THE Popish Proselyte THE GRAND FANATIC.  
OR AN ANTIDOTE AGAINST The Poison of Captain Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Non-conformists.  
And many other Signs and Wonders truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book: But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that in believing you might have life through his name.  John 20.30, 31. 
London, Printed for Samuel Tidmarsh, at the King's Head in Cornhill, next House to the Royal Exchange. MDCLXXXIV.   

TO THE READER.  
AN exact answering of the whole Epistle by Paragraphs, would have swelled my intended little Book into a great Volume; nor did I conceive it needful: and that because the Captain himself hath contracted the pith of all that is pertinent, into his sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule; His Argument from Heaven for the Roman Church being Judge and Guide; and his six Queries supposed utterly destructive to, and altogether unanswerable upon, the grounds of Protestants; and now all these be at large transcribed, examined, and solved: And yet lest the less intelligent Reader should stumble, or the Adversary insult; I have in an admonitory prefatory discourse so far taken notice of all his mostly seeming important conclusions and objections, as to make it apparent that they have nought else, save ignorance, inadvertency, selfishness, and strong delusion to support, and give rise unto them. Nor yet have I made it my only business to pull down (though that must needs be their great work that have to do with Babel-builders) but have all along ascertained what I would or should establish, from such common principles of Religion and Reason, as are assented to by Papists, Protestants, and the Universality at least of Christians. As for reviling, had not his own guilt put him on to caution against it, I should never have thought of it; what is of personal concern is occasioned by his own writings, circumstant to the matter under debate, and all contained in one single Page; the whole is closed with a vindication of the Great Saint Augustin from favouring the proceed of so grand an Apostate as Robert Everard.  
Joseph Harrison.   

An Answer to Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Nonconformists.  
I Shall at present suppose Robert Everard to be no Romish Jesuited Priest, 
Pag. 91.  but Quondam Captain to a Troop of Rebellious Soldiers, and do conclude from his own Printed papers, attended with some obvious circumstances, that four things did chief concur to the shipwrecking of his Faith; First, Ignorance. Secondly, Inadvertency, or Imprudence. Thirdly, Self-interest. Fourthly, A just judgement of God in sending such strong delusions, that they should believe a lie.  
The man's ignorance appears, First in that he cannot construe, credo Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, I believe the Being, but renders (as if he had read) credo Sanctae, etc. I believe the saying, of the Holy Catholic Church; sets hence in the front of his Book, and urges all along, the Churches, and in the issue the Roman Churches pretended infallible declaration for the foundation of Faith. When yet the very Creed teacheth him  
First, To confess, I believe in God the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, as that which must necessarily forego and found his believing first that there is a Holy Catholic Church, as well as that there is a Communion of Saints; nor doth it give any more ground to conclude the one, than the other for to be infallible. Secondly, Though the Captain before the closure of the Book, be so well taught, as to prove the Roman Church infallible in teaching, from certain stories about Miracles no more than pointed at, out of Breerleys' Index, no more than surmised to be done by S. Francis, S. Dominick, and the Monk Austin, with such like, to confirm, and that but some few of her superstitious Doctrines; Nay can chide such, as Persons destroying Faith, 
Pag. 78.  taking away all humane converse, etc. that shall refuse upon such fallible Testimonies to believe stories so extremely improbable; yet is he such a Novice in the beginning, that he cannot so much as offer an argument for the truth of Christianity, from all the undoubted Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles, 
Pag. 6.  for no other end save the confirming thereof, Heb. 2.3, 4. recorded in Sacred Writ, that we might believe, John 20.31. not denied by the Adversaries of our Faith, and most celebriously attested by the unanimous consent of all Christians in all succeeding Ages. Nor has he a word to say to the Gentleman that in opposition to the Evangelist, calls Faith thus founded, an opinion, an humour: But instead of that, gratis grants, that unless we know what ex parte rei is impossible to be known, ourselves or those that teach us to be infallible, Christianity as to us, can be no more than probably, not most probably true. Jews, Turks, and Pagans may be as well persuaded of their several ways, as we can be of ours; both upon a fallible certainty: Not knowing sure, that the Christians [certainty] hath no [fallible] save that they may; the Jews, Turks and Pagans [fallible] no [certainty] save that they do, imagine it.  
And secondly, that it is irrational thus to argue, à Doctore ad Doctrinam, from the Person to the thing, from what may be, to what is. Euclid may be fallible, and yet his demonstrations not deceive; we may know ourselves, and those that teach us, to be subject to mistake; and yet know too, that in this or that particular neither they nor we are mistaken.  
Christianity as to us may be certainly true; certainly so demonstrated to Jews, Turks and Pagans: and yet every Man confessed to be a liar, every Church ex parte sui in a possibility to commit an error in this thing; But,  
3dly. The man cannot distinguish betwixt the internal testimony of the spirit vouchsafed sometimes unto some, and that constant historical evidence which is afforded unto all. When he was a Quaker, it's like he confounded the original Cause, and the original Language, and now he cannot make a difference betwixt the efficient cause of our believing, and the formal object, ground or Reason of Faith. He discourses with a man sensual, as if he had the spirit; and imagines, that the Holy Ghost, which is sent to witness with our spirits that we are the children of God, should in the same manner and measure, witness the Divine truth of every particular Book and Text of Scripture. And hence instead of Firstly telling the sensual Lay Gentleman, that he believed the Scriptures to be the word of God fide Historica, by an Historical Faith, upon the account of universal Tradition; He talks with him about an inward infallible Testimony of the Spirit, and makes that spiritual sense and feeling, which is peculiar to Gods Elect sealing up their interest in Christ, to be the common convincing ground of that being indeed the Spirits Testimony. And whereas he should have resolved his faith into the Sovereign Authority, and verity of God himself speaking in Scriptures as the formal ground thereof, and into the spirits enlightening, inlivening Power as the efficient cause; He resolves it wholly into an inward Testimony of the spirit, of which, (for aught appears) neither of the twain (save by hear-say) knew any thing at all. However instead of the Spirits testimony, the man might better have said in this case, simply by the Spirit; by the Spirit (scilicet) as that medium facultatis whereby we are enabled to see and believe scriptural verities to be Divine. Albeit, as Dr. Ames well observeth, 
Medulla. l. 2. c. 5.  there is a sufficient and certain representation proposed to us in the Scripture, both of things that are to be believed; and of that Reason upon which we ought to believe them. See Rom. 16.26. Nor yet,  
Fourthly, Does he perceive the difference betwixt faith Dogmatical complex, assenting to the truth of Divine propositions, and that faith which we call salvifical, incomplex, fixing on, adhering to, and resting in Jesus Christ alone? That may be various, respect had to its object; the same man knows such a proposition to be revealed to morrow, which he knows not to day; and consequently, believe that to morrow, which to day he does not. This, respect had to the object, varies not: It's Jesus, the same Yesterday, to Day, and for ever. Though yet respect had to the subject like as the other, it's sometimes weaker or stronger, confused, or more distinct. And hence men of different faiths incomplex cannot be saved; for there is no other name under Heaven given, etc. Acts 4.12. other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 3.11. oneness of Faith, as to this, is commended and commanded, Eph. 4.5. compared with Eph. 4.13. unto the unity of the Faith and knowledge of the Son of God. He that believeth on the Son of God, hath life Eternal; and he that believeth not, etc. John 3.36. But men may be of different faiths complex, believe divers, nay contrary propositions, and yet through Grace obtain salvation. Some build Gold, Silver, precious Stones; some Wood, Hay, Stubble; one believeth he may eat all things, another who is weak, eateth Herbs, Rom. 14.2.  
Fifthly and Lastly, the man seems not to know of any difference betwixt an acquired Habit and a Divine Gift, the requisites to our getting of Science, and Gods giving of Faith. Science, it's true (as Thomas determines) cannot be had, unless we first know the certainty of the Medium, or Reason whereby the conclusion is demonstrated; but it is impertinent to Faith, as Estius well concludes, by what means we believe the prime Verity, that is, by what means God useth to bestow on men the gift of Faith. He may do it as well by the preaching of the meanest Minister, as of the greatest Apostle: for indeed neither the one nor the other is or needs to be (what he supposes) a foundation or Argument whereon to build, but simply a medium or instrument whereby is begotten and brought forth that Faith which is of the operation of God. 
Page 7.  And therefore in vain does he dispute about the Primitive Christians believing, either because the Apostles so taught, or Simon Magus so affirmed; for it was not because, but by the Preaching, whether of Paul, or Apollo's, that they did believe; We have not dominion over your Faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. Who then is Paul? or who is Apollo's? but Ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man, 1 Cor. 3.5.  
The Captain's inadvertency, or imprudence is as evident  
First, In that he never calls to mind, that Priests and Jesuits pass usually under the Notion of Lay Gentlemen, and great Folks Cousins: Trusts, Eve like, to his own skill, and never makes known either his doubts, or the Gentleman's objections to any of the Protestant Ministers. He borrows, it's true, a certain deal of Popish Books; The Question of Questions, Novelty repressed, Fiat Lux, Infidelity unmasked, or a confutation of a Book published by Mr. William Chillingworth, but never inquires for Mr. William Chillingworth's own Book, nor Dr. Hammonds answer to Infidelity Unmasked, in his vindication of the Lord Falkland. He never sends to Dr. Owen for his animadversions on Fiat Lux, nor adviseth with Mr. Baxter about Novelty suppressed: Had he consulted with these Ministers of ours, and told us wherein they failed in the answering either these Books, or the Lay Gentleman's Objections, it might have been of some moment, have startled perhaps some of the Nonconformists; but to make a stir and a story, how mildly, how profoundly the Lay Gentleman objected; and then how extremely troubled, how strangely the Horse-Captain was gravelled, argues nothing, save the Gentleman's cunning craftiness, and the Captains dastardly weakness: the cause no more concerned, than if they had never had meeting.  
Secondly, He never considered that the Gentleman was altogether for ask questions, Robert never proposes any; for if, when the Captain was gravelled, and could not certainly prove the truth of Christianity from his own Fanatic Principles, he had put the Gentleman to it to have proved Christianity certainly true from the Popish, a hundred to one, but they had both proved Heathens; the one being no more able to establish it by Miracles upon the infallibility of the Roman Church, than the other by sense and feeling upon the Spirits Testimony: the man now knows and finds this to be true enough; and therefore in the conclusion doth he present us with six queries, conjures his old Brethren to answer them, and withal, warily provides that they shall not ask him any question at all; but first ascertain what they would establish: for says he Page 85. Who knows not, if a Man will give himself scope to be bold, he may raise Arguments against the belief of the Trinity, or any other Mystery of Faith, that will puzzle learned Men to answer; a piece of cunning and caution, I could wish all our weaker sort of Protestants to take special notice of.  
Thirdly, The man unadvisedly all along confounds endeavours to fix, and find in the same subject, the Rule, Judge and Guide of Faith; whenas these three are in their respective Natures, Uses, Ends distinct, and scarcely possible to be subjected in the same thing or person: The Scripture may be a Rule certain and stable as Bellarmine, and yet no Judge. Reason may be a judge, or rather that whereby every man is to judge for himself, as Chillingworth, and yet no Rule. The spirit may be Guide, to direct, draw and lead us into all truth, and yet neither rule nor judge, The Church by her Ministry may be subservient to the spirit in leading, helpful to us in finding out, applying of, and judging according to the Rule, and yet the Church itself be neither Rule, Judge, nor Guide; nor will now that grand Sophism [the Spirit is not, Reason is not, the Scripture is not, the Judge, Rule and Guide, and therefore the Church is] be of any force: for never to take notice, that it found'st an affirmative conclusion upon negative premises; it supposes that some Presbyterians, Independents, etc. should hold, the Spirit alone, some Reason, some the Scripture, each exclusive of the Ministry of the Church, to be the Rule, Judge, and Guide of Faith; whenas all they jointly, in this business, join all these together, and look up unto God, according to his command and promise, for his Holy spirit in the Church's Ministry, throughly to direct their understandings in judging of things according to the written Rule.  
Fourthly, The man never perceives that his own vain ratiocinations and needless concessions are the sole ground that is given for him to bottom his belief upon; a strong fancy he has, and need on, for his Faith's no stronger. To evince this I shall instance in these six positions laid down and supposed as the Basis of his whole discourse. First, Faith is an infallible assent of the understanding, submitting itself obediently to believe the Revelations of God. Secondly, There must be some means appointed of God, by which we may know this one true Faith from all false opinions. Thirdly, These means must be infallible. Fourthly, The understanding must submit to these means under pain of Damnation. Fifthly, Two men of two different faiths or beliefs cannot be saved. Sixthly, Ignorant people by such reasonable diligence as is very tolerable to Humane frailty, and yet possible for them, may come to the knowledge (wisely done to leave out certain) of these means. And now if you ask what foundation he has whereupon to ground his belief of these assertions, he'll tell you, I gathered them from the true interpretation of certain Texts of Scripture. 
Pag. 16.  And if you ask further, how he knows that interpretation to be true? Has he Divine Revelation for it? According to the tenor of his own first position: Has he the unanimous consent of the Fathers for it? Or does he certainly know, beyond all possibility of being mistaken, that the Church in all Ages hath, and the present Church now doth give that interpretation accordingly as 'tis decreed by the Council of Trent? No, but from hence I thought (says he) it did very naturally follow: Firstly, 
17.  Secondly, and Thirdly, etc. And yet that it may appear, he only says, could not possibly think, any such a thing, observe from that exhortation, Heb. 10.23. Let us hold fast the profession of our Hope (so in their own Authentic Translation) undeclining, does he infer, Faith is an infallible assent of our understanding: and because the latter part of the verse, for he is faithful that hath promised, founded the confidence, there spoken of, upon the promise of Grace; and the former Verse fixed faith with its full assurance upon the High Priest Jesus alone; The man slily passeth over both, and leaves the other part of his proposition (obediently submitting, etc.) destitute of any proof. From 2 Cor. 10.5. bringing into Captivity every thought to the Obedience of Christ; he infers, the understanding must submit, not dispute: all be Damned that disobey the Authority of the Church; and adds withal, that saving faith is seated in the understanding, as if Paul had been mistaken when he said, with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness, Rom. 10.10. or as if he himself knew not what he had done in putting [obediently submitting] into the definition of faith, sigh all conclude, obedience and disobedience to be subjected in the will. From Eph. 4.5. there is but one Faith, respect had to the personal object in whom, the Lord Jesus; He concludes, that two men of differing faiths Dogmatical, or that believe two contrary opinions cannot be saved; nor is he ashamed, from Isaiah 35.8. plainly pointing at Christ, the new and living way, first to take out, and the unclean shall not pass over it, as incoherent, because their unholy Mother admits of such for her children; and then infers, that ignorant people by reasonable diligence, may come to the knowledge of those means, about which yet their learned men to this very day could never be agreed. Nor can he himself tell, when it comes to the pinch, how those means should be certainly manifest, save by miracles, of which we ignorant folk may often hear, but never come to the knowledge of: however, that I most admire at, is, That the man designing to prove, that true acceptable faith consists in believing as the Church believes, a believing that the Roman Church is infallible, should quote Heb. 11.6. that holds out the faith, without which it is impossible to please God, to be a believing; not that the Church, but that God himself is so: he that comes to God, must believe that he is, etc. And further, that he should stand hafling and pafling, and proving by halfs, there must be some means appointed by God, by which men may know, etc. those means must be infallible, the understanding must submit to those means under pain of damnation; when the very Text quoted, Mark. 16.16. shows plainly, that there be means, infallible means, and which be the means appointed, whereby true faith both is begotten, and may be known from all false opinions, and unto which all that hearty submit shall be saved, and those that do not, shall be damned: and lest you should mistake in reading, the means be, the word of truth, the Gospel Preached though by the mouth of never so weak a Minister. Go into all the World, and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature; He that believeth and is Baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned: 
A Genere ad speciem affirmat. non valet Argumentum.  nor yet is it unworthy of remark, 1. That means in general is here all along found in the premises, and Authority in special put after into the conclusion: there must be, there is an infallible Means, and therefore there is, there must be an infallible Authority. And 2. That the man seriously endeavours to found the very foundation of his own faith upon Scriptures, dark Scriptures privately interpreted, howbeit the main scope of his Book is to evince that faith, true faith, neither first nor last, can or aught to be founded thereupon.  
That self-interest had a hand in the Captains overturning, seems more than probable; 
Pag. 4.  because, First, The Captain in the late Wars (as his Book relates) had run through the several forms of Religion, Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptist, etc. and yet never, that we read of, lost his preferment upon any Turn, nor miss of it for want of timely turning; and sigh so, the man might easily foresee, that such a notorious Juggler was never like to be trusted at the King's Court: Best for him now at last to turn Papist, do the Jesuits some signal service, declare against his old friends, and their old enemies, the Nonconformists, and perhaps by that wile he might in the Queen's Chapel come in time to get advancement. For,  
Secondly, If seditions, Schisms, Heresies amongst Protestants, and discourses with Lay-Gentlemen in their quarters could have overturned the faith of Captains, never so like to have been done as during the late distractions; but for all that while, though we heard of some Popish Champions turning Sectaries, yet of no Sectarian Captain that became a Romanist.  
Thirdly, The man's carriage all along makes manifest, that the selfish wisdom of the Old wily Serpent is yet remaining with him: he knows well enough that there's nothing more inconsistent with Papal government than the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; nor any thing more opposite to Popish Doctrine, than the 39 Ariticles: and yet can he neither be content to say ill, nor say nothing of our English Episcopacy; but upon occasion is bowing down himself unto it, in the days of yore; doubtless he got to be a Captain by praying and preaching like some sort of a Saint, and now time after time, is crying up himself for a good Subject, leaves the Episcopal Church out of his Catalogue of Sects, and pretends a great deal of Reverence to any profession that shall be established by Law.  
But above all, the just judgement of God is most remarkable in sending him and such like, strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, and that because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, but had pleasure in unrighteousness: nor need I divine the no love this man had to the truth; and the great pleasure he always had and now hath in unrighteousness is notoriously manifest by his First, Blaspheming the Spirit; Secondly, Abusing Reason; Thirdly, Vilifying the Scriptures; Fourthly, Wronging the Church Catholic; Fifthly, Belying Protestants; Sixthly, Dissembling the Tenets of the Papists.  
The spirit is blasphemed, 1. by giving that glory of Infallibility, which is peculiar to the Holy Ghost, to the organs or instruments by which he is pleased to reveal the mind of God. Men speaking from deliberation use freewill, may speak or not speak, speak truth or falsehood, and consequently for that time cannot but be fallible. And when men speak divinely, yet not deliberately, it is not properly they that speak, but the Holy Ghost that speaketh in them. The word of the Lord came to me, saying. The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. And in this case 'tis the word spoken that is infallible, and not they that speak it. It were not proper for such on that account to say, It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost, and to us; but, not we, but the Holy Ghost, not I, but the Lord: and hence the eternal God is said internally to demonstrate by his spirit, and externally to confirm by miracles, not the infallibility of the organ through which he speaks, but the infallible truth of the word that is spoken. And they went forth every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following, Mark 16.20.2. The spirit expressly, 1 John 4.2, 3. makes the Doctrine Preached the Rule, according to which we are to try the spirits; Hereby know we the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not, etc. And yet does the man wittingly conceal that, and wrists verse 6. to the making of the hearing of the Apostle, the only rule of trying of spirits, without regard had to their Doctrine. Nor does he 〈◊〉 here, but supposing [we] verse 6. to denote the same persons as [ye] verse 4. confidently concludes, hearing of Christ's Apostles then was, therefore hearing Popish Priests now is, the only rule. The Apostle doubtless saw this mystery of iniquity beginning then to work; and therefore leaves us a general Rule without any exception. 2 Joh. ●. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath the Father and the Son. If there come any to you, and bringeth not this doctrine, receive him not into the House, neither bid him God speed. 3. The man reviles the Saints, that have received the Holy anointing, tells how they would have the world believe that they have the spirit, without bringing Reason, Evidence, Testimony or Authority to evince it: whenas yet if either Reason, Evidence, Testimony, or Authority may be regarded, the Tree is known by its fruits, and their having the spirit, manifest by Love, Joy, Peace, Long-suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance. Gal. 5.22. They confess that Jesus is come in the Flesh, as aforesaid, and, that Jesus is the Lord, which no man can, but by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12.3. Nor need he trouble himself with telling, 
Page 21.  that if it be the spirit of God they have, he is infallible in his teaching, and both they and all the world are obliged under pain of Damnation to believe what he delivers as matter of faith, to be true. For 1. Though they say they have the spirit of God, and that he is infallible in his teaching, yet they do not say, Pope-like, that they are thereby made infallible in theirs. He teacheth all of them the whole truth as it is in Jesus, for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord, Jer. 31.34. but teaches not any, all the points of Doctrine that be true, for we know in part, and prophesy in part, 1 Cor. 13.9. according to the measure of the gift of Christ, Eph. 4.7.2. Both they and all the world are obliged under pain of Damnation to believe whatsoever God says is true, and so many as know that there is an Holy Ghost, are obliged in like manner to believe whatsoever shall be delivered by that promised spirit of truth. But as to the particulars he shall deliver, the case is different. The Saints are severally bound to believe whatsoever he shall conviningly deliver to any of them; and the world bound to believe whatsoever he shall convincingly deliver to the World: when he comes he shall convince, Joh. 16.8. Nor yet, 3. do they look (as some would seem to suppose) that others should believe what they say, to be true, either because they say or prove that they have the Spirit, whether of Adoption or Prophecy, but because when and so far as that same Spirit by undeniable reasons and testimonies shall make manifest in their consciences the truth of what they do assert: by the manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, 2 Cor. 4.2.  
Reason is a means whereby we come to know what is, not, what ought to be revealed; a means whereby we judge of things Divine according to the Rule, though yet it be not, may not be called the Rule according to which we are to judge: Reason I say that is thus useful, and aught to be thus limited, the man one while enslaves, and then anon sets it up for an absolute Lord. When reason comes to argue against the Church's Infallibility, then must it Vassal-like submit, not dispute, not wait for an effectual conviction according to Christ's promise and procedure, And when he is come, he shall convince, etc. but yield forthwith to what the Church says; nay, to whatsoever an ignorant English Romish Priest can have the confidence to say, their Church hath sufficiently proposed; or if Reason offer to produce arguments to prove the truth of Christianity, and evince the Scripture to be the word of God, urge Miracles, Universal-Tradition, conclude from Topics internal, external, in other cases cogent and demonstrative, yet then Reason is fallible, subject to error, a private spirit, a fancy, can make things at best appear no more than probable; Jews, Turks and Pagans may be as fully persuaded, and upon as good rational grounds of the truth of their Religion, as we can of ours. But now if reason will be corrupted, become an Advocate for Rome, her very sophisms shall be cried up as sufficient grounds for us to found our faith upon. God will not be defective in necessaries, and therefore there must be an infallible, visible Judge. Christ is the only absolute, independent head of the Church, but may, and therefore hath appointed a dependent head derived from him. It is most rational in business of civil concernment, to rely on a Council of wise and learned men: And therefore in things spiritual, which God usually hides from the wise and prudent, and the natural man receives not, we ought to rely on a Council of Popish Prelates. The Eunuch could not understand the Prophecy of Isaiah, till ministerially expounded by Philip the Deacon: And therefore cannot we understand that Text though already expounded, no nor any other till Authoritatively interpreted by the Roman Church. The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren when sent to, sent out a Temporary Decree about things indifferent, made then by circumstances in some places antecedently necessary, binding only in those places, and pressed with an [if] ye do these things, ye do well. And therefore the Cardinals, Bishops and Abbots may and aught to frame an everlasting Law about points of Doctrine, make that necessary for all men, which God never made necessary for any, and press it under the dread of an Anathema, or pain of Eternal damnation: Nay, though God say, to the Law and to the Testimony, the Law of the Lord is perfect, the Scripture able not only to make wise to Salvation, but so far profitable, that the man of God, the Pastor, may be throughly furnished unto every good work; 
Hominem Dei vocat Doctorem & Episcopum, ut dixi Ep. 1. C. 6. ver. 11. Cornel. à Lapid.  yet it Reason can find any thing to say against the Scripture's being a Rule, it shall be heard. The Scripture then must not be a Rule, and why? Has God any where contradicted himself, and said it must not? Has he any where appointed another? No, but here's a first reason, and a second reason, and a third reason, etc. and therefore it must be none, and yet the sum of all no more than this; Some Christians are dim-sighted, some perverse; many are carnal, walk as men, will not be ruled; and therefore the Scripture is not the Rule, Ruler sure he would have said; some people are contentious Lawyers, corrupt, and differ in their opinions, and therefore the Law of the Land is not what it is; scilicet, the Law of the Land according to which controversies may and aught to be decided: and now  
The Church, before, under, and since the Law, will she, nill she, must always have been, and for ever be, this Rule; when as yet it is evident that the Word was a rule both to Adam and Eve before the Church had Being, it shall bruise thy head, Genes. 3.15. God said to Abraham, so shall thy seed be; and he believed in the Lord, etc. Gen. 15.5, 6. Nor was it written for his sake alone, but for us also, Rom. 4.23, 24. Ye shall not add to the word I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, was given in charge to the Church of the Jews, Deut. 4.2. And if any man (says the Apostle) Preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed, Gal. 1.9. These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name, Joh. 20.31. Nor yet is it the question, whether the Scripture accidentally taken, or the Word as written; but whether the Scripture taken Essentially, or the mind of God communicated at sundry times, and in divers manners to and by the Prophets, Preached by the Apostles, 
Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis cognovimus, quàm per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt; postremò verò per Dei voluntatem in Scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum nobis. Iren. I. 3. c. 1.  and now committed and conveyed down to us by Sacred writing, always hath, is, & aught to be owned for the rule of Faith: or whether indeed (because it seems you long to have the question stated with that advantage) even in abraham's and the Apostles times, others as well as Sarah, Gen. 21.10. and the Beraeans, Act. 17.11. might not have urged, demanded, and without the just control of any then visible authority, have believed and acted according to the prescript of that Rule, your own instances, Page 53. of extraordinary actions done, and Commands given by God's directions, by the mouths of several particular Prophets, submitted to (as you say) without further enquiry, do plainly evince as much, and also intimate that the will or word of God, which way soever it be made known, whether immediately or mediately; whether by Prophecy, Tradition or Writing, is and always has been the supreme Rule both of Faith and Practice; and its adequation, as to matters of Faith, as now contained in, and expressed by the Scripture, 
Sure footing for Christianity. page 18. 20.  shall be after cleared. However the Church (as your own J. S. well observes) being a Congregation of the faithful, must needs presuppose the notion of faithful, faithful, the notion of Faith, Faith, of the rule of Faith, an evident argument that the Church is and aught to be regulated in believing; and consequently she herself cannot be the rule of belief, nor any more, save as the same man says of Fathers, Doctors, and great Scholars, and might as well have said the same of Tradition too, a means to bring others to the knowledge of it. But,  
Secondly, The man will needs seat authority in the Holy Catholic Church, notwithstanding that authority Supreme, Magisterial, formally as well as radically is seated in Christ. All authority is given to me, Matt. 28.18. Nor is the Church the subject, but the object of the Ministerial Power, He gave some Apostles, some Pastors, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ, Eph. 4.11, 12. God hath set some in the Church, First, Apostles, 1. Cor. 12.18. and by the way, [some] in the Church, not [one over] the Church; for the whole, respect had to its organical frame, form, or Government, is divided into several Churches, several Congregations, if you will, as well as the world into several Kingdoms. To the angel of the Church of Ephesus, Rev. 2.1. We have no such custom, neither the Churches of God, 1 Cor. 11.16. Nor did Paul treating, 1 Cor. 12. concerning spiritual gifts, relate to a chief in governing, but the choicest for Prophesying, when he said, nor again, the Head to the Feet, I have no need of you.  
Thirdly, Although the Bishops of Rome, in that very thing (as Gregory well notes) forerunners of Antichrist, did frequently challenge an Universal Jurisdiction; yet was it never owned, nor submitted to by the Catholic Church, as it is evident from S. Cyprian, opposing Stephanus, Irenaeus reproving of Victor, Jerom's Eugubium, and the sixth Council of Carthage, in which was Augustin, and Aurelius; as also from the Acts of three of the four first General Councils, Nice, Constantinople and Chalcedon.  
Fourthly, The man in the Close, restrains the Church Catholic to a Church of one denomination called the Roman, meaning though thereby, not what Paul meant, the Saints at Rome, Rom. 1.7. but all that vastly extended community of Christians which live in communion with, and in subjection to, the Bishop of Rome, as to their supreme Pastor, and Governor on Earth in all things appertaining unto faith, next under Christ, when as yet the Arguments, and Texts all along produced seemingly militate for the infallibility of the Church; not this or that Church though never so vastly extended; and above all, not for the old Roman (and therefore he did wisely to frame a new one) for it's expressly declared fallible, Rom. 11.22. And yet again, pag. 61. we are presented with a General Council of Prelates as this Church, this infallible Rule, which can by no means be identified with all that vastly extended community, etc. And yet let him take which he will, he'll be still at a loss. For such an Assembly of Prelates is not now in being, nor like to be, nor has there been any such for a Century of years last passed: And as for all the Christians of that vast community, they are to be judged, ruled, guided, and consequently not the Rule, Judge and Guide: If exempted from error personal, it were well. Judicial infallibility concerns not them. In the beginning he's for submission to the Holy Catholic Church, and now as if by [Holy Catholic Church] he did not mean the Holy Catholic Church his Mother, nor any thing else save the Pope his Father, he's for submission and obedience to the Bishop of Rome. The matter and marvel is, that the man has been tewing and tugging and troubling himself and us all this while, about an universal infallible visible Authoritative Church, and now in the issue can neither tell, who, where, or what it is. However sigh the Church is such an one, which is truly appointed by God to be this infallible Judge, must needs (as he saith) have this condition, 
Pag. 72.  that she doth own her infallibility; It is incumbent upon the Captain in the first place to make it out, that the present Roman visible Church doth plainly own her infallibility, (for his owning, and inferences we shall not regard,) or else confess, that in his own account she is not the Church he tells of, truly appointed of God to be this infallible Judge; nor let him thus think to put us off and say, unless he evidently prove that she does that by the Pope her mouth: for the Pope will not be content to be the Churches, but Christ's own mouth and Vicar, Peter's successor, the Rock upon which the Church is built, at lest next unto Christ.  
Of Protestants he saith, All that I ever met with seemed to grant, 
Pag. 18.  There must be a way or Rule, there must be a means appointed, there must be a Governing Power to judge and decide all doubts, and teach us the true way to Heaven with certainty; but who this Judge is, that is the difficulty. Whenas 1. though Protestants generally conclude, that the Scripture is the rule according to which every Christian may and aught to judge of doubts with a judgement of discretion; and Pastors jointly or severally with a judgement of direction: Yet none affirm that any who on Earth is, or can be, either Rule or Judge, much less both Rule and Judge Infallible, Universal, Praetorial, such as he (under the notion of his Governing Power) is at present seeking for. 
Pag. 60.  Dr. Fern's expression [indeed such a Judge and Umpire in Christendom if to be had, would be a ready means to compose all differences, and to restore truth and Peace,] comes next to any that he can pitch upon, and yet has Dr▪ Fern neither wish nor word of any whosoever being a Rule, nor is he so saucy as to say there must be a Judge or Umpire appointed. But such a Judge or Umpire would, if to be had, be a ready, neither the best nor the only means to compose all differences. 
Of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, p. 6. §. 19  2. Sith in those things in which before a General Council hath defined, it is lawful to hold either way, and damnable to do so after. The Lord Falkland desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define any thing, and so bestow upon the Devil one path more for us to walk in to him. 
Against Knot, part 1. c. 2. pag. 84.  And although, says Chillingworth, we wish hearty that all controversies were ended, as we do that all sin were abolished; yet have we little hope of the one, or of the other, till the World be ended: in the mean while think it best to content ourselves with, and persuade other to, an unity of charity and mutual toleration, seeing God hath authorised no man to force all to the unity of opinion. Neither do we think it fit to argue thus: To us it seems convenient there should be one Judge for the whole world; therefore God hath appointed one: but more modest and more reasonable to collect thus, God hath appointed no such judge of controversies; therefore though to us it seems convenient there should be one, yet it is not so. And yet, 3. We who can distinguish betwixt the scriptural way to Heaven, and the Church's Rule of ●…ith; betwixt an external infallible Governor, and an internal infallible Teacher; betwixt an unnecessary decision of all doubts, and a full satisfaction of the heart about the one thing needful: We I say, which have learned thus to distinguish, do humbly and thankfully acknowledge that there is a means appointed to teach us the true way to Heaven with certainty. Jesus is the true way, the only way to Heaven; and that Spirit which he hath promised, and gives in the Gospel ministry, is the means appointed to teach and establish us in that way with certainty. If I depart, I will send him, unto ●…on, and when he is come, he shall convince the world of sin, because they believe not in me: They shall be all taught of God, all shall know me, etc. In whom, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise, Eph. 1.15. And now you, instead of reviling such Christians as humbly own their having received the anointing, or troubling yourself and others with that monstrous notion of an universal infallible governing Church, should examine yourself whether you have been so convinced, taught and sealed by that spirit through hearing the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation: received ye the spirit by the hearing of Faith? Gal. 3.2.  

Pag. 33.  Secondly, It is impossible for any one of these parties (meaning Independents, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Fifth-monarchy men, Quakers,) which I must now crave leave to call Sects) with reason to censure or condemn any of the others, although never so different from themselves, even in points by them esteemed fundamental, since each of them have their  Plea for themselves, that their faith is in every respect conformable to what they understand to be the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures, which they agree to be the sole and only Rule and Judge. Nay, which of these parties can deny the others the Title of Protestants, or convince them of Heresy? Since to be a Protestant no more is required (or if it be I would gladly know what it is) than to admit the Scriptures interpreted according to their best understanding and Conscience, to be the sole and only rule of Faith, and Judge of Controversies. Is not he that professeth and followeth this principle, allowed by all to be a perfect good Protestant, though never so much differing in Faith from others who make the same profession.  
The Quakers, because your Allies in the grand point of justification, and an uncharitable sentencing of all, save their own Sect, shall for me stand or fall to their own Master; but for the rest that you mention, I say that you suppose what you cannot prove, scilicet, that they differ in points that be, or are esteemed by them to be fundamental. Do they not all own the Creed called the Apostles, and all conclude, that therein be contained all the fundamental points at lest? Nay, do they not all own the doctrinal part of the 39 Articles, insomuch that you who would seem to revere the Doctrine established by Law, dare not say they be Heretics, but are fain to crave leave to call them Sects.  
Secondly, It's true, they all agree, the Scripture to be the sole and only Rule, and yet mean the Scripture taken in the sense intended by God, not as privately interpreted by any of them: nor is their faith or present persuasion according to their grounds or plead, ; sigh what they hold in a supposed conformity with, or understand to be, the true sense and meaning of any Text, is humbly submitted unto what can be made out with greater evidence more nearly to accord with, or be the very sense and meaning intended by the Holy Ghost. Apollo's was ready to yield to Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18.26. and they to you, or any else that shall expound unto them the way of God more perfectly. But,  
Thirdly, It matters not much whether these parties can or cannot deny to one another the title of Protestant, so they see ground for, and do allow to one another the name of Christian: Protestant is no more to us, than Papist to you, though yet you seem not well to know, either who or what is meant by Protestant. And therefore shall Mr. Baxter at your desire instruct you: A Protestant is a Christian that holdeth to the Holy Scripture, as the sufficient Rule of Faith and Holy living, and protesteth against Popery. Or if this like you not, take your own definition with some little amendment: A Protestant is a Christian, that professeth with S. Augustin, in those things which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures, all those things are found which appertain to faith and direction of life, and further admitteth of the Scripture where needing interpretation: as interpreted according to his best understanding and Conscience that he has, or in the use of lawful means may have: for the entire Rule of what he, as such, aught to hold and practise. And yet, suppose all that, and only that required to the Being of a Protestant, which you insert: The parties you tell of, may at that account convince of Heresy such amongst them as shall appear to be guilty of it; may they not use means by opening, alleging and reasoning out of the Scripture, according to Act. 17.2, 3. better to inform and reclaim such a one? May they not do as the Lay gentleman did with you, and you now in writing this Epistle do with your old Brethren? or may they not mind him as Christ did the Sadduces? ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, Matt. 22.19. and make such a like challenge as Augustin did to Maximinius. 
August. contra Maxim. l. 3. c. 14.  But now neither aught I to produce the Nicene Council, nor thou that of Ariminum, as going about to prejudge, neither am I detained by the Authority of this, nor thou of that set thing with thing, cause with cause reason with reason, by authorities o● Scriptures, not proper to either, but common witnesses to us both, and i● after apparent conviction, or stopping of the mouth by Scripture Testimony, that man will not relinquish but persist groundlessly to maintain his grossly erroneous Tenet, it is an evident sign that he does not indeed admit of Scriptures, interpreted according to his best understanding and conscience, to be the Rule, but obstinately adheres to the perverse wilful reasonings of his own fleshly mind, is not a Protestant according to the tenor of your own description; but one that is or aught to be rejected by them. And although I know well enough you have other means for condemning, and killing such you please to call Heretics, yet am I to learn, what better means you have whereby to convince them of Heresy, or discern who they be. A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Tit. 3.10, 11. However you might have done well to have distinguished betwixt a Protestant, and a perfect good Protestant. He that professeth to follow this one principle, so diametrically opposite to the fundamentals of Popery, may perhaps be admitted by all, or most, for a Protestant; yet if he differ in points of faith, tradited by the four first General Councils, and commonly received by Christians, or to be of a vicious life, he is not, at least ought not to be, owned by any of them for a perfect good Protestant.  
To elude these plain and evident Texts, scilicet, Deuter. 17.8. Matt. 23.2, 3. etc. brought to prove that the Church is the sole infallible Rule and Judge) you were wont to say that they may have other interpretations, and therefore this is not the truth; it is a question whether any Texts of Holy Scriptures, and consequently whether these Texts which speak so amply of the Church, are to be understood of the Church militant, and visible in this world, or of the Church triumphant. Ye are willing to agree, that so long as the Church of Christ teacheth conformable to Scriptures she is infallible. Whereas instead of thus saying, doubting or agreeing, we inquire,  
First, To what purpose should you urge us to believe the infallibility of the Church, or any thing else, upon Scripture grounds, when you tell us aforehand, that faith founded upon Scripture is not truly faith; for though we should grant what you suppose, (scilicet) that Christ and his Apostles did urge the Jews with Scriptures, merely because of their incredulity; yet did they never tell them as you do us: Faith founded upon Scripture will avail you nothing. It is not that Divine Faith which God calls for at your hands Or if you yet say, that it is warrantable to believe the Church is infallible upon your urging; why not to believe Christ to be the Messiah, or any other point of Christian Doctrine, upon our Ministers alleging of Scripture for it? But,  
Secondly, Be these Texts plain and evident, or not? If not, why do you say they are? And if they be, these very Texts are a Rule, such as you seek for, whereby to judge of this Controversy, and consequently the Church is not the only Rule whereby Controversies are to be judged▪ But,  
Thirdly, The Quaerendum here is not whether we can show with any assurance, that these Texts are capable of other interpretations; but whether you can demonstrate like as the Apostle used to do, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Act. 17.3, 18. these your own interpretations to be certainly true; do it, when you do it, by some infallible medium, and we shall be ready to believe what you say. But if you bring no proofs; and no other you have brought as yet, save your own private reasonings. Instead of believing the truth of your interpretations, we shall make bold to ask you, as you do yourself, what difference is there betwixt judging by your own reason, and judging by a Law to be interpreted by your own reason? This is to make the Scripture not God's word, but the word of every private man. Though yet,  
Fourthly, Had you not made a little bold with your own reason, and quite contrary, both to sense and honesty omitted verse the eight [be-between blood and blood, between Plea and Plea] and put down etc. instead of the eleventh verse (ubi satis apt sanctus Moyses Controversias exortas in Populo Dei ex Lege Domini judicandas docet, Bellar. de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. according to the sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee) it would have been evident from Deut. 17. That the Controversies there spoken of, were limited to matters of strife betwixt party and party, like those, Mat. 18.17. and the Judge in sentencing, to the Rule of the Law, called Moses Chair, Matt. 23.2. And consequently the first Scripture you cite, which should be the measure of the rest, partly makes nothing for, in part makes directly against your main conclusion. Isaiah 35.8. hath been already; Isaiah 2.4. Mat. 28.20. John 16.12. will be hereafter spoken to; Isaiah 43.3.17. Isaiah 26.2.1. and Mat. 16.9. confirm what we contend for, (viz) the whole Church of God's Elect, consisting of lively stones to be firmly built upon that living stone, that Rock Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 2.4, 5. And that the Royal seed, the Children of God shall be all taught and led by the Spirit of God, according to Rom. 8.14 John 6.45. 1 John 2▪ 27. John 14.16. relates only to such as are called out of the world: love him, and keep his commandments, as it is evident from verses 15. and 17. concerns neither the Pope nor his Cardinals, unless he or they be first proved the spiritual man intended, 1 Cor. 2.15. and if Ephes. 4.11. we may be allowed to leave out the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and read he will give, instead of he gave, which must be done ere that Text can have any show of pertinency, it will respect all and singular Pastors and Teachers that be the gifts of Christ: For the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come to an unity, not of opinion, form or points of Faith, as you use to word it, but into the unity of the faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro (from confidence in one device, to a dependency upon another) and carried about with every empty wind of Doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up to him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom without mention or mediation of any other head, the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love: vers. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.  
Nor is the last with which you flourish, of any more moment: for never to take notice that by Church, cannot there be meant Roman, or General Council: There is a Pillar for holding out Edicts, as well as a Pillar for holding up houses; there is a ground wherein men set Trees, sow Seed, as well as a ground whereon they erect buildings and recumb. The Church may be a Pillar to hold out the truth, and yet not a Pillar for you to rely on for all doctrines that be true. The Church may be that chosen ground, in which the Mystery of Godliness, Christ the truth is set, and sown, and yet no common ground given for you to found your faith upon: Tares may spring up together with the good Seed: Truth held out, and yet error attend it: However the word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies a Seat, and you know well how to let Moses Chair alone, and rely on him supposed to sit therein.  
And now Sir, do you not stand astonished at your own impudence in thus imposing upon the Nonconformists; they do not, they need not limit these Texts to the Church triumphant, but tell you further,  
First, That it will be hard for you to prove from Scripture, that the Church of God in this world (the Church you speak of, Pag. 62. which Christ redeemed with his blood) is a visible body Politic, different from that invisible Church which is Christ's mystical body: the Texts you cite Acts 20.28. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Col. 1.24, 2, 5. Mat: 16.18. do import no such thing; for the four first distinguish betwixt the Church and the Overseers, Officers or Ministers thereof; seeming thereby to suppose that the Overseers, not as Overseers in their Politic capacity, but as believers, respect had to their spiritual Union, be truly members of the Church there mentioned; and for the fifth, if by Rock might be understood Peter, it would as to this business be of the same import. 

Augustin de verbis domini secund. Mat. Serm. 13.  
Chamier Tom. 2. l. 11. chap. 23.   And if by Rock with the great St. Augustin we understand Christ (and so we ought and may, as is made appear by Chamier, the remoteness of the antecedent notwithstanding) that Text relates to the Church builded; the Church, which is Gods own workmanship, Eph. 2.10. holding out that to be it, against which the Gates of Hell, whether sin or death, or the power or policy of spiritual Adversaries shall not prevail.  
Secondly, Your Doctors usually blame us, for making two Churches, the one visible and the other invisible, And now you seem offended because we do not. However without regard to either, we affirm that the same Holy Catholic militant Church, is both visible and invisible; invisible, respect had to its union, and visible respect had to its profession of Faith in Christ.  
Thirdly, Yours I think do, and therefore sure should you in this case distinguish inter Ecclesiam judicantem & docentem betwixt the Church judging or defining, and the Church teaching, and have pleaded for that, not this to be infallible: as and for ours, though its true, they do affirm that the Church while teaching conformable to Scriptures, teacheth Doctrine infallibly true, yet do they never say that the Church, in any sense is, or aught to be denominated, infallible. No Sir, the Church hath other precious privileges, other benefits by these promises, and the Doctrine of Christ (as hath and shall be made appear) is and may be abundantly otherwise confirmed: you need not for fear of debasing the Church below the Devil, suppose her thus guilty of robbery, in making herself equal with God: Equal I say with God, because infallibility is not an effect or fruit like love, peace, but an essential attribute of the Holy Ghost, no more communicable to, or predicable either of you or us, than Omnipresence or Omnipotency: It's God alone that cannot lie, Titus 1.2. howbeit, in some cases others through his grace shall not.  
Fourthly, The books of Scripture, 
Pag. 83.  which you are pleased to accept as Gods written word, and Divine revelations, were first delivered unto you by Catholics, and accepted of by your Ancestors, upon the score and word of Roman Catholics, Priests and Monks, together with the same sense and interpretation, which the Roman Catholic Church now teacheth, and which was then confirmed by miracles as aforesaid.  
First, You confess, 
Pag. 84.  Querie the third, that there is a Greek Church, and an Ethiopian Church distinct from yours; and we can tell you out of Reinerius cont. Haeret. cap. 4. of Leonists or Lollards, that were dispersed into all Countries, have continued ever since the Apostles, lived justly, and believed all the Articles contained in the Creed. Our Ancestors might receive the books of Scripture as Gods written word from Catholics, and yet never be beholding to the Romanists for it. But be it so, that our Ancestors did as you say, what then? Did not the Primitive Christians receive the books of the Old Testament from the Jews, and yet rejected their Traditions, nay, disputed against the Jewish Traditions out of those very books. How ever,  
Secondly, These books were not accepted as aforesaid, upon the score and word of the Roman Catholic Priests and Monks; for our Ancestors had the Priests and Monks word for the Apocrypha books, as well as for the Canonical, and yet did they reject those, and accept these because they found convincing reasons so to do.  
Thirdly, True it is your Priests are sworn not to interpret Scripture against the sense, which the Holy Mother the Church hath held, and doth hold: but that they do so, or ever delivered unto our Ancestors any such an interpretation, much less any confirmed by Miracles, remains for you to prove, and is a fable we know nothing of; though yet,  
Fourthly, If you, your Priests and Monks, or any body else can bring us to the certain knowledge thereof, or any other traditions so confirmed, we shall without further ado accept of, hold them as fast as we can, and in the mean while no little marvel that you knowing so well of such a sense, should spend time in troubling us with your own private glosses. Nor yet is the last, the least sign of a brazen forehead, the Apostate blushes not to tell to all the world that he has now learned to hate and abhor Rebellion and Treason as much as Hell and Damnation, 
Pag. 86.  notwithstanding that,  
First, The general approved Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third, decrees that if the Temporal Lord being required and admonished of the Church, shall neglect to purge his Country of Heretical defilments, the Pope may from thenceforth denounce his Vassals absolved from their fidelity, and may expose his Country to be seized on by Catholics, who rooting out the Heretics may possess it without contradiction, and keep it in the purity of Faith. The Popish Bishops and Priests declare and swear, extra hanc veram fidem Catholicam non est salus, out of this true Catholic Faith there is no Salvation. The sum of all the Captain has learned, and would have us to learn, is to believe as the Church believes: and consequently is so far from having learned to hate and abhor rebellion, as Hell and Damnation; as he believes all such shall be damned to Hell, as do not hold it lawful (such procedure first had by the Church and Pope) to rise up in Rebellion against their Lord and King.  
Secondly, The Oath of Allegiance was composed and imposed on purpose to distinguish the Loyal and disloyal Romanists, the Pope's power of Excommunication not at all therein touched; no point of doctrine inserted, and yet is the Popish Religion so near allied to Rebellion, that it commands her Vassals rather to suffer death, than bind themselves by Oath to perform Allegiance to their Lord and King; though yet to say truth,  
Thirdly, The Papists in this deal more candidly than in any other thing that I know of: for should they take this Oath, as sometimes some of them in policy may do, it were no better than taking God's name in vain. The Pope if antecedently he have not, may yet at pleasure absolve them from it; they may this notwithstanding, be free to rebel, so soon as there is an opportunity, and ●ill there be an opportunity, it is not likely that men so wise as they, should ever offer to rebel. Non licet Christianis, etc. says Bellarmine, it is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an Heretic, if he endeavour ●o draw his Subjects into Heresy: And if you would know how Christian Papists in England, and some parts of Germany can be excused from neglect of duty; Dominicus Bannes will ●ell you, because that generally they have not power to make such Wars against Princes, and great dangers are imminent over them, however an Apology might easily be framed out of Bellarmine in the place forequoted, quod si Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem & Dioclesianum, & Julianum Apostatam & Valentem Arianum & similes, fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis; If Christians in former times did not depose Nero, Dioclesian, Julian the Apostate, and Valens the Arian and such like, it was because temporal forces were wanting unto Christians: nor may it with any colour of Justice be pleaded, that Bellarmine, Bannes, Mariana, Suarez, etc. be but private Doctors, unless it be firstly made appear that the Roman Church might, and has legally reversed the foresaid Lateran Decree, and anathematised the persons and opinions of these and such like as Heretical; however, Captain Robert carries it throughout like a man that is indeed an Heretic: for while a Protestant, he did act as a rebellious Traitor, and now being turned Papist will needs profess himself a Loyal Subject, both in their several times apparently against his own principles.  

The sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule, examined.  
THe sixth reason I meet with, was whatsoever is a sole and sufficient rule, 
Pag. 42.  must be plain and clear in all necessary points, at least, which relate unto faith, or the Means by which salvation is to be had, which the Scripture is not; and above all things it must not contradict itself, which the Scripture seems to do. To prove this, I shall give some few instances, which I think can never be infringed.  
The man comes here home to the point, waves his impertinent sophistical jumbling in of Judge and Guide; and most industriously endeavours to prove from the Scriptures deficiency and obscurity, that it is not the sole sufficient Rule, nor is it any marvel that we find him now so serious and earnest; for if this argument fail, all his other seven Antiscriptural reasons come to nothing with it: for though Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, etc. should disagree in matters of Faith, raise different senses to serve their several interests, cannot all of them understand, and some of them do desperately wrest several places to their own destruction, the Scripture supposed plain and clear in all necessary points, the fault and folly is their own. The Scripture all this notwithstanding, may and does still remain as it was, a sole sufficient Rule; or if some Books be lost, all Copies corrupted, and several Texts mistranslated, yet what's this to the purpose, while we can and shall evince, that the Books we at present have, are so entire, the Copies so pure, and the Translations so true, that all points necessary at least be therein plain and clear; nor will it avail to tell us of the Primitive Christians consulting with the Apostles, and that it is all one to judge by our own reason, and by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason: For we might suppose the Apostles with all their Authority now in being, go and consult with them, or in their absence with the Pastors of the several Churches as the great Moderators of all controversies, and yet the Scriptures if plain and clear still remain a sole sufficient Rule, according to which the controversies might and ought to be decided: Nor need we in this case be troubled with interpreting of Scriptures according to our own reason, sigh 'tis supposed, and shall be proved, that the Scripture is so clear in all necessary points, that it needs no interpretation, though yet you may take notice by the way, that to judge by our own reason as the only rule, is not the same with judging by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason as one special means: your Argument would perhaps strike at that; but this is all that in any case we practise and so do; because Christ bids us search the Scriptures, and the Apostle adds, judge ye what I say, comparing spiritual things with spiritual; however, sigh the faith or means by which salvation is to be had, is a believing on Christ the foundation, as hath been said, not a believing of just so many as you or others are pleased to call fundamental points: If the Scriptures be plain and clear, as without peradventure they are in their testifying of him according to Joh. 5.40. they are plain and clear in what necessarily relates to Faith, or the means by which Salvation is to be had according to John 20.31. and consequently what ever becomes of all the other, whether necessary or unnecessary points, may be a sole sufficient Rule according to the tendency of this your present discourse, the seeming contradictions shall after your infringible instances, come now to be discussed.  

Pag. 42.  That they are not plain and clear, as aforesaid, consider all Christians generally (except some few) do agree that the Sacraments of the Gospel are necessary in order to Salvation. Now as to these, the Scriptures are so far from being clear that they do not so much as denominate what a Sacrament is, how many Christ ordained, or whether there be any Sacrament or not.  
First, All Christians may agree that the Sacraments are necessary, and yet they not be so; for it's Christ's saying that they are, not at all the Christians agreeing, that can make them necessary. Did not all Christians generally agree for six hundred years together, that the Eucharist was necessary for Infants, and yet now the Church concludeth otherwise. But 2. it is here granted that some Christians deny the Sacraments of the Gospel to be necessary, and if some may be Christians and yet deny the necessity of Sacraments, it's an argument sufficient that they are not necessary. Nor indeed does the man assert that Sacraments be simply necessary, but qualifies it with, in order to Salvation, and limits it to Sacraments of the Gospel: perhaps he may think there be two ways whereby God brings his people to Salvation, one ordinary with, and the other extraordinary without Sacraments; nor shall I say more of that, but tell him that if Women and Male Children under the Law might, much more the Catechumeni and Infants under the Gospel may be saved by grace without Sacraments to confer or convey it. 3. Though it be not the Scripture mode to observe Logic rules in framing definitions, nor always Arithmetical in making up of accounts: Yet is the nature and end of these Ordinances we call Sacraments, described in Scripture so far as is meet for us to know: The number numbered, Baptism and the Lords-supper said to be instituted by Christ, and no more; and sure then the man may count two, and need not complain for want of the number numbering.  
Secondly, It's necessary to Salvation, to believe all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God, and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal; but by the Scripture it cannot be made out plainly and clearly, which Books are the word of God, and which are Apocryphal.  
First, Your own Doctors distinguish betwixt an affirmative believing and a negative disbelief; and though they make it damnable to disbelieve any one point (when sufficiently represented to the understanding as revealed by God) yet do they not make it necessary, positively and expressly to believe all, or any of the Books of Holy Scriptures to be so revealed; and suppose they did, it matters not, sigh it's evident that the Scriptures themselves make believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not believing all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God, to be that Vnum necessarium, that one thing necessary to Salvation. And the Fathers in the Primitive times had differences and doubts about several Books of Scripture now commonly received for Canonical, and yet were saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, even as we. 2. Christians convinced by any means whatsoever, that such and such Books in themselves Apocryphal be the word of God, aught during that conviction believe them to be so, and it is so far from being necessary to Salvation for them, rebus sic stantibus, to believ otherwise, that it were obstinacy and interpretatively a denying of God's veracity for them not so to believe formally, as Chillingworth, though not materially an Heresy. 3. True it is that it cannot be made out by Scripture as by a Testimony, or Argumentum inartificiale, which Books are the Word of God, and which be Apocryphal; yet may this be made out plainly and clearly by Scripture, Tanquam per Argumentum artificiale, scilicet, The Divine Characters that God himself hath imprinted on those Books that be indeed the Word of God: nor need we trouble your Church's Authority, though we confess ourselves much beholding to the Church's ministry for the finding of them out.  
Thirdly, It is necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but there is no Text or Texts of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have, are God's Word.  
1. It is necessary for you and me to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, because we are persuaded, though upon several grounds, that they be so; but that it is necessary for all persons so to believe, will not be granted till you further explain your [necessary,] and add proof for the evincing of it. And yet however, 2. There is a Text of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are God's Word; For if there be a Text that expressly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times, were the Word of God, there is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have, are God's Word: But there is a Text which expressly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God; ergo, There is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have, are God's Word. The major is evident from universal Tradition assuring us that the Scriptures we now have, be the same that the Jews and Christians had then. The minor is evinced from that of Paul to Timothy, whose Mother was a Jewess, and Father a Greek; all Scripture is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. 3.  
Fourthly, It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted, for if they be corrupted they cease to be the Word of God, and then they cannot be any rule or sure guide to us: But of this we have no assurance in Scripture.  
1. It is not necessary, as hath been said, to know the Scriptures to be the Word of God; and therefore not necessary sure to know they are not corrupted. Scripture or Writing is no more than one special means whereby God is pleased to make known, and preserve in the World the knowledge of his Will; if he do it any where by another Medium, that will suffice. Nay suppose, as the man seems to do all along, that the Scriptures be corrupted, it cannot be necessary to know that they are not corrupted; unless it be necessary to know that which is not possible to be known, and so all men be necessarily damned. 2. When we say, the Scripture is the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies, it is usually restrained to such controversies as do not concern the Scripture. You will not allow us to argue, the Church is no infallible Judge or Rule, because the Church is forced to seek for other and higher proof than her own words to prove herself to be Infallible; and if so, why should we argue the Scripture to be no Rule, because we cannot have assurance in Scripture that it is not corrupted? it will be sufficient that we have assurance some other way. 3. Scripture may be said to be corrupted in Essentials or Accidentals, in whole or in part: It may be corrupted in Accidentals, the Words mis-spelled, Sentences misplaced, Words, or Letters inserted or omitted; and yet the mind and meaning of God what it is, all that notwithstanding, be evident from thence. Every Book almost after its most perfect Edition, hath Erratas, and yet the Author's meaning may be plain enough: Nay further, Scripture may be corrupted in some parts, and yet remaining pure in others, Scriptura per Scripturam, Scripture may be corrected by Scripture, as a Jesuit of your own hath well observed.  
Fifthly, It is necessary in order to the knowing of the true mind, meaning, and will of God, and what he intended by such and such a Text, that we know when a Text is to be understood literally, when figuratively, when mystically; but this cannot be understood from Scripture, as daily experience informs us.  
1. The Scripture supposes men to have the use of sense and reason; and if so, they may easily conclude, as sure as God is truth, the Spirit spoke by the Prophets and Apostles accordingly as he meant; the Prophets and Apostles writ according as the Spirit spoke; and writ for that end, that the true mind, meaning, and will of God might be known and understood, which could not be without perpetuated new Revelation, except we might and ought to take that for his mind and meaning which the words in their literal construction hold out unto us. Eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur, 
De verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 3  certum est esse sensum Spiritus Sancti. That, says Bellarmin, which is immediately gathered from the words, is certain to be the sense of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, 2. vainly does he inquire, and fond distinguish of several senses of this or that Text, whenas it is apparent from the very writing of it in letters, and the confession of our adversaries, that each Text is to be understood literally. Nor is that he calls figurative, 
Literalis est duplex; alius simplex, alius figuratu●. Bellar. ibid.  any other than a species of the literal sense: The mystical, an uncertain remote intendment of the things, and not the immediate argumentative meaning of the written Words or Text, which we are now enquiring after. 
Augustin. 〈◊〉 Doctrina Christiana, l. 2. c. 9  However, 3. In iis quae aperte in Scriptures posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem morésque vivendi: In those things which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures, all those things are found which appertain to Faith and Direction of Life. Dark figurative Texts, and mystical meaning of things may in some sense be useful, yet it is not necessary in order to the knowing of the mind of God, so far as is requisite for us to know, that we should be able to unfold them; Exponat si cui Deus concesserit: As Cajetan of the Revelation. And yet further, 4. There is a difference betwixt being ignorant of such and such a Text, and wresting or wilfully perverting it to a wrong sense: This even in Scriptures not materially necessary to be known, must of necessity be avoided. It is Heretical, it is Soul-destructive, 2 Peter 3.19. that anent Texts holding out points commonly called Fundamental, may consist with saving knowledge; for it is the knowing the true mind, meaning and will of God as to such a particular that is necessary, and not just the knowing it by such and such a Text: you may perhaps know it by one Text, and I by another; or you by oral practical tradition, and I by writing.  
Sixthly, It is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translations of the Scriptures which we have, and upon which we ground ourselves, are certainly true: for if they are not, we build upon uncertainties, and consequently have no sure foundation for our Faith; yet we cannot be assured, nor have so much as any information as to this particular from the Scriptures.  
First, The Man does not deny either the being or possibility of knowing, That there be Copies and Translations certainly true; only he asserts, That we have not so much as any information as to this particular, from the Scriptures, which we might, as hath been said, easily grant; and yet upon just Grounds maintain that the Scripture is a rule both plain and perfect, howbeit. 
In hac germani textu●s pervestigatione salis perspicuè inter omnes constat, nullum argumentum esse certius ac firmius quam antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem, etc. in praefat.  we need not do it: for in the pervestigation of the true genuine Text, says Sixtus Quintus, There was no Argument more firm and certain to be relied on, than the Faith of the ancient Books: Nor is there a better way, says a great Rationalist, for the ordinary sort, whether of Papists or Protestants, than to compare their and our Translations together, and where there is no real difference, there to be confident they are right: where they differ, there to be prudent in the choice of their Guide. 2. There is a certainty Mathematical, Moral, and Spiritual. Mathematical, either touching Copies or Translations of Scripture, is not now to be had. Certainty Moral, such as the nature of the thing will bear, and as much as humane Testimony and industry can afford us, we have: Nor is the building thereupon a founding our Faith upon uncertainties but upon most strong probabilities, such as especially in a matter of Fact and Skill it were extreme imprudence and obstinacy, not to rest satisfied withal. Certainty Spiritual, whether of Science or adherence, beyond that which the best rational Evidence can give ground for, is to be had, and sometimes by, but not from us; you must by Prayer seek unto God for it, every good Gift and every perfect Gift is from above. And if God vouchsafe to give it you as to this particular, touching the whole or part, well; if not, for aught I know, or you are able to evince, you must be content to be without it. However, 3. You do ill to call the Scripture, quà Scriptura, as copied and translated, the foundation of Faith; and worse, to conclude from its uncertainty, as such, that our Faith has no sure foundation: For Scripture under that notion is not the Material, much less either the Formal or Salvifical object of Faith; nor any more save choicely instrumental in the producing thereof; and I think we may safely affirm, That an Instrument in itself fallible, may be mainly subservient to the supreme Cause, in bringing us both to believe Divine Truths, because Divine, and to acquiesce in him who is the Foundation indeed, and Truth itself, Jesus Christ. Your English Priests are fallible, yet instrumental sure, by Preaching, Translating, Writing, to bring persons certainly to believe those Proposals, and to fix upon that Authority, which is supposed in itself to be infallible. How shall they believe in him on whom they have not heard: And how shall they hear without a Preacher? Rom. 10. Not how without an infallible Proposer. But, 4. I much admire the Man should hold it necessary to know, etc. sigh it is evident that in Austin's time, the Latin Translations of the Scripture were innumerable, nor could any man have said this or that is certainly true: The Septuagint, said to be used by the Apostles, is confessedly faulty: and though some of the present Romanists may be arrived at that height of impudence, as peremptorily to affirm; yet none can rationally make it out, that they know any one Translation that is perfect, or Copy that is uncorrupt. The Council of Trent indeed did decree, That the Vulgar Translation should be received for Authentic; but which she meant by Vulgar, or what by Authentic, no body can yet tell: there was bellum Papale, after, about the Editions, Sixtus against Clemens, and Clemens against Sixtus. Nor can their Doctors yet conclude, whether it is better say, the Translation is free from all errors, or only such as relate to Faith and Manners.  
Seventhly, It is necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided, because where two contrary senses are imposed and urged, and both affirmed to be the meaning of God, and his Revelation, one only can be true, and he who refuseth that which is true shall be damned: yet these controversies cannot be decided by Scripture.  
1. If it be necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture, should be decided; sure your Supreme Infallible Judge is far to blame, that hath not yet decided them, but suffers your own Doctors to controvert the sense of almost every Text of Scripture.  
2. We urge, it's true, by Arguments, but it is you alone that Magisterially impose your own meanings as Divine Revelation: and though of two contraries, one sense only can be true, and he that refuseth that sense which he knows to be true, does deserve Damnation; yet that God will certainly damn him, or that the not believing in case he had not known, were a sin damnable, is more I think than God ever told you.  
3. Such controversies as are necessary to be decided in the use of lawful means have been, are, and may be decided by Scripture, without either completing it by, or introducing in the stead thereof any other Rule; and for the rest a mutual forbearance of the Controvertors were far better than your Pretorial decision of the controversies.  
Eighthly, It is necessary to know, what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed, and what not; that is, as you say, what is fundamental, and what not fundamental; and to be informed of this plainly, lest we err and be damned: but in this the Scripture is silent.  
1. If it be necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed, and what not, How comes it to pass that your Church only declares negatively what is not to be believed, or what must not upon pain of Damnation be disbelieved, and yet never tells affirmatively what is purely and absolutely necessary for us to believe? True, you will have all believe affirmatively, implicitly, what ever your Church believes; but that is nothing to this business, where knowledge of the [what] in an explicit Faith, is necessarily required. All your Doctors conclude, Somewhat must be explicitly believed; and you say, It is necessary to know the Particulars; and yet will not your Church ever be gotten to declare unto us which they be: let her do it when it shall seem good unto her; in the interim, I shall tell you plainly, That,  
2. So much of the [what] is fundamentally necessary to be believed, as is needful to bring such or such a person to believe in the [who] and rest on the foundation Jesus Christ; and consequently more may be necessary for one than another, and not necessary at all that the particulars should be determined. For,  
3. Saving and Damning depends not upon a precise knowing and believing just so many points, and no more; but upon a hearty believing or not believing in Jesus Christ. He that believeth in the Son of God, hath eternal life: He that believeth not, etc. He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life, 1 John 5.12.  
Ninthly, It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten; that God the Son is not made but begotten by the Father only; that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten, but doth proceed, and that from the Father and the Son; that Christ is of one substance with the Father, and that these three are one, and that one three. I refer to consideration, whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture: If they were, it had been almost impossible for so many divisions to have happened about them, as have done amongst persons on all sides, admitting the Scripture to be the word of God.  
1. I refer it also to consideration, Whether all these points be not plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture: And wish you to consult with almost any large English Catechism, or common Place book concerning it.  
2. The Heart of man is desperately wicked, and many are possessed with a Spirit of blindness: It is one question whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture? and another, whether all persons that admit the Scriptures to be the word of God, can or will so search as to find them to be there? Both Jews and Christians admit the Books of the Old Testament for Divine, and yet differ about the weightiest, and as we say, the clearest point. You say the Scriptures are plain and evident for the Church's Infallibility: and yet the Protestants, that admit the Scriptures for the Word of God as well as you do, all deny it.  
3. Those so manifold divisions in the Primitive Church, make more against the Churches being a Pretorial Judge, than against Scripture being a perfect Rule. It had been sure altogether impossible that such and so many points should have been so long controverted; but that either the generality of Christians did not then judge a Pretorial decision of controversies necessary, or that there was none then impowered so to decide them. Howbeit,  
4. Is it necessary to believe these points implicitly or explicitly? if but implicitly; it is not necessary in order to the constituting of Scriptures an adequate object or rule of believing, than these points should be plainly contained in them. For plainness respects knowledge of the particulars to be believed, which this kind of Faith supposeth not; and if it be necessary to believe these points explicitly, knowingly, your own Doctors will not deny but that the Scriptures do plainly and perspicuously contain and teach them. We deny not, saith Costerus, that those chief heads of the Faith, which are to all Christians necessary to be known to Salvation, are plainly and perspicuously comprehended in the Writings of the Apostles. 
Enchirid. c. 4. p. 49.  Cujusmodi sunt mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis & incarnationis Filii Dei; Of which sort be the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and Incarnation of the Son of God. The Evangelical and Apostolical Books, and the Oracles of the Ancient Prophets, planè instruunt nos, do plainly instruct us what is to be thought concerning things Divine. Therefore hostile discord laid aside, let us take the explication of Questions, from the words, Divinely inspired, says Constantine to the Council of Nice: And now what think ye does Bellarmine reply? why, 
See Bellarmin. de verbo Dei, l. 4. c. 1.  he takes occasion hence to suspect Constantine for a person unbaptised, that as yet non noverit Arcana religionis, had not been acquainted with the secrets of Religion; howbeit better considering, answers, 2. That there be Testimonies extant in the Holy Scriptures of all the Doctrines which appertain to the nature of God, and that concerning these Doctrines, we may be plenè & planè, fully and plainly instructed out of the Holy Scriptures.  
Tenthly, It is necessary (the Church of England saith) that Infants should be Baptised, and Women should receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and Christians should observe the Lordsday; and yet none of these points are clearly and particularly proved from Scriptures  
1. It matters not much what you say, elsewhere, this passage sufficiently manifests what sort of Nonconformists you writ against, scil. not Nonconformists to the Church of England, but to the Chair of Rome; for if otherwise, wherefore should you urge them in this case with, The Church of England saith, etc. And yet however, 2. You must know that if the Church of England say, It is necessary that Infants should be Baptised, it is upon a supposition that the affirmative may evidently be proved from Scripture; for if you or any else shall evince that Infants-Baptism cannot be proved from the Scriptures, the Church of England, Article the sixth, hath expressly declared against the necessity of it. 2. You cannot but have heard of haec homo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let a Man examine himself, etc. 1 Cor. 11.28. Women as well as Men are there required, (self examination and not Auricular confession first had) to receive the Eucharist. Nor, 3. Can you be ignorant that there is a difference betwixt the Lordsday being necessary to be observed, and its being necessary that Christians should observe the Lordsday: That would imply a Doctrinal; This no more than an obediential necessity: That if held by any, the Church of England will tell you, aught to be proved particularly from Scripture; This needs no more but a general warrant.  
Eleventhly, It is a sin, (as the generality of Christians agree) an heresy to re-baptize any one, which hath been baptised by an Heretic, where doth the Scripture say so?  
1. Those that hold it a sin and heresy to rebaptize any one, 
Videtur quod Baptismus possit iterari; sed contra est quod dicitur, Eph 4. una fides, unum baptisma. Aquinas 3. quaest. 66. Art. 9  etc. found their opinion upon Scripture, One Faith, one Baptism, Eph. 4.5.2. Cyprian held, such aught to be rebaptized, died in that opinion, and yet died a Saint and Martyr. 3. The Thesis here laid down without restriction is apparently false, contradicting the Nineteenth Canon of the Council of Nice, Si quis confugit ad Ecclesiam Catholicam de Paulianist. & Cataphrygiis, statutum est rebaptizari. If any one of the Paulianists and Cataphrygians fly unto the Catholic Church, it is Decreed, That they ought to be rebaptized.  
And now it being evident that neither your Argument nor instances make against, but for the Scriptures being a sole sufficient Rule; let us try what they'll do on that account against, or for your Romish Church. Whatsoever is a sole sufficient Rule must be plain and clear in all necessary points, at lest which relate to Faith: But the Roman Church is not plain and clear in all necessary points that relate to Faith; Therefore the Roman Church is not the sole sufficient Rule. The major is your own, nor shall I need to trouble any body else for instances to prove the minor.  
First than it is necessary, you say, to know how many Sacraments Christ ordained; and yet your Church leaves it doubtful, whether anointing with Oil was ordained by Christ a Sacrament or not; Insinuated, she says, it was, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 1.  Mark 6. but does not, dare not, say, it was there or any where else, instituted as such.  
Secondly, It is necessary to salvation, you say, to believe all the Books of the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God, and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal; And yet as to this, Your Church is so dark and dubious, 
See Bellarmin. de verbo Dei, l. 1. c. 7.  that though Bellarmine contend that the Council of Trent did define the additaments to the Book of Hester to be canonical; Sixtus Senensis believes otherwise, and brings Arguments against it. Nay, if it be necessary to know which Books be the Word of God and which Apocryphal, it is necessary sure to know which Traditions be Dominical or Apostolical, which not; and yet concerning this your Church is silent.  
Thirdly, It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted; it is necessary to know when a Text is to be understood literally, when figuratively, when Mystically; it is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translations of the Scriptures which we have, and upon which we ground ourselves are certainly true; it is necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided; it is necessary to know what is Fundamental, what not: and yet as to none of these your Church is plain and clear.  
Fourthly, It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten; that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only; that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son; that Christ is of one substance with the Father, and that these Three are One, and that One Three: and yet suppose these points not plainly and clearly to be found in Scriptures, how possibly could the Church for the first three hundred years be said to be plain and clear concerning them? for during that time there was no General Council whereby she might explain herself, and if she did explain herself in General Councils after, that employed her former darkness and deficiency, with respect to those very points.  
Fifthly, It is a sin and heresy, you say, to re-baptize any one who hath been Baptised by an Heretic; and yet as hath been said, your Church, that I mean you take the boldness to call your Church, is so far from being plain and clear in this, that she hath defined the contrary: Nay, plainness and clearness owned as it is, and aught to be, for an essential property of the Rule of Faith, 
P. 54, 56.  the whole of what you have said in behalf of the Church (if granted true) will amount to as much as nothing. For suppose Christ judge the Nations not by his Word and Spirit in the mouths of his Ministers, but, as you phrase it, by his Church's Tribunal in passing of Acts and pronouncing anathemas; suppose the Church to be what you would have it, and not only led, if she will, but so drawn that she follow the Spirit into all truth, & sic de caeteris, yet what were all this to the purpose? For it would not necessarily follow thence that she is plain and clear in all necessary points: the Apostles sure, if any, might so judge and were so drawn, 
Pag. 37.  and yet you say that they in their Epistles are defective, dark, very subject, and that in fundamentals, desperately to be misunderstood. Nor do you trouble us with telling that the Church is always in being, 
Pag. 61.  and capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense; For 1. If we cannot certainly understand the Apostles, when explaining and declaring their sense and meaning, how shall we be able certainly to understand your Church, when explaining and declaring hers, sigh the Church hath no other way to explain her meaning, save by words most intelligible, which way the Apostles had, and did make use of as is evident from 1 Cor. 14.2. The question is, whether the Church be actually plain and clear in all necessary points; not whether the Church be capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense: being plain and clear, and capable upon demand to explain and declare, be different things; this belongs to an Interpreter, of no concern here, it's that that is pertinent and the property of a Rule. And yet 3. The Church diffusive is not capable either of explaining or of being demanded to explain its own sense: Council or Church representative, there has been none at your own account for a whole Century of years, nor likely to be any more, and it cannot be imagined that by Church you should mean the Pope, because, other reasons at present omitted, you refer to a Church always in being: However, 4. Frustra est potentia quae non reducitur in Actum: What are we nearer having, or the Church nearer being a Rule of Faith, for her being capable of doing that, which by no means she'll be gotten to do? Often has she been demanded, I now demand, and desire you to demand her, to explain herself touching the points forementioned, as also touching those after instanced in the close of my answer to the third Querie; and if she do explain her sense as to those points, we shall conclude that hitherto she hath not been a sole sufficient Rule, for want of that explanation; if she do not, at the best she'll be but remotely capable of being hereafter, and at present be no Rule of Faith; nor yet indeed is she capable at this account of being hereafter, or rather, would you speak properly, making such a Rule, because disenabled by the first general Council at Ephesus from ever making tanquam de fide any such an explanation. 
Can. 7.   
That there are in the Scriptures several places which to common reason seem contradictions, and consequently some parts of Scripture seem untrue, is easily proved: And I shall here give you some few plain instances for example, to which many more might be added.  
First, It's well you distinguish betwixt private and common Reason; for though you exempt each man's private Spirit or Reason, from meddling about interpreting of Scriptures, you'll sure admit common Reason to be of special use, unless you'll say that Reason ought to be abused for finding out of contradictions in Scriptures, but must by no means be employed either in unfolding or reconciling the difficult places that occur therein.  
Secondly, Either Reason can judge of things and propositions, when contradictory, or not: if not, wherefore do you tell stories of several places seeming to common Reason to contradict one another, so seeming that thereupon▪ Scripture must be rejected from being a Rule; and if Reason can thus judge, wherefore should not your Church be rejected from being a Rule as well as Scriptures, sigh her Doctrines seem to Reason, and often to common Sense too, to be more contradictory than any of these Texts. A Council is above the Pope: A Council is not above the Pope: hoc this scilicet bread or nothing, is the body, is really Christ's body at London, at Rome, on Earth, in Heaven, the very same moment. Every man is a liar; The Pope as Pope is a man, (unless he be either Accidens or animal irrationale) and yet the Pope as Pope is no liar, in no possibility to be mistake. Nay further, these very places you say seem contradictory, your Church teaches to be certainly true in her Authoritative approval of the Canon of Scripture: so that if upon this account you'll reject Scripture, upon the same account you may, must reject the Church from being a Rule: and yet rather the Church than the Scripture, for the Scripture barely presents us with the places; your Church passeth sentence, says they are all true: unless you'll tell us your Churches saying can make contradictions true at once, and warrant you to believe it; howbeit Gods saying cannot do so.  
Thirdly, Had you had many more plain instances, it is not like you would have troubled the Reader with these: your task is to prove, that the Scripture is not plain and clear in all necessary points: and is it not then for want of some more pertinent, that you present us with doubts and difficulties about Chronologies and Genealogies, concerning which the Apostle forbids us to dispute: you had better have said with the great Master of Reason, Grotius, afflatu Dei locutos quae locuti sunt, scripsisse quae scribere jussi sunt Prophetas; de scriptis Historicis & Moralibus Hebraeorum sententiis aliud puto.  
In 2 Kings chap. 8. verse 26. you read thus, 
Pag. 45.  Twenty two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his Mother's name was Athaliah, the Daughter of Omri. But 2 Chron. chap. 22. verse 2. you will read thus, Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; his Mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. Now against the infallibility of Scripture, Reason conceiveth herself to have this infallible demonstration, viz. No one who speaketh two things, the one contrary to the other, can be said to be infallible in speaking: but to affirm of the same person that he began to reign when he was two and twenty years old, and that he was two and forty years old when he began to reign, is to speak two things, the one contrary to the other; therefore saith Reason, the Scripture is not infallible in speaking.  
First, I am glad to find you in hand with infallible demonstrations: for if demonstrations Theological be to be had, and may be owned as infallible, I hope there will be no great need amongst sober persons, of your judicial Decisions, unless you can get licence to demonstrate against, and we neither for, by, nor from the Scriptures.  
Secondly, Your Major is denied; for heat and cold are two things contrary one to another, and yet I hope God himself may be infallible, notwithstanding he hath said, Summer and Winter, heat and cold, Gen. 8.22. You would say if you could speak, No one that delivereth two propositions, the one contrary to the other, can be said to be infallible; though yet this will not do neither, for you yourself might speak and write too these two propositions, Ahaziah began to reign when he was forty and two years old: And Ahaziah began to reign when he was twenty and two years old, and yet this notwithstanding, did nothing else hinder, be infallible. But that it may be sense and pertinent, your Major must be supplied from your Minor: No one that affirms two things of the same person that are contrary the one to the other, can be said to be infallible in speaking: But to affirm of Ahaziah, that he was twenty and two years old when he began to reign; and that he was forty and two years old when he began to reign, is to speak two things contrary the one to the other; yes, and more too, or else nothing to the purpose, scilicet, to affirm of the same person two things contradictory one to the other, 
See Lightfeet Harmony in ●oc.  which yet this Scripture doth not: for the Book of Chronicles in this place meaneth not that Ahaziah was so old when he began to Reign; but these two and forty years, have relation to another thing, namely to the Kingdom of the House of Omri, and not to the Age of Ahaziah; for count from the beginning of the reign of Omri, and you find Ahaziah to enter his Reign in the two and fortieth year from thence.  
The Original words therefore Ben arbagumi Vshethaiim Shunah are not to be translated as they be, Ahaziah was two and forty years old, but Ahaziah was the Son of the two and forty years, as Sedar Olam hath acutely observed long ago: nor should you tell us now of our different translations, unless it could be made appear that the Church in all ages had, and of necessity ought to have one authentic Translation. Or,  
Secondly, that our Translations do not clearly and with one consent deliver to us all points necessary to be believed, differing only in some punctilios of an inferior concern. Or,  
Thirdly, That it may not be as lawful for us to propose what seems agreeable to Reason for the removing, as 'tis for you to urge what seems contradictory to Reason, for the raising of objections against a book of Scripture so universally received for Canonical: And your Minor thus mended, is denied; for contradictories must be ad idem, in the same respect, as well as de eodem, 
See Peter Martyr▪ in loc.  concerning the same person. Ahaziah began to reign with his sickly infirm Father when he was twenty and two years old, and the same Ahaziah was forty and two years old when he began to reign himself alone: or if this will not satisfy, you may consult with your own Cornelius de lapide upon the place, he'll tell you of the Syriack and Arabic Translations, both those of Antioch or Mount Sinai, the Alexandrian or Coptick, that for forty two, have twenty two; and he that is offended at the other, may use this reading. Nor is it, saith he, the interpreters, but the Scripture itself that corrects itself, corrupted by the Transcribers: The book of Kings corrects the book of Chronicles: nor need we go further than Scripture for salving of the other difficulties; for 1 Chron. 3.16. will teach you to insert Joechim or Jachim betwixt Josias and Jeconiah, Mat. 1.11. and so complete your number of forty two; and Gen. 10.22. will tell you to put out Cannai from betwixt Sem and Arphaxad, put in upon special Reason, as is conceived by the Seventy, 
See Lightfeet Harmony in loco.  and retained as is likely by S. Luke chap. 3.36. the better to win upon the Gentiles.   

The Argument from Heaven, for the Roman Churches being Judge and Guide, solved.  
ANd now that I may conclude my whole proof with an Argument from Heaven, 
Pag. 74.  and by a Testimony of the highest nature make it evident to you, that this Roman Catholic Church must be this Church, which God hath appointed to be this Guide and Judge, I shall insist upon the gift of Miracles; this was that Testimony which our blessed Redeemer did himself produce, as his Letters of Credence, and as both necessary and sufficient to prove his mission, If I had not (saith our Lord, Joh. 15.24.) done among them the works that no other man did, they had not had sin, namely, in not believing me to be the Messiah. God therefore hath decreed it as a Law, that whosoever refuseth to believe and submit unto that authority, unto which he sets his hand and Seal, by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles, that Person committeth sin: the reason is given in the same Text, viz. because he thereby showeth that he hateth God, namely by not believing him. Now I urge, But the Roman Catholic Church hath done Works and Miracles amongst us, such as no other Christian Church upon Earth hath done; Therefore if we give credit to any other Church or Churches, and disbelieve or refuse to believe her, we shall have sin, and show ourselves to be haters of God.  
First, You pretend here to conclude your proof with an argument from Heaven, and yet have you not hiththerto produced so much as one Testimony of the lowest nature; somewhat you have said indeed, which is already touched, to prove what we grant, scilicet, that no other Church can be; but have not said a word to make good what you yourself affirm, viz. that the Roman Church is, this infallible Rule, Judge and Guide. And let me tell you by the way, either you can prove this your Church infallible, or you cannot: If you cannot, wherefore should we believe it? If you can, either by Revelation, or by Reason: Divine revelation, it's apparent, you neither do, can, nor attempt to produce: and as for Reason, you have already proved it to be fallible; so that at best, how much soever you may seem to be taken with your own fallacies, your Church can be proved but fallibly to be infallible. But,  
Secondly, There is a difference betwixt the gift, and the power of working Miracles. You do, it's true, insist upon the gift, but should make it out that your Church has power of working Miracles, if you'll evince her, Christ-like, to be infallible: this was necessary; that had not been sufficient to have proved his mission: It is therefore somewhat lose arguing, for you to conclude, the Jews committed sin, were haters of God, for not believing Jesus to be the Messiah, who did amongst them the work which no other man did, viz. wrought Miracles by his own power; and therefore Christians commit sin, show themselves haters of God in not believing the Roman Church to be infallible, because she has the gift, can do works (howbeit, none among us) like other men, viz. work Miracles in the name and power of another. And hence,  
Thirdly, We deny Gods having decreed any such a Law as you tell of; 
1 Sam. 10. Numb. 11.  for though an Authority, to which God sets his hand and seal, by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles, may be rendered thereby (like that of Saul and the Seventy, by the spirit of Prophecy) more than ordinary venerable; and whosoever refuseth to believe and submit to an Authority, knowing it to work Miracles by its own power, that person committeth sin, and showeth himself an hater of of God: yet may an Authority divinely signed and sealed by having that gift, be disbelieved (however, submission still due whether it have the gift or not) without contracting any such a guilt: not disbelieved, do I mean, in a particular Doctrine, that it shall actually and visibly confirm by Miracles; but disbelieved, when teaching itself and all other Authorities that have that gift, to be disbelievable upon that account, or de debito believed in all that they should dictate forth unto us: That being indeed a Doctrine never confirmed by Miracles, nor delivered by him that had the power of working of them. Though yet,  
Fourthly, It cannot be made out that Christ did set his hand and seal either to this or that Authority, by bestowing on it any such a gift; for particular believers had that gift bestowed upon them, as well as the Apostles; these signs shall follow them that believe, etc. Mark. 16.17. Nor did the Apostles work Miracles by virtue of their Authority, but by Faith; If ye have Faith as a grain of Mustardseed, etc. Matt. 17.20. And though I have all Faith, etc. 1. Cor. 13.2. And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the People, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though we by our own Power and Holiness, had made this man to walk? His name through Faith in his name hath made this man strong, etc. yea the faith which is by him, hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all, Act. 3.12, 16. And hence sure it is, that in your Minor you leave out Authority, mention neither Seal nor Gift, but barely urge and assume— Now the Roman Catholic Church hath done, etc. not now God hath set his hand and seal to the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church, by bestowing upon it the gift of Miracles: Nor is it any marvel that you do so, for if that gift were bestowed upon that Authority, the Pope and Council that are invested with it, should work Miracles, which yet they do not, nor do you insist on any such a thing; and yet if that gift be not bestowed upon that Authority, it cannot bestow ●t upon inferior Officers: it wants God's Hand and Seal, and may according to the tenor of your own Argument be disbelieved, be disobeyed, without either committing sin, or showing hatred against God. However, 5. If a Church may properly be said to work Miracles, when yet indeed it is not the Church, but some particular believer that works them, and that not in the name of the Church, but in the name of Christ; Other Christian Churches have done as great Works or Miracles in former Ages as the Roman Church ever did; witness the Church of Corinth, that came behind in no gift, 1 Cor. 1.7. and yet were not they reputed thereupon either Judges of controversies, or infallible; nor does the present Roman Church do any greater Works or Miracles than other Christian Churches now on earth. What does she, what can she do here amongst us, more than our Protestant Church doth (amongst you,) save make louder lying boasts of what she has done elsewhere? And therefore shall not we refuse to believe them, or resolve to give credit unto her upon any such account, and conclude our so doing to be warrantable, and well enough consistent with the love we own unto the Lord; wishing you yet withal to remember, That the Question is not solely or chief whether this or that Church ought to be believed or disbelieved in their Doctrinal teaching; but whether the Roman Church be the infallible Rule, Judge, and Guide of Faith? Doctrinal certainty will not infer Judicial Authority, nor è contra: Nay suppose your Church were Doctrinally infallible, and had universal Jurisdiction, yet would it not necessarily follow that she is the Rule of Faith. The Prophets of old, you will say, were infallible, and the High Priests had judicial power, and yet to the Law and to the Testimony, Isaiah 8.20. It was therefore prudently done of you to alter the Question, First leave out Rule, and undertake to prove no more by your Argument from Heaven, but that the Roman Church was Judge and Guide; and then finding after a while, that that would not do neither, you leave out Judge or Authority, and tell us of believing and disbelieving, as if it would follow, The Roman Church ought to be believed in all that she says, and therefore has she plainly said all that we ought to believe, is a Rule of Faith complete and evident; howbeit indeed, had she authoritatively and infallibly so said, not she, but her say in propriety of Speech were to be owned for the Rule.  
Now that the Roman Church hath done these works or Miracles, 
P. 76.  is a thing so evident both by the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, and authorities of approved Historians, that those who deny it must show themselves either not to be Men, or Men who purposely shut their Eyes against the truth; yea, Heathens and Atheists will be as justifiable in their denial of the Miracles related in the Old and New Testament, as those will be who deny these. The Magdeburgenses, who were all professed and known Lutherans, do almost in every one of their Centuries recount multitudes of Miracles wrought by persons whom they affirm to have been infected with what they call Popery. Namely, S. Bernard, S. Malachy, S. Dominick, S. Francis, and the like; as you may particularly see in Brerely, if you examine the several places to which his Index at the word Miracles will refer you: By which it will appear, That most of those Miracles were done not in confirmation of those Points and Articles of Faith which you hold with us; but even of those Points and Doctrines which you call Popish Superstitions and Idolatries, as the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, the respect and veneration which is given to Saints, Relics, Images, etc. Certainly there are few amongst you, but have heard and read, how and what Christian Faith was first brought into England amongst our Progenitors the Saxons, and by whom brought in: It was by S. Austin a Monk of S. Benet's Order, and his fellow Monks, sent hither by S. Gregory the then Pope of Rome; and it was the same Faith that Catholics now teach, which was then confirmed by wonderful Miracles from Heaven, as is testified by our own Writers, Venerable Bede and others; yea and by our Protestant Chronologies, Holingshead's Chronicle, the last Edition, Vol. 1. Book 5. Cap. 21. Page 100, 102. Fox's Acts and Monuments, Printed Anno 1576. Pag. 117. Stow's Annals, Printed 1592. Pag. 66. Goodwin in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England, Pag. 4. Also Fox in his aforesaid Book, at the Word Miracles in the Index. To this I shall add the Authorities of our own late Protestant Writers, for proof of undoubted Miracles wrought in this latter Age. In the Book entitled, A report of the Kingdom of Congo, a Region of Africa, Printed Anno 1597. Published by Mr. Abraham Hartwel, Servant to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, mention is made, Lib. 1. Cap. 1. of the discovery of that Kingdom, 1587. by Odoardo Lopez, and of the conversion thereof to the Christian Faith, Lib. 2. Cap. 2. and of the great and undoubted Miracles showed by God in the presence of a whole Army, Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Insomuch that the said Hartwell, in his Epistle there to the Reader, confesseth, That this conversion of Congo was accomplished by Massing Priests, after the Romish manner; and saith he, this action which tendeth to the glory of God, shall it be concealed and not committed to memory, because it was performed by Popish Priests and Popish means? God forbidden. In like manner Mr. John Pory of Gonvile and Cajus College in Cambridge, in his Geographical History of Africa, published Anno 1600. Pag. 410, 413. commendeth Mr. Hartwel for publishing the aforesaid Miracles, and acknowledgeth the same.  
1. The common people may, must be deluded by lying Wonders: but sigh you are so sober as not to insist upon our English Popish Priests, either throwing in, or throwing out of Devils; you did wisely, when giving in your Catalogue of Miracles done by the Romish Church, to leave out [amongst us] and yet suppose the Roman Church hath done these Miracles, and done them [amongst us] it is little to the point; for if she did them in her own name and power, she is no more a Church but a God, the Messiah; and if she did them in the name and power of Christ, it will evince Christ, in whose name and power the Miracles were wrought, to be the Son of God, and consequently infallible; but leave your Church subject to mistakes as formerly she was. However, 2. It is one thing to say, it is evident both by Testimonies of Holy Fathers and approved Historians; and another thing to produce those Testimonies: and yet if you had, those Testimonies could be no more than Humane, capable of mistake, in a possibility of being erroneous, and consequently the thing as to us, be no more at your own account, than probably true; our belief, or opinion rather, no better founded than the persuasions of the Jews, Turks, or Pagans; all upon a fallible certainty. Nor yet, 3. Can it be said either with truth or modesty, that the Heathens and Atheists will be as justifiable in their denials of the Miracles revealed in the Old and New Testament, as those Men will be that deny these. For though the relation of the Miracles in the Old and New Testament be brouhgt down to us by humane means, yet such as be in no wise (morally) questionable; and besides, all is ultimately resolved into Testimony Divine: Whereas these reports of yours, first and last, have no firmer a Basis than the Testimony of Men blinded, biased by interest, and that could not certainly know a true Miracle from a lying Wonder, had they stood by at the working thereof. 4. It may be true that the Magdeburgenses, with some others, writing the Churches general History, recount as from your own Authors, several Miracles to have been done by persons infected with Popery: But it is as true that they themselves account of them all as no better than either illusions of Daemons, or false narrations. And well may we grant with Abraham Hartwell, John Pory, and some more of ours, True Miracles to have been wrought by Popish persons; and not conclude with you, Popish, but Christian Doctrine to have been confirmed by them: For if they did Miracles, it is apparent they did them as Christians, and not as Papists, in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Pope; nor need you stumble at such a distinction. 
Bellar. de Notis Eccles. l. 4. c. 14.  For Bellarmin unto the Miracle of Novatianus the Heretic, answereth, the Miracle to have been wrought not for the confirmation of the Faith of Novatianus, but of Catholic Baptism. And yet suppose Miracles wrought to confirm the truth of certain Popish Doctrines, what is that to the infallibility of the Popish Church? that learned Cardinal saw the non sequitur well enough; and therefore labours by Miracles to prove the verity, not the infallibility of that Church, and to prove it by them credibly, not certainly. For saith he, before the approbation of the Church, it is not evident or certain with the certainty of Faith concerning any Miracle that it is a true Miracle. However, 5. The most ancient Author you or your Index pretend to quote, is Beda, who flourished Anno 720. the most ancient Miracle-Monger, the Monk Austin, who came into England about the Year 600. an evident sign that your Popish Doctrines, if brought forth, yet were not confirmed from Heaven for the first six hundred years after Christ: Nor were those you instance in, ratified on Earth by any General Council for a long time after that. The first pretended for Image-Worship is the second of Nice, Anno 705. condemned by that of Frankford, Anno 794. And the first for Transubstantiation was that of Lateran, 1215. For the most notorious of the rest you must come down as low as the Council of Trent, begun since Luther's death. And for a Miracle neither England, France, Italy nor Spain can furnish you with one; but you are forced to run as far as Congo, a Kingdom in the Region of Africa, and there resolve your Faith into a Book, said by John Brerely, Anno 1664. to have been published Anno 1597. by Abraham Hartwell Servant to the Archbishop of Canterbury (without any leave from his Master) which Book yet, for aught appears, neither mentions Miracles done to confirm the truth of any Popish Doctrine, nor the Infallibility of the Roman Church.  

Pag. 78.  If any of you should chance to say, That this Testimony of Miracles is nothing to you, because you have never seen a Miracle: I answer, Either you grant what these Author's report, to be true, or you deny their Testimony, refusing to believe what you have not seen. If you grant the truth of these things, and yet remain out of the Communion of the Holy Catholic Church, upon which God hath conferred this Gift, you have sin, and hate God, according to the argument framed by our Lord himself, which I have before cited. If you refuse to believe what you have not seen, First, You destroy Faith, Which is an evidence of things not seen. Secondly, You take away all humane conversation; no man must believe another. Thirdly, you make it unjust for Civil Magistrates to punish Transgressor's or Felons: for where there is no Law, there can be no breach of a Law; and if there be no Law to him who did not actually see the very Statute which was passed in Parliament, and hear the King and both Houses agree unto it (as in this case there is no Miracle to him who did not see it) how can you with Justice condemn and execute a Malefactor, who shall urge at the Bar that he never saw the Statute upon which he stands Indicted; nor had any knowledge or notice thereof otherwise than by hear-say, and the report of Authors and Books; which, since they are no sufficient proof of Gods setting his Hand and Seal to a Law by Miracles, he sees no reason why they should be proofs for passing that Statute; and consequently, that as to him that Statute is not in force. What you would reply to one who should give this for his Plea, upon such an Indictment, suppose as said unto yourself in the case of Miracles not seen by you, but reported by good Authority. Lastly, this would excuse all Infidels who have been since the Apostles times, even those that lived in their times, in case they saw no Miracles. But if any of you shall further say after the learned Chillingworth, That God in his Justice may permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude Men who have forged many: I answer, That by this you help the Jews who refused to believe the Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, notwithstanding their Miracles. For why may not they say; God in his Justice for our sins might permit those true Miracles to be wrought by Jesus Christ and his Apostles to delude us who have forged many? I hope this Answer will satisfy any rational person; but if it do not, I have another answer to give out of Mr. Chillingworth's own words, Pag. 144. It is impossible that God should lie, or that the Eternal truth should set his Hand and Seal to the confirmation of a falsehood; or of such a Doctrine as is partly true and partly false: the Apostles Doctrine was thus, (viz. by Miracles) confirmed; therefore it was entirely true, and in no particular false or uncertain. If you reply, this contradicts Mr. Chillingworth's former position: I must answer, That if Mr. Chillingworth be found to contradict himself, relying upon his own reason, it is not my fault, nor doth it make any thing against our Church.  
1. If you will have us guilty of Sin, and Haters of God, for refusing to believe on that account; it is necessary, according to the tenor of your own law, that the Miracles be done amongst, and seen of, us. If I had not done amongst them, the works which no other Man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. And yet I think it is by chance indeed, if any say, That this Testimony is nothing to them, merely because they have not seen a Miracle; it is the Testimony itself that they except against. And yet, 2. There is a difference betwixt remaining out of Communion, and remaining out of subjection, to that you call the Holy Catholic Church: Suppose we granted the truth of these things, it might perhaps be a sin to remain out of her Communion, and yet a duty to remain out of her subjection. Miracles, as hath been said, may evince the truth of such and such a Church; and yet make nothing at all in order to the proving of her either Supreme or Infallible: though yet, mistake me not, by Communion, I do not mean a communion total or local in all her Doctrines and polluted modes of Worship; but partial Spiritual in those Doctrines and Performances, supposed to be confirmed by those Miracles. However, 3. It is well you make it no worse with them that refuse to believe these things they have not seen, than to destroy Faith, and take away all humane converse, etc. I was afraid you would have charged them as Christ did the Jews, with sin against the Holy Ghost; though yet, as it is, your charge is so high, it can never be made good. For may not Faith, think you, evidence things not seen, upon the account of Divine Revelation, unless we believe what we never saw, upon the report of Abraham Hartwell and John Brerely? May not one Man believe another about worldly things with a humane Faith, unless one Man believe another about Heavenly Doctrines with a Faith Divine? Or can Thiefs and Traitors ever imagine, that a Law publicly promulged by the King, and practically attested by the whole Nation, may as warrantably be pleaded against by them, as the private Testimony of a few ignote Travellers may be excepted against by us, especially when they discourse largely about Miracles; which, if your own Doctors say true, neither they, nor any Man else can with certainty distinguish from lying Wonders? We have notice of the Reigns and Acts of the several Kings and Queens of England, no otherwise than by hear-say, and by Authors and Books; and we have notice of the Lives and Acts of Bevise of Southampton, Robin Hood, and Little John, by hear-say, Authors, and Books; and will any conclude the one is to be credited as well as the other, because they have seen neither, and both come to us reported by that, you may have the forehead to call, a good Authority? Your grand Argument as is before observed, comes to nothing, because we have not seen your Miracles; howbeit we give a ground for no such inferences as these, but are ready to proportion our belief according to the worth and weight of the Testimony, be it Divine or humane. Nor yet will the Infidels be excused, for that they have not seen the Miracles; for in the Apostles time, Their sound went into all the Earth, and their words unto the utmost parts of the World, Rom. 10.18. And now in these days, besides the universal Tradition of the Church, we have reasons and Records undeniable, to evince the truth of Christianity, and of Miracles having been done to confirm it: Howbeit those who have not heard at all, or heard no better proofs for the truth of Christian Religion, than you bring for your Popish Miracles, if excusable for not believing before; doubtless may yet remain in the same venial condition as they were.  
And now for a close, 4. Give me leave to mind you, 1. That in the beginning of this Epistle, you would have Faith destroyed, transformed into Fancy, Humour, and Opinion, if built on any foundation save Divine Revelation, or what we did certainly know to be infallibly true. And now here you will have a total destruction of Faith, unless it may be built upon the private Apocryphal reports of Abraham Hartwell, John Pory, John Brerely, and such like Men, not only fallible, subject to error, and in a possibility to be mistaken in this very thing; but Men that cannot be concluded with any probability of reason to be in a capacity to know the certain truth of what they say, they do affirm. 2. You can now present us with an argument from Mr. Chillingworth, sufficient at once both to convince an Heathen of the truth of Christianity, and to prove the Divinity of the Scriptures. It is impossible that God should lie, and that the Eternal Truth should set his Hand and Seal to the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly False. The Apostles Doctrine was thus, (viz. by Miracles) confirmed: Therefore it was entirely true, and in no particular false or uncertain: And yet in your Discourse with the Lay Gentleman, you had not a word to say for the truth of Christianity upon Protestant Grounds; nor any thing for Scriptures being the Word of God, save that the Spirit witnessed with your Spirit, they were so. 3. The Gospel, Scripture Doctrines we preach, are like your universal essential predications, Eternal; once confirmed by Miracles in themselves, or their Principal, they need no more. This proposition, The Roman Church is infallible, has a personal mutable individuum for its subject, changes every Age, may change every year; and therefore still stands in need of new miraculous confirmations: insomuch that would we give you leave to suppose Miracles wrought in Bede's time, not simply to confirm the Doctrine taught, but the than Roman Churches infallibility in teaching; yet would that make nothing at all to prove, either that the now Roman Church is infallible, or her new devised Doctrines certainly true. 4. The former position you father on Mr. Chillingworth, will be taken for your own, till such time as you quote the Chapter, Section or Page, where you had it; and if then, as much may not be done for Mr. Chillingworth against you, as Mr. Chillingworth in the like case hath done for Bishop Usher against Knott, we shall confess him a Man; what would you more? and fallible; and yet withal tell you, that his Arguments remain unanswered, nay unanswerable by your Church; nor will so wise a man's contradicting of himself make any thing at all against, but for the establishing the Doctrine of ours, Let God be true and every Man a Liar, Rom. 3.4. Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10.5.5. Clodius accusat Moechum: You tax Mr. Chillingworth with contradicting of himself, and yet you are taken in that very act; you blame that learned Writer for relying too much upon his own reason, and yet you would have us build our Faith upon yours; we must have reasons forsooth, without revelation, for conversion and submission to the said Church.   

The Six Queries answered.  
BUt yet all after this, 
Pag. 84.  I fear some of you will blame me for having joined with this Catholic Church, to which by God's mercy I am united, and judge me as having taken the wrong way. To those who shall remain so persuaded, I make this humble request, and conjure them by all the Obligations of Brotherly Love, and as they have any charity for my Soul, that they will please to tell me, First, etc.  
First, Fear of blame argues a sense of Gild; you confess your having joined with [this] Catholic Church, and that implies your having separated from [the] Catholic Church, the very thing your old Brethren do, and that upon just grounds, blame you for. And therefore, 2. Do not take God's name in vain; never say that it was by God's mercy, but because of your own sin and folly, that you are now divided from the communion of Christians, that are all one in Christ Jesus, according to Gal. 3.28. and are become united to a Sect of Papists, that centre in nought else save three Words, which you cannot construe, Roman, Catholic Church, without either Christian or Holy.  
Thirdly, How can you but judge yourself to have taken a wrong way, when as you know you have left God's way, an explicit Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and have taken up a way of your own, viz. an implicit believing as the Church believeth? When the poor Jailor enquired, Acts 16.31. What shall I do to be saved? Pray now, did the Apostle direct him to go that way you have taken, or that way you have left? Howbeit, indeed you cannot rightly be said to walk in that wrong way you have taken, or to believe as the Church believes, because the Church hath one manner and Rule of believing, and you another; unless you'll say, what yet I think you will not, that the Church, like you, believes she neither knows what, nor in whom, and is a Rule of believing unto herself. 4. Humble requests and Brotherly love we shall let alone till another time, but out of Charity to your Soul, and tenderness of many others, a solution is endeavoured to all your Queries.  
First, Whether they themselves are certain, past all possibility of being mistaken, that the Christian Religion is the only safe way to Salvation: i. e. Whether they are infallibly sure of this point, and how come they to be so infallibly assured?  
1. It is not so proper to say, Christian Religion, as that Christ is the only way to Salvation; I am the way, John. 14.6. nor need there should be any addition of [safe] as if there were other ways to Salvation though somewhat dangerous: For there is no other name under Heaven given amongst men, whereby we must be saved; neither is Salvation in any other, Act. 4.12. Beauties' saying, tutissimum est, was well for a Papist, yet would ill become the mouth of a Protestant. 2. Though we shall not say that we are certain of this point ex parte nostri, beyond all possibility of mistaking; for that were to make ourselves Gods pure Acts, not men compounded ex actu & potentia, of what we are, and what we may be: Yet we say we are ascertained hereof ex parte Dei, beyond all possibility of being mistaken; because God that cannot lie, hath declared it, and taken away the actual hurt of that mist, that yet naturally we are still prone unto. And hence, 3. Though we do not say that we can infallibly assure ourselves, nor dare say that we are infallibly sure of this or any other point; Yet we affirm that we are most sure of this point, Historically, Morally, as men; so sure, as the best Authentic Histories, Universal Traditions, and the most rational Arguments can make us sure, with a certainty, cui non subest dubium, exclusive of all doubt: Though yet, this notwithstanding, as some do, and we may surmise, potest subesse falsum, there is a possibility of its being otherwise, a possibility of our being mistaken.  
2. We are assured hereof infallibly, spiritually, as Christians, finding in ourselves a faith of adherency freely given beyond, and besides that of evidence by natural means to be obtained; nor will it be either reasonable or charitable for you to call this our faith fancy: for sigh we make it out, that what we believe is true, objectiuè, beyond all contradiction of Reason; wherefore should you question the goodness of the God of truth in confirming us subjectiuè, especially when we, who know our own Hearts, if not well enough, yet better than you, affirm, that from time to time we experience it, are ready to seal it with our lives, and that Ancient godly Book, called the Bible, hath many speeches and promises of such a tendency?  
Secondly, Whether they have the same assurance, and from the same grounds, or from what grounds, that this sort of Christianity, wherein I now worship God, is erroneous and damnable?  
1. We do not say, that sort of Christianity wherein you worship God, is erroneous and damnable; but that that sort of Popery wherein you worship Images, invocate Saints, adore a piece of bread, etc. is so. 2. That this sort of Popery is erroneous and damnable, we are certain from divine Scripture ground, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, etc. thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, Exod. 20.4, 5. When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven, Luk. 11.2. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Matt. 4.10. In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Mat. 15.9. 3. True it is we have the same grounds of assurance for all points of Christian Religion, affirmatively, negatively, respect had to their Verity; and yet have we not the same grounds for all, respect had unto their Charity; and therefore may we have assurance for all upon the same grounds, yet not the same assurance. 4. The Spirit is sent in a special manner to convince the world of sin, for not believing, and to persuade all the Elect to believe in Jesus Christ. But which, or how many other points the Holy Ghost will certainly give in evidence for, or against, I shall not determine.  
Thirdly, Suppose I were willing upon their persuasions, to relinquish this way, wherein I now am; what sort of Christianity (viz. whether the way of the Lutheran or Calvinist, of the Greeks Church, or of the Armenian, or Ethiopian, or whether the way of the English Independents, or Anabaptists, or Quakers, or of the Fifth monarchy-men, or the way of the new Arrians, or Socinians, or any other, and what) shall I follow, and why, as the only secure way to salvation? or is it enough to secure my salvation, if I be a Christian opposing the Roman Church, and believe, or disblieve what I please, so it be in contradiction to the Roman Church?  
1. I can easily suppose you convinced of the naughtiness of the way that you are in, and yet at present cannot suppose you willing to relinquish it for any of those ways you mention; indeed there is another way you seem to be thinking of, because you say nothing of it; and had not your perfidiousness been such, that the Chieftains thereof will not allow you preferment, I little question but they have Motives that might work upon you. 2. The way (as you call it) of the Lutherans, the way of the Calvinists, Arminians, English Independents, be not several sorts of Christianity, or several ways to salvation; but several opinions held out, several forms of Government under which several Christians live, that are all in the same secure way to salvation, viz. Jesus Christ: and therefore, 3. I shall not persuade you first or last, to be of any of these ways, but, as you say well, to become a Christian, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and him alone for salvation: and then as to other points, believe, or disbelieve, not what you please, but what God in an humble use of lawful means shall be pleased to make known unto you; Lord what wilt thou have me to do? Acts 9.6. And then though I cannot tell which of the ways forementioned you'll be for, may be for none; yet certain I am you'll stand up with me in contradiction to the Church of Rome: because she above all other Sects, sets herself most notoriously to contradict our only Lord Jesus Christ; will needs sit as God in the Temple of God. However, 4. suppose I were willing upon your persuasions to relinquish this way wherein I now am, what sort of Popery (viz. whether the way of the Dominicans, Jesuits, or Franciscans, or the way of the French or Italian, or the way of your Thomists or Scotists, nominal or reals, or whether the way of J. S. who makes Tradition, or the way of R. E. who makes the Church the Rule of Faith, of any other and what) shall I follow, and why, as the only secure way to salvation? or is it enough to secure my Salvation, if I be a Papist opposing the Protestant Churches, and believe or disbelieve what the Priest my Confessor pleases, so it be in contradiction to the Protestant Churches?  
If't be said, that yet for all this you do not differ in points of Faith: We answer, First, you differ in what is more considerable, the foundation and Rule: J. S. and his party holding Tradition; R. E. and his party holding the Church to be the Rule of Faith: And then in a subdivision, the Italians holding the Pope; The French maintaining that the Council; and R. E. again that the vast community of all Christians, etc. aught to be meant by the Church. Nor does it end thus; Bellarmin holds that by Miracles the Church can be proved true no more than credibly; you'll needs prove your Church by Miracles to be the universal Judge, and the infallible Guide of Faith, and that certainly certitudine fidei, directly contrary to, and far enough beyond what Bellarmin ere attempted. 2. The differences betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans, Whether God predeterminate every action, Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight, be about points of Faiths, and more material than any point in Controversy betwixt Presbyterians, Independents, and Anabaptists: If you say you agree in all points your Church has defined to be of Faith, it's not simply and unanimously, as you pretend to agree in all points of Faith: but in all your Church has defined or can agree that you should agree in, whose definitions and politic Arbitration, together with your irrational forced submissions, be nothing to us, nor to the Question. However you use to tell us herewithal, that an agreement in the letter or words is worth nothing, unless there be an agreement in sense. And now you controvert the sense of almost all your Church's definitions. 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 25.  Due Honour and veneration, saith your Church, must be given to Images, and then one sort of you conclude the Image in itself must not in any manner be worshipped, 
Bellar. de Imag. sanct. l. 2. c. 20.  but only the exemplar be worshipped before the Image: Another sort, that the same honour is due to the Image, as is due to the exemplar: And a third sort, that the Images in themselves, and properly, aught to be honoured, but with a lesser Honour than the exemplar itself: and if you urge yet, that you all agree the definitions to be true in the sense intended by the Church herself, we reply that you your selves be the Church, that thus falls out about the sense, do not know what's your own meaning; and add further, that we all agree the Scriptures to be true in the sense intended by God, yet will not that content you.  
Fourthly, Whether they, who would teach me that sort of Christianity to be the only Religion, wherein Salvation is to be attained, which they would have me follow and embrace, be infallible in their teaching of this particular?  
We do not tell you of this or that sort of Christianity being the only Religion, wherein, but of Jesus being the only Christ, through faith, in whom Salvation is to be attained; and though we dare not say, that we are infallible in teaching this particular, yet are we certain that this particular which we teach is true infallibly, and that one infallible according to Christ's own promise, Matt. 28.20. goes along with us in teaching thereof; your Priests want such company, and therefore not being able their Ministry powerfully to evidence in men's understandings, the verity of what they set themselves to Preach, they labour to set up an infallible visible Authority, unto which they most impudently aver, that all persons must and aught to yield a blind obedience.  
Fifthly, Whether they are infallibly sure, that all who do not follow and embrace that fort of Christianity which they would have me follow and embrace, shall be damned?  
1. You are always in hand with your several sorts of Christianity, an expression ill becoming one, that hath Christian for his name, and Catholic for his Surname, and therefore disclaimed by us.  
2. We tell you that all those that embrace Jesus Christ by Faith, and follow him in love, so far as shall be made known unto them whom we persuade you to embrace and follow, shall be certainly saved, and those that do not, shall be certainly damned.  
3. Such Sectaries as you, that make several sorts of Christianity, and maintain it to be necessary to Salvation, in all things to obey and follow this or that sort of Christianity, do certainly deserve for that very thing to be eternally damned: But what God will do either with you or them, lest herein we should be like you, I shall not determine.  
Sixthly, Supposing that they are not infallible in these particulars, whether will it not rationally, and necessarily follow, that possibly I may at present be in the right way, and they in an error; and if so, what reason can they give, why I should forsake my present Guide, whom I believe to be infallible, to follow them who confess they may be, and therefore, for aught they know, are at present mistaken in what they believe and practise?  
First, If we neither did, nor could bring any other proof for these particulars, save our own Testimony (fallibility on our part supposed) it would rationally and necessarily follow quoad nos, that possibly at least you might be in the right way, and we in an error: Though yet, quoad rem ipsam, the sequel, this notwithstanding, be impossible, because these particulars might be in themselves infallibly true, and we neither know, nor be able to evince it.  
Secondly, You may strongly imagine, but if your own principles abide firm, you cannot, do not believe, that the Roman Church your present Guide is infallible: For Faith, according to you, is an infallible assent of the understanding, submitting itself obediently to the revelations of God: And therefore sigh you have no revelation of God for, but one express against, the infallibility of the Roman Church, Rom. 11.22. Your own definition will tell you, it is impossible that your understanding should exert an Act of Faith about it; nor yet, suppose you had divine Revelation for it, or that God himself should say to you, the Roman Church is infallible, were you ere the nearer. For it's possible you may commit an error, nay err in your understanding of those words; and consequently your understanding never give an infallible assent to that which God intended by them. Howbeit,  
Thirdly, We can tell you as formerly, that à posse ad esse non valet Argumentum: it follows not, we may be, therefore we are; or we confess we may be, therefore for aught we know at present, we are mistaken, etc. for though we still confess we may be mistaken in what we believe and practise, respect had to our desert, and natural proneness, yet do we know that God of his mercy, through the Ministry of his word, hath at present fully satisfied us, that as to the main we are not; and if in some things we differ and wander, yet doubt we not but God for Christ's sake, will pardon our errors, as well as our other sins, and cause us to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. Phil. 3.16. However,  
Fourthly, We do not desire you to forsake your present Guide and follow us; but to forsake your present Guide, us, and your own selfish humour, and follow the Lord Jesus Christ. You pretend and would have us to believe the Romish Church to be infallible independently on the Scriptures, because God by Miracles, as you imagine, has confirmed it so to be; and sigh so, we would have you at least allow us to believe Scriptural Doctrines, confessedly so confirmed independently on that Church, or else excuse yourself from being an Heretic, sigh you'll believe, nay, press others to believe one proposition, and refuse another equally proposed at your own account: Not may this be retorted upon us either by Mr. Johnson or you. For,  
First, Though we own all the gifts Christ gave unto Men for the perfecting of the Saints, and work of the Ministry, according to Eph. 4.11, 12. yet do we neither claim nor admit of such a propounding Authority, as you without any divine warrant pretend unto. 
Pag. 9   
2. Though your Church equally impose all her Tenets, respect had to her own usurped power; yet does she not equally propose all, respect had to the evidencing of their truth. For some she proposes as Divine, but does not prove them so to be, as her Doctrines about the real Presence, and Purgatory: 
Pag. 81.  others she not only proposes as such, but evidently evinces them to be Divinely revealed; as the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation: to these we assent, those we except against as not sufficiently represented to us: And yet say,  
3. That two propositions may be equally proposed to, and not equally work upon the understanding: preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, and preaching the Gospel to the Jews, were both proposed with equal evidence and Authority, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel unto every Creature, Mark 16.15. and yet did Peter with a thousand others believe that, and disbelive this without any crime of Heresy, if of prejudice or inadvertency imputed to them.  
If there be any who hath any value for the Authority of the great S. Austin, I shall beseech them to read this following Text of that Saint, and to consider whether I have not in my proceed observed his Rule and Method; and let them but change the word Manichaeus into John Calvin, and how nearly it will concern them.  
S. Augustin against the Epistle of Manichaeus, which they call fundamental, cap. 5. edit. Paris. Tom. 61.46. If thou shalt find any one who doth not as yet believe the Gospel, what wilt thou do when he shall say unto thee, I do not believe? But neither had I believed the Gospel, unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholic Church: Those therefore to whom I submitted, when they required me to believe the Gospel, why should I not also yield obedience unto them, when they direct me not to believe Manichaeus? Take your choice; if you tell me I must believe the Catholics, they give me advice not to give credit to you; and therefore if I believe them I cannot but refuse to believe you. If you tell me I must not believe the Catholics; you proceed ill, when you go about by the Gospel to persuade me to believe Manichaeus, because it was from the Preach of the Catholics, that I believe the Gospel itself. If you tell me I did well when I believed the Catholics praising the Gospel, but I do ill when I believe the same persons decrying Manichaeus, do you take me to be so stupid as without any reason given unto me I should believe or disbelieve what you please? etc. But if you have any Reason to offer unto me, lay aside the Gospel; if you hold yourself to the Gospel, I shall adhere to those upon whose commands I believe the Gospel, and so long as I obey them I shall not believe you. But if by accident you should find any thing in the Gospel most evidently touching the Apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken the Authority of the Catholics in my esteem, who require me not to believe you; but that being weakened I shall not believe the Gospel, because I believe that by them: so that whatsoever you bring from the Gospel will be of no force with me. Wherefore if nothing be found in the Gospel for the manifestation of Manichaeus his Apostleship, I shall rather give credit to Catholics than you. But if any thing shall be there found manifest on the behalf of Manichaeus, I shall neither believe them nor you: Not them, because they told me a lie of you; nor shall I believe you, because you urge that Scripture to me, which I believe upon their Authority, who told me a lie in relation to you, etc.  
1. S. Augustine may be considered either as a Witness acquainting us, what the Church then held, or as a Doctor rationally deducing and proving of conclusions: had you quoted him under the former notion, I should not have questioned the truth of any thing that Great Augustine had said, without undeniable evidence to the contrary. But sigh you cite him as Doctor, I shall value S. Augustine's Authority, as S. Austin had learned to value the Authority of other pious learned Doctors of, or before his time, not credit what he saith, because he saith it, but because he proves it true, either by Canonical Authorities or probable Reasons. Howbeit,  
2. You observe the Rule and Method not of Saint Austin, but Mr. Knot, substituting John Calvin, for Manichaeus; and I might by the same Rule observe the Method of Mr. Chillingworth, substitute Arians, as great pretenders then, as the Papists are now, for the Catholic Church; put Goth or Vandal converted by them for S. Austin, for Manichaeus write Homousians', and then try whether the Argument, if but first fitted to your purpose, be not, as he says, like a buskin that will fit any leg: but I shall wave this, and in a just parallel let you see plainly how far different your proceed are from those of the great S. Austin. First then S. Austin speaks of an Infidel that did not as yet believe the Gospel; you direct your speech to Christians, Protestants, that do already believe it, and that upon the account of Universal Tradition, the Scriptures, and the Divine Attestations of Miracles, far better grounds than your Popish principles can or will allow. Secondly, S. Austin supposes such a one to come and say I do not believe, and thereupon seeks to bring him to, and establish him in the faith: you deal with such as say they do believe, and seek to overturn their faith established as aforesaid, averring it's no better than fancy and an humour: thus did not Austin. Thirdly, S. Austin speaks in the singular number, and preter Tense, Neither had I believed the Gospel, unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholic Church: You speak in the plural and present Tense, we must not, do not, believe the Gospel, unless our Faith be founded upon the Authority and infallibility of that society of Christians, which is in Communion with, and in subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Fourthly, those to whom Austin submitted, required him to believe the Gospel and disbelieve Manichaeus, who held two first Principles, and consequently two Gods, and maintained several other errors apparently repugnant thereunto: those to whom you have submitted, require you to believe the Real presence, Purgatory. Image-worship, with other such like Humane inventions, and disbelieve Calvin, who teacheth the Gospel, and declares against all such Doctrines as do not accord therewith. Fifthly, We do not advise you to believe the Romanists, nor did you at the first believe the Gospel by the Romanists Preaching, but by the preaching of the Protestants: And therefore if you'll adhere to those upon whose grounds you did at first believe the Gospel, so long as you obey them, you shall not believe the Romanists; and if they say (what one would think they should) you did well when you believed the Protestants preaching of the Gospel, but do ill when you believe the same persons decrying the Romanists, are you so stupid as without any reason given unto you, to believe or disbelieve what they please? etc. Had you indeed been bred a Papist, and then could have proved the Papists the only Catholics, and Protestants as gross Heretics as the Manichees, there might have been some ground for your parallel with S. Austin; as it is, you proceed upon a threefold disadvantage and disparity.  
FINIS.