A SERMON IN CONFUTATION Of R. H. the AUTHOR OF The Guide in Controversies.  
SHOWING That his most plausible Arguments produced against Protestants, do more effectually conclude for Judaisme against Christianity.  
BY DANIEL WHITBY, D. D. Chantor of the Church of Sarum.  Religio nunquam magis periclitatur quam inter Reverendissimos. Luther. 
London: Printed for H. Brome at the Gun in S. Paul's Churchyard, R. Bentley and M. Magnes in Russelstreet Covent-Garden. 1679.   

A SERMON ON John seven. 47, 48, 49.  Are ye also deceived? have any of the Rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law is accursed. 
THE Miracles of our Blessed Saviour, by which his Doctrine was confirmed, were so exceeding many, and exceeding great, that they prevailed on those plain hearted people who beheld them to believe that he who wrought them was indeed the Christ. For many of the people believed on him, saying, when Christ cometh will he do more miracles than these? Verse 31. These apprehensions of the Vulgar did so Alarm the Chief-Priests, and Pharisees, who saw their Interest, Authority, and Credit with the people must decline, as fast as that of Christ's prevailed, that they forthwith dispatched their Officers to take him, and bring him to them, Verse 32. These Officers when they had heard the gracious words which issued from the mouth of Christ, were themselves taken by him, they who were sent to bring Christ to the Priests and Pharisees, were themselves brought to Christ, and so these Converts neglect to do the Office of the High-Priests Sergeants. And being asked the reason why they had not brought Christ, they boldly answer, that they had heard such gracious and heavenly words proceeding from him as never man before him spoke, and therefore could not think it fit to apprehend so excellent a person, as he was. The Pharisees, hearing this answer, do presently conclude their Officers must be deceived in these kind thoughts of Christ, and offer this, as they supposed, convincing Argument, to prove it, viz. that though the giddy multitude, who had no knowledge of the Law, and therefore no capacity to understand the mind of God contained in it, might be inclined to think that Jesus was indeed the Christ, yet since the Rulers of the Church, the Sanhedrim, seeing the Doctors, and Expounders of the Law, the Scribes and Pharisees believed not on him, but did unanimously reject him as a vile Impostor, they must be certainly deceived, who apprehended otherwise concerning him, because they followed the verdict of the ignorant, and giddy multitude, in opposition to the better judgements, and the mature deliberations of their Church Guides, and learned Clerks.  
Now amongst all the Arguments by which the Emissaries of the Church of Rome endeavour to beguile unstable souls, and beget in them a suspicion that they have been seduced from the Church, none is more plausible than this which by the Pharisees is here laid down. I therefore shall endeavour,  
1. To propound the Argument which is here urged by the Pharisees to prove our Jesus could not be the true Messiah, in its full strength and vigour. And  
2. To show that what the Papists do produce to prove that Protestants must be deceived, is exactly parallel to what the Pharisees did, or might produce against our Saviour, and the same arguments might with equal reason have been urged by the unbelieving Jews against our Lords Disciples, and those who laid the first foundations of, and became early converts to the Christian Faith; As they are urged by the Papists against our departure from the Church of Rome.  
Now the Argument contained in the Text is this, viz. You must be certainly deceived if you believe that Jesus is the Christ; Because you do, by entertaining this persuasion, contradict the judgement of your Church Guides which God hath set over you. For they have frequently assembled for the determination of this grand debate, Whether this Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews or not, and they have constantly determined that he was not the Christ. And have unanimously concluded that he deserved to be punished as a vile Impostor, and that all who did confess that he was the Christ, should be excommunicated. In an assembly consisting of Chief Priests, and Pharisees, they positively declare that Christ could be no Prophet because he was a Galilean. 
John seven. 52. Verse 41, 42.  This all, say they, who search the Scriptures may plainly see. Moreover they determine in my Text, 
Verse 47, 48, 49.  that all who so esteemed him were themselves deceived, and that they lay exposed to this delusion for want of knowledge in the Law. In the ninth Chapter of St. John, 
Verse 16.  the Pharisees again declare that this man could not be of God, because he did not keep the Sabbath. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. John ix. 22. xii. 42.  Moreover these Pharisees, and other Rulers of the Church, determined and agreed together, that whosoever did confess that Jesus was the Christ, should suffer excommunication. They therefore thought themselves infallibly certain, 
Disc. chap. 4. S. 64, 65, 69.70.  (if excommunication be as R. H. informs us, an evidence of a claim to be infallible) that Christ was not the true Messiah. 
Mark three 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Elsewhere the Scribes and Pharisees do positively conclude that Christ did only Cast out Devils through Beelzebub. 
Joh. xi. 47, 50, 53.  After some days they again call a Council and there determine that it was fit that Christ should die. This the Highpriest declares, and all the Pharisees, 
Luke xxii. 66.  and the Chief-Priests agree to execute. A full Assembly consisting of the High-Priests, and all the Chief-Priests, Presbyters, and Scribes, Christ being brought before their Council, do with one voice declare that he was worthy to die as a Blasphemer, and also that by their Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. After his death the Chief-Priests, and the Pharisees, with one consent pronounce him a deceiver. When the Disciples began to witness that he was risen from the dead, 
Matth. xxvii. 63.  the High-Priests, Rulers, Elders, Scribes, and all the kindred of the Highpriest assemble at Jerusalem, and strictly do command them not to speak at all, 
Act. iv. 6, 18.  or teach in the name of Jesus. Soon after the Highpriest, the Sanhedrim, and all the Elders of Israel, 
Act. v. 40.  being met in Council, repeat the same command, and chastise the Apostles for their disobedience to it. If therefore the decrees of many Councils, consisting of the Guides of the whole Jewish Church, may be esteemed sufficient to decide a Controversy, it must be certain that Jesus Christ was not the true Messiah promised to the Jews, but a Deceiver and Blasphemer. Now as a Romanist, 
Rational Account, Disc. 1. Chap. 6. S. 59 P. 58.  having produced five Provincial, and two General Councils, falsely so called, for that portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation, saith, If the Decrees of so many Synods, so often weighing the Adversaries reasons and evidences, was not sufficient for settling such a point, at least as to the obedience of future silence, and noncontradiction, and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her peace, what can hereafter be sufficient? Or can we ever hope that any Controversy shall be finally determined, or ended by any future Council, if this, (of the Messiah) is not by these forepast? Can there be any ground here to question the integrity, or lawful proceed of so many Councils, all concurring in the same judgement (for a Corporal presence, saith the Romanist, that Christ was a Deceiver, saith the Jew?) Or could there be any new light in this point attainable in those times, by the private person, or Christian Convert which those (Guides of the Jewish Church, who condemned your Jesus) were not capable, or had no notice of.  
2. They who so often, and so unanimously condemned your Saviour, and his Doctrine (saith the Jew) were the Church-Guides by God appointed 
Levit. x. 11. Deut. xxxiii. 10. Mal. two. 7. Ibid.  to teach the Children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord had spoken to them by the hand of Moses, to teach Jacob his judgements, and Israel his Law, and by whose lips the knowledge of it was to be preserved. They were the men who are in Scripture styled the Messengers, or the Ambassadors of the Lord of Hosts; that is, the men appointed by him to declare his message to the people. 
Deut. xvii. 8, 12.  They were the men Ordained to Minister before the Lord in every Controversial matter, 
2 Chron. nineteen. 8.  men who were set for the judgement of the Lord and for Controversies, In Controversy they shall stand in judgement, 
Ezek. xliv. 24. Deut. xxi. 5.  saith the Lord, and by their word shall every Controversy be tried.  

Deut. xvii. 12.  Wherefore to act in opposition to the judgement of these Guides, must be to act presumptuously, as God himself declares, to despise the verdict of God's Messengers, and in a Controversial matter of the highest moment, to reject the sentence of those men, who are by God Ordained to define it, and by whose words, according to his Ordinance, it must be tried.  
3. As for the common people, who in this matter did oppose their private judgements to the Decrees of their Church Guides, not acquiescing in their Conciliar determinations, that your Jesus was not the true Messiah, they, saith the Jew, must act against that Rule which both the Law of Moses, and the Prophets have prescribed, for by that Law they are commanded under pain of death when any Controversy should arise among them to go to the Priests and Levites, and to the Judge then living, 
Deut. xvii. 8.12.  to inquire the sentence of judgement from his mouth, and to do according to the sentence which they shall show them, and according to all that they inform them, not declining from it to the right hand, or the left. 
Hag. two. 11. Mal. two. 7.  They by the Prophets are instructed to ask the Priests concerning the Law, and to seek the knowledge of it from their mouths. They therefore stood obliged to assent to the determinations of the Sanhedrim, and the Conciliar Decrees of Priests and Levites, Scribes and Pharisees confirmed by the Highpriest, and so they were obliged to believe that according to the true intent and meaning of the Law, your Jesus could not be the true Messiah. And consequently they must err who quitting the Decisions of the Pharisees, and other Rulers of the Church, embrace that Tenet of the ignorant and giddy multitude.  
Thus the Jew pleads from Scripture, against our Blessed Lord. And if you do compare these pleas, and others of like nature, which might be offered from the Scriptures by the Jew, with what the Romanists do offer for the infallibility of any of their Councils, you will soon find that all their pleas for this infallibility from the New Testament, are paralleled, or rather overbalanced with places of like nature in the Old, which do more strongly plead for the infallibility of the Highpriest, and Rulers of the Jewish Church. For,  
1. 
Matth. xxviii. 20.  Doth the Romanist plead Christ's promise to be for ever with his Church?  
Answ. The Jews had equal reason to expect God's presence among them, 
Exod. xxix. 42, 43, 44, 45. Mic. iv. 7. Psal. cxxxii. 13, 14. 2 Chron. seven. 16.  because he promised to dwell among the children of Israel, to meet them at the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and there speak with them, to Reign over them in Zion from henceforth and for ever. He chose Zion for his habitation, and said of it, this is my rest for ever, here will I dwell, and of Jerusalem, that he would put his name for ever in that place, and that his eyes, and his heart should be there for ever.  
2. 
Matth. xviii. 20.  Do they add that Christ hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the midst of them?  
Answ. 
Psal. cxxxiv. 3. Exod. xx. 24.  God also promised to the Jews that he would bless them out of Zion, and that wheresoever he did record his name, there would he come and bless his people,  
3. 
Luke x. 16. Matth. xviii. 17.  Do they allege these say of our Lord to his Disciples, viz. He that heareth you heareth me. He who neglects to hear the Church shall be accounted as a Heathen and a Publican.  
Answ. 
Deut. xvii. 12.  God also said that he who will not hearken to the Priest that stands to minister before the Lord, even that man shall die for his presumption.  
4. 
Heb. xiii. 7, 17.  Do they say that Christ's Apostles commanded Christians to obey those that had the rule over them, and to follow their faith?  
Answ. 
Matth. xxiii. 3.  Our Jesus did command his hearers to do all that the Scribes and Pharisees did say unto them, and that because of their Authority derived from Moses, 
Deut. xvii. 10.  and God himself commanded all his people to do according to all that they should be informed of by the Priests. And  
5. 
John xuj. 13. Chap. xiv. 26.  Do they plead Christ's promise made to his Apostles that he would send the Spirit of Truth to guide them into all Truth?  
Answ. Whereas this promise doth personally belong to the Apostles, 
John xiv. 26. John xuj. 13.  and not to their Successors (for it is a promise to bring to their remembrance by his Spirit, what he before had said to them and to show them things to come, to which Spirit of Prophecy the Roman Doctors do not now pretend.) I say whereas this promise did belong to the Apostles only, God stood obliged by Covenant to cause his holy Spirit to remain among the Rulers of the Jewish Church. 
Hag. two. 5.  For thus he speaks, according to the word that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remains among you. 
Numb. xi. 17.  Moreover God promised to the Sanhedrim that he would put the spirit of Moses upon them, and in compliance with that promise he came down in a Cloud, and took the spirit which was upon Moses, and gave it to the seventy Elders, so that they Prophesied and did not cease. Or,  
6. Do they argue for their infallibility, because the Church is styled by St. Paul, 
1 Tim. three 15.  the pillar, and the ground of truth, by reason of that truth which is preserved by her Governors?  
Answ. God also hath declared touching his Priests, 
Mal. two. 6. Zech. viij. 3.  that the law of truth was in their mouth, and of Jerusalem that she should be called the City of truth. And if the Church of Judah hath since failed, so also hath the Church of Ephesus, of which alone St. Paul affirmeth that it was the pillar, and the ground of truth.  
7. 
Eph. iv. 11, 12.  Do they conclude that the Church-Guides must be infallible, because God hath placed in the Church some Apostles, some Prophets, some Pastors and some Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine?  
Answ. Were not the Jewish Priests placed also for this end, for the work of their Ministry, the perfecting of their Saints, the edifying of their Flocks? Were not their lips to preserve that knowledge which should restrain the people from their errors? 
Ezek. xxxiv. 4.  Were not they appointed to heal that which was sick and bring again that which was strayed? Or,  
Lastly, Do they triumph in that promise of our Lord, 
Matth. xuj. 18.  that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against the Church?  
Answ. 
Jer. xxxiii. 20, 21.  God also promised that his Covenant made with his Levites, Priests and Ministers, should be as certain and perpetual, as that of day and night. So that I need not add, that by this Phrase, 
Essay. Chap. 3.  Christ only promiseth that pious Christians shall not for ever be detained under the power of the grave, which I have elsewhere showed, to be the natural, and only import of these words, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church.  
Moreover the plain meaning of the foregoing words, viz. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, is, as 
a Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus, Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, id circo praesumis & ad te derivasse solvendi & ligandi potestatem, qualis es evertens & commutans manifestum domini intentionem personaliter (N.B.) hoc Petro conferentem, sic enim & exitus docet, in ipso Ecclesia exstructa est, id est, per ipsum.— ipse primus in Christi Baptismo reseravit aditum caelestis Regni. De Pudicitia cap. 21. p. 574. B.  Tertullian well informs us, only this: Thou who hast first of all my Disciples acknowledged me to be the Christ, thou shalt first preach this Doctrine to the World, and, by so doing, lay the first foundations of a Christian Church. Which he accordingly performed, first laying the foundation of a 
b Acts 2.41.  Church among the Jews by the conversion of three thousand souls. And after laying the foundation of a Church amongst the Gentiles, by the conversion of Cornelius, and his friends, Christ having, to fulfil his promise, 
c Acts 15.7.  made choice of him among the rest of the Apostles, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. Now to pretend to be St. Peter's Successor in this matter, is in effect to say, that the foundations of a Christian Church are not yet laid.  
If therefore Roman Catholics conclude from these ambiguous and obscure places for the infallibility of Councils, or of the major part of the Church guides concurring with the Pope in any Sentence or Decree, although these places do not speak one syllable of any Pope, or major part of the Church-Guides, and much less of the Romish Prelates, and less of their infallible assistance, what Ovations and Triumphs would they have made, had it been said expressly of their Cardinals and Councils, as it is said of Jewish Priests, that they were set for judgement and for Controversy: had God fixed his glorious presence at Rome, as he did at Jerusalem? and settled there a seat of Judgement, and a continual Court of highest judicature, as was that Sanhedrim which in Jerusalem was settled? had he dwelled in St. Peter's as he dwelled in the Temple? had he left with them, as he did with the Jewish Priests, a standing Oracle, a Vrim and a Thummim to consult with on all occasions? so that this plea being much stronger for the infallibility of the Superiors of the Jewish Church, than for the infallibility of the whole Western Church, or any of its Councils, the Roman Doctors must acknowledge either that they fallaciously urge it against Protestants, or must confess that it stands also good against the Christian, and is a confirmation of all those traditions which were condemned by our Saviour, and a sufficient plea for all those errors and corruptions, which, as the Prophets do complain, were generally taught and practised by the Church-Guides, in the declining Ages of the Jewish Church. 
V Stillingfl. Sermon upon Acts 24.14. p. 39  For if these Arguments be good now, they were so then, and if they were good then, for aught that I can see, the High Priest, and the major part of the Church Rulers of the Jews were always in the right, and Christ and his Apostles, with the Holy Prophets, must be in the wrong.  
Moreover had we no evidence from Scripture, may the Jew say in prosecution of this Argument, reason seems very strongly to conclude for this submission of the common people, and some few Priests to the concurring judgements of their Church-Guides, and of the major part of Jews, who joined with then in condemnation of your Jesus, as a Blasphemer and false Prophet, and of his followers as Heretics and Schismatics, or men who worshipped God after that way which by the Jews was called Heresy, 
Acts 24.14. ibid. v. 5.  and were Ringleaders of a Sect. For still to argue after the manner of the Romish Doctors.  
1. Is it not reasonable to conceive that they who were God's Ministers appointed for this very thing to judge in controversial matters, and to make trial of such as did pretend to Prophesy, as was the Jewish Sanhedrim: I say, is it not reasonable to conceive that the assistance of the Holy Spirit should be vouchsafed to these Rulers of the Church, and Doctors of the Law, rather than to those common people who bore no such relation to God, had no commission from him to direct others in the meaning of his word, but had so many, and such express injunctions to seek it at the mouth of their Church-Guides? Can we imagine that these Pharisees and Rulers should be the men ordained by God for Controversies, and by whose words they must be tried; and yet should be such blind and stupid Guides, as by your Jesus they were said to be, that he who was led by them must fall into the ditch?  
Moreover were no assistance from above to be expected in this case, is it not reasonable to think that these great Doctors of the Law, those numerous Priests who made it their whole business to study, 
Vid. Answ. in Numb. xi. 16, 17.  and search out the meaning of the Law of Moses, those Members of the Sanhedrim, who were still chosen out of the most Learned Persons, and the most eminent for wisdom, I say, may we not reasonably conceive such Persons to be fit and more able Judges of the sense and meaning of that Law, or of the truth of any miracles pretended to be wrought by Christ, or his Apostles, than was that rude and giddy Multitude which had no knowledge of the Law? They therefore considering their Superiors study and Learning in such things Divine, and also their own ignorance; 
R.H. discourse Chap. 13. p. 13.  they considering both the special ordination, and commission of their Superiors from God to teach them in necessary truths, and his charge laid upon them to obey their Ecclesiastical Superiors, aught to depend upon, and adhere to their directions so much the more in any point of faith, by how much it is esteemed more necessary, as wherein there is a much greater hazard if they should err.  
3. All that your Gospel doth suggest, or reason may pretend for the exemption of the first Jewish Converts from obedience to these decrees of their Superiors in the Jewish Church, may, saith the Jew, be fully answered from the plain Principles, and almost in the words of Roman Catholics. For to proceed in the expressions of R. H. the Guide in Controversies, with very little variation of them.  
1. Will you affirm that all the Priests and Rulers, Scribes and Pharisees, and the whole Sanhedrim acted against their faith and conscience, in these determinations by which your Jesus was condemned as an Impostor?  
Answ. 
Discourse 1. Ch. 3. §. 37, 38. p. 26.  R. H. will tell you there is a moral certainty that so many such persons cannot conspire in such a matter, viz. a necessary to Salvation, to falsify the truth against their own belief and conscience, to their Subjects and Posterity, with an Anathema to all dissenters, or an excommunication of all who preached, and believed that Christ was the Messiah promised to the Jews, and was already risen from the dead, when their own consciences could tell them that these things were true. 
Ibid. p. 25.  If any can be so uncharitable as to credit of them so great a wickedness, that the Supreme Councils of the (Jewish) Church should with design decree an error contrary to their faith, (or knowledge) in this necessary matter, and then enjoin all their Subjects to believe it under Anathema, he must believe that they most certainly do devote themselves to eternal perdition. And therefore, if not out of Charity, or reverence to such sacred persons, yet from the irrationality of such a defence, it is much better to pass over this objection.  
2. Will you say that these Superiors were only to be appealed to in doubtful matters, and that this thing, whether the Scriptures declared your Jesus to be the true Messiah, was not doubtful?  
Answ. R. H. informs you that a right judgement cannot but account all those places doubtful, 
Disc. Chap. 3. §. 44. p. 29.  in the sense whereof either the Ancient or present major part of Christianity are of a contrary judgement from himself. That must be therefore doubtful, according to the ground and reason of this Rule, which you presume not to be doubtful, since it was that in which the major part of the then present Jewish Church was of a contrary judgement from the Christian Convert.  
3. Will you plead in favour of the vulgar, that they were bound to hearken to these Jewish Guides no longer than they followed the Rule of Scripture?  
Answ. 
Ibid. p. 28.  Be it so, But saith R. H. Who is appointed judge of these supreme Judges, when they transgress against this Rule? their Subjects? who are from them to learn the sense of the Rule where difficult, and disputed, and who are bidden to follow their faith? The right exercise of Judgement will not judge so. For if the vulgar may pass this judgement of the Decrees of many Councils, and the concurring judgement of their Superiors and Church Guides, I hope the matter must be evident even to the vulgar sort that notwithstanding the contrary judgement of Chief Priests and Rulers, Scribes, Pharisees and Elders, and almost all the Jewish Nation, that sense of Scripture must be false, which their Ecclesiastical Guides alleged, to prove that Jesus was not the true Messiah, and that according to their Law he was to die, and that sense of the Scripture must be true which by the Apostles, and their few Converts, was alleged to prove that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jew. 
Ibid. p. 143.  Now how vainly, saith R. H. doth any one pretend, or promise himself a certainty of any thing wherein so many Councils, and a much major part of the Church, having all the same means of certainty as he, judgeth contrary? 
Rational account. disc. 3. Chap. 4. §. 42. p. 179.  where it seems the Scripture may be so doubtful that the sense of the (then) Catholic Church, or its greatest Councils, they say, can be to them no certain or infallible interpreter of it, where the judgement or common Reason of these Councils thinks itself so certain of the contrary, as to Anathematise dissenters, or cast them out of the Church. On what grounds here these private Persons, or new erected Churches could assure themselves of their own sense of Scripture to be true, they having left that of the Church's Councils, and of a major part of (Jews) who also judged their sense false, I understand not. Surely they will not say, they have this certainty from the Scripture, because the true sense thereof is the thing so mainly questioned, and the certainty or infallibility of the traditive sense of the (Jewish) Church they renounced, and then, which only is left, their own judgement, or their own common reason, when that of their greatest Councils, or major part of their Church-Guides, differs from it, one would think should be a more fallible ground to them, than the judgement or common reason of the Church. For a man to presume himself certain in a matter of faith, 
Ibid. disc. 2. Chap. 2. §. 15. p. 95.  or in his own sense of Scripture, (though the literal expression he never so clear,) where so many Learned and his Superiors, (comparing other Texts, etc.) are of a contrary judgement, this, saith R. H. is the same as if in a matter of sense, a dim sighted Person should profess himself certain that an object is white, when a multitude of others, the most clear sighted that can be found, having all the same means of a right sensation as he hath, pronounce it black, or of another colour. 
V Rational account disc. 2. Chap. 5. §. 42. p. 141.  Moreover if these Scriptures, or reasons be so clear even to the ignorant and unlearned Jew, must they not be as clear to their Church-Guides, and may not then their judgements more securely be relied upon, at least for any thing which is presumed to be clear? 
Disc. Chap. 3. §. 37. p. 24.  For if Scriptures be maintained so clear in necessaries, that every one using a right endeavour cannot mistake in them, then shall the Church Governors much rather, by reason of this clearness, obvious to every Rustic, not err in them; and so shall the people, the more the Rule of faith is proved to be clear, the more securely rely on, and be referred in them to their direction.  
4. If you pretend a more sincere endeavour in those few converts to find out the sense of Scripture, or search out the truth in these matters, which, in the case of the Beraeans, your Scripture seemeth to assert.  
Answ. I Answer still with the same Author, 
Disc. Chap. 1. p. 4, 5.  that since all parties do pretend sincere endeavour in the right understanding of the Scriptures, and after it do differ so much in their sense of it, it follows that such sincere endeavours being indifferently allowed to all parties, the sense of Scripture, (and the verdict of true reason) ought to be pronounced clear, if on any, on that side as the major part doth apprehend it; (which certainly was not the Primitive Converts, but the unbelieving Jews, and their Ecclesiastical Superiors.) 
Ibid. p. 24.  For surely we have reason to presume that the Chief Guides of the Church, in their consults concerning a point necessary to Salvation delivered in Scripture, (as that of the Messiah was) use at least so much endeavour as a plain Rustic doth to understand the meaning of it. And whatsoever other thing is supposed necessary besides sincere endeavour, or is understood to be included in it, (as freedom from passion, and secular Interest, or also a freely professing the truths which their sincere endeavour discovers to them,) none can rationally imagine but that these supreme Church Governors should be as much, or more disengaged herein, than private men. 
Ibid. p. 145.  And that passion and interest blind private men, or ourselves, sooner than General Councils, or a major part of the Church.  
See therefore here the wisdom of the unbelieving Jews, who to preserve themselves from erring, in this matter, made use of the securest way that reason could imagine, 
Rat. Account Disc. 1. Chap. 7. §. 77. p. 74.  saith R. H. or that Christians are prescribed, whilst for the sense of the Scriptures that were controverted in this point of the Messiah, they chose not to rely on their own judgements, but on that of the Supremest Guides of the Church, and Judges of Divine Truth that were afforded them on earth, and so if they erred, yet took the wisest course to have miss erring that Religion, or Reason could dictate. To which Guides also the subjects of this former Communion all believed submission of their private judgements to be due, and to be commanded, from whence also it follows that till they are convinced of error in this point, viz. that no submission was due, to the Decrees of all these Councils, and the concurring judgement of those Spiritual Guides by whom your Jesus was condemned, they are not capable of being convinced in any other matter,  
If lastly, you affirm that the common people had conviction, and demonstration from the Miracles of Christ of the falsehood of the Decrees, and the Interpretations of their Church Guides in this matter, and of the truth of that Christianity which they embraced in opposition to those said Decrees.  
Answ. This I confess is a great truth, but then the Roman Doctors cannot plead it, without rejecting most of their professed Tenets, and their strongest pleas for absolute submission to the Major part of their Church Guides. For,  
1. Admit our Saviour, and his Apostles wrought true Miracles, how did the vulgar perceive them so to be but by their senses? and how did they infer from them the truth of Christianity, but by their private Reasons? 
Rat. Account Disc. 1. Chap. 6. §. 62. p. 63.  Now the evidence of sense and reason must be both neglected, saith the Romanist, when a Divine Revelation declares any thing contrary to them, This, and this only, being their defence of Transubstantiation against the common sense and reason of mankind. Now of the certainty of a Divine Revelation, or the true sense of Scripture, they make the judgement of the Major part of their Church Guides to be sufficient evidences, and so there was sufficient evidence, according to this Rule, that all the Miracles which Christ, and his Apostles seemed to work, were done in opposition to Divine Revelation, or the true sense of Scripture.  
2. Certain it is that the Rulers of the Jews, and the prevailing part of the whole Nation, differed from the converted Christians in their apprehensions of these Miracles, and judged them all Diabolical Impostures, or trials of their Faith, etc. 
Rat. Account Disc. 4. Cons. 2. p. 384.  Now this seems necessary to be granted, saith R. H. that in what kind of knowledge soever it be, (whether of our sense or reason, in what ever Art or Science) one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge, that he is certain of any thing for a truth, which all, or most others of the same, or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties, in all the same external means, or grounds of the knowledge thereof, do pronounce an error. So that where all, or most differ from me, it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in myself, rather than them, especially when as all the grounds of my science are communicated to them, and when as for my own mistakes, I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions. According therefore to this Rule, it was strange pride in the first Converts to Christianity among the Jews, to judge the Miracles of Christ, or his Apostles true, when most of their own Nation, as well as Heathens, differed from them in that apprehension, and spoke so freely every where against the Sect of Christians.  
3. The truth of the pretences of our Lord, and his Apostles, depended on two things, 
Stillingfl. ibid. p. 42.  viz. the fulfilling of Prophecies, and the truth of his Miracles. Now according to the Roman Principles no man could be certain of the truth of either of these without the Authority of the then present Church. For the fulfilling of Prophecies depended on the sense of many obscure places of Scripture, of which, say they, the Major part of the Church-Guides must judge. And for Miracles, they tell us that there is no certain way of judging true, from false, but by the Authority of the Church. Now if these things be so, what ground could the first Jewish Converts have to believe Christ was the true Messiah, or a worker of true Miracles, when in believing both these things, they must oppose the Authority of the then present Church.  
4. All that hath been discoursed in answer to the former pleas, serves also against this. For who shall be judge whether these Miracles were true, and were sufficient to confirm the Christian Faith? those Persons whose Office it was to judge both of true Prophets, and true Miracles, or those who had no power or commission so to do? Was not the Jewish Sanhedrim and other Rulers of that Church more able Judges of the Truth, and the validity of any Miracles pretended to be wrought by Christ and his Apostles, than was that Multitude which, as experience teacheth, may be imposed upon with ease? Were not those Guides who were appointed to be Judges in all other matters, the proper Judges of this Controversy? Have we not reason to believe their judgement was as free from interest and passion, and their endeavours to search out the truth of these relations as sincere, as was the judgement or endeavours of the Laity? When therefore these Church-Guides did notwithstanding those pretended Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, conclude unanimously that Christ was a Deceiver, was it not absurd to say that what they so universally determined, might be discerned by any private judgement to be the clearest falsehood? that vulgar persons had demonstration in this matter against the judgement of the whole body of their Guides, and that their common reason was able to discern that to be manifestly true, which the same common reason of their Superiors, judged to be manifestly false?  
Thus have we seen that Scripture and Reason do more countenance the Jew pleading against our Lord, and the first Christian Converts, than they do countenance the Papist pleading against Protestants. In the last place the Jew may argue from Tradition thus, viz.  
These Spiritual Guides in making this determination and passing of this judgement concerning Jesus were guided by that Rule, 
Synod. Tri●. Sess. 4.  which by the greatest part of Christians, I mean the Roman Catholics, is highly magnified, and equaled with the Holy Scriptures, viz. Tradition, acknowledged by the present Church for such. And so your Jesus must also upon this account be deemed an Impostor, or the pretences and plead of the Romanist against the Protestant, from the Tradition of the Church, must be acknowledged to be vain. For,  
1. It is most certain that the Jews had a Tradition generally received amongst them that their Messiah at his coming should restore the Kingdom to Israel. That he should subdue the Nations under them, and should erect a Temporal Dominion in the Jewish Nation over all their Enemies. Even the Disciples of our Lord did constantly believe this Article, till by the Holy Ghosts descent upon them, they were better informed. 
Matth. xviii. 1. Matth. xx. 21.  Witness their contests who should be greatest in that Kingdom, and the desire of the Sons of Zebedee to sit one at his right hand, another at his left hand in it. This was our Faith, saith Cleopas, 
Luke xxiv. 21  we trusted that this Jesus should have Redeemed our Israel. And when they were assembled, after the Resurrection, their first enquiry is this, 
Act. i. 6.  Lord wilt thou now restore the Kingdom to Israel. It is therefore certain that this was the received Tradition of the whole Jewish Church, grounded as they supposed, upon the Scriptures which did necessitate them to expect a glorious Messiah, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dial. p. 249. B.  not such a one, saith Trypho, as your mean and despised Jesus was.  
2. It was also a Tradition which generally obtained amongst the Jews, that their Elias, who was called the This by't, was to appear again in person before the advent of the true Messiah, 
Mal. iv. 5.  so was that place of Malachi Translated by the Seventy three hundred and eighty years before our Saviour's coming. Behold I send unto you Elias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the great and glorious day of the Lord come. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dial. p. 268. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mark ix. 11.  All we expect, saith Trypho, that Christ should be anointed by Elias, who is for to come, and because this Elias is not come we think your Jesus cannot be the Christ. Accordingly the Scribes, or the Expounders of the Law, did with one voice declare it necessary that Elias should first come.  
3. It was the general Tradition of the Jews that the Law of Moses should be perpetually obliging to them; and that it was to be observed even in the days of the Messiah. On this presumption certainly it was that Christ's Disciples, after his Resurrection, were strict observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time; and so were also many thousands of the Jewish Converts. St. Peter was so nice in observation of the Jewish customs that till he was informed better by a vision, he thought such meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law, so that when in that vision he was bid to slay and eat, he presently cries out, as a man tempted to an unlawful act, 
Act. x. 14.  Not so Lord, for I have never eaten any thing that is unclean. St. James gives an account to Paul of the great Zeal that all the Jewish Converts had to the Law of Moses in these words, 
Act. xxi. 20.  Thou seest Brother how many thousand of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. He farther tells him how highly they were all offended with him, 
Verse 21.  because they were informed he had taught that they were not obliged to yield obedience to the Constitutions and Customs of the Jewish Law; and lastly doth exhort him to do what might be proper to cause these Zealots to believe that he also walked orderly, and kept the Law. 
Verse" 24.  
a Chron. 2.  St. Jerom, and 
b Lib. 2. c. 45.  Sulpicius inform us that fourteen immediate succeeding Bishops, with their flocks, were all observers of the Law of Moses. And by the unbelieving Jews nothing was more abhorred than the thoughts of changing their Mosaic Customs. For upon this account St. Stephen was accused of Blasphemy against Moses, and the Law, 
Act. vi. 11, 14.  because he said that the Messiah should change the customs which Moses had delivered to them. This accusation before the Scribes, the Elders and Highpriest, was deemed sufficient to prove him guilty of that capital offence of Blasphemy. On this account they bring St. Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio, because, say they, he did persuade men to worship God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Act. xviii. 13. , against, or otherwise than was commanded by the Law of Moses. And this opinion they grounded chief upon those places which seem to speak of the perpetual duration of those Statutes, 
Deut. xxix. 29. Levit. iii. 11. Exod. xii. 17.  and say they shall be ordinances to them for ever, and consequently seem to infer a Declaration from the mouth of God, that they should not be altered.  
Moreover it is certain that, as the Protestants condemn as sinful and pernicious, many Traditions and Customs of the Roman Church, so did that Jesus whom Christians honour as the true Messiah, as frequently inveigh against, and solemnly condemn many Traditions which then were generally received, and practised in the Jewish Church, as vain and sinful customs, and such as tended to make void the Scriptures, and render the whole Jewish worship vain. He therefoce seemeth to have been as great an enemy to Ecclesiastical Traditions, though they were generally owned by the then present Church, as such as Protestants can be esteemed.  
Lastly, Certain it is that the Superiors, and Church Rulers, or at the least the Major, and prevailing part of the Church Rulers, did then as firmly, and unquestionably believe that those Traditions which were condemned by your Jesus, and which so evidently proved, if true, he was not the Messiah promised to the Jew, were both agreeable to the word of God Expounded by their Church Tradition, and were delivered to them by Moses and the Patriarches, and Prophets, and were continually practised by their Forefathers, as doth the Roman Church believe that her Traditions were taught, and practised by Christ or his Apostles, and by their Successors throughout all Ages of the Church. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Matth. xv. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gal. i 14.  Hence are they often styled by them the Traditions of the Ancients, or the Traditions received by succession from their Fathers.  
And in their later writers they are always held to be derived from God by Moses together with the written Law, and as an explication of it. Hence, like good Roman Catholics, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. xxi. 21. Act. xxviii. 17.  they were more exceedingly zealous for the Traditions of their Fathers, than for the Law itself. They accuse all who walked not according to these customs of their Fathers, as persons who forsook the Law of Moses. And to do any thing against these customs of their Fathers was reputed Criminal: This being so,  
I ask why the tradition of the major part of the Church Catholic or Christians in any Age whatsoever, and their concurring judgement that what she doth at present teach, and practise, she received from Christ and his Apostles, should be esteemed sufficient to render all those persons guilty of Heresy and Schism, who do not yield assent to what they teach, or a compliance with their practices as Roman Catholics assert, and yet that the general tradition of the then present Jewish Church, even including the Disciples of Christ, should not conclude them Schismatics and Heretics, who being Members of that Church, would not assent unto what they so generally taught, or comply with that which they practised as delivered to them by Moses, and the Patriarches, and Prophets.  
But to apply these things, if it be possible, yet more particularly unto the plead of the Roman Church, and to show the weakness and the pernicious results of their most specious pretences. I add,  
1. That notwithstanding it was the duty of the Priests and Rulers of the Jewish Church both to preserve and teach unto the people the knowledge of the Law, yet did the major part of these Church-Guides, both oft and dangerously swerve from this their duty. For they did teach and practise, and direct the people into those ways which were destructive to the eternal welfare of their Souls, God by his Prophets doth complain without exception of them, 
Esa. xxviii. 7. Ibid. v. 15.  that they erred in vision, and stumbled in judgement, that the teachers of his people made lies their refuge, and under falsehood hid themselves, saying, the overflowing scourge shall not come to us: 
Isa. xliil. 27. Isa. lvi. 10, 11.  that their Interpreters had transgressed against him, that his watchmen were blind, they were all ignorant, all dumb dogs that could not bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber; that they were greedy dogs that could never have enough. 
Jer. two. 8.  Shepherds that could not understand, that the Priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that handled the Law knew him not, that the Pastors also transgressed against him, and the Prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that did not profit. 
Jer. v. 31. Jer. vi. 13, 14.  That his Prophets prophesied falsely, and the Priests bare rule by their means. That from the Prophet to the Priest every one dealt falsely. That they healed also the hurt of the Daughter of his people slightly, saying, peace, peace, when there was no peace. 
Jer. viij. 9 Jer. xxiii. 1, 2.  That his wise men had rejected the word of the Lord. And that the Pastors whose business it was to feed his sheep, destroyed, and scattered, and drove them away, and did not visit them. 
Ibid. v. 11. Ezek. xxii. 26.  That both Priests and Prophets were profane. That they had violated his Law, and had profaned his holy things, putting no difference betwixt the Holy and profane, the clean and the unclean, and hid their eyes from his Sabbaths. 
Ezek. xxxiv. 1, 6.  That the Shepherds of Israel fed themselves, but did not feed the flock, the diseased did they not strengthen, neither did they heal that which was sick, nor bring again that which was driven away, nor seek that which was lost, but with force and cruelty they Ruled, so that the sheep were scattered because there was no Shepherd. 
Hos. iv. 6. Zeph. iii. 4.  That they rejected knowledge, so that God's people were destroyed for lack of it. That her Prophets were light and treacherous persons, her Priests had polluted the Sanctuary, they had done violence to the Law. 
Mal. two. 8.  That they had forgotten the Law of their God, they departed out of the way, they caused many to stumble at the Law, they corrupted the Covenant of Levi.  
Moreover of these Guides it is expressly said, 
Isa. iii. 12. Chap. ix. 16. Jer. l. 6. Matt. xxiii.  That they which led his people caused them to err, and destroyed the way of their paths. That the Leaders of the people caused them to err, and they that were led of them were destroyed, and that their Shepherds caused them to go astray. Our Lord declares, that they were fools, blind Guides, full of Hypocrisy, and of iniquity, that they had taken away the key of knowledge, 
Luke xi. 52. Matt. xxiii. 13.  and had shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men, not going in themselves, nor suffering them that were entering to go in. That they made many false decisions in matters of so great importance as to make void the Law of God, 
Matt. xv. 6, 9  and render his whole worship vain. That they transgressed the commandment of God by their Traditions. That notwithstanding their instructions the people were as sheep without a Shepherd, 
Matt. ix. 36. Matt. xv. 14.  or only had such Guides as would most certainly, if they submitted to their guidance, lead them to the pit, Hence therefore I infer,  
1. That even those Spiritual Guides who are by God's appointment constituted to instruct his people, and to feed his flock (for such our Lord acknowledged the Scribes, and Pharisees, and Rulers of the Jewish Church to be) may scatter, and destroy that flock. And they who are set for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies, may violate, corrupt, pervert that Law they should interpret, they may be partial in it, they may departed out of the way, they may make the Commandments of God of none effect, and his whole worship vain by their traditions, they may cause their sheep to err, stumble, and go astray, and that so dangerously that they who are led by them shall be destroyed with them, and find no entrance into bliss. And hence, I hope, I may assume the boldness to conclude against the Infallibility of our Spiritual Governors, or the concurring judgements of the major part of them: which is sufficient to root up even the foundations of the Romish Babel.  
2. Hence I infer that notwithstanding all the formentioned Scriptures, which say it was the duty of the people to ask of their Spiritual Guides the meaning of the Law, and seek the knowledge of it at their mouths, and to inquire after their judgements in all those Controversies they were not able to resolve. I say, hence I infer, that notwithstanding this, the people were not absolutely obliged to rest in the decision of the major part of these Church Guides, or bound to practise all that they approved, for then an obligation must be laid upon them, not only to err in judgement with them to countenance false Prophets, and to speak peace to themselves when there is no peace, but also to violate the Law, and to comply with their false glosses, and corrupt interpretations of it; nay which is more unreasonable, they must be then obliged to be destroyed, to fall into the pit, and to exclude themselves from the enjoyment of Christ Kingdom. Whereas it is a contradiction to say that God obligeth any Person to transgress his Law, and it is little less than Blasphemy to say h● doth require them to destroy themselves, to fal● into the pit, or to deprive themselves of the enjoyment of his Kingdom. Hence therefore I infer this Corollary:  
That neither are all Christian people, Churches, 〈◊〉 Nations absolutely bound to rest in the decisions of th● major part of Christian Bishops, or to practise all th●● they approve and impose. Which proposition overthrows that absolute and blind obedience to their Church Guides, or Councils which Romanists ●● stiffly plead for.  
3. Hence it is also evident that private persons, or that the minor part of the whole Church may have sufficient ground, either from reason, or clea● Scripture, for their refusal of assent, and of submission to the Authority and definitions of the major part of their Church Guides, for the Jews were bound to believe Christ to be the true Messiah, although the High Priest, and the Elders had pronounced him a deceiver, and a Malefactor. They were obliged to believe his Miracles were wrought, not by Belzebub, but the Spirit of God; that Christ's Kings was not of this world, that John Baptist was that Elias which was for to come, and that to eat with hands unwashed, to heal the sick, to pluck some ears of Corn upon the Sabbath day, were not unlawful actions, although the major part of their Church Guides taught, and believed the contrary. 
Matt. xv. 5.  They were obliged not to void that Law of nature which required Children to relieve their own distressed Parents, and therefore stood obliged not to comply with those traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, which made the word of God of none effect, and would not suffer them to yield obedience to it. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mark seven. 8.  And seeing they had many traditions and decrees of the like nature, which obtained amongst them, and only were rejected by the Saducees, and the Disciples of our Lord; in none of these could they comply with their Church Guides without the violation of that Law of God, which sure they had sufficient ground and reason to observe. In a word, in all those cases in which they were not bound to rest in the decisions of the major part of their Church Guides, or practise what they did approve, that is in all the cases mentioned in the former head, they must have had sufficient ground, either from Scripture, or from Reason, for their refusal of submission to them. Now these three inferences do fully justify the Reformation of the Church of England.  
4. From what hath been discoursed we may see the weakness of those pleas the Roman Doctors make in their own defence, and of the Arguments they use to show that 'tis impossible they should be guilty of those corruptions in Doctrine, or in manners which we charge them with. For their most specious pretences are to this effect, that we confess the Church of Rome was once both true, and Orthodox, show then, say they, how we did cease to be so, whether by Schism or Heresy? With Schism you cannot justly charge us, 
R. H. Rational account, disc. 3. Chap. 5. §. 63. p. 203.  for that can never be of a much major, and more dignified part, in respect of a less, and inferior, subject to it; because this main body in any division is rightly taken for the whole, from which a separation is Schism, and to which every Member ought to adhere, as to the body, and head here upon earth to which it belongs; we therefore being the much major, and more dignified part of the Church, cannot be Schismatics in reference to Protestants who are, and were at their departure, a less and an inferior body to us. If Heresy be the crime charged upon us, by what Church were we condemned? what body of men, before you, found fault with those corruptions which you, pretend to reform? for sure it was not possible for so many errors and corruptions to come into the Church, and no one take notice of them? could this be so, where was the watchful eye of providence over the Church? But if we could suppose this providence was unconcerned for preservation of the Church, could all the Pastors fall asleep at once? or could they all conspire together to deceive their Posterity? Moreover since God will always have a visible Church, what can you mention besides that which holds Communion with the Church of Rome, as the then present visible Church of Christ, when you began your reformation (except perhaps some Eastern Churches which you dislike almost as much as that of Rome?) And if that Church could teach such errors as you charge her with, as matters of the Christian faith, what assurance can you have she hath not erred in defining the Canon of Scriptures, and delivering some Book, or Books for the word of God, which are not so? This is the sum of all the plead of the Roman party in their own behalf. And they are only such as the Jewish Doctors might have pleaded with as much plausibility against our Lords Disciples, and that first Christian Church which they planted in that Nation. For,  
1. Where, may they say, 
Vid. Stillingfl. Sermon 24. Acts xiv.  will you produce the men of former Ages who taxed the Jewish Church with such errors and corruptions as your Jesus did? and bid men beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, that is, the most holy and learned Members of our Church? Do not the Christians themselves acknowledge that we were once a right vine, and the beloved of the Lord? how, or when therefore did we cease to be so? If by Schism; produce that major part, or body of the Jewish Church from which we separated, when first your Jesus, like another Luther, appeared among us? Or if by Heresy we ceased to be so; by what Church, what Councils were we condemned? Who can believe that God would ever suffer such dangerous Doctrines to prevail in his own Church, and raise up no Church Guides, no Prophets to discover things so destructive to her very being, till these new Teachers and Reformers first arose? Where then had God a true Church in the world, if not among the people of the Jews? what other Church could Christ or his Apostles mention, besides that which he so often taxed with voiding the Commandments of God, and rendering his worship vain, because of some traditions which they had received from their Forefathers? If then God suffered this Church to be all overrun with such a fatal leprosy, and gave no clear discovery thereof, where was the watchful eye of Providence? Where was that God who promised that he would put his name for ever in Jerusalem, and that his eyes, and heart should be perpetually there? But suppose that Providence was unconcerned, did all our Pastors fall asleep at once? or could they all conspire to deceive posterity? Were not the Oracles of God committed to us Jews, did not you Christians receive them from us, if then our Church might teach her Children such destructive errors, as you charge her with, how can you be assured that she hath not erred even in that Canon of Scriptures which from her you have received?  
Now though this instance, which I have largely prosecuted, may be sufficient to show the vanity of the most plausible pretences of R. H. against the Protestants, both in his Rational account, and his Discourse. It might be farther manifested that they as strongly plead for the Heathen world, against the Jew, for the Mahometan against the Christian, for the Priests of Baal, against Elias and those seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal, for the prevailing Arian, against the Orthodox, for the Fornicator, the Simoniack, the Covetous and the Debauched person in all those Ages in which these were the Epidemical, 
Vide. Appen. Chap. 3. §. 10, 16.  and almost general diseases of the Clergy, that is from the tenth, to the sixteenth Century, and lastly for Antichrist himself, when he, according to the predictions of the Scripture, and the confession of many Rnman Catholics, shall drive the Church, that is the Orthodox Professors of the Faith into the Wilderness, and slay the Witnesses of Christ, and of his Doctrine. But,  
To conclude, If this be truly the result of the most specious pretences of the Roman party to draw our souls into their deadly snares, if all their fairest pleas do make for Judaisme, more naturally than they do for Popery. If what they urge to prove ●he Potestant Divines to be Deceivers of the people, doth more strongly prove our blessed Jesus a Deceiver, which is the highest Blasphemy. I hope that ●o true lover of this Jesus will be much tempted ●y such pleas to entertain a good opinion of the Romish Faith. It being certainly that Faith which cannot be established, but on the ruins of Christianity, nor embraced by any Protestant, but ●o the greatest hazard, if not the ruin of his ●oul.   
FINIS.