the Books Entituled, the Question of Questions, and Fiat Lux, and the Epistle Pub­lished by Everard, to which this Answer is Directed. They for­bid the People to use and search them. See Everards Epistle pa. 14. He saith, Those words in the 5. of John are so far from being a Command to search the scriptures, that they rather seem a reprehension to all that have such a conceit of them.

Again they say, The scrip­tures [Page]are fitted to the time, and are variably understood; the sense whereof being one while this, and again, another while that, according as it pleaseth the Church to change her judgement. See Cusan. Ep. 2.37.

Again, The Bishop of To­ledo's putting forth the Bible in divers Languages, puts the Latine Translation in the midst between the Hebrew and Greek, and then saith, the Greek and Hebrew he placed of either side as two Thieves, and the Latine between them, as Je­sus Christ.

Others of them call the Scri­ptures [Page] a nose of wax, that may be writhed any way, and a dumb Judge, &c.

Now whoever shall but im­partially lay the judgment, of these men concerning the Scri­ptures in the ballance of the Sanctuary, and compare them with what Christ, his Apostles, and their followers judged of them, may easily see that there is more excellency in the gleanings of the Scriptures, then in the full Vintage of the Pope and all his Cardinals; whose Vines are like those of Sodom, by reason whereof, the Nations have been intoxicated, and made drunk with the wine of her fornication. [Page]For if they were not drunk, they would never quit both Scri­pture and Reason, and the Spi­rit of God, all that by which they become both Men and Chri­stians, to hearken to the voice of the Romish Charmers, who ra­ther then they will want water to carry Proselytes to the Romish Sea, care not though they open the flood-gates of Atheism and Antiscripturism upon the Chri­stian World. For who seeth not (but he that is willing to be blind) that the arguments le­vied by them for wounding the reputation of Scriptures, are as a sharp sword ready to pass through the reins of Christianity [Page]it self. For the prevention whereof, I have published this ensuing Answer, which I do de­sire may be impartially consider­ed; and the Lord give you un­derstanding in all things, and open your understanding, that you may understand the Scri­ptures; that so taking to your selves the swords of the Spirit, which is the word of God, you may be able to resist all the ad­versaries of your pretious souls, who daily seek to make merchan­dize of you; and that you may so do, shall be the Prayers, and Desires of thy Friend,

J. I.

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

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

Here I would gladly be informed who you mean by this term of dis­crimination, Non-Conformists, either you mean all that Conform not to the Church of Rome, or all that Conform not to the Church of England; if you mean all that Con­form not to the Church of Rome, then the Church of England is con­cerned in this Epistle, and rec­koned by you among all other Sects and Hereticks: but if by Non-Con­formists you would discriminate all that Conform not to the Church of England, then your Mother the pre­tended Holy Catholick Church is concerned in your Epistle, they be­ing Non-Conformists to the Church of England, as well (or rather as ill) as others; and good reason she should be concerned, since she hath furnished you with all your Weapons for this Warfare out of here Armoury: and it is but a piece of gratitude to direct that to her [Page 3]which you so lately received from from her: for he that hath a hand to take, and not a tongue to return thanks, deserves for the future to be both lame and dumb.

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

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

In the next place I cannot but ob­serve [Page 4]the place where this Epistle was printed, and if you will believe it, it was printed at Paris. I see you have learned one, if not all the the three things which a learned man observes Children soon learn of their Mothers, Pride, Revenge, and Lying: this last appears in that you have made a Lye your refuge, by saying your Epistle was printed at Paris. But let me ask you the Question which you ask your Rea­der, p. 20. who will adventure (say you) to make oath the Scriptures we have, agree with the Originals? So say I, Who will adventure to make oath that this Epistle was printed at Paris? Surely we are like to meet with little truth in the House when a Lye in Capitals, and a Capital Lye is inscribed on the Porch, as a London Printer will witnes, to your [...]ace, if occasion serve.

I come now to the Post-script, [...]herein you caution your Respon­dent, [Page 5] p. 39. to set down your own words as they lye intirely, without maintaining them: and also, if he answers by Pa­ragraphs, to set down your whole Para­graphs.

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

You go on in your Post-script and forewarn your Respondent, that be set not up a Puppit of his own in [Page 6]stead of Answering. If he doth set up a Puppit of his own, he hath done more then you, who have scarce set up any thing of your own, besides your name. But (what) if be set up a Puppit of his own and call it yours, (you say) he will not make your Ar­guments, but his own ridiculous. Tru­ly he may possibly make his own, but he cannot make your Argu­ments ridiculous, because he knows not any one that is yours in all the Epistle.

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

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

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

Sir, I have four or five things to ask you; 1 Whether you did use to do so by the Kings Majesty when you were an Independent, and at the head of your Rebellious Troop? 2 Whether you believe the Kings Majesty hath pardoned you and all that were so wickedly minded? 3 Whether since you were pardon­ed, you would have any to upbraid you with those pardoned Crimes? If not, then 4 Why do you that pretend to so much Charity, do that to others, you would not be done unto? Lastly, Why do you violate the Law of your Soveraign, who [Page 8]hath forbidden upon a penalty, that those things should be remembred against any that he hath been plea­sed to bury in Oblivion? But Sir, if you were not a Novice in the Catholick Way, you might know that the people you are now fallen in with, have been the most guilty (in speaking evil of, and do­ing evil to men in Authority) of any that ever mentioned the Name of Christ; witness their traducing King Henry 8. for that ever to be admired, and to be remembred work of his, in throwing off the Popes Supremacy; how have the Romanists reported it as a Conse­quent of his Lust and Levity? How then can they have any regard to the present Rulers, who daily re­vile their Predecessors, wherein a­ny of them have acted against their Interests? witness both the Gun­powder Treason, and the Irish Re­bellion. And what good Allegi­ance [Page 9]can his Majesty that now is ex­pect from you? Who forsaking a People that destroyed one King, and pretending repentance for that, go and joyne with a people whose Principle is to Depose and Destroy Kings.

Passing from your Title and Post-Script, I now come to Encounter with the main Body of your Epi­stle: In the Front whereof You place a Text out of the great St. Austine against Manicheus, whose Words are these; If thou shalt find any one who doth not as yet believe the Gospel, what wilt thou do when he shall say unto thee, I do not believe? But neither had I be­lieved the Gospel, unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholick Church: Those therefore to whom I submitted, when they required me to believe the Gospel; why should I not yield Obedience to them, when they perswade me not to believe Maniche­us.

Thus speaks Austine, and more to the same purpose: lo which I An­swer, That this Text out of Austine may be applyed to any Church as well as to yours; And if the Church of England shall perswade any one that is a Jew, to turn, and become a Christian, may he not say he did well to believe them when they perswaded him to believe the Gos­pel? Why therefore should he not believe them when they perswade him not to turn Roman Catholick? But to this Text I shall subjoyne Two Texts more out of the same Authour against the Donatists: The Question (saith he) between Us and the Donatists, is, where is the Church? This is the Question, between the Protestants and the Romanists; He Answers, Let not these Speeches be heard among you; This I say and this thou sayest, but let us hear what the Lord sayes: There are certain Books of God, unto whose Authority we both consent. [Page 11]There let us try our Cause; There let us seek the Church: And again in the Scriptures, have we learned Christ; In the Scriptures, have we learned the Church, Ep. 166. ad Donatift. Whosoever shall compare these Texts out of Austine, may easily sa­tisfie himself. What his Judgment was in the Question between You and Us, (viz.) whether we should learn Christ and the Scriptures from the Church, or whether we should learn Christ and the Church from the Scriptures? To this pur­pose Epiphanius speaking of a Heri­tick, Saith; This Man is found differ­ing from the HOLY SCRIP­TURES, as will appear to all Men that Read attentively: If he then dissent from them, he is altogether an Alien to the Holy Catholick Church, Epipha­nius Tom. 1. lib. 2. haer. 48. It seems in his time, all men were permitted to read the Scriptures attentively, to inform iheir minds in the Truth; [Page 12]whatever is now a dayes pretended to the contrary.

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

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

But further you say, you publish­ed your Epistle, To prevent the World from censuring: Sir, whatever you promised your selfe in the begin­ning [Page 13]of your Book, your heart fail­ed for fear of obtaining, when you had finished it; And therefore you are forced to Ride Post after your Reader, and pray him, That he would not up-braid you; As if you had some private ends of your own, in your present change: See the Post-Script in Page 40.

Which plainly shews that you had some mis-givings of heart, that all you had spoken throughout your Book would not Answer your end, (Viz.) Keep the World from censuring. And as for that other end, which you pretend in the publishing of your Book; Namely, Charity to your late Brethren. Truly whatever you pretend, they will scarce believe you, because in your Post-Script you uncharitably impute the Calumnies and Slanders that were cast upon his late Majesty, and his Majesty that now is, to the Presbiterians, and Independens Indefinitly with­out [Page 14]exception: Is this Charity? And this uncharitableness of yours, is grievously aggravated; First, Be­cause it is basely remembred by you, who were in the same Con­demnation with others; And, Se­condly, Because it is mentioned af­ter it hath been pardoned by the Kings Majesty; And is this your gratefull return for that love which your late Brethren have manifested to you? If so, surely the charity of a Catholick, and the mercies of the wicked, are alike cruel.

You proceed like a Romane Ca­tholick, and in the latter end of page the 1. Sound a Trumpet in your own praise, by saying, That your carriage was alwaies such, (while you was in Communion with them (meaning your late Brethren) As gave them sufficient reason to believe that you was not Byassed by world interests and selfish considerations. But if any body believes so, they may erre; [Page 15]because they do not believe as the Church believes.

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

From Page second, to the eighth, you recite what Arguments your Catholick Friend used to prove these things to you, (Viz.) That we [Page 16]could not convince a Turk or a Jew of the certainty of Christianity but by the Churches Infallibility; Which I for­bear to make a reply unto, partly be­cause it is but a Narrative of a pri­vate Conference between you and that Catholick Gentle-Man; And chiefly because I shall have occa­sion to speake to the very same things in my following Answers to your Arguments, to which I refer the Reader.

You come in the latter end of the 8. Page, to tell us what Effects this Conference had upon your under­standing; as that thereupon, You resolved to have Recourse to Almighty God by Prayer for his Divine assistance, and to make it your businesse according to your skill and understanding, to take a full view of the Catholick Faith, and of Chri­stianity, and laying aside all Prejudices, Pride, and Humours; You Resolved to embrace (by the assstance of God) what­soever you should understand to agree to [Page 17]his most Holy Will and Pleasure.

Hereupon let me aske you a few questions; First, how are you sure you had a Divine Assistance in this choice, as an Answer to your Prayers, since when you made these Prayers, you were not a member of your pretended Catholick Church? Secondly, How are you sure, since the heart of Man is deceitfull, that your heart did not deceive you, when it inclined you to Popery? Thirdly, When you say you made this search according to the utter­most of your understanding, how do you infallibly know that your understanding was not depraved, and that you were not given over to an injudicious mind? Fourthly, Did you not pretend to have used the same means to find out the true Church when you turned an Inde­pendent, as you did when you did turn Papist? Lastly, If so, how are you more able to Answer the Turk [Page 18]or Jew now, then you were when your Catholick Friend began to discourse with you?

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

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

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

But since (you say) the great dif­ficulty is to finde out the Rule, I would gladly know how this dif­ficulty shall be infallibly resolved? For if the private spirit within me must not resolve me, nor my reason must not be my Rule, nor the Scrip­tures my Guide; then I have no [Page 20]light left me to shew me the Church, but the Church. Thus they deal like thieves, put out all other lights, that should discover them but their own dark lanthorn; But if you shall say that you prove the Church by Miracles; How shall I be satisfied that those Miracles are not delusions? Since as many pre­tend to the spirit that have it not; So many pretend to miracles that have them not: Then we must have faith to believe those miracles are true, and if they are true, they are no otherwise true but by the spi­rit of God: Then it is the same ab­surdity to believe miracles by the spirits testimony, as it is to believe the Scriptures by the spirits testimo­ny: But this also implies a contra­diction, for if I must finde the Church by the light of the spirit, perswading me that she doth those miracles by the power of God, then [...]ave you contradicted your self, by [Page 21]saying, The spirit is not the guide: But further, may not a man as well say that he believes he hath the spi­rit by the spirit; and that he be­lieves the Scriptures by the Scrip­tures; as you say, you believe the Church by the Church. I am sure the last is the greatest absurdity, and may not a Turk say the same for his way, that he believers Mahomet by Mahomet, and the Alcoran by the Alcoran, (as you believe) the Church by the Church. Now if you shall say, you believe the Church by the Scripture, then the question will be, how you know them to be the Word of God? If you say, because the Church teaches they are so; then you run round (like a horse in a Mill) proving the Church by the Scripture, and the Scripture by the Church.

You give another Reason, why the spirit witnessing within us, is not the guide appointed by God, [Page 22] (because by this none that ever pretended to it did reconcile differences.

Pray let charity begin at home; if your Church be so infallible; why do not you decide the differ­ences that are between the Jesuites, and the Dominicans? hath not as endless controversies arisen among you? Hath not as many Errours, and Schismes sprung from you, as from any People professing Christi­anity? And would not your divisi­ons be greater, if the power of the Sword did not prevail more then your pretended Infallibility? And whereas you say, St. John prescri­beth a Rule to know the Spirit of Truth, from the Spirit of Errour, 1 Joh. 4. We are of God, he that knoweth God hear­eth us, and he that is not of God, heareth not us; Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth, from the Spirit of Errour. Now what is this to your purpose, unless you would still beg the question; That your Church and her Doctors, [Page 23]are intended in those words, WE and US? But what if it be proved that you do not hear the Apostles? Then it follows by the Text, and your own Argument, that you have the Spirit of Errour. Now the Apostle taught that a Man should examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; but you deny the cup to the common people; is this hear­ing the Apostles? The Apostle al­lows the Bishops to be Husbands of one Wife; but you forbid that they should have any at all. The Apo­stles would not have Prayers said in a Language that the People under­stood not; but you command it. Christ and the Apostles command­ed a diligent reading, and searching of the Scriptures; but you forbid it, and yet you are the only Men that must be heard, though you teach contrary to Scripture.

You go on, and say, That Reason must not be our Judge, because it must submit to the Judge as a Subject, &c. I pray, what was your Judge? who resolved the question which you say, had so much difficulty in it (viz.) who should direct you whether any Church was Infallible, or no? or where that Church was to be found? Did your reason guide you in this search or no? If it did not, I do not wonder you made no bet­ter choise, but you say, Reason is not your Rule, because it was to submit as a Vassall to that Rule and Judge. But Sir, Though the Church of Rome, (which you call your Judge) do ex­ercise such a Lordship over the rea­sons of Men, I am sure you have given no reason why it should be so. You say Reason is apt to mi­stake; and therefore we ought not to be governed by it: But Sir, what if I say the Pope is apt to mi­stake; and therefore I ought not to [Page 25]be governed by him. I am sure, if that be made to appear in the judg­ment of Reason, then Reason will guide me to decline following such a blind Guide. As for example, Li­berius that was Pope about the year 350 fell into Arianism, and subscri­bed to the unjust excommunicating Athanasius.

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

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

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

May not a man from the same Premises infer that your Church is [Page 26]not the Judge? because then it would follow that it is possible to please God without Faith, because the Church would teach us how to please him. But you will say the Church doth teach us to please God by Faith; I say it is well if she do: But what is this to the purpose, she did not teach us to please God by Faith before it was required, and made known to us that God would be so pleased. In like manner, Rea­son will direct a man to do the same when he is informed God requireth such a duty. But must not the Scri­pture, nor my private Spirit, nor my Reason judge? I pray then tell me how I shall be the better for all you have written? for if my Rea­son must not judge of the fallibility, and infallibility of your Arguments, then you had as good have told your late Brethren thus: My B [...]tren, I see that there is a great difference and contention among us, whether the Ro­man [Page 27]Church be infallible or not; This Controversie cannot be judged by a private Spirit, for that may sail; nor by Reason, because mens Reasons are uncertain, and subject to variation; neither are the Scriptures an infalli­ble Judge of Controversies, therefore they cannot judge of this: Let me therefore advise you of a way to decide this question. First, Agree that the Roman Church is infallible, and then your contention, whether the Roman Church be infallible, will soon be en­ded. An excellent advice, because (you say) all other ways to judge and decide controversies are fallable.

You now come in the third place to enquire whether the Scripture be sufficient to teach us the true Faith, &c. (You say) You found this high­ly contended for, and several rea­sons urged for it. First, The words of our Saviour, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them you think to have eternal life, and they [Page 28]are they which testifie of me. To this Text (you say) you found seve­ral answers given which were satisfa­ctory; I That it doth not appear whether this in the Original be the Im perative or the Indicative Mood, St. Cyril (you say) with whom Beza agrees) takes it in the Indicative Mood.

What a strange Mood are you in then, to give an Answer to a Text which (you say) you were sa­tisfied withal? And in the same breath (you say) it doth not appear whether it be the Imperative or the Indicative Mood. Do you think infallibility had any assinity with this Answer? Nay, you further say, that they are so farr from being a Command to all to road and search the Scriptures, that they RATHER SEEM a Reprehension to all that shall frame that Conceit of them. But how can this sense of that Text be Catholick, when in stead of an [Page 29]infallible Exposition, you tell us it RATHER SEEMS to be so then otherwise? But what if I should tell you that those words (Search the Scriptures) rather seem a Command then a Reprehension? I should ra­ther seem to be infallible then you. You say, If it be the Indicative Mood, the sense will run thus. You do search the Scriptures, and so it seems to be a Reprehension. But this is a sense con­trary to Chryfostome, Hom. 39. in Joan. Christ (sayes he) sends us to the testimo­ny of the Scriptures; then it cannot be that he should reprehend them. And the Colledge of Rhems transla­ting the Text as we do, give this Interpretation of it, He (viz.) Christ reprehendeth the Jews (not for read­ing but) that reading dayly the Scri­ptures, and acknowledging that in them they should find life; that yet they viewed them so superficially, that they could not find therein him to be Christ, their King, Lord, Life, and [Page 30]Saviour. And in the Marginal Note upon this Text, they say, that neither Jews nor Hereticks find the truth, because they search not the Scri­ptures deeply, but read superficially. See Rhemish Annot. upon John 5. Now see how you contradict your selves, you say the Scriptures are so far from being a Command to all to read and search, that they rather seem to be a reprehension to all that shall frame that conceit of them. And your Rhemish Commen­tators say that they are reprehend­ed because they did not search deep enough, for if they had, they might have found Jesus to have been their Christ, their King, Lord, Life, and Sa­viour. And how can the said Anno­tators give that as a reason, why the [...]ews and Hereticks did not find the Truth, because they did not search the Scriptures deep enough. If either of these two opinions of your be true, 1 That men are reprehended for [Page 31]searching the Scriptures. 2 That the Scriptures are not an infallible guide to direct us to find the Truth, if the whole Colledge have tran­slated and interpreted truly, then surely you and many of your Au­thors speak falsly. But if you shall say the Scriptures may direct Jews and Hereticks to the truth, because they direct them to the Church, which is the Pillar of Truth: then it follows, 1 That both Jews and Hereticks ought to search the Scri­ptures deeply, to find out the true Church. 2 It must rest upon their private judgments of discretion to determine within themselves, whe­ther the Romanists or the Protestants be that true Church, after they have made this deep and diligent search. 3 It follows that the Scripture is an infallible guide, being deeply and di­ligently searched; and that the rea­son why both Jews and Hereticks err, is not the fallibleness of the [Page 32]Scriptures, but want of diligent and deep search; which being used, they might have found Christ to have been their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour; they might have found the Truth, and the Church, and consequently all things necessa­ry to Eternal life.

You come in the 14 pag. to give a second reason why the words (search the Scriptures) cannot extend to prove the conclusion; because (you say) if they were uuderstood in the Im­perative Mood (which cannot infallibly be proved because) they cannot be profi­table to work Faith in them that cannot read, which (you say) are the greatest part of Mankind. (You say) it can­not infallibly be proved that those words, search the Scripture, are in the Imperative Mood: but have you that pretend to Infallibility, proved that they are in the Indicative Mood. What a madness is this, that you should exact infallible In­terpretations [Page 33]from those that do profess fallibility, and not perform an infallible Interpretation, when you pretend to be guided by a Church that is infallible! But you say that if they were understood in the Imperative Mood, they cannot work Faith in those that cannot read. But then it seems they may work Faith in them that can read, because (as the Rhemists say) they can shew both Jews and Hereticks the Truth, if they search deeply and diligently. But secondly, How can general Councilsshew the Truth and beget Faith, since (if they are infallible) every body cannot read their De­crees and Canons? If you say they understand those Decrees and Ca­nons, by the general Consent of those that can read, then by the same means may a man that cannot read the Scripture be guided by them.

3 You say, that by those words [Page 34](search the Scripture) cannot be un­derstood, that the Scriptures should be our Judge and guide, because then they would have excluded Christ, and after him his Apostles from being the infallible means by which true Faith was to be taught to the World. But how doth this follow, since you say the Church under the Old Testa­ment was a Judge, and an infallible guide. But did their being an infal­lible guide till Christ, exclude Christ from being a guide: and did Christs being a guide when he was on the Earth, exclude the Holy Ghost from being a guide when he left the Earth? In like manner it followeth not, because the Scri­ptures of the Old Testament (for of them Christ speaks in the place under debate) were a guide to instruct men into the knowledge of the Messiah, that they should ex­clude Him, His Spirit, or Apostles from being Guides. But further it [Page 35]followeth by the same parity of Reason, that if the Scriptures of the Old Testament could not be an in­fallible guide, because then they would have excluded Christ, and after him his Apostles from being infallible guides. I say it follows by the same reason, that if Christ and his Apostles were infallible Guides and Judges in matters of Faith, that then they have excluded the Church of Rome from being that infallible Guide and Judge which she pretends her self to be: and thus you have sharpned a Knife to cut your Mothers throat.

You pretend pag. 14. and say, that the second Reason that is urged for sole Scripture being a guide, is 2 Tim 3.15. From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise to salva­tion through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is gi­ven by Inspiration of God, and is [Page 36]profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly fur­nished to all good works.

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

To which I answer, First, If the Scriptures are not a Guide to them that believe not, why do the Rhe­mists say that the reason why Jews and Hereticks do not finde Christ to be their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour, is, because they did not [Page 37]search the Scriptures deeply. Sure­ly, you will not say, that Jews and Hereticks are Believers, and you say, they are no guide to Unbelie­vers; why then do the Rhemists say, Christ reprehended them for not fearching the Scriptures deeply? To what purpose then are Jews and Hereticks blamed for not searching the Scriptures deeply, if the Scri­ptures had been (as you say) no way profitable to them? but fur­ther, you say, they are not profitable to them that do not believe them to be the word of God. Suppose this were granted (which cannot be proved) doth it not follow that your Roman Church (by the same reason) is no way profitable, no way a Judge, nor an infallible Guide to any that do not believe her to be so: and by the same reason an Atheist may say All gods providences are no monitors to him, All his judge­ments are no examples to him, be­cause [Page 38]cause he doth not believe there is a God: Is not this as good Logick, as to say the Scriptures are no way profitable to them that do not be­lieve them to be the Word of God.

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

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

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

In the last place, you say pag. 15. The word All Scripture must either signi­fie [Page 40]every Scripture, as the Original word [...] ought to be rendred, or All Scriptures that ever were; or All Scriptures that were when this Text was written; or All that we now have. If it be to be understood of every Scripture (or any Scripture) then you say it doth prove too much, because then all the Scriptures save one Book, are useless.

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

You come in the 16 page to tell your Reader, That you met with no Arguments for the sole sufficiency of Scripture among those that were usually urged, and therefore you resolved to see what could be said against this com­mon General opinion of all who oppose the Church of Rome, why the Scriptures [Page 41]could not be this Rule and Judge.

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

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

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

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

3 May it not as well be said of [Page 43]the Church of the Jews (which, you say, were infallible) that they were no Guide, or at least, no cer­tain Guide, because there were dif­ferences and contentions among them, as there was between the Pharisees, Sadduces and Essavaus; it is said that the Sadduces denied the Re­surrection, Angels, and Spirit: as you say the Scriptures are no Guide to true faith, because men differ and and disagree in matters of Faith: But,

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

5 May you not as well infer that the grace of God doth not teach [Page 44]men to deny ungodliness, because some turn the grace of God into wantonness: as say the Scriptures are no sure Guide to faith and sal­vation, because many wrest them to their own destruction?

6 May you not as well say, that the Primitive Church were no in­fallible Guide to true faith, because they had disagreements and conten­tions among them: as the strife between the Eastern and Western Churches about the keeping of Ea­ster, and they excommunicating one another? And the Question of Re-baptizing bred the like differen­ces between the Bishops of Rome, and the Western Bishops of one Party, and Cyprian, Dionysius, and Fir­milianus, with, most of the Eastern Bishops of the other Party, Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. c. 21. lib. 7. c. 3. Cyp. Ep. 74, 75. Soc. lib. 6. c. 17. Soc. lib. 6. c. 21. I say, may not one more truly infer these were no Guides, [Page 45]because they had dissentions and divisions among them: as you may say the Scriptures are not a Guide, because of the differences that are amongst Protestants.

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

Your second Reason followeth in the 17 pag. which is but the same in effect with the first, therefore the former Answer may suffice; onely you tell us a story of an Arian, or, (as the Question of Questions hath it) an Arian Cobler; how that if you were to dispute with him about the Deity of Christ from Job. 10.30. I and my Father are one; by this Text [Page 46](you say) you should think you had proved the Question. But then (you say) your Arian would com­pare this Text with john 17.21. where Christ prayeth to his Father, that his Disciples might be all one thing, as thou (Father) are in me, and I in thee. But if you should urge the Arian further, and tell him the Council of Nice gave the same Interpretation which you do: (you say) the Arian would answer as the Protestants generally do, that they have a worthy esteem of Councils, as far as they agree with the Word of God; but where they disagree, in that he must contradict them all.

To which I Answer, (setting a­side the contraversie between the Arians and Athanasians, as not com­ing within the verge of our present question) that if the Arian Cobler had been as Orthodox in all his o­ther Opinions, as he is in his opini­on [Page 47]about the Holy Scriptures, and Councels (viz.) to think reverent­ly of Councels, and agree with them, as far as they agree with the World of Truth: I say, if this had been all this Arian Coblers Errour, I should have judged him a better Christian then a Roman Shoo-ma­ker, or the Catholick Collier, who could say no more for himself, be­ing tempted by the Devil at the point of death, what his faith was? Answered, I believe, and dye in the faith of Christs Church: Being again demanded what the Faith of Christs Church was? Answered, The faith that I believe in: See Apology Translated by Staplet. p. 53.

But you say, That you can urge a­gainst an Arian the Authority of the Councel of Nice, and their Interpreta­tion of the Scripture, by which they In­fallibly decide the controversie; And here you think you have a more certaine [Page 48]guide and ground of your Faith then o­thers, because they adhere to private spirits, and private judgements up on the Scriptures; whereas you adhere to general Councel.

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

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

The reason of this question is, be­cause you did not hear them your self, and if you had heard them, you might have mis-understood them, [Page 49]but if you say you have read the Councels and so came to be inform­ed: I do further demand how you do believe by a Divine Faith, that you do not mis-understand the Councels in what you read, and so collect a false sense.

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

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

Fifthly, Whether you may not be more subject to mis-understand the Scriptures, either by the errour [Page 50]of the Priest in Preaching, or the frailty of your understanding in hearing, then others are in the rea­ding of the Holy Scriptures: And if so, why should you say the Scrip­tures are no guide, because they may be mis-interpreted? For shame forbear to blame the use of a thing because of the abuse of it: What if some are to blame, in that they have wrested the Scriptures to serve their own interests; Are not you more to blame to wound these men through the sides of the Scripture? What if (as one well observes) That some are blind, and miss their way, and others are drunk, and stagger out of it: Must we all conspire to wish the Sun out of the Firmament, that we might follow a Will with a Wisp? And yet this is your kind of reasoning, that be­cause some are perverse and fro­ward, and others are full of dark­ness, prejudice, and corrupt affecti­ons, by which they cannot perfectly [Page 51]and infallibly judge of every truth, that is contained in the Scripture; therefore they must throw away the blessed word of God from being their rule and guide.

You proceed in p. 18. and tell us, That the third Reason which you thought was forcible, was, that those who are thus far for sole Scripture, do not say that one, or any particular number of the Books of Scripture, but all Scriptures written by inspiration of God do, being joyned together make up this Rule and Judge; Hence (you say) you concluded that if any of these Books were lost, this Rule was not perfect; Now that many of these Books were lost (you say) you pro­ved from those that remain, Num. 21.14. The Book of the Wars of the Lord (and this (you say) is lost.) It is said of Solomon, 1 King. 4.3, 2. that he spoke 3000 Proverbs, and his Songs were 1000 and 5; You conceive (you say) that upon a just reckoning some of these will be wanting: We finde named, [Page 52]2 Chron. 9.29. The Book of Na­than the Prophet, the Prophesie of Ahi­jah, and the Visions of Iddo; ( these (you say) are lost) as also those named, 1 Chron. 29.29. The Book of Sa­muel, the Book of Nathan, the Book of Goda, and it is clear from Mat. 27.9. That part of Jeremy is lost; So also from Mat. 2.23. Where it was fore­told that Christ should be called a Na­zaren; and 1 Cor. 5.9. Tells us that the Epistle which our Canon calls St. Pauls First Epistle was not truly his first; for there he sayeth, I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with Forni­catours: St. Paul also wrote an Epistle from Laodicea, and yet (you say) you do not finde this Epistle.

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

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

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

Secondly, How doth it appear that any of those Books which (you say) were lost, had a Divine Image and Superscription upon them; or that they that did write them we [...]e inspired by the Holy Ghost in the writing of those particular Books? For it is very possible that they wrote many things upon particular occasions, as Hezekiah wrote to Ephraim; and that sometimes their writings were of no more inspira­tion [Page 54]from Heaven, then Davids Let­ters were that he sent to Joab by Uriah, or then Peters practise for which Paul withstood him to the face: But

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

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

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

Sixthly, If you say there is none lost, then whether you do not make [Page 55]God in his wise providence more carefull to preserve intire and un­maimed the Canons of your Coun­cels, then he hath been to preserve the Writings of his Holy Prophets, and Apostles; And if you suppose any of the Decrees of your Councels hath been lost or maimed, then how do you know Infallibly, whether some that are lost, are not as material as those you have? Thus the edge of your sword is turned a­gainst your self: But

Seventhly, If any of the Books of the Old Testament were lost, that were by God intended for the perpetual use of that Church to whom his Oracles were committed, how then can you say that the Church of the Old Testament was infallible, since she failed in that trust that was committed to her, (viz.) the keeping of the Scripture? And if this was not a failing in her, in that she lost part of the Scrip­tures, [Page 56]then she had not failed, if she had lost all; and then it follow­eth, that the Scriptures are so far from being a sole Guide, that they are no guide at all, for if they are a guide, and a directer in any sense, or if they are of any divine use, then it must be an errour either of ignorance, or wilfullnesse, to suffer them to be lost or maimed.

Eighthly, Whereas you say, that the Epistle of St. Paul which your Canon calls the first to the Corinthians was not TRULY his first: I Answer then, your Canon doth falsely call it the first, and then how shall we believe when your Canons are true? You had best tell your Mother she lyes as soon as you can speak, and then shew a reason for it, by telling her That St. Paul saith, he writ to the Co­rinthians an Epistle before: Ergo, there is an Epistle before that which your Canon calls the first: But Chrysostome understands it of the words going [Page 57]before, wherein he had charged them to deliver the incestious per­son to Satan, and to purge out the old leaven.

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

Ninthly, and Lastly, If any Ca­nonical Scripture be lost will not this redound to the prejudice of the Romane Church: Since they ac­knowledge [Page 58]that they only are the Church, and that the Church is the keeper of Divine Truths, and that they have been the conservatours of the Scriptures to posterity. Now if any Books be lost (as you say there is) how have they infallibly kept what (they say) was long since committed to their trust? Thus you desperatly venture to wound the reputation of the Scriptures, though you make the Sword, by which you do it, to pass through the reins of your darling infallibility.

In pag. 19. you come to a Fourth Reason, Why the Scriptures cannot be a guide to conveigh Divine and Infal­lible faith to all; and that is, because they cannot be understood by all, nay, (you say) they are very subject to be mis-un­derstood, if we will believe the 2 Pet. 3.16. Where speaking of St. Pauls Epistles, (he saith) there were some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned, and unstable wrest as [Page 59]they do also the other Scriptures to their own destruction. It is in vain (you say) to urge that the Scriptures are plain and easie in fundamentals, and in what concerns salvation; for we have here a plain testimony that they are wrested to their own destru­ction; therefore they cannot be a safe rule, nor any rule at all to the igno­rant &c.

Though this Argument be an­swered already, yet I answer fur­ther, in the words of a learned man, That if the Scriptures are so hard to be understood, and the Pope can infallibly interpret them, what a madness and childishness is it for the Catholicks them­selves to lie swaggering and contending with one another, before all the world with fallible mediums, about the sense of Scripture, when they have one among them that infallibly can interpret them, and that with such Authority, as all men are bound to rest in, and contend no further? And the further mischief [Page 60]of it is, that of all the rest, this man is always silent as to exposition of Scripture, who alone is able to part the fray. Now methinks this ar­gues a great want of good nature, that the Pope can see his Children so fiercely wrangle about the sense of Scripture, and yet will not give out the infallible meaning of every place, and so stint the strife among them, seeing he can do it if he will.

But again, how doth it follow, that because the Scriptures are hard to be understood, and are by some wrested to their damnation, that therefore they are either no Guides at all, or at the best but uncertain ones. Pray let me ask you a que­stion or two, May you not as well say that Christ was no infallible Guide, because many of his words were wrested by the Jews to their destruction? as that of his destroy­ing the Temple and building it in three days? Job. 2.19. And did not [Page 61]they wrest his words to their own destruction, when Christ said, Mat. 26.64, 65. that he was the Son of God, and they thereupon said he had spoken blasphemy, and there­fore needed no other witness against him: and likewise they said, he blasphemed when he told the man that was sick of the Palsie, that his sins were forgiven. So that speech of Christ was hard to be understood to learned Nicodemus, Job. 3. Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Doth it follow from hence that Christ was not an infallible Guide?

Again are the Canons and De­crees of General Councils more secure from being misinterpreted then the Scriptures; or do they use more plainness of speech then the Spirit of God used in the Scriptures, or is nothing that they determine of necessity to salvation? If so, then why may not their words [Page 62]be wrested to the destruction of those that are unlearned or unsta­ble, as well (or rather as ill) as the Scriptures. And if so, I demand whether this be not as good, nay a better Argument against them­selves, (viz.) some wrest the judg­ment and definitions of the Church to their destruction; Ergo, the Church is not an infallible Guide to all, nor indeed any Guide to the ignorant, which are the greatest part of mankind? Is not this the same (if not a better) argument, then to say, the unlearned wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction; Ergo, the Scriptures are not an infal­lible Guide to all, nor any Guide at all to the ignorant.

I come now to consider your 5 Reason, which is, That if the Scri­ptures be a Guide, Rule, and Judge, it must onely be meant of their true Ori­ginal and Authentick Writings, and not of corrupted Copies; and there­fore [Page 63]if we have not the true Originals, our rule is imperfect. And again pag. 20. you say, If we had the Origi­nals, it would be hard to find a man that doth so infallibly understand the Originals, as to give us a true transla­tion. This you endeavour to prove out of several Protestant Writers, pag. 20. & 21. (viz.) That we have not the Originals themselves, nor un­doubted Translations, and therefore the Scriptures are not an infallible Guide.

To which I answer, That though what hath been spoken already might suffice to this Argument, yet to make full measure running over, let me add, that this very Objection lieth with the like force against Ge­neral Councils. For, first, how do you know with a divine certitude, that you have the true Original and Authentick Writings, wherein those Decrees were contained? Se­condly, How do you know with a [Page 64]divine certitude, whether the Scribe that committed them to Writing was an honest man or not? Third­ly, How do you know with a di­vine certitude, that these Councils, Decrees, and Canons, are truly and infallibly translated, since they were written in a Language that I know not. If you say I have them translated by private Doctors, then I query if private Doctors are infal­lible? If they are, what need is there of a Pope, or a General Coun­cil? If they are fallible, why may they not fail, when they tell me they have faithfully interpreted and translated the sense of Coun­cils and Fathers? But if they being private persons can give the true sense of Councils and Fathers, why may not men of the same ability for Learning and Piety give as perfect a Translation, and as infallible an Interpretation of the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets? So that [Page 65]the Argument cuts as much with one edge as the other. If the Scri­ptures be guide and rule, it must be meant of Authentical and Original Writings, or of infallible Translations of them into several Languages, &c. say you. In like manner I say, if the Decrees of General Councils are infallible, it must be understood of the Origi­nal and authentick writings where­in those Decrees are contained, or of infallible Translations of them into several Languages, since they were not given out in a Language that the Common people under­stand. Now none will swear (to use your own words, pag. 20.) that these are the Originals of the De­crees of those Councils, some of them being more then a thousand years old. Neither will any swear that the Translations of these De­crees agree with their Originals: Ergo, The Decrees and Determina­tions of Councils cannot be an un­questionable [Page 66]and infallible Guide to true faith.

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

I answer, If your Church were (as you pretend) the sole Keeper of the Scriptures, they are worthy [Page 67]to die (as David said of Abner) be­cause they kept their Master no better. Are they the Church to which no unfaithfulness can have access, when they have lost the Original of St. Mathews Gospel? These are worse then the unprofita­ble Servant; for in the day of ac­compt, though he did not improve his Talent, yet he did not lose it; but could say to his Master, take that which is thine own. But you that have been entrusted with the heavenly treasure of sacred Wri­tings, it seems, cannot acquit your selves at this rate; for you have lost the Original, and cannot tell whe­ther that Translation that you have was done by an honest Man or a Knave.

But further, If this be true, what becomes of that Text which you cite, as the first-born of your strength, Mat. 16.18. upon which you found your Churches infallibili­ty: [Page 68]for if one ask you, how you prove the Church infallible? you say by that Text, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But how do you prove it from this Text? if (as you say) the Original is lost, and you cannot tell whether he that translated it into the Greek was an honest man or no?

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

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

You come to a second thing ne­cessary to be believed that is not in Scripture; namely, That all the Books of the Holy Scriptures be the word of God. This say is not absolutely necessary to salvation; for it may be possible for one to believe all the matter of the Bible to be the Truth of God, and thereupon be saved, who may yet doubt, whether every [Page 70]one of the Pen-men did write by in­spiration. And again, When it is said and believed that all the mate­rial Objects of Faith, and those di­vine Verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles, and they to the Churches, are laid down in Scri­pture. It is manifest that the Scri­ptures themselves are excepted, they being not received as the ma­terial objects of our faith, but as the means of conveying them unto us: and if a man did believe the Do­ctrine of salvation contained in the Scripture, it should not hinder his salvation, though he knew not whe­ther there was any Scripture or no?

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

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

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

But 2. Whoever shall consult the excellent precepts, the glorious promises, together with that great Spirit of Holiness and Self-denial that is contained in the Scriptures, must needs say, that they have the image and superscription of heaven upon them; and from thence be as certainly perswaded that God was the Author of them, as if it had been written with the beam of the Sun, that so many Books are the Word of God: nay, and more certain, be­cause [Page 72] That one sentence might soo­ner have been expunged, or defaced out of the Scriptures then that Spirit of Light and Truth which breaths in the faces and consciences of men, from all the quarters of them.

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

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

But secondly, How can you be [Page 73]infallible that this Sacrament is ad­ministred by a true Priest? for if it were not done by a true Priest, then it is ineffectual, and so you must die without absolution, or else you must grant that others be­side a lawful Priest may remit sins. But if none can do it but a lawful Priest:

Then Thirdly, How shall you be infallible of those things that are necessary to make a true Priest? as first, that he was lawfully baptized with due matter and due form of words; and that the Bishop which Ordained him a Priest, did Ordain him compleatly, with due matter, form, and intention? You must know that the Bishop that made him a Priest, was a Priest himself. But suppose these doubts were assayled, which cannot be; and that you are certain, he that is to ab­solve you were a true Priest; yet still the doubt will remain, whether [Page 74]he will do you that good he can? and whether he will pronounce the words of absolution with an intent to absolve you? For perhaps he may bear you some secret grudge, and project your damnation for a revenge. He may, for ought you know, be a secret Jew, or Anti-Trinitarian, and so far from in­tending your forgiveness of sins, and salvation by this Sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all these things, and thinks sin nothing, and salvation but a word. All these doubts must be clearly resolved be­fore you can (upon your Roman Catholick grounds) assure your self that this man that absolveth you is a true Priest, and that he giveth you true and effectual absolution; or else when you have done all this for your salvation, you may have the ill luck to be damned; which makes salvation a matter of chance and not of choice; and if so, what are you [Page 75]the nearer for being a member of a pretended infallible Church. Much more to this purpose might be ur­ged, and yet you cry out, that the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. Whoever would be further satis­fied in this matter, I shall desire him to read that learned Treatise of Mr. Chillingworth, Intituled, The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salvation. Your next instance is, The Contradi­ction, that seems to appear in Scriptures, which (you say) argues them to seem untrue, and for this you instance, 2 King. 8.26. compared with 2 Chron. 22.5. and Mat. 1.17. com­pared with Luke 3.35, 36. which places (you say) seem to contradict each other.

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

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

But lastly, why doth your Church put her candle under a Bushel, why doth not she set forth an infallible translation of the Bible? For it may be those seeming contradicti­ons in those fore-cited places was occasioned by the errour of the Scribe, or the errour of the Tran­slatour. But hath not greater in­conveniences attended the keeping the Canons of your Church? If they have not, how comes it to pass that there is contradictions in Scrip­ture, [Page 77]and none in Councils? It seems your Church hath faithfully preserved all things uncorrupted for the benefit of posterity, but the word of God. You proceed, pag. 25. to a seventh Reason, Why the Scriptures are not a sole guide, because then they would have been so in the Apo­stles dayes; and if they had, then the Authority of the Apostles (you say) must have ceased so soon as they had made an end of writing?

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

May not a Man as well say, that Peters being the sole head of the Church (as you pretend) did ex­clude Christ (that gave him his Authority) from being head while he was yet living on the Earth; and that a man that directs and solely guides you by Epistles, how to ne­gotiate [Page 78]your affairs, should thereby cease to be a guide if he were pre­sent with you, or that he should thereby be rendred unable to re­solve any doubtfull word in that di­rection. No more doth it follow, that the Scriptures being held to be the sole guide, should exclude the Pen-men from either being guides, or giving an infallible interpreta­tion of their own words, while they were yet alive. But what is all this to the Romane Church being an in­fallible guide? The Apostles might be guides to the Churches while they lived, both by their words and writings; But since they are de­ceased, we know no furer guide then their words, to which to do well to take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place.

And for those other things that you say follow in probability upon the Scriptures being our guide; I shall say nothing to them, because [Page 79]they are but probable conjectures of your own brain.

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

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

Is there not as great a controver­sie in the World, which is the true Church among all the pretenders to it, as there is, which is the right sense of Scriptures among the various readings and interpretations there­of? Now how doth a mans judg­ing [Page 80]for himself, after he hath weighed Arguments and compared Text with Text render the Scrip­ture to be no guide, any more then your hearing and examining all the Arguments and Reasons which are alledged for the True Church a­mong all pretenders to it and after­ward according to your understand­ing judge which is true, renders your self, and not your Church the true guide. And yet this is your Argument, Every man judgeth for himself which is the true sense; there­fore the Scriptures are in themselves no judge at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You come in pag. 27 to a second Argument, Namely, That the Church [Page 84]of the Jews, were so the Jews, (I suppose you mean an infallible guide) after the Scriptures were written; and for this purpose you cite, Deut. 17.8. The man that will do presumptiously, and will not hearken to the voice of the Priest or unto the Judge that man shall dye. I answer, The Scripture saith, Pro. 16.10. A divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgement; Doth it follow from hence, that all Kings are infal­lible in their judgments: But how and by what Rule were these priests to judge whom the People were to obey upon pain of death. Ezekiel tells us, Chap. 44.24. And in Con­troversie they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my Judgement, they shall keep my Lawes and Statutes in all their Assemblies, and hol­low my Sabbaths. But did these Priests and Judges always judge ac­cording to Gods Law? were they always infallible in their Sentences? [Page 85]How comes it to pass then that Aaron sinned in hearkening to the voice of the People, when they re­quired him to make them a Calf? Exod. 32.2. and v. 7. It is said, They had corrupted themselves. Where was this Churches infallibility at this time? and v. 8. They turned a­side quickly out of the way, which I com­manded them. And again, where was the infallibility of the Priest, when he appointed them v. 3. To break off their earing which were in their eares to make a Calf? Surely in this they were an excellent type of the Romane Church, who were quick­ly corrupted from their Primitive Purity. Again, Ezek. 22.26. It is said, The Priests have violated my Law, they have prophaned my Holy things, they have put no difference be­tween the Holy and Prophane, neither have they shewed difference between the Clean and the unclean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbath, and I am [Page 86]prophaned among them: Neither was this the fault or a few, but the Text tells us, v. 30. That God sought for a Man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before him for the land, but he found none. Where was the Priest; and the in­fallible church all this while, whom the People were to hear upon paine of death? So that the Text by you cited, Deut. 17. is abused; for they had plain Laws written, which were to be a guide to Priest and People; which if the Priest did not judge accordingly, (as many times they did not) the People were not to hear them.

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

I Answer, If by sitting in Moses's chair, you understand their teaching the People according to Moses Law, [Page 87]we are of your mind, for so it ap­pears in the forecited Text in Ezekiel, and in all such things the People were to hearken to them. But if by sitting in Moses Chair you understand their Publick Authority, and that whatsoever they so taught was infallible; This I deny, for they did sometimes like the Pope, Mark 7.7 Teach for Doctrines the Command­ments of men, and v. 8. Laid aside the Commandments of God (as you do the Scriptures) that they might hold the traditions of men, and v. 13. Made the Word of God of none effect by their traditions. But if the Church of the Jews which was represented in the great Synedrion could not erre, then it followeth, that all Christian Reli­gion must be discarded. For if she was infallible in that judgment, she made of Christ and his Do­ctrine, then there remains nothing, but that we renounce both him and it, and turn either Jews or Pagans.

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

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

To which I answer, First Why are these Texts brought to prove an infallible Church, when the Texts [Page 89]themselves (you say) are no infalli­ble guide, how then can they guide us to your infallible Church? But,

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

3 These promises to the Church are made upon condition, like that promise, Ezekiel 36.27. I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes; here (to use your own words) is the Spirit of Truth promised to preserve them from errour. But this is not absolutely promised without condition; for the 37 ver. saith, For all this he will be enquired of them. And to this agrees those Texts in the New Testament, Act. 5.32. The holy Ghost which God hath promised to them that obey him. Luke 11.13. My heavenly Father shall give [Page 90]the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. By all which it appears that God did not promise to guide the Church absolutely and irresistably, whether they would or no: but upon their faithful adhering to what they had been taught, he promiseth his Spi­rits continual supply for their con­tinual instruction.

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

But 5. To speak somewhat in particular to that Text, Esay 59.21. As for me this is my Covenant with them [Page 91](saith the Lord) my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor but of the mouth of thy seeds seed from heneforth and forever.

To this Text I answer, That these words are rather a charge that Gods Word should not depart from them and their seed, then a promise of a­ny such thing. And therefore Mr. Calvin (whom you sometimes produce upon the like occasion) grants that the words will bear an Imperative construction, God re­quiring them thereby not to quench his Spirit, which he puts in­to them, nor forsake his Word which he should teach them; so that as the Covenants on his part to give them his Word and Spirit, so he requires on their part that they should not resist nor quench it; and to this agrees Junius, and therefore he translates those word; in the be­ginning [Page 92]of the verse, As for me, De me autem, i. e. but as much as concerns me: thereby shewing, that as God had concerned himself in putting his Word and Spirit into them, so they were concerned to see that it did not depart from them. And therefore unless you can prove that the Church of Rome is the Church here prophesied of: and al­so that these Texts are not under­stood conditionally; and if condi­tionally, that the Church of Rome hath observed these conditions, you have but beaten the air in the cita­tion of them.

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

To which I answer, First, that you have lost the Original of St. Ma­thews [Page 93]Gospel, (as you confess) and therefore you know not whether this Text be so in the Original, and this further appears because you say, pag. 20. that you cannot tell whe­ther he that translated it was an ho­nest man or not.

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

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

And of this mind was Chrysostom, [Page 94]who paraphrasing upon these words of Christ, saith, If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, much more shall they not prevail against Christ; therefore be not troubled when thou shalt hear that I am betrayed and crucified. By which it doth appear that this Author understands by the gates of Hell prevailing, that Death and the Grave should neither pre­vail over Christ nor his Church, and therefore he could not understand thereby that it was a promise the Church should not err, and that the gates of Hell is understood for the gates of the Grave, see Esay 38.10. Hezekiah said when the fear of death came upon him, that he should go to the gates of Sheol, i. e. Grave. So Job 38.17. Psal. 9.13. Psal. 107.18.

4 Again, As the gate of Hell can­not be understood for Error, so the Rock here spoken of, cannot be un­derstood for Peters person, because [Page 95]it is more agreeing with the sense of the place, being compared with other Scriptures, and the Analogie of Faith to understand it of Christ, who is the Rock of Ages, and the chief Corner-stone, Ephes. 2.20. and 1 Cor. 10.4. they drank of that spi­ritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

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

But lastly, What if we pity the poor, and grant you that which you are never able to prove, (viz.) [Page 96]that by the Gates of Hell not pre­vailing should be understood, that Errour and Heresie should not pre­vail against the Church: Yet it doth not follow from hence, that the Church shall be preserved from all Errour. Might you not as well say, that none that believe can sin, because sin shall not have domini­on over them; and that it was im­possible for Saints to die, because Christ hath promised them the vi­ctory over death: as say, that be­cause Christ hath promised Errour shall not prevail over them, that therefore it is impossible the Church should err in any thing.

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

I answer, 1 It doth not follow from hence that the Church can­not err, no more then it followeth from your former Arguments, that [Page 97]the Scribes and Pharisees could not err, because Christ commanded to hear them; But,

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

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

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

Your next Scriptures are, Mat. 28.20. Lo I am with you always to the end of the world: and Joh. 24.16. I will pray the Father, and he will send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, which the World cannot receive: and ver. 26. The Comforter, which is [Page 99]the Holy Ghost which the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things into your remem­brance whatsoever I have said unto you: and Chap. 16.17. I have ma­ny things to say unto you, but you cannot hear them now; howbeit, when the Spi­rit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth.

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

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

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

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

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

5 It is called the Spirit of Truth which the World cannot receive, meaning notorious and wicked men. Now then this Spirit some of those Popes which you call the Apostles successors, could not have, because many of them have been [Page 101]notoriously and confessedly wicked; all which doth plainly shew, that this promise of the Spirit was made to direct and guide us into a further knowledge of the Truth, till we come to be perfect in Christ, upon condition that we are faithful in what we already know. Like un­to that promise, Joh. 17.17. If any man do his will, he shall know of his do­ctrine: and to this agrees the Rhemi [...] Testament, translating that Text of John 14.15, 16. If you love me keep my comandements, and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Pa­raclete that he may abide with you for ever. Now how can I be infallible that the Pope is thus guided, unless I do infallibly know that he loves God and keeps his Commande­ments?

6 You say, [...] into all Truth, implies preserving from all errour: but this follow, not, not more, then be­cause the Scriptures say, Gods [Page 102]goodness leads to Repentance, that therefore all men should be preser­ved from impenitency.

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

Your next Text is, Ephes. 4.11. He gave some Prophets, some Evan­gelists, some Pastors, and some Tea­chers, for perfecting the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edi­fying [Page 103]the body of Christ till we come in the union of the faith; and ver. 14. that we be no more children in understanding, &c. From which Text you would prove that the suc­cession of the Apostles in the Church, was to preserve people from being tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, but what then? doth this prove the Church cannot err? This means was used by God for the perfecting of Saints, and yet we see that they are full of imperfections. Thus God may teach, and the Church not learn; Gods Spirit may lead, and the Church (like Rome) may be refra­ctory.

Your last Text is, 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church of the living God, the Pil­lar and ground of Trust. Hence you would infer, that the Church cannot err, because we may securely relye upon her, as upon a Pillar. To which I an­swer, That these words do not re­spect [Page 104]the universal Church) as you would have it, but the particular Church which Timothy had the oversight of, in which Paul admo­nisheth him how he should behave himself.

But 2. If this were granted that the universal Church is here meant, and not a particular Church; I an­swer that this proves nothing to your purpose because Churches and People receive their denomination ordinarily from what they should be in point of Duty, and not from what they are by necessity. Thus the Disciples are called the Salt of the Earth, because they were in du­ty to be so, and not that there, was a necessity that they could not have been otherwise; else it had been in vain to threaten them that if they lost their savour they should be good for nothing, but to be trodden under foot. In like manner the Church is the Pillar of Truth, and ground of [Page 105]in point of Duty, and yet this doth not hinder, but she may neglect and violate this Duty, and become the Teacher of Errour.

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

You proceed, and in p. 30. As­signe a fifth Argument, That the Church of God was the Rule and Judge, [Page 106]and the Infallible Guide, when Christ and his Apostles was upon the Earth, From whence you would infer, that it is so still; Sir, I can very well own the Antecedent, and deny the Consequence: But you say, There is no Reason why the Church should not be so still, unless it be said that the Apo­stles were Infallible Guides till the Ca­non of the Scripture was finished, and that then Infallibility ceased, &c. But then (you say) what will be the Con­sequence; if that the Canon of the sequence; if that the Canon of the Scripture which the Apostles finished be now uncompleated by the loss of those E­pistles, and Parcels of the Apostles Wri­tings, which (you say) you have proved to be lost.

I Answer, It will not follow that we shall need your bind guide, if what you say were true: But Se­condly, It follows that your Church is fallible, because she hath not faithfully kept those Epistles, that she saith, were committed to her [Page 107]trust, as I have told you once, and a­gain.

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

But Lastly, You may as well say, that the Grace of God doth not suf­ficiently teach Men to deny ungod­liness, and worldly last, because the world lyes in wickedness, as say the Scriptures are not sufficient to de­cide Controversies In Faith, be­cause Controversies in Faith are [Page 108]not decided. This is your Romish Reasoning.

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

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

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

Your other Reasons have fallen under consideration in the Answer­ing [Page 109]of your Arguments about the invalidity of the Scripture, to which I refer the Reader.

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

Having taken it for granted, that there must be an infallible Church, you come in the last place, pag. 36. to resolve which is this Church, and this (you say) is the Roman Church; the summ of your Argument, is [Page 110]this; God hath appointed some Church upon Earth to be our Infallible Judge; Ergo, the Roman Church must needs be this Infallible Church, because no Church differing from it (that is none but the Roman Church) can be this Infallible Church.

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

To which I Answer, That then there was no True Church the first 300 years, because that there was none that ever owned Infallibility [Page 111]in your sense, unless it were the Church of Laodicea, who like Rome, said she was rich, and increased in goods, and had need of nothing, whereas she was poor, and miser­able, blind, and naked.

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

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

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

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

Thirdly, If the Church be no otherwise Infallible, but by general Councils, as aforesaid, then how can we be guided, when there is no [Page 113]General Councils as at this day?

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

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

Sixthly, But suppose the Pope did not erre in giving me the true sense of Councils, and their De­crees, then I querie, How every private person shall have his judg­ment [Page 114]informed in the Truth with­out going to Rome?

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

VIII. Since you say, that Ge­neral Councils Lawfully Called by the Pope, their chief astour cannot erre, I querie, How I shall be in­fallibly assured, when Councils are so called? Since sometimes the Pope may come in by Simony and Usurpation, as Boniface the 3 did, and sometimes be a Heritick, as Ly­berius was, who subscribed the Ex­communication of Athanasius, in [Page 115]which cases they ceasing to be law­full Popes, I would then know how I can be sure of a lawful Council?

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

X. How shall I know what Council I may infallibly adhere un­to, since one Council hath opposed another, and some cleave to one [Page 116]Council, and some to another; the Roman Church they test in the Ni­ceen Council; the Greek Church they rest in the Council of Armi­num, both which, are contrary to the other: how shall any one be assured of the truth of all those things with a divine certitude? And yet you make the world believe that all your wayes are so plain, that a fool cannot erre in them, and that the Scriptures are doubtfull guides, when no Religion in the World is perplexed with more doubts then yours.

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

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

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

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

XV. But if you shall say, we cannot know the Scriptures but by the true Church, then I querie, how shall I know the true Church, since there are as many different o­pinions about which is the true Church, as there is about which is [Page 118]the true sense of Scriptures?

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

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

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

XIX. Where was the Infallibi­lity [Page 119]of the Roman Church in the time of Athanasius, when he com­plained, totus mundus Arianizat, that the whole world Ariantized.

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

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.