Rome is no Rule: OR, AN ANSWER To an Epistle published by a Roman Catholic who styles himself, Cap. ROBERT EVERARD And may serve for an Answer to two Popish Treatises, the one Entitled, The Question of Questions; and the other, Fiat Lux: out of which Books the Arguments urged in the said Epistle against the Authority of the Scriptures, and the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church are Collected. In which Answer, the authority of the Scriptures is vindicated, and the Arguments for the Romish Infallibility Refuted.  
By J. I.  Prov. 8.17. 
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.  Job. 6.25. 
How forcible are right words, but what do your arguings reprove?  
LONDON, Printed by T. M. for Livewel Chapman, at his Shop in Exchange Alley in Cornbil 1664.   

TO THE READER.  
Reader,  
SInce the Word of God which he hath exalted above all his Name, to be as a light shining in a dark place, and as a Rule try Doctrines, whether they are of Heaven, or of Men, is by Roman Catholics cried down, as altogether insufficient for that purpose; by reason whereof they have, and do daily beguile unstable Souls: I shall therefore, as a preface to this ensuing Discourse lay before you the Judgement of Christ and his Apostles, and divers of the Ancient Fathers (who trod in their paths) touching the Authority and Vsesulness of the Holy Scriptures, and compare them with the Judgements of the Roman Catholics, that so trying all things, thou mayest hold first that which is best. In the first place, it was the Judgement of Christ (whose Judgement is believed by all Christians to be Infallible) That Men ought to search the Scriptures, Joh. 5.39. And that the reason why the Jews did err in the Doctrine of the Resurrection was, because they did not know the scripture, Mark 12.24. He judged that the reason why the Jews did not believe him, was, because they did not believe the Scriptures, Jo. 5.46. He judged the Scriptures to be Armour of proof against the Devil, Mat. 4.6, 7. He confutes his Adversaries by them, Joh. 8.17. Mat. 12.4, 5. This was also the judgement and practice of the Apostles; therefore they commend the Bareans for searching the Scriptures, Acts 17.11. Hence it was that they mightily convinced the Jews, showing by the Scriptures, That Jesus was the Christ, Acts 18.28. The Apostle informs Timothy, That they were able to make wise to salvation, and that they were profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, and for Instruction in Righteousness, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. And that if we fulfil the Royal law according to the scriptures, we shall do well, Jam. 2.8. That they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come, 1 Cor. 10 11. And that they were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have Hope, Rom. 15.4. This was also the judgement of the Fathers, who followed the footsteps of Christ and his Apostles. St. Augustine saith, upon the 8. Psalms, That God hath bowed down the scriptures to the capacity of Babes and Sucklings, that when proud men will not speak to their capacity, himself might.  
And again, the same Author saith, That our Faith would reel and totter if the Authority of the scriptures did not stand fast, de Doct. Christ. Lib. 1. Cap. 37.  
St. Chrysost. saith, The scriptures are easy to be understood, and are exposed to the capacity of every Servant and Ploughman, and Widow, and Boy, and therefore God Penned the scriptures by the hand of Publicans, Fishermen, Tent-makers, Neatheards, and Unlearned men, that none of the simple people might have any excuse to keep them from reading, Hom. 1. in Mat.  
Again be saith, That whatsoever is required to salvation is all set down in scriptures, neither is there any thing wanting there, that is needful for man's salvation, Hom. 41. in Mat.  
Justin Martyr saith, That we should hear the words of the scriptures, which are so plain and easy, that they need no Exposition, but to be rehearsed, Dialogue cum Triphon. 213.  
St. Hierome saith, Whatsoever things men find and feign without the Authority, and Testimony of the scriptures, as if they were from Apostolical Tradition are smitten by the sword of God, see Comment. in Hagg. Cap. 2.  
On the other hand, the Roman Catholics say, The scriptures are no certain Rule, no Infallible guide; and that all things necessary to salvation, are not contained in them; See the Books Entitled, the Question of Questions, and Fiat Lux, and the Epistle Published by Everard, to which this Answer is Directed. They forbidden the People to use and search them. See Everards' Epistle pa. 14. He saith, Those words in the 5. of John are so far from being a Command to search the scriptures, that they rather seem a reprehension to all that have such a conceit of them.  
Again they say, The scriptures are fitted to the time, and are variably understood; the sense whereof being one while this, and again, another while that, according as it pleaseth the Church to change her judgement. See Cusan. Ep. 2.37.  
Again, The Bishop of Toledo's putting forth the Bible in divers Languages, puts the Latin Translation in the midst between the Hebrew and Greek, and then saith, the Greek and Hebrew he placed of either side as two Thiefs, and the Latin between them, as Jesus Christ.  
Others of them call the Scriptures a nose of wax, that may be writhed any way, and a dumb Judge, etc.  
Now whoever shall but impartially lay the judgement, of these men concerning the Scriptures in the balance of the Sanctuary, and compare them with what Christ, his Apostles, and their followers judged of them, may easily see that there is more excellency in the glean of the Scriptures, then in the full Vintage of the Pope and all his Cardinals; whose Vines are like those of Sodom, by reason whereof, the Nations have been intoxicated, and made drunk with the wine of her fornication. For if they were not drunk, they would never quit both Scripture and Reason, and the Spirit of God, all that by which they become both Men and Christians, to hearken to the voice of the Romish Charmers, who rather than they will want water to carry Proselytes to the Romish Sea, care not though they open the floodgates of Atheism and Antiscripturism upon the Christian World. For who seethe not (but he that is willing to be blind) that the arguments levied by them for wounding the reputation of Scriptures, are as a sharp sword ready to pass through the reins of Christianity itself. For the prevention whereof, I have published this ensuing Answer, which I do desire may be impartially considered; and the Lord give you understanding in all things, and open your understanding, that you may understand the Scriptures; that so taking to yourselves the swords of the Spirit, which is the word of God, you may be able to resist all the adversaries of your precious souls, who daily seek to make merchandise of you; and that you may so do, shall be the Prayers, and Desires of thy Friend,  
J. I.   

Rome is no Rule: OR, An Answer to an Epistle published by a Roman Catholic who styles himself Cap. ROBERT EVERARD.  
BEfore I shall engage against the main body of this discourse, I shall take a view of its Front and Rear, I mean the Title and Postscript: In the Title you have the superscription of An Epistle to the several Congregations of Non-conformists.  
Here I would gladly be informed who you mean by this term of discrimination, Non-Conformists, either you mean all that Conform not to the Church of Rome, or all that Conform not to the Church of England; if you mean all that Conform not to the Church of Rome, than the Church of England is concerned in this Epistle, and reckoned by you among all other Sects and Heretics: but if by Non-Conformists you would discriminate all that Conform not to the Church of England, than your Mother the pretended Holy Catholic Church is concerned in your Epistle, they being Non-Conformists to the Church of England, as well (or rather as ill) as others; and good reason she should be concerned, since she hath furnished you with all your Weapons for this Warfare out of here Armoury: and it is but a piece of gratitude to direct that to her which you so lately received from from her: for he that hath a hand to take, and not a tongue to return thanks, deserves for the future to be both lame and dumb.  
Having viewed the Superscription, I come to the Subscriber, and he is no less than a Captain, Captain Robert Everard. But where was he a Captain, and whom did he command? Let him speak for himself he is old enough. He tells us he was at the head of a Troop in the rebellious Army: See his Postscript, p. 40.  
But what a shame is this, that this Honour was not laid in the dust, rather than prefixed in the Title of a Book? Surely had you been truly humbled for that Rebellion, as you pretend, you would have said of all the honour that you acquired thereby, as Ephraim said of his Idols; What have I to do any more with you?  
In the next place I cannot but observe the place where this Epistle was printed, and if you will believe it, it was printed at Paris. I see you have learned one, if not all the the three things which a learned man observes Children soon learn of their Mothers, Pride, Revenge, and Lying: this last appears in that you have made a Lie your refuge, by saying your Epistle was printed at Paris. But let me ask you the Question which you ask your Reader, p. 20. who will adventure (say you) to make oath the Scriptures we have, agree with the Originals? So say I, Who will adventure to make oath that this Epistle was printed at Paris? Surely we are like to meet with little truth in the House when a Lie in Capitals, and a Capital Lie is inscribed on the Porch, as a London Printer will witness, to your ●ace, if occasion serve.  
I come now to the Postscript, ●herein you caution your Respondent, p. 39 to set down your own words as they lie entirely, without maintaining them: and also, if he answers by Paragraphs, to set down your whole Paragraphs.  
Sir, give me leave to tell you, that you require a thing impossible; for there is in your Epistle so little of you, as any one may perceive (by your own words) and by comparing it with the Book Entitled, (The Question of Questions, and Fiat Lux) that it is hard to say whether any thing by yours besides these three words, CAPTAIN ROBERT EVERARD, and therefore if you would have had a distinct Answer to all your Arguments, you should have distinguished what had been yours, from what was other men's, by a different Character, as is usual in such cases.  
You go on in your Postscript and forewarn your Respondent, that be set not up a Puppet of his own in stead of Answering. If he doth set up a Puppet of his own, he hath done more than you, who have scarce set up any thing of your own, besides your name. But (what) if be set up a Puppet of his own and call it yours, (you say) he will not make your Arguments, but his own ridiculous. Truly he may possibly make his own, but he cannot make your Arguments ridiculous, because he knows not any one that is yours in all the Epistle.  
The next thing you caution your Respondent is, That he would forbear all reproaches and slanders against the Catholic Church, or Catholics in general, or in particular, which (say you) is a fault Protestant's are too much in general addicted to.  
Sir, I perceive this Counsel is easier given than taken, else why do you reflect reproach upon Protestants in general in the same breath, in which you invite them to forbear reproaches?  
Again, You say, That the Presbyterians and Independents do by the Catholics as they did by his late Majesty of glorious memory, and with our most dread Sovereign that now is, and their Party, (viz.) to impute crimes to them without end, and errors innumerable, without taking care to examine whether what they charged was true or false.  
Sir, I have four or five things to ask you; 1 Whether you did use to do so by the King's Majesty when you were an Independent, and at the head of your Rebellious Troop? 2 Whether you believe the King's Majesty hath pardoned you and all that were so wickedly minded? 3 Whether since you were pardoned, you would have any to upbraid you with those pardoned Crimes? If not, then 4 Why do you that pretend to so much Charity, do that to others, you would not be done unto? Lastly, Why do you violate the Law of your Sovereign, who hath forbidden upon a penalty, that those things should be remembered against any that he hath been pleased to bury in Oblivion? But Sir, if you were not a Novice in the Catholic Way, you might know that the people you are now fallen in with, have been the most guilty (in speaking evil of, and doing evil to men in Authority) of any that ever mentioned the Name of Christ; witness their traducing King Henry 8. for that ever to be admired, and to be remembered work of his, in throwing off the Pope's Supremacy; how have the Romanists reported it as a Consequent of his Lust and Levity? How then can they have any regard to the present Rulers, who daily revile their Predecessors, wherein any of them have acted against their Interests? witness both the Gunpowder Treason, and the Irish Rebellion. And what good Allegiance can his Majesty that now is expect from you? Who forsaking a People that destroyed one King, and pretending repentance for that, go and join with a people whose Principle is to Depose and Destroy Kings.  
Passing from your Title and Postscript, I now come to Encounter with the main Body of your Epistle: In the Front whereof You place a Text out of the great St. Austin against Manicheus, whose Words are these; If thou shalt find any one who doth not as yet believe the Gospel, what wilt thou do when he shall say unto thee, I do not believe? But neither had I believed the Gospel, unless I had been thereunto moved by the Authority of the Catholic Church: Those therefore to whom I submitted, when they required me to believe the Gospel; why should I not yield Obedience to them, when they persuade me not to believe Manicheus.  
Thus speaks Austin, and more to the same purpose: lo which I Answer, That this Text out of Austin may be applied to any Church as well as to yours; And if the Church of England shall persuade any one that is a Jew, to turn, and become a Christian, may he not say he did well to believe them when they persuaded him to believe the Gospel? Why therefore should he not believe them when they persuade him not to turn Roman Catholic? But to this Text I shall subjoin Two Texts more out of the same Author against the Donatists: The Question (saith he) between Us and the Donatists, is, where is the Church? This is the Question, between the Protestants and the Romanists; He Answers, Let not these Speeches be heard among you; This I say and this thou sayest, but let us hear what the Lord says: There are certain Books of God, unto whose Authority we both consent. There let us try our Cause; There let us seek the Church: And again in the Scriptures, have we learned Christ; In the Scriptures, have we learned the Church, Ep. 166. ad Donatift. Whosoever shall compare these Texts out of Austin, may easily satisfy himself. What his Judgement was in the Question between You and Us, (viz.) whether we should learn Christ and the Scriptures from the Church, or whether we should learn Christ and the Church from the Scriptures? To this purpose Epiphanius speaking of a Heritick, Saith; This Man is found differing from the HOLY SCRIPTURES, as will appear to all Men that Read attentively: If he then descent from them, he is altogether an Alien to the Holy Catholic Church, Epiphanius Tom. 1. lib. 2. haer. 48. It seems in his time, all men were permitted to read the Scriptures attentively, to inform iheir minds in the Truth; whatever is now a days pretended to the contrary.  
I proceed now to the Epistle itself; In the beginning whereof, Page 1. You give an account of the Reasons of its Publication; which are; To Answer Expectation, to prevent the World from censuring, and to manifest your charity to your late dear Brethren, from whom you have received returns of Assection.  
I did expect that among those Motives that prevailed with you to publish the grounds of your change; I should have found you saying, that the Glory of God had been the chief moving Cause: But I find not a word of that, and therefore however you may have Answered the Expectations of others; I am sure you have not answered mine.  
But further you say, you published your Epistle, To prevent the World from censuring: Sir, whatever you promised yourself in the beginning of your Book, your heart failed for fear of obtaining, when you had finished it; And therefore you are forced to Ride Post after your Reader, and pray him, That he would not upbraid you; As if you had some private ends of your own, in your present change: See the Postscript in Page 40.  
Which plainly shows that you had some misgivings of heart, that all you had spoken throughout your Book would not Answer your end, (Viz.) Keep the World from censuring. And as for that other end, which you pretend in the publishing of your Book; Namely, Charity to your late Brethren. Truly whatever you pretend, they will scarce believe you, because in your Postscript you uncharitably impute the Calumnies and Slanders that were cast upon his late Majesty, and his Majesty that now is, to the Presbiterians, and Independens Indefinitely without exception: Is this Charity? And this uncharitableness of yours, is grievously aggravated; First, Because it is basely remembered by you, who were in the same Condemnation with others; And, Secondly, Because it is mentioned after it hath been pardoned by the King's Majesty; And is this your grateful return for that love which your late Brethren have manifested to you? If so, surely the charity of a Catholic, and the mercies of the wicked, are alike cruel.  
You proceed like a Roman Catholic, and in the latter end of page the 1. Sound a Trumpet in your own praise, by saying, That your carriage was always such, (while you was in Communion with them (meaning your late Brethren) As gave them sufficient reason to believe that you was not Biased by world interests and selfish considerations. But if any body believes so, they may err; because they do not believe as the Church believes.  
In the Second Page, you tell us, how you came to be acquainted with a Lay Gentleman of the Catholic persuasion, and how he interrogated you about the grounds of Christian Religion: The substance of his Questions was to this purpose; Whether you were sure the Christian Religion in General was more true than the Religion of Turks, Jews, or any others, & c? The Reason he gave for this question was, that if neither yourself, nor those that taught you, that Christianity was the only safe way to Salvation was infallibly certain; or were capable of any mistakes or error in this thing: Then it followed that Christianity was but probable, and not certain.  
From Page second, to the eighth, you recite what Arguments your Catholic Friend used to prove these things to you, (Viz.) That we could not convince a Turk or a Jew of the certainty of Christianity but by the Church's Infallibility; Which I forbear to make a reply unto, partly because it is but a Narrative of a private Conference between you and that Catholic Gentleman; And chief because I shall have occasion to speak to the very same things in my following Answers to your Arguments, to which I refer the Reader.  
You come in the latter end of the 8. Page, to tell us what Effects this Conference had upon your understanding; as that thereupon, You resolved to have Recourse to Almighty God by Prayer for his Divine assistance, and to make it your business according to your skill and understanding, to take a full view of the Catholic Faith, and of Christianity, and laying aside all Prejudices, Pride, and Humours; You Resolved to embrace (by the assstance of God) whatsoever you should understand to agree to his most Holy Will and Pleasure.  
Hereupon let me ask you a few questions; First, how are you sure you had a Divine Assistance in this choice, as an Answer to your Prayers, since when you made these Prayers, you were not a member of your pretended Catholic Church? Secondly, How are you sure, since the heart of Man is deceitful, that your heart did not deceive you, when it inclined you to Popery? Thirdly, When you say you made this search according to the uttermost of your understanding, how do you infallibly know that your understanding was not depraved, and that you were not given over to an injudicious mind? Fourthly, Did you not pretend to have used the same means to find out the true Church when you turned an Independent, as you did when you did turn Papist? Lastly, If so, how are you more able to Answer the Turk or Jew now, than you were when your Catholic Friend began to discourse with you?  
In the latter end of p. 8. and the beginning of the 9 You say, that You gathered from Heb. 1●. 6. Mark 16.16. Eph. 4.5. 2 Cor. 10.45. Heb 10.13. From all which scriptures (where God requires Faith) you say) you thought it did naturally follow that there must be some means appointed by God, by which we may know this true faith from all false Opinions, or else you say, p. 10. that prophecy would be ineffectual, Esay 35. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strange, fear not, hebold your God will come and save you: Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped, etc. There shall be one high way, and a way, and it shall be called the holy way; the way faring men, though fools shall not err therein.  
Now since God hath appointed such a way; Your great difficulty (you say) is to find out the Rule and the Judge, since one party proposeth the spirit to be his guide; a Second, proposeth Reason to be his Rule; A Third, proposeth Scriptures; The Fourth assigneth the Holy Catholic Church, etc.  
You answer to the First, and say, That the spirit bearing witness with our spirits, or in plain terms, the private spirit is not that judge: Your reason is, because any one, whether he be Jew, Pagan, or Christian, if he have but confidence enough may pretend to the Spirit.  
But since (you say) the great difficulty is to find out the Rule, I would gladly know how this difficulty shall be infallibly resolved? For if the private spirit within me must not resolve me, nor my reason must not be my Rule, nor the Scriptures my Guide; then I have no light left me to show me the Church, but the Church. Thus they deal like thiefs, put out all other lights, that should discover them but their own dark lantern; But if you shall say that you prove the Church by Miracles; How shall I be satisfied that those Miracles are not delusions? Since as many pretend to the spirit that have it not; So many pretend to miracles that have them not: Then we must have faith to believe those miracles are true, and if they are true, they are no otherwise true but by the spirit of God: Then it is the same absurdity to believe miracles by the spirits testimony, as it is to believe the Scriptures by the spirits testimony: But this also implies a contradiction, for if I must find the Church by the light of the spirit, persuading me that she doth those miracles by the power of God, than ●ave you contradicted yourself, by saying, The spirit is not the guide: But further, may not a man as well say that he believes he hath the spirit by the spirit; and that he believes the Scriptures by the Scriptures; as you say, you believe the Church by the Church. I am sure the last is the greatest absurdity, and may not a Turk say the same for his way, that he believers Mahomet by Mahomet, and the Alcoran by the Alcoran, (as you believe) the Church by the Church. Now if you shall say, you believe the Church by the Scripture, than the question will be, how you know them to be the Word of God? If you say, because the Church teaches they are so; than you run round (like a horse in a Mill) proving the Church by the Scripture, and the Scripture by the Church.  
You give another Reason, why the spirit witnessing within us, is not the guide appointed by God, (because by this none that ever pretended to it did reconcile differences.  
Pray let charity begin at home; if your Church be so infallible; why do not you decide the differences that are between the Jesuits, and the Dominicans? hath not as endless controversies arisen among you? Hath not as many Errors, and Schisms sprung from you, as from any People professing Christianity? And would not your divisions be greater, if the power of the Sword did not prevail more than your pretended Infallibility? And whereas you say, St. John prescribeth a Rule to know the Spirit of Truth, from the Spirit of Error, 1 Joh. 4. We are of God, he that knoweth God heareth us, and he that is not of God, heareth not us; Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth, from the Spirit of Error. Now what is this to your purpose, unless you would still beg the question; That your Church and her Doctors, are intended in those words, WE and US? But what if it be proved that you do not hear the Apostles? Then it follows by the Text, and your own Argument, that you have the Spirit of Error. Now the Apostle taught that a Man should examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; but you deny the cup to the common people; is this hearing the Apostles? The Apostle allows the Bishops to be Husbands of one Wife; but you forbidden that they should have any at all. The Apostles would not have Prayers said in a Language that the People understood not; but you command it. Christ and the Apostles commanded a diligent reading, and searching of the Scriptures; but you forbidden it, and yet you are the only Men that must be heard, though you teach contrary to Scripture.  
You go on, and say, That Reason must not be our Judge, because it must submit to the Judge as a Subject, etc. I pray, what was your Judge? who resolved the question which you say, had so much difficulty in it (viz.) who should direct you whether any Church was Infallible, or no? or where that Church was to be found? Did your reason guide you in this search or no? If it did not, I do not wonder you made no better choice, but you say, Reason is not your Rule, because it was to submit as a Vassal to that Rule and Judge. But Sir, Though the Church of Rome, (which you call your Judge) do exercise such a Lordship over the reasons of Men, I am sure you have given no reason why it should be so. You say Reason is apt to mistake; and therefore we ought not to be governed by it: But Sir, what if I say the Pope is apt to mistake; and therefore I ought not to be governed by him. I am sure, if that be made to appear in the judgement of Reason, than Reason will guide me to decline following such a blind Guide. As for example, Liberius that was Pope about the year 350 fell into Arianism, and subscribed to the unjust excommunicating Athanasius.  
Again, The Council of Constance deposed Pope John 23. where it was proved that he held there was no eternal life, nor Immortality of the soul, nor Resurrection of the dead.  
Pray Sir, let Reason judge whether I may follow such a Catholic Guide.  
You add a third Reason to prove that Reason is not judge in matters of Faith, for then (say you) it would follow that it is possible to please God, for Reason would teach us how to please him.  
May not a man from the same Premises infer that your Church is not the Judge? because than it would follow that it is possible to please God without Faith, because the Church would teach us how to please him. But you will say the Church doth teach us to please God by Faith; I say it is well if she do: But what is this to the purpose, she did not teach us to please God by Faith before it was required, and made known to us that God would be so pleased. In like manner, Reason will direct a man to do the same when he is informed God requireth such a duty. But must not the Scripture, nor my private Spirit, nor my Reason judge? I pray then tell me how I shall be the better for all you have written? for if my Reason must not judge of the fallibility, and infallibility of your Arguments, than you had as good have told your late Brethren thus: My B●●●tren, I see that there is a great difference and contention among us, whether the Roman Church be infallible or not; This Controversy cannot be judged by a private Spirit, for that may sail; nor by Reason, because men's Reasons are uncertain, and subject to variation; neither are the Scriptures an infallible Judge of Controversies, therefore they cannot judge of this: Let me therefore advise you of a way to decide this question. First, Agree that the Roman Church is infallible, and then your contention, whether the Roman Church be infallible, will soon be ended. An excellent advice, because (you say) all other ways to judge and decide controversies are fallable.  
You now come in the third place to inquire whether the Scripture be sufficient to teach us the true Faith, etc. (You say) You found this highly contended for, and several reasons urged for it. First, The words of our Saviour, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them you think to have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me. To this Text (you say) you found several answers given which were satisfactory; I That it doth not appear whether this in the Original be the In perative or the Indicative Mood, St. Cyril (you say) with whom Beza agrees) takes it in the Indicative Mood.  
What a strange Mood are you in then, to give an Answer to a Text which (you say) you were satisfied withal? And in the same breath (you say) it doth not appear whether it be the Imperative or the Indicative Mood. Do you think infallibility had any assinity with this Answer? Nay, you further say, that they are so far from being a Command to all to road and search the Scriptures, that they RATHER SEEM a Reprehension to all that shall frame that Conceit of them. But how can this sense of that Text be Catholic, when in stead of an infallible Exposition, you tell us it RATHER SEEMS to be so then otherwise? But what if I should tell you that those words (Search the Scriptures) rather seem a Command then a Reprehension? I should rather seem to be infallible than you. You say, If it be the Indicative Mood, the sense will run thus. You do search the Scriptures, and so it seems to be a Reprehension. But this is a sense contrary to Chryfostome, Hom. 39 in Joan. Christ (says he) sends us to the testimony of the Scriptures; than it cannot be that he should reprehend them. And the College of Rheims translating the Text as we do, give this Interpretation of it, He (viz.) Christ reprehendeth the Jews (not for reading but) that reading daily the Scriptures, and acknowledging that in them they should find life; that yet they viewed them so superficially, that they could not find therein him to be Christ, their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour. And in the Marginal Note upon this Text, they say, that neither Jews nor Heretics find the truth, because they search not the Scriptures deeply, but read superficially. See Rhemish Annot. upon John 5. Now see how you contradict yourselves, you say the Scriptures are so far from being a Command to all to read and search, that they rather seem to be a reprehension to all that shall frame that conceit of them. And your Rhemish Commentators say that they are reprehended because they did not search deep enough, for if they had, they might have found Jesus to have been their Christ, their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour. And how can the said Annotators give that as a reason, why the ●ews and Heretics did not find the Truth, because they did not search the Scriptures deep enough. If either of these two opinions of your be true, 1 That men are reprehended for searching the Scriptures. 2 That the Scriptures are not an infallible guide to direct us to find the Truth, if the whole College have translated and interpreted truly, then surely you and many of your Authors speak falsely. But if you shall say the Scriptures may direct Jews and Heretics to the truth, because they direct them to the Church, which is the Pillar of Truth: than it follows, 1 That both Jews and Heretics ought to search the Scriptures deeply, to find out the true Church. 2 It must rest upon their private judgements of discretion to determine within themselves, whether the Romanists or the Protestants be that true Church, after they have made this deep and diligent search. 3 It follows that the Scripture is an infallible guide, being deeply and diligently searched; and that the reason why both Jews and Heretics err, is not the fallibleness of the Scriptures, but want of diligent and deep search; which being used, they might have found Christ to have been their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour; they might have found the Truth, and the Church, and consequently all things necessary to Eternal life.  
You come in the 14 pag. to give a second reason why the words (search the Scriptures) cannot extend to prove the conclusion; because (you say) if they were vuderstood in the Imperative Mood (which cannot infallibly be proved because) they cannot be profitable to work Faith in them that cannot read, which (you say) are the greatest part of Mankind. (You say) it cannot infallibly be proved that those words, search the Scripture, are in the Imperative Mood: but have you that pretend to Infallibility, proved that they are in the Indicative Mood. What a madness is this, that you should exact infallible Interpretations from those that do profess fallibility, and not perform an infallible Interpretation, when you pretend to be guided by a Church that is infallible! But you say that if they were understood in the Imperative Mood, they cannot work Faith in those that cannot read. But than it seems they may work Faith in them that can read, because (as the Rhemists say) they can show both Jews and Heretics the Truth, if they search deeply and diligently. But secondly, How can general Councilsshew the Truth and beget Faith, since (if they are infallible) every body cannot read their Decrees and Canons? If you say they understand those Decrees and Canons, by the general Consent of those that can read, then by the same means may a man that cannot read the Scripture be guided by them.  
3 You say, that by those words (search the Scripture) cannot be understood, that the Scriptures should be our Judge and guide, because than they would have excluded Christ, and after him his Apostles from being the infallible means by which true Faith was to be taught to the World. But how doth this follow, since you say the Church under the Old Testament was a Judge, and an infallible guide. But did their being an infallible guide till Christ, exclude Christ from being a guide: and did Christ's being a guide when he was on the Earth, exclude the Holy Ghost from being a guide when he left the Earth? In like manner it followeth not, because the Scriptures of the Old Testament (for of them Christ speaks in the place under debate) were a guide to instruct men into the knowledge of the Messiah, that they should exclude Him, His Spirit, or Apostles from being Guides. But further it followeth by the same parity of Reason, that if the Scriptures of the Old Testament could not be an infallible guide, because than they would have excluded Christ, and after him his Apostles from being infallible guides. I say it follows by the same reason, that if Christ and his Apostles were infallible Guides and Judges in matters of Faith, that then they have excluded the Church of Rome from being that infallible Guide and Judge which she pretends herself to be: and thus you have sharpened a Knife to cut your Mother's throat.  
You pretend pag. 14. and say, that the second Reason that is urged for sole Scripture being a guide, is 2 Tim 3.15. From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise to salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good works.  
This Text (you say) proves not what is intended (viz.) that the Scripture alone was the way, the rule, and means appointed by God to judge and decide all doubts, etc. your Reasons pag. 15. are, First, That though They might be profitable to such a man as Timothy who had faith already, yet they could no way be profitable nor useful to one that had not faith, or did not believe them to be the Word of God; for Faith comes by hearing, not by reading.  
To which I answer, First, If the Scriptures are not a Guide to them that believe not, why do the Rhemists say that the reason why Jews and Heretics do not find Christ to be their King, Lord, Life, and Saviour, is, because they did not search the Scriptures deeply. Surely, you will not say, that Jews and Heretics are Believers, and you say, they are no guide to Unbelievers; why then do the Rhemists say, Christ reprehended them for not searching the Scriptures deeply? To what purpose then are Jews and Heretics blamed for not searching the Scriptures deeply, if the Scriptures had been (as you say) no way profitable to them? but further, you say, they are not profitable to them that do not believe them to be the word of God. Suppose this were granted (which cannot be proved) doth it not follow that your Roman Church (by the same reason) is no way profitable, no way a Judge, nor an infallible Guide to any that do not believe her to be so: and by the same reason an Atheist may say All gods providences are no monitors to him, All his judgements are no examples to him, because cause he doth not believe there is a God: Is not this as good Logic, as to say the Scriptures are no way profitable to them that do not believe them to be the Word of God.  
You proceed to give another reason why this Scripture 2 Tim. 3.15. is not a proof for what is pretended, because then if the Scriptures more solely sufficient which Timothy knew from a child (they being but the Scriptures of the Old testament) it would follow that Christ, and the Now Testament, and the Sacraments, and the Apostles, are at least not necessary.  
I answer, if by the Scriptures sole sufficiency, (you mean) that they are sufficient to bring men to salvation without Faith, Repentance, and Obedience, than this is a Puppet of your own (as you Phrase it) for where is there any Protestant of that mind; therefore you do but bark against the Moon.  
But we say they are solely sufficient to direct us to those ways by which we may obtain salvation. But then (say you) What needed Christ and the Apostles, and the New Testament, if the Scriptures Timothy had learned (which were those of the Old Testament) were sufficient? But then I answer as before, if Christ and the Apostles were solely sufficient, what need is there of your Pope and Council? So that by this Argument you either make Christ and his Apostles not solely sufficient; or if they were, then what need this waste of a General Council? But you may say, that a General Council was to direct people in succeeding Ages. So were the Scriptures much rather, for whatever was written aforetime was written for our Learning, upon whom the ends of the World are come.  
In the last place, you say pag. 15. The word All Scripture must either signify every Scripture, as the Original word 〈◊〉 ought to be rendered, or All Scriptures that ever were; or All Scriptures that were when this Text was written; or All that we now have. If it be to be understood of every Scripture (or any Scripture) than you say it doth prove too much, because then all the Scriptures save one Book, are useless.  
Though what hath been said doth sufficiently answer this innumeration, and therefore I might be excused from answering any farther: yet because you intimate a farther proof of what you now urge, I shall therefore when I meet with it give a further Answer.  
You come in the 16 page to tell your Reader, That you met with no Arguments for the sole sufficiency of Scripture among those that were usually urged, and therefore you resolved to see what could be said against this common General opinion of all who oppose the Church of Rome, why the Scriptures could not be this Rule and Judge.  
You say, you have not met with any Arguments to prove the sole sufficiency of Scripture to be our guide; but it was because you did not make a deep & diligent search into them, which is the reason (as your Rhemists say) Heretics never find the Truth. But why do you beguile your unwary Reader with this word, (viz.) That the Scriptures are not a SOLE Guide? thereby to let him think that you allow them in some sense to be a guide; when indeed your following Arguments do manifestly declare that you would not have them to be any guide at all.  
Your first Reason why the Scriptures are not a Guide is, because they do not answer the end, (viz.) the reconciling differences: for those who pretend most to consult the Scriptures, do most of all disagree in matters of faith; and interpreting the Scriptures.  
To this I answer, First, May not a Heathen or a Jew allege the same Argument against Christianity itself, and say that the Christian Religion is no safe way to happiness, because of the differences that are among the Professors of it?  
2 May it not be said that the Apostles themselves were no certain Guides, because they had divisions and contentions among them? and that they had, appears by the testimony of St. Paul himself, Rom 16.17. Mark them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine, etc. And the same Apostle tells the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 3.3. and 1 Cor. 11.19. That there was among them envyings, strife, and contention, some holding of Paul, and some of Apollo, some of Cephas. Nay, he further tells them, there must be Heresies among you, that they that are approved, might be made manifest.  
3 May it not as well be said of the Church of the Jews (which, you say, were infallible) that they were no Guide, or at least, no certain Guide, because there were differences and contentions among them, as there was between the Pharisees, Sadduces and Essavaus; it is said that the Sadduces denied the Resurrection, Angels, and Spirit: as you say the Scriptures are no Guide to true faith, because men differ and and disagree in matters of Faith: But,  
4 May you not as well say that Christ is not the Saviour of the World, and that he came not into the World to the end that the World might be saved, because it doth not appear that all shall be saved: as, say the Scriptures are no Guide to end Controversies, because all Controversies are not ended.  
5 May you not as well infer that the grace of God doth not teach men to deny ungodliness, because some turn the grace of God into wantonness: as say the Scriptures are no sure Guide to faith and salvation, because many wrist them to their own destruction?  
6 May you not as well say, that the Primitive Church were no infallible Guide to true faith, because they had disagreements and contentions among them: as the strife between the Eastern and Western Churches about the keeping of Easter, and they excommunicating one another? And the Question of Rebaptising bred the like differences between the Bishops of Rome, and the Western Bishops of one Party, and Cyprian, Dionysius, and Firmilianus, with, most of the Eastern Bishops of the other Party, Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. c. 21. lib. 7. c. 3. Cyp. Ep. 74, 75. Soc. lib. 6. c. 17. Soc. lib. 6. c. 21. I say, may not one more truly infer these were no Guides, because they had dissensions and divisions among them: as you may say the Scriptures are not a Guide, because of the differences that are amongst Protestants.  
7 And lastly, May I not infer as well from the like Premises, because there is and hath been differences among the now-pretended Catholics, as I have already shown, that therefore their Church is no infallible Guide: as you may say the men that consult Scriptures do not agree among themselves, therefore the Scriptures are not the Guide.  
Your second Reason followeth in the 17 pag. which is but the same in effect with the first, therefore the former Answer may suffice; only you tell us a story of an Arian, or, (as the Question of Questions hath it) an Arian Cobbler; how that if you were to dispute with him about the Deity of Christ from Job. 10.30. I and my Father are one; by this Text (you say) you should think you had proved the Question. But then (you say) your Arian would compare this Text with john 17.21. where Christ prayeth to his Father, that his Disciples might be all one thing, as thou (Father) are in me, and I in thee. But if you should urge the Arian further, and tell him the Council of Nice gave the same Interpretation which you do: (you say) the Arian would answer as the Protestants generally do, that they have a worthy esteem of Councils, as far as they agree with the Word of God; but where they disagree, in that he must contradict them all.  
To which I Answer, (setting aside the controversy between the Arians and Athanasians, as not coming within the verge of our present question) that if the Arian Cobbler had been as Orthodox in all his other Opinions, as he is in his opinion about the Holy Scriptures, and Counsels (viz.) to think reverently of Counsels, and agree with them, as far as they agree with the World of Truth: I say, if this had been all this Arian Cobbler's Error, I should have judged him a better Christian then a Roman Shoemaker, or the Catholic Collier, who could say no more for himself, being tempted by the Devil at the point of death, what his faith was? Answered, I believe, and die in the faith of Christ's Church: Being again demanded what the Faith of Christ's Church was? Answered, The faith that I believe in: See Apology Translated by Staplet. p. 53.  
But you say, That you can urge against an Arian the Authority of the Council of Nice, and their Interpretation of the Scripture, by which they Infallibly decide the controversy; And here you think you have a more certain guide and ground of your Faith than others, because they adhere to private spirits, and private judgements up on the Scriptures; whereas you adhere to general Council.  
To which, I Answer, First, Do you think that General Counsels did speak and teach in more plainness of Speech, and that they uttered words less subject to be wrested by wrong interpretations, than the words of the Prophets and Apostles were, who spoke as they were inspired by the spirit of God.  
Secondly, How do you know that you have the true sense and meaning of the Counsels determinations, since their Decrees are as liable, if not more liable to misinterpretations then the Holy Scriptures.  
The reason of this question is, because you did not hear them yourself, and if you had heard them, you might have misunderstood them, but if you say you have read the Counsels and so came to be informed: I do further demand how you do believe by a Divine Faith, that you do not mis-understand the Counsels in what you read, and so collect a false sense.  
Thirdly, If you shall say you have a Priest to teach you the sense of the Counsels, by which you understand what Doctrines are Catholic, and what Expositions of Scripture are true, and what are false then I demand.  
Fourthly, How do you believe with a Divine Faith, that what this private Priest teacheth is according to the Infallible Doctrine of the Church, since he is a Man, and may err, and so teach his own private Opinion, for the Infallible Doctrine of the Church.  
Fifthly, Whether you may not be more subject to mis-understand the Scriptures, either by the error of the Priest in Preaching, or the frailty of your understanding in hearing, than others are in the reading of the Holy Scriptures: And if so, why should you say the Scriptures are no guide, because they may be misinterpreted? For shame forbear to blame the use of a thing because of the abuse of it: What if some are to blame, in that they have wrested the Scriptures to serve their own interests; Are not you more to blame to wound these men through the sides of the Scripture? What if (as one well observes) That some are blind, and miss their way, and others are drunk, and stagger out of it: Must we all conspire to wish the Sun out of the Firmament, that we might follow a Will with a Wisp? And yet this is your kind of reasoning, that because some are perverse and froward, and others are full of darkness, prejudice, and corrupt affections, by which they cannot perfectly and infallibly judge of every truth, that is contained in the Scripture; therefore they must throw away the blessed word of God from being their rule and guide.  
You proceed in p. 18. and tell us, That the third Reason which you thought was forcible, was, that those who are thus far for sole Scripture, do not say that one, or any particular number of the Books of Scripture, but all Scriptures written by inspiration of God do, being joined together make up this Rule and Judge; Hence (you say) you concluded that if any of these Books were lost, this Rule was not perfect; Now that many of these Books were lost (you say) you proved from those that remain, Num. 21.14. The Book of the Wars of the Lord (and this (you say) is lost.) It is said of Solomon, 1 King. 4.3, 2. that he spoke 3000 Proverbs, and his Songs were 1000 and 5; You conceive (you say) that upon a just reckoning some of these will be wanting: We find named, 2 Chron. 9.29. The Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Prophecy of Ahijah, and the Visions of Iddo; (these (you say) are lost) as also those named, 1 Chron. 29.29. The Book of Samuel, the Book of Nathan, the Book of Goda, and it is clear from Mat. 27.9. That part of Jeremy is lost; So also from Mat. 2.23. Where it was foretold that Christ should be called a Nazaren; and 1 Cor. 5.9. Tells us that the Epistle which our Canon calls St. Paul's First Epistle was not truly his first; for there he sayeth, I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with Fornicatours: St. Paul also wrote an Epistle from Laodicea, and yet (you say) you do not find this Epistle.  
In Answer hereunto I cannot but take notice that you say you THOUGHT this Answer was forcible; but where was your Mother that she did not enable you to say, you were SURE it was forcible.  
But let us see wherein this force lieth; you say, Protestants do not believe a certain number of Books to be their guide; but all the Scriptures written by Inspiration from God, make up this Rule and Guide; and many of these Books are lost, therefore this Rule is not perfect.  
I Answer, First, That the Law of the Lord is perfect, and every word of God is pure; and therefore there can be no imperfections in the word of God: but  
Secondly, How doth it appear that any of those Books which (you say) were lost, had a Divine Image and Superscription upon them; or that they that did write them we●e inspired by the Holy Ghost in the writing of those particular Books? For it is very possible that they wrote many things upon particular occasions, as Hezekiah wrote to Ephraim; and that sometimes their writings were of no more inspiration from Heaven, than David's Letters were that he sent to Joab by Uriah, or than Peter's practice for which Paul withstood him to the face: But  
Thirdly, What Infallible reason have you to prove that these say recited out of these Scriptures may not refer to the Books of Samuel and the Kings which we have extant, rather than to any Books that are lost.  
Fourthly, How do you know that those writings (however the Penmen were inspired) were intended by God for the perpetual use of his Church in all Ages.  
Fifthly, How do you Infallibly know, that all the Canons or your Church, even of those which (you say) are necessary to Salvation are preserved, and that some very material things are not lost.  
Sixthly, If you say there is none lost, then whether you do not make God in his wise providence more careful to preserve entire and unmaimed the Canons of your Counsels, than he hath been to preserve the Writings of his Holy Prophets, and Apostles; And if you suppose any of the Decrees of your Counsels hath been lost or maimed, then how do you know Infallibly, whether some that are lost, are not as material as those you have? Thus the edge of your sword is turned against yourself: But  
Seventhly, If any of the Books of the Old Testament were lost, that were by God intended for the perpetual use of that Church to whom his Oracles were committed, how then can you say that the Church of the Old Testament was infallible, since she failed in that trust that was committed to her, (viz.) the keeping of the Scripture? And if this was not a failing in her, in that she lost part of the Scriptures, than she had not failed, if she had lost all; and than it followeth, that the Scriptures are so far from being a sole Guide, that they are no guide at all, for if they are a guide, and a director in any sense, or if they are of any divine use, than it must be an error either of ignorance, or wilfulness, to suffer them to be lost or maimed.  
Eighthly, Whereas you say, that the Epistle of St. Paul which your Canon calls the first to the Corinthians was not TRULY his first: I Answer then, your Canon doth falsely call it the first, and then how shall we believe when your Canons are true? You had best tell your Mother she lies as soon as you can speak, and then show a reason for it, by telling her That St. Paul saith, he writ to the Corinthians an Epistle before: Ergo, there is an Epistle before that which your Canon calls the first: But chrysostom understands it of the words going before, wherein he had charged them to deliver the incestuous person to Satan, and to purge out the old leaven.  
And that you may see how little cause you have to inveigh against Protestants for their private doubtful, and uncertain expounding of Scriptures; Let me give you the exposition of a whole College of Catholics upon this very Text under debate: Either (say they) St. Paul means this Epistle in the words before, or some other: See the Rhemists marginal Note upon the place. Surely this is infallible indeed; it is either this or some other: At this rate of Infallibility any private spirit shall interpret Scriptures all day long, (viz.) either this is the sense, or some other.  
Ninthly, and Lastly, If any Canonical Scripture be lost will not this redound to the prejudice of the Roman Church: Since they acknowledge that they only are the Church, and that the Church is the keeper of Divine Truths, and that they have been the conservators of the Scriptures to posterity. Now if any Books be lost (as you say there is) how have they infallibly kept what (they say) was long since committed to their trust? Thus you desperately venture to wound the reputation of the Scriptures, though you make the Sword, by which you do it, to pass through the reins of your darling infallibility.  
In pag. 19 you come to a Fourth Reason, Why the Scriptures cannot be a guide to convey Divine and Infallible faith to all; and that is, because they cannot be understood by all, nay, (you say) they are very subject to be misunderstood, if we will believe the 2 Pet. 3.16. Where speaking of St. Paul's Epistles, (he saith) there were some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned, and unstable wrest as they do also the other Scriptures to their own destruction. It is in vain (you say) to urge that the Scriptures are plain and easy in fundamentals, and in what concerns salvation; for we have here a plain testimony that they are wrested to their own destruction; therefore they cannot be a safe rule, nor any rule at all to the ignorant etc.  
Though this Argument be answered already, yet I answer further, in the words of a learned man, That if the Scriptures are so hard to be understood, and the Pope can infallibly interpret them, what a madness and childishness is it for the Catholics themselves to lie swaggering and contending with one another, before all the world with fallible mediums, about the sense of Scripture, when they have one among them that infallibly can interpret them, and that with such Authority, as all men are bound to rest in, and contend no further? And the further mischief of it is, that of all the rest, this man is always silent as to exposition of Scripture, who alone is able to part the fray. Now methinks this argues a great want of good nature, that the Pope can see his Children so fiercely wrangle about the sense of Scripture, and yet will not give out the infallible meaning of every place, and so stint the strife among them, seeing he can do it if he will.  
But again, how doth it follow, that because the Scriptures are hard to be understood, and are by some wrested to their damnation, that therefore they are either no Guides at all, or at the best but uncertain ones. Pray let me ask you a question or two, May you not as well say that Christ was no infallible Guide, because many of his words were wrested by the Jews to their destruction? as that of his destroying the Temple and building it in three days? Job. 2.19. And did not they wrest his words to their own destruction, when Christ said, Mat. 26.64, 65. that he was the Son of God, and they thereupon said he had spoken blasphemy, and therefore needed no other witness against him: and likewise they said, he blasphemed when he told the man that was sick of the Palsy, that his sins were forgiven. So that speech of Christ was hard to be understood to learned Nicodemus, Job. 3. Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Doth it follow from hence that Christ was not an infallible Guide?  
Again are the Canons and Decrees of General Councils more secure from being misinterpreted then the Scriptures; or do they use more plainness of speech than the Spirit of God used in the Scriptures, or is nothing that they determine of necessity to salvation? If so, then why may not their words be wrested to the destruction of those that are unlearned or unstable, as well (or rather as ill) as the Scriptures. And if so, I demand whether this be not as good, nay a better Argument against themselves, (viz.) some wrist the judgement and definitions of the Church to their destruction; Ergo, the Church is not an infallible Guide to all, nor indeed any Guide to the ignorant, which are the greatest part of mankind? Is not this the same (if not a better) argument, then to say, the unlearned wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction; Ergo, the Scriptures are not an infallible Guide to all, nor any Guide at all to the ignorant.  
I come now to consider your 5 Reason, which is, That if the Scriptures be a Guide, Rule, and Judge, it must only be meant of their true Original and Authentic Writings, and not of corrupted Copies; and therefore if we have not the true Originals, our rule is imperfect. And again pag. 20. you say, If we had the Originals, it would be hard to find a man that doth so infallibly understand the Originals, as to give us a true translation. This you endeavour to prove out of several Protestant Writers, pag. 20. & 21. (viz.) That we have not the Originals themselves, nor undoubted Translations, and therefore the Scriptures are not an infallible Guide.  
To which I answer, That though what hath been spoken already might suffice to this Argument, yet to make full measure running over, let me add, that this very Objection lieth with the like force against General Councils. For, first, how do you know with a divine certitude, that you have the true Original and Authentic Writings, wherein those Decrees were contained? Secondly, How do you know with a divine certitude, whether the Scribe that committed them to Writing was an honest man or not? Thirdly, How do you know with a divine certitude, that these Councils, Decrees, and Canons, are truly and infallibly translated, since they were written in a Language that I know not. If you say I have them translated by private Doctors, than I query if private Doctors are infallible? If they are, what need is there of a Pope, or a General Council? If they are fallible, why may they not fail, when they tell me they have faithfully interpreted and translated the sense of Councils and Fathers? But if they being private persons can give the true sense of Councils and Fathers, why may not men of the same ability for Learning and Piety give as perfect a Translation, and as infallible an Interpretation of the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets? So that the Argument cuts as much with one edge as the other. If the Scriptures be guide and rule, it must be meant of Authentical and Original Writings, or of infallible Translations of them into several Languages, etc. say you. In like manner I say, if the Decrees of General Councils are infallible, it must be understood of the Original and authentic writings wherein those Decrees are contained, or of infallible Translations of them into several Languages, since they were not given out in a Language that the Common people understand. Now none will swear (to use your own words, pag. 20.) that these are the Originals of the Decrees of those Councils, some of them being more than a thousand years old. Neither will any swear that the Translations of these Decrees agree with their Originals: Ergo, The Decrees and Determinations of Councils cannot be an unquestionable and infallible Guide to true faith.  
Thus you make people believe that if they come to your Church, they shall have every thing certain; but I do demand (if any should follow your advice) how they shall be thus assured, since your Church hath been so palpably negligent, as to suffer whole Books to be lost, and to suffer the Originals of those that remain, to be corrupted, and also to suffer infinite variety of reading to come into them; by which you say, It cannot be discerned infallibly which is the true reading, and which is the false. And whereas you say, That we are so far from having St. Mathews Original, that we know not what Language it was writ in; or whether he who transtated it into Greek was an honest man or not.  
I answer, If your Church were (as you pretend) the sole Keeper of the Scriptures, they are worthy to die (as David said of Abner) because they kept their Master no better. Are they the Church to which no unfaithfulness can have access, when they have lost the Original of St. Mathews Gospel? These are worse than the unprofitable Servant; for in the day of account, though he did not improve his Talon, yet he did not lose it; but could say to his Master, take that which is thine own. But you that have been entrusted with the heavenly treasure of sacred Writings, it seems, cannot acquit yourselves at this rate; for you have lost the Original, and cannot tell whether that Translation that you have was done by an honest Man or a Knave.  
But further, If this be true, what becomes of that Text which you cite, as the firstborn of your strength, Mat. 16.18. upon which you found your Church's infallibility: for if one ask you, how you prove the Church infallible? you say by that Text, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But how do you prove it from this Text? if (as you say) the Original is lost, and you cannot tell whether he that translated it into the Greek was an honest man or no?  
You come now, pag. 22. to a sixth Reason, which is but the same in effect with the former, (viz.) That whatsoever is a sufficient rule, must be plain and clear in all necessary points: the Scriptures (you say) are not plain and clear in all necessary points; therefore etc. This is the sum of your Argument, and for this you give divers instances of things necessary to salvation, that are not set down in Scripture, The first is, in pag. 22.23. That it is not set down in Scripture what a Sacrament is, and how many there be, or whether there be any or no?  
To this I answer, That you strive about words; for it is not necessary to salvation to believe that those institutions should be called Sacraments, which are usually so called; and if it were, than it would be necessary that we should know what and how many Institutions should be so denominated: but it sufficeth that those Institutions which we call Sacraments, are plainly set down in Scripture, together with the persons who should observe them, and the manner how they should be observed.  
You come to a second thing necessary to be believed that is not in Scripture; namely, That all the Books of the Holy Scriptures be the word of God. This say is not absolutely necessary to salvation; for it may be possible for one to believe all the matter of the Bible to be the Truth of God, and thereupon be saved, who may yet doubt, whether every one of the Penmen did write by inspiration. And again, When it is said and believed that all the material Objects of Faith, and those divine Verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles, and they to the Churches, are laid down in Scripture. It is manifest that the Scriptures themselves are excepted, they being not received as the material objects of our faith, but as the means of conveying them unto us: and if a man did believe the Doctrine of salvation contained in the Scripture, it should not hinder his salvation, though he knew not whether there was any Scripture or no?  
Again, Many of those whom you Canonize, did not allow of some part of the Scriptures; and many whole Churches differed about the Authority of some Books; which Churches must all be damned, if the believing those Books had been necessary to salvation.  
You proceed and say in the third place, That it is necessary to salvation to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but this (you say) is not plainly set down in Scripture.  
I answer as before, This belief cannot be necessary, where the Scriptures are not proposed; for God doth not require men to believe upon pain of Damnation, when he hath not given means in order thereunto.  
But 2. Whoever shall consult the excellent precepts, the glorious promises, together with that great Spirit of Holiness and Self-denial that is contained in the Scriptures, must needs say, that they have the image and superscription of heaven upon them; and from thence be as certainly persuaded that God was the Author of them, as if it had been written with the beam of the Sun, that so many Books are the Word of God: nay, and more certain, because That one sentence might sooner have been expunged, or defaced out of the Scriptures than that Spirit of Light and Truth which breathes in the faces and consciences of men, from all the quarters of them.  
Your other instances that follow, are such as we have either taken notice of already, or else they are such that are not necessary to salvation, and therefore are impertinently alleged to weaken the guidance and conduct of the Scripture in order to that blessed end. But since you are so able to lay stumbling blocks in the way of the Scriptures, that thereby men might stumble and fall, let me see if you are as able to remove some stumbling blocks that lieth in the way to your infallible Church.  
First, Is not the Sacrament of Penance, as your Church teacheth, necessary to salvation?  
But secondly, How can you be infallible that this Sacrament is administered by a true Priest? for if it were not done by a true Priest, than it is ineffectual, and so you must die without absolution, or else you must grant that others beside a lawful Priest may remit sins. But if none can do it but a lawful Priest:  
Then Thirdly, How shall you be infallible of those things that are necessary to make a true Priest? as first, that he was lawfully baptised with due matter and due form of words; and that the Bishop which Ordained him a Priest, did Ordain him completely, with due matter, form, and intention? You must know that the Bishop that made him a Priest, was a Priest himself. But suppose these doubts were assailed, which cannot be; and that you are certain, he that is to absolve you were a true Priest; yet still the doubt will remain, whether he will do you that good he can? and whether he will pronounce the words of absolution with an intent to absolve you? For perhaps he may bear you some secret grudge, and project your damnation for a revenge. He may, for ought you know, be a secret Jew, or Anti-Trinitarian, and so far from intending your forgiveness of sins, and salvation by this Sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all these things, and thinks sin nothing, and salvation but a word. All these doubts must be clearly resolved before you can (upon your Roman Catholic grounds) assure yourself that this man that absolveth you is a true Priest, and that he giveth you true and effectual absolution; or else when you have done all this for your salvation, you may have the ill luck to be damned; which makes salvation a matter of chance and not of choice; and if so, what are you the nearer for being a member of a pretended infallible Church. Much more to this purpose might be urged, and yet you cry out, that the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. Whoever would be further satisfied in this matter, I shall desire him to read that learned Treatise of Mr. Chillingworth, Entitled, The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salvation. Your next instance is, The Contradiction, that seems to appear in Scriptures, which (you say) argues them to seem untrue, and for this you instance, 2 King. 8.26. compared with 2 Chron. 22.5. and Mat. 1.17. compared with Luke 3.35, 36. which places (you say) seem to contradict each other.  
I Answer First, If they are but seeming contradictions, than they do not weaken the reputation of Scriptures.  
Secondly, The resolving those seeming contradictions are not necessary to salvation, because it is not necessary to salvation to know when Ahazia began to Reign, not whether there were 41 or 42 Generations between David and Christ; and therefore those Objections weaken not the guidance of the Scriptures in all things necessary to salvation, which is the thing in question.  
But lastly, why doth your Church put her candle under a Bushel, why doth not she set forth an infallible translation of the Bible? For it may be those seeming contradictions in those forecited places was occasioned by the error of the Scribe, or the error of the Translator. But hath not greater inconveniences attended the keeping the Canons of your Church? If they have not, how comes it to pass that there is contradictions in Scripture, and none in Councils? It seems your Church hath faithfully preserved all things uncorrupted for the benefit of posterity, but the word of God. You proceed, pag. 25. to a seventh Reason, Why the Scriptures are not a sole guide, because than they would have been so in the Apostles days; and if they had, than the Authority of the Apostles (you say) must have ceased so soon as they had made an end of writing?  
I Answer, That it doth not follow that the opinion of the Scriptures being the sole guide, should exclude the Apostles from being guides when they were living.  
May not a Man as well say, that Peter's being the sole head of the Church (as you pretend) did exclude Christ (that gave him his Authority) from being head while he was yet living on the Earth; and that a man that directs and solely guides you by Epistles, how to negotiate your affairs, should thereby cease to be a guide if he were present with you, or that he should thereby be rendered unable to resolve any doubtful word in that direction. No more doth it follow, that the Scriptures being held to be the sole guide, should exclude the Penmen from either being guides, or giving an infallible interpretation of their own words, while they were yet alive. But what is all this to the Roman Church being an infallible guide? The Apostles might be guides to the Churches while they lived, both by their words and writings; But since they are deceased, we know no furer guide than their words, to which to do well to take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place.  
And for those other things that you say follow in probability upon the Scriptures being our guide; I shall say nothing to them, because they are but probable conjectures of your own brain.  
Your last reason which you urge, why the Scripture is not a sole Judge, is, Because (you say) in effect it is to make it no judge at all, but to make every man and woman to be their own judge, to take upon them to read and understand them.  
May you not as well say, that your Church is not the judge, because every man and woman must judge for themselves, whether she be so or no, before they join in Communion with her: As say the Scriptures are not so, because a man must judge for himself, whether he rightly understand it or no?  
Is there not as great a controversy in the World, which is the true Church among all the pretenders to it, as there is, which is the right sense of Scriptures among the various readings and interpretations thereof? Now how doth a man's judging for himself, after he hath weighed Arguments and compared Text with Text render the Scripture to be no guide, any more than your hearing and examining all the Arguments and Reasons which are alleged for the True Church among all pretenders to it and afterward according to your understanding judge which is true, renders yourself, and not your Church the true guide. And yet this is your Argument, Every man judgeth for himself which is the true sense; therefore the Scriptures are in themselves no judge at all.  
In the close of this Argument, p. 26. You conclude, That if God loved the souls of Men, he would have provided some sure means by which they might have been assured of the true faith, etc. without leaving them to the Scriptures to be interpreted by each one, as he thinks best.  
May not I reply as before, That if God loved the souls of men, he would have left them some sure means to find the True Church among the many false pretenders to it, and not have left it to themselves to choose which Church in their private Judgement they shall think is the true one.  
Having done with your negative positions, viz. That the private spirit, Reason, and Scripture is not the sole Judge; you come to infer from the whole, That the Catholic Church is this judge, and that God had always such a Church.  
This you endeavour to make good by saying, God had such a Church Two Thousand Years before any Scripture was written; And to demonstrate this you say; Circumcision was brought in by Abraham, and practised by the Church without Scripture to try it by, etc.  
I Answer first, If the Pope will bring in any new Law or Canon with that Authority as Abraham brought in Circumcision, we will believe him without a Council, or desiring him to prove it by Scripture. But  
Secondly, It seems here is some other Rule and Guide beside Reason, Scripture, the private Spirit, and the Church; for here is no Council to decree Circumcision, nor private spirit to suggest it, nor reason to contrive it; But here is God appearing to Abraham, and commanding it by an immediate voice from Heaven; So that this was God's way of guiding his People then, and not by General Councils, and of this opinion is chrysostom Hom. 1. in Mat. who conceives God might use other means; and this agrees with that saying, Heb. 1.1. God in sundry times, and in divers manners spoke to our Fathers by the Prophets.  
Lastly, If the Scriptures are liable to many exceptions (as you say) by which they are rendered uncapable of being our infallible Guide, than I demand how you know what was transacted in the World the first 2000 Years, and whether there was any Church at all in those times. If you say you are by the History of the Scriptures guided to believe what was done 2000 Years before the first Penman was born; I demand how you can believe this, since they are so fallibly and subject to so many exceptions as you say? But further, may I not with more certitude believe what Moses and all the Penmen of Holy Scriptures writ of things they were eye-witnesses of, than you can be of what Moses writ the first 2000 Years that were expired before he was born?  
You come in pag. 27 to a second Argument, Namely, That the Church of the Jews, were so the Jews, (I suppose you mean an infallible guide) after the Scriptures were written; and for this purpose you cite, Deut. 17.8. The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the voice of the Priest or unto the Judge that man shall die. I answer, The Scripture saith, Pro. 16.10. A divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgement; Doth it follow from hence, that all Kings are infallible in their judgements: But how and by what Rule were these priests to judge whom the People were to obey upon pain of death. Ezekiel tells us, Chap. 44.24. And in Controversy they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my Judgement, they shall keep my Laws and Statutes in all their Assemblies, and hollow my Sabbaths. But did these Priests and Judges always judge according to God's Law? were they always infallible in their Sentences? How comes it to pass then that Aaron sinned in harkening to the voice of the People, when they required him to make them a Calf? Exod. 32.2. and v. 7. It is said, They had corrupted themselves. Where was this Church's infallibility at this time? and v. 8. They turned aside quickly out of the way, which I commanded them. And again, where was the infallibility of the Priest, when he appointed them v. 3. To break off their ear-ring which were in their ears to make a Calf? Surely in this they were an excellent type of the Roman Church, who were quickly corrupted from their Primitive Purity. Again, Ezek. 22.26. It is said, The Priests have violated my Law, they have profaned my Holy things, they have put no difference between the Holy and Profane, neither have they shown difference between the Clean and the unclean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbath, and I am profaned among them: Neither was this the fault or a few, but the Text tells us, v. 30. That God sought for a Man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before him for the land, but he found none. Where was the Priest; and the infallible church all this while, whom the People were to hear upon pain of death? So that the Text by you cited, Deut. 17. is abused; for they had plain Laws written, which were to be a guide to Priest and People; which if the Priest did not judge accordingly, (as many times they did not) the People were not to hear them.  
Your other Text is Mat. 23.2, 3. the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.  
I Answer, If by sitting in Moses' chair, you understand their teaching the People according to Moses Law, we are of your mind, for so it appears in the forecited Text in Ezekiel, and in all such things the People were to hearken to them. But if by sitting in Moses Chair you understand their Public Authority, and that whatsoever they so taught was infallible; This I deny, for they did sometimes like the Pope, Mark 7.7 Teach for Doctrines the Commandments of men, and v. 8. Laid aside the Commandments of God (as you do the Scriptures) that they might hold the traditions of men, and v. 13. Made the Word of God of none effect by their traditions. But if the Church of the Jews which was represented in the great Synedrion could not err, than it followeth, that all Christian Religion must be discarded. For if she was infallible in that judgement, she made of Christ and his Doctrine, than there remains nothing, but that we renounce both him and it, and turn either Jews or Pagans.  
But lastly, It appears that Christ himself had not this opinion of the infallibility of the Jewish Church, which you have, because than he should have referred all he taught to be decided by them, whether it were true or no. But instead thereof he appeals to the Scriptures, and offers Himself and his Doctrine (as we do at this day) to stand or fall by their verdict, and to their Authority of the Church he opposeth that of the Scripture, to which he knew the other aught to give place, John 5.39.46. Mat. 22.42, 43, 44. Luke 24.27.  
You come in the third place, in p. 27.28. to prove that there shall be an infallible Church under the New Testament, your Texts are Esay 2.23, 3. Esay 35.8.54.3.13, 17. Esay 59.21. Esay 60.10, 12.  
To which I answer, First Why are these Texts brought to prove an infallible Church, when the Texts themselves (you say) are no infallible guide, how then can they guide us to your infallible Church? But,  
2. How doth it appear that these Texts are to be applied to the Church of the New Testament? Much less doth it appear, that they are to be applied to your Roman Church.  
3 These promises to the Church are made upon condition, like that promise, Ezekiel 36.27. I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes; here (to use your own words) is the Spirit of Truth promised to preserve them from error. But this is not absolutely promised without condition; for the 37 ver. saith, For all this he will be enquired of them. And to this agrees those Texts in the New Testament, Act. 5.32. The holy Ghost which God hath promised to them that obey him. Luke 11.13. My heavenly Father shall give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. By all which it appears that God did not promise to guide the Church absolutely and irresistably, whether they would or no: but upon their faithful adhering to what they had been taught, he promiseth his Spirits continual supply for their continual instruction.  
But 4. Whereas it is said, Esay 35.8. that there shall be away that fools shall not err therein, (which is a Text so much insisted on by you.) I demand whether this Text doth imply an impossibility of erring? If so, than we may as well go to a Fool to be guided, as to a Pope, because it saith; The wavering men though. Fools, shall not err therein: so that this Text as truly concludes infallibility in any body, as in the Pope and his Council.  
But 5. To speak somewhat in particular to that Text, Esay 59.21. As for me this is my Covenant with them (saith the Lord) my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor but of the mouth of thy seeds seed from heneforth and forever.  
To this Text I answer, That these words are rather a charge that God's Word should not departed from them and their seed, than a promise of any such thing. And therefore Mr. Calvin (whom you sometimes produce upon the like occasion) grants that the words will bear an Imperative construction, God requiring them thereby not to quench his Spirit, which he puts into them, nor forsake his Word which he should teach them; so that as the Covenants on his part to give them his Word and Spirit, so he requires on their part that they should not resist nor quench it; and to this agrees Junius, and therefore he translates those word; in the beginning of the verse, As for me, De me autem, i. e. but as much as concerns me: thereby showing, that as God had concerned himself in putting his Word and Spirit into them, so they were concerned to see that it did not departed from them. And therefore unless you can prove that the Church of Rome is the Church here prophesied of: and also that these Texts are not understood conditionally; and if conditionally, that the Church of Rome hath observed these conditions, you have but beaten the air in the citation of them.  
You proceed to a fourth Argument to prove that there must be an infallible Church, from several Texts of the New Testament; the first is, Mat. 16.19. Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
To which I answer, First, that you have lost the Original of St. Mathews Gospel, (as you confess) and therefore you know not whether this Text be so in the Original, and this further appears because you say, pag. 20. that you cannot tell whether he that translated it was an honest man or not.  
But 2. The words upon which this Controversy depends (viz.) the Rock and the Gates of Hell are a Metaphorical expression, from whence Logically you cannot infer your conclusion.  
3. No Scripture is of private interpretation: Now to interpret the prevailing of the gates of Hell, for the prevailing of Error, is a private interpretation, first, because Error and Heresy is never so called in all the Scripture: 2. Because Sheol, which the Greek translates haiden or haides, and we in English Hell, is frequently taken for the Grave.  
And of this mind was Chrysostom, who paraphrasing upon these words of Christ, saith, If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, much more shall they not prevail against Christ; therefore be not troubled when thou shalt hear that I am betrayed and crucified. By which it doth appear that this Author understands by the gates of Hell prevailing, that Death and the Grave should neither prevail over Christ nor his Church, and therefore he could not understand thereby that it was a promise the Church should not err, and that the gates of Hell is understood for the gates of the Grave, see Esay 38.10. Hezekiah said when the fear of death came upon him, that he should go to the gates of Sheol, i. e. Grave. So Job 38.17. Psal. 9.13. Psal. 107.18.  
4 Again, As the gate of Hell cannot be understood for Error, so the Rock here spoken of, cannot be understood for Peter's person, because it is more agreeing with the sense of the place, being compared with other Scriptures, and the Analogy of Faith to understand it of Christ, who is the Rock of Ages, and the chief Cornerstone, Ephes. 2.20. and 1 Cor. 10.4. they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.  
So that Peter having professed Christ to be the Son of the living God, our Lord tells him, that Upon this Rock (or Christ, whom he had made profession of) he would build his Church; and that though he might be put to death (to use the words of chrysostom) yet Peter ought not to be troubled, because death should not have dominion over him, the gates of death should not prevail against him, who will swallow up death in victory.  
But lastly, What if we pity the poor, and grant you that which you are never able to prove, (viz.) that by the Gates of Hell not prevailing should be understood, that Error and Heresy should not prevail against the Church: Yet it doth not follow from hence, that the Church shall be preserved from all Error. Might you not as well say, that none that believe can sin, because sin shall not have dominion over them; and that it was impossible for Saints to die, because Christ hath promised them the victory over death: as say, that because Christ hath promised Error shall not prevail over them, that therefore it is impossible the Church should err in any thing.  
Your next Scripture is, Mat. 18.17. He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican.  
I answer, 1 It doth not follow from hence that the Church cannot err, no more than it followeth from your former Arguments, that the Scribes and Pharisees could not err, because Christ commanded to hear them; But,  
2 This Text proves more than you allow; for it proves, that particular Churches cannot err; for of such a Church Christ speaks, and not of the Church representative in a general Council; my reason is, because one that is offended with his brother, if he cannot reclaim him, he must tell the Church, which cannot be understood for any, but that particular Church among whom he resides; which, you say, are such as may err in judgement.  
3 By the same parity of reason, a single private man cannot err, because the Text saith, he ought to be heard if he admonish his brother of his fault, ver. 15, 16, 17. and that it is his brother's sin if he do not hear him: and the Text further saith, If his brother do hear him, that he hath gained his brother.  
But if this brother might err, than he might err in admonishing, and the admonished person in stead of being gained to the Truth, might be gained to an error. This is the sum of your Argument, I am to hear the Church, therefore the Church cannot err; might you not as Logically infer, that because I am to hear a single private brother, therefore a single private brother cannot err; and by this you would make all the Sons of your Church infallible, like the Pope your Father; and by this rule Parents are infallible, because they must be heard by their children.  
Your next Scriptures are, Mat. 28.20. Lo I am with you always to the end of the world: and Joh. 24.16. I will pray the Father, and he will send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, which the World cannot receive: and ver. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost which the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things into your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you: and Chap. 16.17. I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot hear them now; howbeit, when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth.  
From which you infer, that if Christ and his Spirit should be with his Apostles for ever, to lead them into all Truth; it follows, they shall be preserved from all error.  
To which I answer, 1. That this Text in St. Matthew cannot be a good argument for you, because (you say) you have lost the Original of St. Mathews Gospel, and cannot tell whether he that did translate it, was an honest man or no.  
2 The Spirit of Christ might preserve the Apostles from all Error, and yet not be engaged to secure the Church from erring to the end of the World.  
But 3 I answer further, If this promise was made that the Holy Spirit should lead the Church in all Ages, into all Truth, it doth not follow (as I have said) that it should lead them irresistably; though it might lead them sufficiently.  
But 4. May I not as well infer, that because the Spirit was promised to convince the World of sin, because they believe not in Christ, that therefore all the world cannot be but effectually and irresistably convinced, as you may say, that because the Spirit is promised to lead into all Truth, that therefore the Church cannot err, but must be effectually so led.  
5 It is called the Spirit of Truth which the World cannot receive, meaning notorious and wicked men. Now than this Spirit some of those Popes which you call the Apostles successors, could not have, because many of them have been notoriously and confessedly wicked; all which doth plainly show, that this promise of the Spirit was made to direct and guide us into a further knowledge of the Truth, till we come to be perfect in Christ, upon condition that we are faithful in what we already know. Like unto that promise, Joh. 17.17. If any man do his will, he shall know of his doctrine: and to this agrees the Rhemi●● Testament, translating that Text of John 14.15, 16. If you love me keep my comandements, and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever. Now how can I be infallible that the Pope is thus guided, unless I do infallibly know that he loves God and keeps his Commandments?  
6 You say, 〈◊〉 into all Truth, implies preserving from all error: but this follow, not, not more, then because the Scriptures say, God's goodness leads to Repentance, that therefore all men should be preserved from impenitency.  
And lastly, If leading into all truth, implies preserving from all Error, how comes it to pass, that since your Church (as you say) is an infallible guide into all Truth, that she doth not preserve all her sons from all Error? And if you shall say see doth guide them all sufficiently though not efficiently, although that be false, yet you have answered yourself. For though God's Spirit and goodness be sufficient to lead to Truth and Repentance, yet it doth not follow, but there are (as sad experience teacheth) multitudes of erring and impenitent persons.  
Your next Text is, Ephes. 4.11. He gave some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and some Teachers, for perfecting the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ till we come in the union of the faith; and ver. 14. that we be no more children in understanding, etc. From which Text you would prove that the succession of the Apostles in the Church, was to preserve people from being tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, but what then? doth this prove the Church cannot err? This means was used by God for the perfecting of Saints, and yet we see that they are full of imperfections. Thus God may teach, and the Church not learn; God's Spirit may lead, and the Church (like Rome) may be refractory.  
Your last Text is, 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church of the living God, the Pillar and ground of Trust. Hence you would infer, that the Church cannot err, because we may securely rely upon her, as upon a Pillar. To which I answer, That these words do not respect the universal Church) as you would have it, but the particular Church which Timothy had the oversight of, in which Paul admonisheth him how he should behave himself.  
But 2. If this were granted that the universal Church is here meant, and not a particular Church; I answer that this proves nothing to your purpose because Churches and People receive their denomination ordinarily from what they should be in point of Duty, and not from what they are by necessity. Thus the Disciples are called the Salt of the Earth, because they were in duty to be so, and not that there, was a necessity that they could not have been otherwise; else it had been in vain to threaten them that if they lost their savour they should be good for nothing, but to be trodden under foot. In like manner the Church is the Pillar of Truth, and ground of in point of Duty, and yet this doth not hinder, but she may neglect and violate this Duty, and become the Teacher of Error.  
But lastly, The Church may be the Pillar and Ground of Truth, not only because she should be so, but because in all Ages she is so, in that she teacheth and maintaineth all things necessary to salvation, but yet she may for all that err, and be mistaken in some profitable points; and as a Man may be a man that hath some lameness and deformity of Body, so may the Church be a true Church, though it may be corrupt in Doctrine and Practice, which it will hardly be freed from till the day in which she shall be presented to her husband a chaste spouse without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.  
You proceed, and in p. 30. Assign a fifth Argument, That the Church of God was the Rule and Judge, and the Infallible Guide, when Christ and his Apostles was upon the Earth, From whence you would infer, that it is so still; Sir, I can very well own the Antecedent, and deny the Consequence: But you say, There is no Reason why the Church should not be so still, unless it be said that the Apostles were Infallible Guides till the Canon of the Scripture was finished, and that then Infallibility ceased, etc. But then (you say) what will be the Consequence; if that the Canon of the sequence; if that the Canon of the Scripture which the Apostles finished be now uncompleted by the loss of those Epistles, and Parcels of the Apostles Writings, which (you say) you have proved to be lost.  
I Answer, It will not follow that we shall need your bind guide, if what you say were true: But Secondly, It follows that your Church is fallible, because she hath not faithfully kept those Epistles, that she saith, were committed to her trust, as I have told you once, and again.  
Thirdly, Whereas you say, p. 31, If we had the whole Canon, yet it were not sufficient to decide all Controversies now on foot in matters of Faith. Sir, this is but the same over and over, for doth it follow, that because all Controversies are not decided, that therefore the Scripture is not sufficient to decide them? Surely then it follows, your Church is not sufficient to decide all Controversies, because the Controversy between the Jesuits, and the Dominicans, and the Franciscans, and the Dominicans are not yet decided.  
But Lastly, You may as well say, that the Grace of God doth not sufficiently teach Men to deny ungodliness, and worldly last, because the world lies in wickedness, as say the Scriptures are not sufficient to decide Controversies In Faith, because Controversies in Faith are not decided. This is your Romish Reasoning.  
You come to your last Reason, in pag. 32. and tell us, Tell none of those difficulties that were proposed to prove the Scripture not to be the Rule, are capable of being objected against the Church.  
This Argument I have already Answered, by showing that the same and greater absurdities are objected against your Church. But however I will Examine your First Reason, since I have not yet met with it, and that is, Because the Church (you say) is capable of answering those, ends, for which it is proposed, in that all that submit to it, are of one Faith.  
I Answer, Then the Church of England may be this True Church, for all that submit to her are of one Faith, and if any are not, it is because they submit not.  
Your other Reasons have fallen under consideration in the Answering of your Arguments about the invalidity of the Scripture, to which I refer the Reader.  
You proceed to Answer an Objections pag. 32. which you say, is, made by those of the separation (viz.) that these Texts, which you have urged, are to be understood by the Church Triumphant, and not of the Church Militant in the World; And after you have set up this puppet of your own (as you phrase it) or man of straw, you spend your 33, 34, and 35 Pages to fight against it, and therefore I shall do nothing to part the fray, because that supposed notion is no friend of mine; therefore I shall leave you to struggle with it as well as you can.  
Having taken it for granted, that there must be an infallible Church, you come in the last place, pag. 36. to resolve which is this Church, and this (you say) is the Roman Church; the sum of your Argument, is this; God hath appointed some Church upon Earth to be our Infallible Judge; Ergo, the Roman Church must needs be this Infallible Church, because no Church differing from it (that is none but the Roman Church) can be this Infallible Church.  
I Answer, That this in effect is a Woman's Reason, to say, that you are Infallible, because you are Infallible; for you say, The Roman Church must needs be so, because none but the Roman Church can be so. No marvel you tell us Reason must not be our Judge, for fear it should condemn such un-manlike Arguing: But you add further, pag. 37. That the Church which is appointed by God to be this Infallible Judge, must needs have this condition, that she own her Infallibility.  
To which I Answer, That then there was no True Church the first 300 years, because that there was none that ever owned Infallibility in your sense, unless it were the Church of Laodicea, who like Rome, said she was rich, and increased in goods, and had need of nothing, whereas she was poor, and miserable, blind, and naked.  
So that the whole Argument is made up of presumption, for you presume some Church is Infallible, and then you presume your Church must needs be so, because no other Church own themselves to be Infallible; but you must needs give us a better Reason, or else, while we make any use of Reason, we shall not believe it to be so; for what if any Church should have the confidence to call themselves Infallible, than your Argument would fall to the ground, and the Question would then be to be decided either by the Word, or by the Sword, which of the two were truly Infallible.  
Having Answered your Arguments, I shall propose a few Questions to considerations, wherewithal I shall conclude.  
Whereas you say, There must be an Infallible Church on Earth to judge of all differences?; and that this Church consists of a Pope reciding in, and defining with a general Council, in which it is represented by its Pastors out of all Nations; I query first, How was the Church guided for the first 300 years, in all which time there was no such general Council?  
Secondly, In what time and place was the Church ever so universally represented by her Pastors out of all Nations, if not, then how could she be Infallible, being not so represented?  
Thirdly, If the Church be not otherwise Infallible, but by general Councils, as aforesaid, then how can we be guided, when there is no General Councils as at this day?  
Fourthly, If you say we may be guided by those Canons and Decrees which they made in their respective Sessions; Then I demand how I shall rightly understand, that those Laws and Canons are truly Translated and Interpreted since they were given out in a Language that I understand not?  
Fifthly, If you shall say, I may know them from the mouth of the Pope, or Chief Pastor, than I query whether it may not be possible for him to err, since many Popes have been Heretics, and have taught contrary to the Law of God, as that Pope did that told King Henry the 8th, he might marry his Brother's Wife.  
Sixthly, But suppose the Pope did not err in giving me the true sense of Councils, and their Decrees, than I query, How every private person shall have his judgement informed in the Truth without going to Rome?  
Seventhly, If you say he may be resolved at home by the Pastors in several places; then I query, whether those Pastors may not err, since it is manifest, that the several Pastors and Churches of Asia did err; and then how can the members of this Church be sure, they are under an Infallible conduct to Eternal Life, and that these Pastors teach according to the Doctrine of the Infallible Church?  
VIII. Since you say, that General Councils Lawfully Called by the Pope, their chief astour cannot err, I query, How I shall be infallibly assured, when Councils are so called? Since sometimes the Pope may come in by Simony and Usurpation, as Boniface the 3 did, and sometimes be a Heritick, as Lyberius was, who subscribed the Excommunication of Athanasius, in which cases they ceasing to be lawful Popes, I would then know how I can be sure of a lawful Council?  
IX. Since there must be always a lawful succession of Popes, to make a lawful succession of True Ministers; How shall I know infallibly that the Minister that I heat did lawfully so succeed; and this I would know, because if he be not a lawful Minister, I may not lawfully hear him; And since that sometimes Heretics have been Popes, and sometimes the Chair hath been Usurped, and once a Woman was Pope, and sometimes there hath been two at once; How shall I that am to hear a private Pastor know whether his Ordination did succeed from a lawful Pope, and not from some of these?  
X. How shall I know what Council I may infallibly adhere unto, since one Council hath opposed another, and some cleave to one Council, and some to another; the Roman Church they test in the Niceen Council; the Greek Church they rest in the Council of Arminum, both which, are contrary to the other: how shall any one be assured of the truth of all those things with a divine certitude? And yet you make the world believe that all your ways are so plain, that a fool cannot err in them, and that the Scriptures are doubtful guides, when no Religion in the World is perplexed with more doubts than yours.  
XI. If your Roman Church be this Infallible Church, and all her Doctrines Infallible, than I query, if it be not sinful to doubt of the Truth of what she teacheth?  
XII. If it be not a sin to doubt of what your Church teacheth, then why do you blame us for questioning your Infallibility?  
XIII. But if it be a sin to question the Church's Doctrine, then how came the Baraeans to be commended for searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul preached was so or not; and whether might not their searching the Scriptures have run them upon all those inconveniencies of mistaking by false Pointings, corrupted Copies, false Interpretations, to the multiplying of Sects and Heretics, if it might, why are they commended for searching?  
XIV. How can the reason of the Jews erring be, because they did not know the Scriptures, if the knowledge of them would not have been a sufficient guide to the Truth?  
XV. But if you shall say, we cannot know the Scriptures but by the true Church, than I query, how shall I know the true Church, since there are as many different opinions about which is the true Church, as there is about which is the true sense of Scriptures?  
XVI. If you say the Scriptures decide the question, and guide us to the true Church, then whether this be not to speak Daggers, to prove the knowledge of the Scriptures by the Church, and the knowledge of the Church by the Scriptures?  
XVII. But if you say we know the Church by universal Tradition, than I query, whether your Church can be so known, since a great part of the Christian World, hath and doth disown her; witness the Greek Church, together with most of the Churches in Europe?  
XVIII. Whether then you can show such an universal Tradition for your Pope and Church, as we can do for the Scriptures, to which we do well to take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place till the day dawn, and the Daystar arise in our hearts.  
XIX. Where was the Infallibility of the Roman Church in the time of Athanasius, when he complained, totus mundus Arianizat, that the whole world Ariantized.  
XX. I demand, Where will be the Visibility and Infallibility of your Roman Church in the time of the great Antichrist? which your Rhemish Annotators say shall come towards the end of the World, and abolish the public Exercise of all Religion, wherein consisteth the worship of the true God, and shall pull down all kind of Religious worship save that which shall be done to himself alone: See Rhem. Annot. on 2 Thess. 2.4. How will your Church appear conspicuously and universally to be a guide to Fools infallibly in those days?  
FINIS.