A Book indeed full of Learning, Printed at Paris without a Title-Sheet, came lately to my hands, intituled, The Critical History of the Old Testament; Whereof Father Simon, Priest of the Oratory of Paris is thought to be the Author. He pretends to prove in that Work, that nothing for certain can be asserted in Religion, unless Tradition be joyned with the Scripture for the Decision of Questions of Faith. There is without doubt Ignorance, says that Author in his Preface, or Prepossession in the Minds of the Protestants, Who pretend that the Scripture is clear of it self. Nevertheless Sir, nothing is more certain in all that can be called Tradition, than this Principle [Page 2]of the Protestants. St. Chrysostom in his third Homi­ly of Lazarus, observes after Origen this difference be­tween the Philosophers and the Authors of the Scrip­ture, that the Philosophers are obscure, whereas the A­postles and Prophets being the common Masters of the Universe, have written after so clear a manner, that e­very Capacity may be instructed in their Doctrine by the reading alone thereof. And in the same Homily that Doctor maintains that the ignorance of the Sacred Scriptures is the source of the Corrupted Morals, as well as of all the Heresies. St. Augustin in the second Book of the Christian Doctrine says, Chap. 9. In iis quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae Continent fidem moresque vivendi: In those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture, are found all those things which pertain to Faith, and the Rules of Living. This the Learned Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, expresses in these terms: Sensus Literalis Scrip­turae satis expressus est in iis quae sunt necessaria ad Salutem. And this induced the Church of England to make this Canon with great reason, in the Synod of London in 1552, and 1562.

The Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation: So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, although it be some time received of the Faithful as godly and pro­fitable for an Order and Comeliness, yet no man ought to be constrained to believe it as an Article of Faith, or reputed requisite to the Necessity of Sal­vation.

Father Simon does disingeniously quote the thought of St. Augustin in the 7th. Chap. of the third book of his Criti­cal History. That Holy Doctor supposes, sayes he, that the Scripture is obscure and hard to be understood, and yet he [Page 3]adds that for the most part what is obscure in one place is found laid plainly open in another, and that what regards the belief and manners is much more clearly expressed in the Bible than all the rest. Now to read the thought of St. Augustin in the Book of Father Simon, that Doctor seems only to assert that commonly the Scripture is clear in what concerns the belief and manners, nay and more clear than in all the rest. But St. Augustine says more in the Words Cited: for he says absolutely that all we ought to believe and do, is found clearly in the Scripture, & therefore according to Father Simon, There is without doubt either Ignorance or Prepossession of Mind in St. Augustin, as well as in St. Chrysostom, Gerson, & general­ly in all the Great Divines of Antiquity, who have been perswaded with Tom. 1. in Jerem. Origen, that not any Sentiment is wor­thy of Faith, unless it be proved by Scripture; nor any in­terpretation of the same Scripture to be admitted, with­out it be confirmed and supported upon Passages of the Old or New Testament: for this Reason is it that in the Decree of Gratian, Distinct. 27. in the Chap. which begins with this word Relatum, there is an express or­der to decide all Controversies by the Holy Writ, and to explain the obscure passages which are met with therein by the Scriptures themselves: ex ipsis Scripturis. But this is sufficient Entertaining you Sir, with the groundless Sentiment of Father Simon, touching the insufficiency of the Scripture, for the instructing Peo­ple in Religion. Now I proceed to the three proofs which he makes use of for the Establishing of his Opi­nion.

The first is taken from the great Changes which have happen'd as well in the Original Text as in the Versions of the Scripture. This proof may seem to have some force upon an Atheist or a Pagan; but not upon a Chri­stian, [Page 4]Who knows, that notwithstanding the Changes that have been made in Scripture, Jesus Christ, The A­postles, and the Fathers of the Church, have always proved the Truth of their Doctrine by the Scripture. As for what concerns the Fathers, I shall show it am­ply in my answer to the third proof of Father Simon, though what I have already urged might suffice. In re­gard of Jesus Christ and his Apostles; Father Simon says, That they have fitted the Testimonys which they Cited out of the Old Testament, to the Explications received and au­thorized by Tradition. But this is a false fore-judging of that Father, of whom with reason these Words of St. Jerome may be said, Hoc de Scripturis Authoritatem non habet, ideo ea facilitate Contemnitur qua probatur; This has no Authority from Scriptures, therefore may be rejected with the same ease it is admitted. Jesus repre­hends Traditions, and yet father Simon would make us believe that he establishes his Doctrine by Tradition, and that he only makes use of the Word of God, accor­ding to the Pre-judgment of Tradition. It was a Tra­dition amongst the Jews, founded upon a passage of the Prophet Malachy misunderstood, that Elias was to precede by his Preaching the coming of the Messias; but the Gospel tells us, that tradition did ill interpret the Prophet Malachy, who did not pretend to speak of the Person of the Prophet Elias, but of John the Baptist, who was to forego Jesus Christ, in Spiritu & Virtute Eliae. It is evident by the 5th. Chapter, of St. Matth. that the Jews explaining the Scriptures by the Pre-judgment of Tradition, had very faulty Morals: But Jesus Christ who came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them, rejects the false Expositions given to the Law by the Jews according to their Traditions, and dis­covers the real sence thereof conformably to other pas­sages [Page 5]of the Old Testament, which contain in clear terms the same things, which Jesus Christ ordered his Disciples to do for the surpassing the justice of the Scribes, and Pharisees, that they might enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pre-judgments of Traditi­on made the Disciples of Jesus Christ still doubt after his Resurrection, if it was he who should redeem Israel; but Jesus Christ to free them out of that pernicious doubt, reproaches them with their hardness of heart, and slowness to believe all that the Prophets have said. And to disengage them entirely from that false Traditi­on which ran amongst the People, as Theophylact does remark in his Commentary upon the 24 Chap. of St. Luke, beginning with Moses, and continuing through all the Prophets, he explains to them all that had been said of him in all the Scriptures, as St. Luke does relate it in the last Chapter of his Gospel. Christ does never refer People to Traditions for their Instruction in truths necessary to Salvation, but alwayes to the Scripture. If you believed Moses, said he to the Jews in St. John. Chap. 6. You would believe me also, because it is of me he has writ­ten; but if you believe not what he has written, how should you believe what I tell you? St. Paul says expresly in his 2 Tim. Chap. 3. That the Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation through Faith which is in Jesus Christ. And to explain this thought more amply he adds, All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good Works. This is what the Fathers of the Council of Francfort express in these terms, in the Capitulary of Charles the Great, lib. 2. cap. 30. Est plane Divina Scriptura Verax, est fixa, est casta, est Caelestis Magisterii Instrumentum, & Ae­terna [Page 6]praedicatio purissimo nitens eloquio, est Lux mor­talium, dicente Propheta, Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tu­um Domine, et Lumen Semitis meis. Est Vivax et mori ne­sciens, dicente Apostolo, Vivus est Sermo Dei & efficax, & penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti, & pertingens usque ad divisionem animae, ac Spiritus. Est tenebrarum discussio, Salomone testante, qui ait, Lucerna est mandatum legis & lux vitae, & increpatio, & Disciplina: de quo per Esai­am dicitur, De nocte spiritus meus vigilat ad te Deus, quia lux praecepta tua sunt super terram. The Holy Scripture is plainly true, is stable, is chaste, the Instrument of Celesti­al Power, and an eternal Preaching shining throughout with a most pure eloquence, is the Light of Mortals, according to the saying of the Prophet, Thy Word, O Lord, is a Lamp to my feet, and a Light unto my pathes; Is quick and immortal, as the Apostle says, The Word of God is quick and Powerful, sharper then a two-edged Sword, and piercing even to the dividing asunder of Soul & Spi­rit. Is the dissipating & dispelling of thick darkness, witness Solomon, who says, The Commandment is a Lamp, and the Law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: Es. 26. v. 9. in Edit. lxx. Of whom it is said by Esaiah, Every night my Spirit waiteth upon thee O God, because thy Precepts are a light upon the earth. And as the Holy Writ possesses these advantages, not by reason of the words, but by reason of the truths which it contains, according to the say­ing of St. Jerome in Cap. 1 ad Gal. Nec putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse Evangelium, sed in sensu, non in superficie, sed in medulla, non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice ratio­nis: Jesus Christ and his Apostles had reason in their Citations to apply themselves more to the real sence then to the meer words of the Holy VVrit. Moreover to instruct us, That all that has passed under the Law of Nature and of Moses was the figure and shadow of [Page 7]what was to pass under the Gospel, Jesus Christ and his Apostles give us very often the allegorical sence of the passages which they Cite out of the Old Testament.

The second reason of Father Simon, which he calls a very evident proof, to show that the Scripture is not sufficient to decide Controversies in matter of Religion, is taken from that the Socinions do agree with the Pro­testants, that the only and true Principle of Religion is the Holy Writ, and that nevertheless they draw from thence very different Conclusions. If Father Simon said, the Socinians and Protestants differ in the Conclusions, which they draw from the Scriptures, therefore one or other of 'em is in the errour, because they do not under­stand the Scriptures aright, the argumentation would be pure; But I do not see by what Logick he draws this inference that the Scripture is not sufficient to decide Controversies; Since it is manifest that the Socinians govern themselves by prejudgments in the explication of the Scripture, as Father Simon speaks in his Critical History of the Old Testament, Book 3 chap. 16. Therefore if the Socinians draw quite contrary Conclusions to what the Protestants do from the same Scriptures, it is not the obscurity of the Scripture that is the cause thereof, but the prejudgments of the Socinians, which make 'em abuse the Scripture to favour the Systeme of Religion which they have invented independantly of Scripture. The Devil abuses the Scripture to Tempt Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ resists him by using the Scripture aright, Falsas de Scripturis Diaboli sagitas veris Scripturarum frangit Clypeis, says St. Jerome: And this the Protestants do every day in their Controversy with the Socintans; and this is what ought generally to be done in all Con­troversies upon matters of Religion; and if the Fathers of the first Ages be Cited in these Disputes, it ought [Page 8]only to make people sensible that those persons who stu­dyed the Scriptures to learn therein what it is God would have us believe and do to be saved, did draw the same Doctrine from thence, which we do who are also Orthodox, when they had no vail nor blind before their eyes, which hindred them from seeing the day and the light of the Word of God in the Scriptures, that is to say, when they had no Systeme of Religion indepen­dant of Scriptures. The Pharisees falsely concluded from that the Scripture says, That a man may leave his Wife by giving her a Writing, by which he declares that he puts her away, that a man was allowed to put away his Wife for any cause soever; but Jesus Christ convin­ces them of an errour, not by tradition, but by the Scripture, as we read in the 19. chap. of St. Mathew. The Saducees who rejected all traditions, pretended to conclude from the Scripture that there would be no Re­surrection of the Dead, and Jesus Christ did not tell them that they fell into that errour because they did not joyn tradition to the Scripture, or because they rejected all tradition, but he resutes them by a conclusion drawn out of Scriptures, & tells them, You are in an errour because you do not understand the Scriptures; Erratis nescientes Scrip­turas. And indeed St. Augustine very judiciously re­marks, That the Hereticks are only so by their obsti­nately persevering to give a false sence to the Scriptures which they do not understand, Omnes Haeretici Scriptu­ras Catholicas legunt nec ob aliud sunt Haeretici nisi quod eas non recte intelligentes, Lib. 7 de Gen. ad lit. cap. 9. suas falsas Opiniones contra ea­rum veritatem pervicaciter asserunt. The same Holy Doctor in his 18th. Treatise upon the Gospel of St. John: says, Non natae sunt Haereses & quaedam Dogmata perver­sitatis illaqueantia animos, & in profundum precipitantia, nisi cum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene, & quod in [Page 9]cis non bene intelligitur, etiam temere & audacter asseritur. Heresy and certain perverse Tenets ensnaring peoples minds, and plunging them into the abyss, have onely proceeded from a misunderstanding of the Scriptures, and when what is not well understood in them, is nevertheless rashly and audaci­ciously asserted. Chromatius whom St. Jerome calls the most holy, most learned Bishop of his time, tells us upon the 15 verse of the 5. chap. of St. Mat. That the Scripture is clear, but that the Jews and Hereticks endeavour to hide from us its perspicuity by their perverse interpretations; Per­spicuam lucem praedicationis divinae pravis interpretationi­bus obtegere & occultare nituntur, pro fide perfidiam praedi­cando & lumen veritatis erroris tenebris obvelando. From all this it may be concluded, that when people dispute against the Socinians and other Hereticks, to convert them, the method of Jesus Christ must be followed, and they must be Convicted of errour by the Scripture it self. All that is not formally read in Scripture, or is not drawn from thence by an evident Conclusion, is sub­ject to errour, and by consequence cannot be the Rule of our belief. The very Disciples of Jesus Christ were mistaken in the rumour which ran amongst them that St. John did not dye, because that rumour was onely grounded upon a conclusion falsely inferred from what Jesus Christ had said to St. Peter speaking of St John? If I will that he stay until I come, what's that to thee. Nay the Scripture seems to show us this on purpose that we might learn, that what in matter of Religion is not well grounded upon its authority, is not worthy of faith: Sine authoritate Scripturarum garrulitas non habet fidem. saith St. Jerome. All the Fathers of the first A­ges teach us this truth in all the disputes they had with the Hereticks of their time. For, as Jansenius that learned Prelate of Ipre does observe in his Book In­tituled [Page 10] Augustinus, they so formed their sentiments by the Holy Scriptures, Tom. 2. lib, Broem. C. 5. that they almost expressed them­selves in the same form: In antiquis patribus saith he, eorumque disputationibus duo sunt consideranda magno­pere; primum quod ex principiis verbi Dei sensus suos, & fere verba promerent; secuntium quod religiose intra terminos oppugnatae ab errore veritatis sine ulla superfluarum multo minus curiosarum, frivolarum, atque inutilium quaestie­num intermixtione remanerent. In the ancient Fathers and their disputes two things are principally to be considered. First that they draw their sence and tenets, nay and almost their very terms out of the Principles of the Word of God.

Secondly, that they religiously remain within the bounds of the Truth that was combated by Errour without any in­termixtion of superfluous, much less of curious, frivolous and impertinent questions. Thus as Scripture is the onely way to decide questions of Religion, panormitanus had reason to say that people ought rather to believe a Lay-man who authorizes himself by Scripture, then a Pope and a whole Council, when they act without its authority. Magis credendum laico si scriptur as adferat, quam Papae & toti Concilio si absque scripturis agant. St. Epiphanius who has given a Catalogue of all the Heresies which had been until his time, and remarks the abuse which the Authors of those Heresies have made of the Holy Writ to establish their Errours, does not attribute this to the obscurity of the Scripture, but to the Hereticks not having applyed themselves to Scripture with a Spirit of Piety; for it is a constant Principle, says that Saint, that all the saving Truths are found clearly in the Scripture by those who read them with judgment and a spirit with piety. [...] St. Augustine [Page 11]disputing against Maximin, an Arian Bishop, lays down for Principle that the Authority alone of Scripture is to be insisted upon: Non ego Nicaenum Concilium tibi, nectu mihi Ariminenset amquam praejudicatur us profer as: nec ego hujus authoritate, nec tu illius detineris. Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumlibet propriis, sed utrisque com­munibus testibus, res cam re, ratio cum ratione decertet. I do not urge to thee the Nicene Council nor do thou to me that of Ariminum as a forejudging of the Controversie: Neither do I mean the authority of the one, neither art thou bound by that of the other. But let matter of fact & the reason of each Council be tryed by authority of the Scriptures, which both are bound to admit as witnessing the Divine Truths. He says in the same place, that the Council of Nice insisted only upon Scriptures. And indeed it would be impertinent to place the Bible in the midst of the Councils, unless it were to put them in mind, that their Decisions would not be worthy of faith, unless they were founded upon the authority of the Scripture. Which has been admi­rably well said by Optat Bishop of Mileve in his Book against Parmenian; Quaerendi sunt judices—in terris de hac re nullum poterit reperiri judicium, de Caelo quaerendus est judex. Sed ut quid pulsamus ad Coelum, cum habeamus hic in Evangelio Testamentum? Terrenus Pater cum se in Confinio senserit mortis, timens ne post mortem suam rup­ta pace litigent fratres, adhibitis testibus voluntatem suam de pectore morituro transfert in tabulas diu duraturas. Et si fuerit inter fratres contentio nata, non itur ad tumulum sed quaeritur Testamentum. Judges must be sought in the case—No judgment can be had in this matter upon earth, a Judge is to be sought for from Heaven. But why should we have recourse to Heaven, seeing we have here its will in the Gospel? An Earthly Father when he sees himself upon the brim of Death, fearing least after his [Page 12]death, the peace coming to be broken, the Brethren should be at variance, having called the witnesses transmitteth his Will from his dying breath into Deeds of long continuance. And if any contention shall arise amongst the Brethren, let them not go to the Tomb, but seek out the Testament. In short, even as the Gospel does assure us, that those who having Moses and the Prophets do not live conformably to their Doctrine, would not be Converted by the ex­hortations of the Dead though they should return, so those who are not instructed and perswaded of the sa­ving truths by the Holy Scripture, will never be per­swaded by tradition. Father Simon cannot dispute this in the least, since he says himself in the 10. Chap. of the 1. Book of his Critical Hist. That it often happens that men being the Keepers of Tradition, do blend therein what they have invented, and then it is a hard matter to distinguish the true Traditions from those which are false.

The third proof which I find in the Critical Hist. of Fa­ther Simon to show the insufficiency of the Scripture to decide Controversies in matter of Religion, is That there has been in all times in the Churches an abridgment of Religion independantly of Scripture. Nay he pretends that it is upon the account of that abridgment, that the Fathers have explained the Scriptures, and that the Councils have decided the Controversies of their time. I do not doubt but that in all ages there have Catechi­sms been made for the instruction of Children and the shallowest Capacities; or abridgments of Religion; But I deny that those abridgments were made indepen­dantly of Scripture. I maintain against Father Simon that those who govern'd the Church took care to collect in­to an abridgment the clearest sentences of Scripture, and the most necessary to instruct the faithful in the saving. Truths, and the Fathers and Councils had reason after­wards [Page 13]to decide the Controversies according to those abridgments, since their taking that Course was to ex­plain obscure passages by those which are clearer, as good sence doth require. All the passages which I have already Cited, do manifestly prove what I urge; nay and if we may believe those Authors who have treated of Ecclesiastical Offices, the lessons of the Scripture, which the Church of Rome still reads at this day on Easter and Whitson-eve, are onely the Catechisms and in­structions which were given to the Catechumenes, or Novice Proselytes who were baptized on those days. The most ancient abridgment of Religion which we have left of antiquity is the Symbol which is said to have been composed by the Apostles; But this Abridgment is not independant of the Scripture, as St, Aug. says, book the first of the Symbol to the Catechumenes Chap. 1. Ista verba quae audist is, per divin as Scriptur as sparsa sunt, sed inde collecta, & ad unum redacta ne tardorum hominum me­moria laboraret, ut omnis homo possit dicere, possit tenere quod credit. Those words you have heard are scattered thro the Holy Scriptures, but Collected from thence, and reduced in a Body that they might not be burdensome to the Memories of shal­low Capacities, and that every man might say and remember what he believes. And Rabanus Maurus speaking of the same Symbole in the 56th Chapter of his second Book de Institutione Clericorum, says, In quo quidem pauca sunt Verba, sed omnia continentur Sacramenta, de totis enim Scripturis haec breviatim Collecta sunt ab Apostolis, ut quoni­am plures Credentium Litter as nesciunt, vel qui sciunt, prae occupatione seculi legere non possunt, haec corde retinentes, habeant sufficientem sibi scientiam salutarem. In which in­deed are contained but few Words, but all the Mysteries be­ing thus briefly collected from all the Scriptures, by the A­postles, that several of the Believers who know not how to [Page 14]read, or those who do, being hindred from reading by the busi­ness of the world, getting these by heart, might have a Know­ledge sufficient to work out their Salvation. The Church of England speaking of this Abridgment, as well as of those which are called the Symboles of Nice and of St. Athanasius, says in the Synods of London in 1552. 1562. The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed. & that which is commouly cal'd Apostles Creed, ought thro'ly to be receibed: for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture. St. Cyprian did certainly never own any Abridgement of Religion in­dependently of Scripture, since in his Epistle to Pom­peius he demands that they should show him in Scrip­ture that Hereticks were not to be baptized again, to perswade him that it is an Apostolical Tradition. Si aut in Evangelio Praecipitur, aut in Apostolorum epistolis, aut Actibus continetur, ut a quacumque haeresi venientes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponantur in Poenitentiam, observetur divina haec & sancta Traditio. If there can be shown any Precept of the Gospel, or in the Epistles, or Acts of the Apostles, that those who are converted from what Heresy soever, ought not to be baptized, but only to be reconcil'd to the Church by Repentance, let that Divine and Holy Tradition be observed. This Abridgement was unknown to Tertul­lian, who says in his dispute against Hermogenes, Chap. 22. Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem. — Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina, si non est Scriptum, timeat illud Vae adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum. ‘I adore the fulness of Scripture; let Hermogenes demonstrate that it is Written;’ If it be not writen, let him fear that Woe which is pronounced against those who add or lessen it. The same in his Book of the Flesh of Christ Chap. 7. disputing against Apelles, he has not recourse [Page 15]to the Pretended Abridgements of Father Simon, but he tells that Heresiarque, Non Recipio quod extra Scrip­turam de tuo infers; I do not allow of what thou urgest that is not in Scripture. This Abridgement was unknown to St. Augustin, who in his Book of the Ʋnity of the Church, against the Epistle of Petitian, Chap. 11. says, Quis quis aliud Evangelizaverit, Anathema sit, Whosoever preach­es ought else for Gospel, let him be accursed, and Chap. 12. Aut legat mihi hoc in Scripturis, & non sit Anathema; Or let him produce me this in Scriptures, and he shall not be ac­cursed. And in the same Chapter, Si autem non ea de sacris Scripturis legunt, sed suis contentionibus persua­dere conantur, Credo illa quae in Scripturis sanctis leguntur, non Credo ista quae ab Haereticis vanis dicuntur. But if they do not read those things in the Holy Scriptures, but endea­vour to perswade by their Wranglings, I believe those things which are read in Scriptures, I do not believe those which are asserted by vain Hereticks. The same Doctor in the 2d. Book de Nup. & Concup. Chap. 33. says, Ista Con­troversia judicem quaerit, judicet ergo Christus, & cui rei mors ejus profuerit, ipse dicat — judicet cum illo & Aposto­lus, quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus. This Contro­versy requires a Judge, therefore let Christ judge, and say of what Advantage his Death hath been, and let the Apostle judge with him, because Christ himself speaks in the Apostle. In his Book of Grace, and free will Chap. 13. Sedeat in­ter nos judex Apostolus Joannes, Let the Apostle John judge between us. And in the 2d. Book against Cresconius, Chap. 32. Litter as Cypriani non ut Canonicas habeo, sed eas ex Canonicis considero, & quod in eis divinarum Scriptu­rarum autoritati congruit, cum laude ejus accipio; quod autem non congruit, cum pace ejus respuo. I do not allow of the Letters of Cyprian as Canonical, but I judge of them by the canonical Scriptures, and what in them is congruous to [Page 16]the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, I receive with due praise to him; but what is incongruous, I Reject with his leave. In short, this Abridgement was unknown to the Councils, seeing they placed the Scriptures in the midst of them, to serve for a Rule to their Decisions, which would have been to no purpose if there had been in all times in the Church an Abridgement of Religion independant of the Scriptures. Father Simons saying, That the Apostles preached the Gospel before they wrote it, and that in the time of St. Irenaeus, there were still several Churches who believed in the Gospel by Tradition, without having seen it in Writing, serves little to Authorize his pretended Abridgement, for cer­tain it is that when we say, that the Scriptures contain clearly all that is necessary to Salvation, we do not op­pose the Truths couched upon Paper in the Scripture, against the same truths uttered by the tongue of the Preachers; we know that the Prophets and Apostles ought to have been believed when they preached the Truths which the Holy Ghost inspired into them, as well as when they reduced 'em into Writing; But we only say that the Apostles and Prophets have reduced the same truths which they Preached into Writing af­ter such a manner, that for the Regulating of our Faith we only need to have recourse to their Writing. This is what St. Irenaeus says, in his third Book against Heresies, Chap. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem sa­lutis nostrae cognovimus, quam per eos, per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt; postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. We know not by others the Disposition of our Salvation, than [Page 17]by those from whom the Gospel came to us, which indeed, they then Preached: But afterwards by the will of God they delivered to us in Scriptures, to be the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. If Father Simon asks us what assu­rance we can have that the saving truths were not alte­red in the Holy Writ, we can answer him that the Tra­dition or Preaching of the Gospel in all Ages, was the instrument which God made use of, to make known to us that the Scripture is the Word of God, and that it was never altered after such a manner, but that it still contains very clearly what we ought to believe, and what we ought to do to be saved. Fides ex audi tu Rom. 10.17. But that it is God who hath perswaded us inwardly of the Truth of this Preaching; and this answer is very true, since that the Faith is a gift from God, and very conformable to what St. Augustine sayes, speaking to God in the 5. chap. of his 6th. Book of his Confessions. Persuasisti mihi, non qui crederent libris tuis, sed qui non crederent, esse cul­pandos: Nec audiendos esse si qui forte dicerent, Ʋnde scis illos unius veri & veracissimi Dei Spiritu esse humano ge­neri ministratos. ‘Thou hast perswaded me, that those who do not believe in thy Books, not those who do be­lieve, are guilty; nor are they to be given Ear to, if they should by chance say, Whence knowest thou that they were administred to Humane Kind in the Spi­rit of the most true and upright God.’ I have nothing more Sir, then to make an end with beseeching you to thank God for me, that he has given me by his mercy that precious gift of the faith, and perswaded me to re­nounce the Idolatry, Heterodox Traditions, & Superstitious Noveities of the Church of Rome, & to embrace an Ortho­dox Communion, which professes to love the Brother­hood, fear God, and honour the King, and to Rule her Morels as well as her worship and Faith onely by the [Page 18]Scripture divinely inspired, non taliter fecit omni Nationi, and to desire the same God to continue to me his Grace, and Protection, whom I heartily pray that he would more and more shed abroad his Blessings over your worthy Person, and over the Lady Katherine Vis­countess Ranelaugh, Your most Accomplished, Godly, Charitable and Bountiful Sister, and over all your No­ble Family.