§. 1. YOU may see by this Paper, with the ordi­nary disputing of this sort of men, that it is not without cause that we have suspected the hand of the Papists in many of the defences of the Infidel cause, and questionings of the foundations of the Christian faith, which this age is troubled with. They have so long plaid the Infidels in jeast, till they have made such a swarm of serious Infidels, as will prove neither the honour nor comfort of such seducers in the end. I know that this Paper it self hath a more modest aspect, but the [Page 2] tendencie of it is the same as of the rest. But I hope God will turn all their endeavours to our advantage, and teach Christians bet-better to consider the foundations of their faith; that they may not only be able to de­fend it against an Infidel or Papist; but, which is of more universal and frequent ne­cessity, to defend it against the inward sug­gestions of Satan, the enemy of Christ and us.

§. 2. Therefore I think it most profitable to answer this Question in such a manner as shall tend not only to silence the Caviller, but as may best satisfie such as doubt, and sta­blish men about the cause it self; and there­fore to be larger, than this Imposer desireth, that I may be plain.

§. 3. The fraud which this Quaerist is guil­ty of is manifold, and manifest to any discern­ing Reader. 1. In the choice of his sub­ject: For he knoweth (for it's easily known,) that it hath not pleased God to make the mysteries of our faith so evident, as things sensible are; and that the difficulties which are in and about the Christian cause, are such, as give advantage to carnal unbelie­vers, to find many words to say against it; and that maketh it the hardest work of Preachers, to convince unbelievers: or else the Gospel had been received by more than the sixth [Page 3] part of the world, before this day. Now these juglers would lay all the difficulties which are in the Christian cause as such, upon the Reformers cause alone, as if all this were nothing to them, but the cause of Popery were wholly free from them; or at least, they could answer such questions better than we can do. And so when such a fellow as Hobbs, or Benedictus Spinosa in his Tractatus Theologico-politicus, shall stretch their wits to disgrace the Scripture and the Christian cause, all this shall seem only to fall upon the Protestants; whereas if we could not better defend Christianity than the present princi­ples of Popery enable them to do, we must con­fess that the Infidel were far hardlier answered than any Sectary that we have to deal with.

§. 4. 2. And his next fraud lieth in cast­ing all the positive defence and proof on us, that he may have nothing to do but assault Religion, and manage the Infidels objections against us. He offereth not to tell you him­self, what their uniting certainty of Divine Revelations is, and to make it good, but to put you upon the proving task.

§. 5. 3. And his fraud is evident in the multi­tude of Questions which he thrusteth together into one; which any man of wit knoweth can­not have one answer; but must have many as the Questions are many. [Page 4] §. 6. 4. And yet he will oblige the An­swerer to avoid [tedious discourses] that so if his many questions have not one short an­swer, he may have the evading pretence, that It is a tedious discourse.

§. 7. 5. And there is evident fraud in his ambiguous terms; As his opposing matter of fact only to matter of right, and so making many heterogeneals to fall under matter of fact; His confused and unexplained use of the terms [Principle, Medium, determi­nining, Certainty, Vnity in faith, &c.]

§. 8. 6. Lastly, There is much fraud in his many insinuated suppositions; As, 1. That the Truth of this proposition that Whatsoever God saith is true, &c. is a matter of meer right, as distinct from the rest mentioned as matters of fact: 2. That the sense of the words is a matter of fact as the truth of them is not. 3. That Papists agree with us that every Revelation of God is most certain­ly true. 4. That the Ebionites, Valentini­ans, &c. who questioned the Scripture books were Christians; 5. That these matters have here a final determination. 6. That this is necessary to Certainty and Unity in the faith. By all which it appeareth that this Question is intended, or used at least, as a Soul-trap, and a Fool-trap.

§. 1. THat he may be satisfactorily an­swered, these Terms must be ne­cessarily explained, and distinguished of, 1. Revelation, 2. Matter of fact, 3. Cer­tainty, 4. Principle, 5. Medium, 6. Deter­mining, 7. Unity in faith.

§. 2. I. Either he taketh Revelation gene­rally, as containing natural and supernatural Revelation, 2. Or specially for supernatural Revelation only: Because he distinguisheth not, we must suppose him to take it Generally: But you will understand the mater the better if I distinguish of Revelation.

• [Page]I. Objective, or the bare proposal of the Object.
• II. Effective Illumination of the mind: The first only is here spoken of.

• I. The Efficient cause, viz.
  • 1. Principall which is God.
  • 1, As the Author or first Cause of Nature,
  • 2. As the Cause of Gratious extraordinary Light.
• II. Subser­vient.
  • I. Persons.
    • 1. Christ as man; the Teacher of the Church and Messenger of God.
    • 2. His Mi­nisters.
      • 1. Angels.
      • 2. Men.
      • 1. Pub­lick.
        • 1. Parents Oeconomical.
        • 2. Ecclesi­astical.
          • 1. Inspired.
          • 2. Instructed.
        • 3. Magistrates.
      • 2. Private: Neighbours and Friends.
  • II. Things: Considered
    • I. Singly.
      • 1. In the matter, and so they are
        • 1. Signs Natural, viz. All Gods works.
        • 2. Signs Artificial, viz. Writings, &c.
        • 3. Signs Mixt, viz. Vocal Words.
      • 2. In the manner of causing them
        • 1. Naturally, as the works and Law of Nature.
        • 2. Supernaturally, and extraordinarily.
    • II. Conjunct and duly ordered; as they make up just evidence.
    • Viz.
      • 1. Things in their notifying conditions.
      • 2. Words; 1. Simple Terms, 2. Propositions, 3. Discourses
  • [Page] II. The Matter of Divine Revelations signified (for the Matter signifying is before spo­ken of) is,
    • I. Beings sub­stantial
      • 1. Created,
      • 2. The Creator.
    • II. The Modes or Accidents of Beings substantial, which are,
      • 1. Physical and Hyperphysical.
      • 2. Moral: Especially, 1. Truth, 2. Right or Dueness, 3. Goodness.
      • And reductively and by accident, All their contraries.
  • III. The form of Revelation, is Evidence, or the Notifying Aptitude which includeth, 1. The Sense or Meaning as True: 2. As Perceptible.
  • IV. The Terminus and Ends of Revelation (to joyn them for brevity) are,
    • 1. The sense and its Perception, 1. External, 2. Internal; the Imagination.
    • 2. The higher faculties
      • 1. The Intellect and its perception.
      • 2. The Will and its Complacencie or Displicence.

All this goeth to make up Divine Revelation. And do you think we can give you one only Medium of it in a word?

[Page 8] §. 3. II. Matter of fact, is a phrase some­time used so largely as to signifie the Reality of any Being, that is existent as such. But ordinarily it signifieth something practised or done as such: If he here take it in the first sense, then the verity of this proposition [Whatsoever God saith is True] is as much matter of fact as the sence of that Proposition. But if he mean the later, neither of them is matter of fact. And yet he saith that the said Proposition is matter of Right; As if the Truth of a Proposition, and Gods Right to be believed, were formally the same. And yet he saith that the sense is matter of fact.

§. 4. III. The word Certainty is very am­biguous: Lest he complain of needless distin­ction, I will only remember you, 1. That as Certainty is Objective and Subjective, so it is the Objective Certainty that we have here to enquire of: But so as it is the means of Sub­jective Certainty. But withal to remember that to Subjective Certainty (that we our selves may be sure) there is need of much more than Objective Certainty, viz. that the soul and faculties be, 1. Rightly disposed: 2. And duly excited and applied, &c.

2. Of Objective Certainty you must note, that the word is sometimes taken for meer [Page 9] Verity and Reallity; And so the word [In­fallible] is used, for that which verily is, and whosoever apprehendeth it so to be, is not de­ceived. And so all Truth is Certain and In­fallible Truth. But usually besides Truth, the word Certainty, (and infallibility,) deno­teth the evidence of that Truth, by which it is (not alwaies actually, but) aptitudinal­ly notified to us.

This evidence is either sensible, or Intelli­gible, as the sense or the intellect is to be the perceiver of it.

Where you must distinguish the Physical Evidence of the Thing or Incomplex Ob­ject, from the Logical Evidence of Com­plex Objects. And here between the Evi­dence of self-evident Principles, and of Con­clusions whose Evidence is derivative.

But especially you must note wherein it is that certainty of Intelligible evidence for­mally consisteth; which is in a certain de­gree of evidence: And 1. It is not every low degree: For though all Truth be equal­ly Truth, and infallible, so that no man is deceived that receiveth it: yet we use not to call that Certainty of evidence which is apt only to give them some dark probability, and leave the mind in hesitant doubtfulness. 2. And yet it is not only that degree of evi­dence (which must help us to a perfect ap­prehension, [Page 10] which is to be called Certainty: For then no man should be certain in this world. For no man hath such a degree of apprehension, but more may be added to the clearness of it. 3. Therefore certainty must be denominated from a middle degree; which is, when the evidence is not only True (for the confidentest apprehension of a falshood is no certainty,) but also so Clear as is apt to give a satisfying, quieting, resol­ving apprehension to the mind, yea though it should be sometimes molested with some doubts. 4. And therefore seeing such or none is our certainty here, it followeth that Certainty hath divers degrees, as the satis­faction of the mind is more or less: And that we are not equally certain of all that we are certain of. You will find neces­sary use of these distinctions about this con­troversie.

§. 5. IV. And what he meaneth by [Principle] I know not. 1. There is a Physical or Hyperphysical Principle of Be­ing, and there is a natural principle of noti­fication, and there is a Logical principle of notification. 1. Our intellective faculties are the natural apprehending principle. 2. The spirit of God is the supream moving princi­ple of Influx. 3. The intrinsick and adhe­rent [Page 11] evidence of the thing in it self, is the natural notifying principle: which is as va­rious as things are. 4. The Premises as in­ferring the conclusion are the Logical Princi­ples of derivative certainty.

§. 6. V. And I scarce know what he meaneth by [Medium] he seemeth to take it for the same with [Principle]. There are media essendi which I suppose he mean­eth not (means to make us Articles of faith, or to make them True); but rather the me­dia cognoscendi: But these are necessarily more than one. 1. There are the media by which we hear the word and receive the Bi­ble as it is. 2. There are the media by which we come to understand—the sense of the words. 3. There are the media by which we know the difference between the several parts of the Book, the more certain and the more doubtful, and the different co­pies and readings, and the different transla­tions. 4. There are the media by which we know that these Doctrines and these Books are the same which were delivered to the Churches by the Apostles, &c. 5. There are the media by which we know that Mira­cles were wrought by Christ and his Apostles and other Christians in confirmation of the Gospel. 6. And there are the media by [Page 12] which we know that this Gospel and these Books are true. And all these are not to be confounded, by the simple pretence of calling for a fixed medium or principle.

§. 7. VI. [Determining] signifieth ei­ther the private decision or determining of doubts in the minds of particular persons; or else the publick decision of doubts as they are managed in the Church, by a publick Judge. And this either as binding mens Consciences or Minds what to believe, or only as ruling their tongues, and actions, in teaching and conversation.

§. 8. VII. By [Vnity in faith] is meant either unity in a general faith (which they call Implicite,) or in a particular (ex­plicite) faith: And that is either a unity in all the essentials of Christianity, or also in all the Integrals, or also in all the acciden­tals which are revealed by God. And it is either a secret unity of minds, or a publick unity for communion that is meant.

If he think any of these distinctions need­less, let him prove it and then cast them by. I am sure confusion is fit to deceive, but not to edifie.

§. 1. LEst the Querist should pretend that by distinguishing I avoid a plain and direct answer to his Question, I will here first suppose him to be as rude and con­fused as his Question would imply, and give him such an answer as it will bear. But so as that it cannot be satisfactory to a distin­guishing understanding, for whom therefore I shall afterward answer more distinctly.

§. 2. I cannot answer with common sense in a narrower compass than by distinguishing these Questions: 1. How know I the words and Bible? 2. How know I that this Doctrine and Book is the same, which was delivered by the Apostles to the Churches? 3. How know I the meaning of the words? 4. How know I that this Doctrine and these words are of God, (or a Divine Revelation)? 5. How know I that they are true?

[Page 14] §. 3. I. To the first Question I answer, that I know that I hear and read the words, and that this Bible containeth in it all its vi­sible contents, by my sense (my sight and hearing) and my intellective perception of things sensible. And though this be a prin­ciple in which the Papists agree not with us, I am never the more in doubt, whether I see and hear the words.

§. 4. II. To the second, I know that this Doctrine and Book is the same which by the Apostles were delivered to the Churches, by Infallible History; not such as dependeth on the honesty of the speakers only, and so be­getteth but a humane faith; much less such as depends on the bare Authority of the King of Rome and his narrow selfish sect or party and Kingdom; but by such History as hath a certainty in it from natural principles, by which we prove it impossible that there should be deceit; there being so full a con­currence of all sorts of Christians, and ene­mies also, and infallible circumstantial evi­dence. Even as I know that there was such a man at Rome as Gregory 1. and Gregory 7. and such persons in England, as Henry 8. King Edward 6. Queen Mary. Queen Eliza­beth, &c. And as I know that our Statute [Page 15] Books are not counterfeit: And as your Do­ctors know that the Acts and Decrees of Councils, the Works of Bellarmine, Baroni­us, &c. are not counterfeit: which is not be­cause the Pope or a General Council saith so, but by rational evidence of certain Hi­story, which leaveth not mens minds in doubt.

§. 5. But I am not equally certain of some questioned Books, or Readings, (no nor of the sense of some difficult words) as I am of all the rest, which being more evident are more past controversie.

§. 6. III. I know the meaning of the words (spoken or written) as you know the meaning of a man that talketh with you, or of any other writings; as of your Coun­cils, Decretals, Mass-book, Bellarmine, &c. that is, by the significance of such words by humane usage from those daies till now, which Lexicons, Books, and successive pra­ctice fully prove.

§. 7. But there are plain passages in Scri­pture which I understand certainly, (not be­cause the Pope saith This is the meaning:) Such are all the essentials of Christianity and abundance more. And there are difficult pas­sages which I am not certain of the sense of.

[Page 16] §. 8. IV. I know that this Doctrine and the Bible containing it as such, are of God, (or are his word,) by the spirit attesting and fealing it; not in the fanatick sense, as they think they have an inward impulse perswa­ding them that so it is; (as some Papists think the Pope and Councils know that to be of God which they decree, by Prophetical Inspiration:) But, 1. As to the Gospel, the spirit attested it by antecedent Prophesie. 2. The image of Gods Power, Wisdom and Goodness imprinted on the Scripture, is its es­sential constitutive evidence, being unimita­ble by meer man, and that which is its in­trinsick self evidencing light: so that a spiri­tual well disposed soul, may from a sensi­bleness, tast that it is Gods word; if a Bible had come to them by chance and they had ne­ver heard of it before. I say that they may do so, if you can suppose them spiritually disposed before: But if not, yet they may strongly suspect that it is Gods word, when they read that it affirmeth it self to be so, and that the image of God upon it is so clear. 3. But the Concomitant Evidence of the spi­rit maketh up the proof; in the miracles of Christs Life, Resurrection and ascension; and in the miracles of Apostles and primi­tive Christians, abroad the world by which the Gospel was fully sealed, 4. And the [Page 17] effected subsequent evidence of the spirit com­pleateth all the evidence; which is the spi­rit of holiness given by the means of this same word to all true serious Believers in the world in all ages and nations: which Holiness is the Image of God himself, and is such a gift as none but God can give, and as God would not give by a Doctrine, which he abhorreth as a lie. Therefore, 1. It wit­nesseth objectively as an evidence; 2. And it witnesseth effectively, by inclining the heart to tast and close with and receive the [...] the innaturalized word; as life and health cause a man to know suitable food, by a gust which proceedeth from a suitable nature; so is it in the new nature and the sincere milk of the word. And in­deed though the intellect be the proper ap­prehender of Truth as such suo modo, yet the will is quaedam natura, and hath a natural propensity to Good as Good, which is natural to it, and is the pondus motuum in the ratio­nal soul: And it is not an universal notion, or nothing under the name of good which it thus inclineth to; but existent good, in some being that is, Vnum, Verum, Bonum, as Ra­da and other Scotists well prove. And there­fore it hath necessary volitions (as of its own felicity, &c.) which yet are free, and not meerly per modum naturae, though na­tural [Page 18] as being ex sua natura.

And this three or foursold witness or at­testation of the spirit, (sometime Antece­dent, alwaies Constitutive, Concomitant, and subsequent) though a holy soul that is suited to it, and hath the witness in it self may most fully and certainly discern, yet ano­ther also may discern; The Miracles being Intelligible attestations to them, and the beauty of Wisdom and Holiness in the Scrip­ture and in the Saints being refulgent and discernable by a stander by, though not as by a possessor.

§. 9. But I have not an equal Certainty of all the parts of it, that they are the word of God, because, 1. All the Books, Texts and Readings are not brought to me with equal historical Evidence. 2. And there are abundance of passages in it which are but Accidental to the Christian Religion which have not the same self-evidencing luster in them as the Essentials have. And there is no Necessity of an equal knowledge of the parts.

§. 10. The parts which I am fully Certain of in the Scripture are, 1. All the Essentials of the Christian Religion; Because, 1. They are delivered in Scripture frequently, plainly, past all Controversie of which I will cite your testimonies anon. 2. Because they [Page 19] were as certainly delivered to all Christians and Churches in the whole world distinct­ly by themselves, (twelve years before any of the New Testament was written, and above threescore and ten years before all of it was written,) even in the Covenant of Baptism, renewed in the Lords Supper, and in the Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalogue, which are the exposition of the Covenants, professed by all Christians, in all Christian Churches at every sacred meeting. And these two waies of Tradition (in Scripture and by themselves) are fuller than one.

2. And all the rest of the holy Scriptures in which the full concord of Copies, and the plainness of the words doth leave no room for rational doubting.

§. 11. V. I know that all this word is True, because God is True, (verax,) and it is impossible for him to lie. For whoever lieth, must want either Wisdom, to know what to say, or Goodness to Love Truth, or Power to make good his word, and attain his will by better means. But God is perfect in all these. Which you seem to grant us.

§. 12. That all things necessary to Salva­tion have been delivered by the Apostles to the Churches two waies, as by two hands, viz. Distinctly by word of mouth, and in [Page 20] the Bible, is our Doctrine. That more than all in the Bible hath been delivered by word of mouth, and this as necessary to the Salva­tion of some men (I know not whom, who have no more wit than to create necessity to themselves,) is your Doctrine. But yet your famousest contentious Doctors confess that all things commonly necessary to Salva­tion are plainly expressed in the holy Scri­ptures.

Concil. Basil, Orat. Ragus. Bin. pag. 299. [The holy Scripture in the literal sense, soundly and well understood, is the Infallible, and most sufficient Rule of faith.]

Bellarm. de verbo Dei, lib. 4. c. 11. [In the Christian Doctrine both of faith and manners, some things are simply necessary to the salvation of all, as the knowledge of the articles of the Apostles Creed, of the ten Com­mandments and of the Sacraments. The rest are not so necessary that a man cannot be saved without the explicite knowledge, belief and profession of them—These things which are simply necessary and profitable to all, the Apostles preached to all—All things are written by the Apostles which are necessa­ry to all, and which they openly preached to all.]

Costerus in Enchirid. cap. 1. p. 49. [We do not deny that those chief heads of faith [Page 21] which to all Christians are necessary to be known to Salvation, are plainly enough com­prehended in the writings of the Apostles.]

§. 13. By the way, hence judge of the jugling of your praters, when they call to us for a Catalogue of Essentials, or Funda­mentals, as if no such distinction were to be made.

§. 14. But the ancient Fathers talkt at a higher rate; even as Theophil. Alexandr. Epist. Paschal. 2. Cont. Orig. Biblioth. Patr. To. 3. pag. 96. [Ignorans quod daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humana­rum mentium sequi, & aliquid extra Scri­pturarum authoritatem putare divinum. i. e. not knowing that it is the instinct of a devi­lish spirit, to follow the sophisms of mens minds, and to think that any thing is Di­vine, without (or besides) the authority of the Scriptures.]

§. 1. I Must now for the satisfaction of him if he be judicious, answer his Question more distinctly, and therefore di­vide it into all these Questions.

Quest. 1. What are the Revelations of God, about which our Controversies lie. 2. Whether it be true that the Papists grant us that all Divine Revelations are true. 3. What Certainty have we what is a real Revelation of God. 4. What Certainty have we of the true Copies and Readings. 5. What Certainty of the Canonical or Divine books. 6. What Certainty of the Truth of Translations. 7. What Certain­ty have we of the true sense of the words. 8. What unity of faith may be expected to be consferred, by such certainties. 9. What [Page 23] Determination is necessary to this Certain­ty and Unity. And the Questions, what Principle, and what Medium is established, will be Answered in these.

§. 2. Quest. I. What are the Revelations of God about which our Controversies lie?

Answ. To mention no more, than I needs must, there are three sorts of Revelation which we assert and rest in: 1. Of Natural Production and Evidence; such as is the Light and Law of Nature, in the Nature of all things, especially of man himself, as re­vealing Gods will per modum signi.

2. Infallible, Oral and Historical, Traditi­tion: And so, 1. All the Covenant of Grace in the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, with the Catechistical explanation in the Creed, Lords-prayer and Decalogue, have been particularly delivered by them­selves. 2. And so the Bible hath been de­livered to us in the bulks. 3. Written Re­velation, in the sacred Records of the Spirit, which is the holy Scriptures themselves.

§. 3. Of the first, more anon. The se­cond they grant us so far as to confess, 1. That the said Covenant and Catechistical Principles have had that way of delivery by themselves, as well as in the Scripture: But they tell of much more (I know not what) [Page 24] delivered the same way, than is in them, and the Scripture it self. 2. Yet (as you see) they confess that none of that addition is commonly necessary to Salvation.

The third they grant us (that all those books which we receive are the Cer­tain word of God) But, 1. They say that there are more; 2. And that we must receive them as such, because the Pope and his Council, as the only Judges, say they are such. Of which more anon.

§. 1. Answ. YES, if you will first take their bare word what are Divine Revelations, 2. And will take in this word [in the sense that God intends them] 3. And will allow them to speak contradicti­ons. For thus, 1. They can tell you when they have a mind, that Gods plainest Revelations, are none of his Revelations. 2. And that whatever Evidence of truth or sense there is in the signs revealing, God in­tendeth something contrary: 3. And that that is his revelation which is contrary to his Revelation.

§. 2. For instance: The first fundamental Revelation of God to man, is unto our sen­ses of things sensible, and thereby Intelligi­ble to our understandings: Now we cannot get the Papists assent that these Divine Re­velations are certainly true: yea, they say [Page 26] that daily they are certainly false. God made Sense: God made the Intellect: God made the Medium, and God made the ob­ject. In the Lords Supper all the sound senses of all men living Christians and Hea­thens, Papists and Protestants perceive Bread and Wine, by seeing, smelling, touch­ing and tasting. Yet the Papists say, and their Priests swear that there is no Bread and Wine, and that God by another Reve­lation hath certified us that this Revelation to sense and the Intellect by sense is false: He that will not swear that there is no Bread shall be no Priest: He that will not re­nounce this Divine Revelation in Nature, and all his senses, and all mens senses, is a Here­tick to be burnt and damned. All Temporal Lords that will suffer such as thus renounce not sense and sensible Revelation, are to be excommunicate, and deprived of their do­minions, and their subjects absolved from their oaths of allegiance. All this is in the Council of Lateran sub Innoc. 3. Can. 1. 3. And the Trent Oath and Council. Is this now a Divine Revelation or not? If not, then they that heard Christ speak and saw his Miracles, and saw him after his Resurrecti­on, had none. For their senses might be all deceived if all mens now may.

[Page 27] §. 3. And if God intendeth here the quite contrary to the Evidence, even of sensi­ble natural signs, how can they ever prove that he doth not so in his word too, even in Hoc est corpus meum, and in every article of the faith, Certainty lieth in Evidence, and if all the declaring evidence may be false, because of the contrary intent, then who knoweth what is true? or whether ever God said true to man?

§. 4. And here Revelations are pretend­ed against Revelation, yea the superstruct against the fundamental, the consequent against the antecedent, the less certain against the more certain; yea certain forge­ry fathered on God, against his Certain Na­tural Revelations. For, 1. We are men be­fore we are Christians; we have sense before we have faith. We can have no certainty of faith, but by means of the Certainty of sense: For we cannot tell that there is any man or book in the world, nor that ever we saw a letter or heard a word. What then shall we believe?

2. And they have nothing but pretended Miracles against this Constant Evident Na­tural Revelation. For every Priest (how sottish and wicked soever) to turn Bread into no Bread and Wine into no Wine when he list: For all the Priests in the world [Page 28] these sixteen hundred years to do this every week, or each day that they celebrate their Mass, publickly or privately, must needs be an undeniable Miracle (if true) being as much beyond all natural power as raising Lazarus from death: And to make these miracles as universal, constant, and easie as Gods worship in the Assembly, is to turn Miracles into the familiarest of Gods dealings: And hath not all this need of good proof, to prove Gods natural Revela­tions to be as ordinarily and universally false?

3. Yea, the Miracle is doubled, while the accidents remain: They deny them to be the Accidents of Christs body and blood. If they are Accidents then, it is either of Bread or of Nothing: An Accident of Bread which is no bread, the Quantity and Colour of bread which is no bread, or of wine which is no Wine, is a plain contradiction. If they be the Accidents of nothing; the Quantity of nothing, the weight of nothing, the locality of nothing, the colour, tast, smell of nothing, all these are as plain con­tradictions. Then God must be said by his Omnipotence to cause Contradictories, and to work constant Miracles for that end, and all to prove his Natural Revelation false.

[Page 29] §. 5. And what cogent Evidence bringeth them to all this? Why, Hoc est corpus meum; No more than Davids [I am a worm and no man] or Christs [ I am the vine and ye are the branches] and Pauls [that Rock was Christ], Though paul becometh Christs expositor, and three times in the three next verses, 1 Cor.▪ 11. calleth it Bread after the Consecration; And the old Fathers as often as Edmundus Albertinus hath shewed in folio. Yet because the foresaid Later an and Trent Council have in the later end of the world, new made this Article of the Papists faith, by their exposition of Christs words contrary to St. Paul, all Christs fore-revela­tion in nature must go for falshoods, and God daily worketh Miracles to deceive all the common senses of the world, when yet no word or Miracle can be believed, but on supposition of the certainty of senses.

§. 6. This, his blind supposition called me to premise; that you may see how far Pa­pists and we are or are not agreed that all Gods Revelations are true? and how im­possible it is for them to know what is a Di­vine Revelation, or when Gods meaning is agreeable to his Revelations. These are things neer and plain and weighty.

§. 1. Answ. AS I have before partly di­stinguished of Certainty, I will now tell you as to some sorts, what it is that goeth to make up Certainty, and then how much and what of this we have.

§. 2. I suppose you to remember that it is not subjective Certainty (in our selves) that we speak of, but Objective; which may be at hand when men see it not. And that it is not meer Truth which we now speak of, but the Evidence of Truth, or its percepti­bility, and that neither the lowest, nor only the highest degree, but any of the various de­grees which truly satisfie quiet and resolve the soul.

§. 3. And that Objective Infallibility or Certainty, is 1. Not only that which decei­veth no man which receiveth it (for that's the case of all truth) 2. Nor yet that which no man can be deceived about (for that is no­thing [Page 31] at all, that I remember, unless it be me cogitare, vel sentire.) 3. But it is that which, in all its right conditions, may give a man satisfactory, resolving certainty of mind.

4. To this is necessary, I. That the Thing have intrinsecally the requisites of an Ob­ject. II. That it have extrinsecally the ne­cessary concomitant conditions.

§. 4. I. To the Nature of a perceptible Object it is necessary; 1. That it be some­thing whose nature is within the reach of the perceiving faculty, and not out of its orbe (as spirits are to sense).

2. That it have a perceptible degree, or Magnitude: For the Minima rerum are not perceptible to man.

3. That it be Hoc aliquid, a distinct be­ing, or unum as its called.

4. That it have a special congruence to the special perceiving faculty: For Light must be seen and not heard, and so of the rest. In a word, that it be Ens, Vnum, Verum, Bonum, thus agreeably conditioned. And the contraries reductively, or rather the Propositions about them.

§. 5. II. To the Accidents and Extrinsick Conditions which go to make up Evidence, [Page 32] it is necessary, 1. That the Object have a due Position or site. 2. That it have a due distance, neither too far off, nor too near; 3. And a due Medium (as the air is to the sight and hearing) 4. And a due abode or stay; For neither sense perceiveth moti­on perfectly swift, nor the Intellect things absolutely instantaneous, that have no Time of continuance.

§. 6. Because Objective Certainty is Rela­tive to Subjective, I must add what is neces­sary to that, I. On the part of sense, II. Of the Intellect.

I. To true sensible perception it is necessa­ry, 1. That the sensitive faculty of the soul intend the business: Else the Organs will be as a Lute not touched: as we see in hard Students, that hear not the Clock at hand. 2. It is necessary that the spirits which are actuated in sensation be present and suffici­ent for their part. 3. It is necessary that the Organs be in a competent soundness. 4. It is necessary that it be the proper Or­gan that is used which agreeth with the ob­ject (not the eye to hearing, &c.) 5. That the sense be not oppressed by Impedi­ments.

[Page 33] II. And further to Intellective percepti­on, 1. Of things sensible; It is necessary, 1. That the thing be truly perceived by the sense, 2. And truly Imagined, and therefore that the Imagination have a Competent soundness; 3. That the soul be Attentive to to the matter, and not alienated: 4. That the internal sense, Imagination and Sensitive-memory be in a fit state of vicinity, con­junction or union for the Intellect to operate on and with them. 5. That the Intellect it self be in act, according to its formal Vir­tue.

2. But to the Intellection of our own Im­manent Acts of Intellection and Volition, there is no more necessary but that such Acts be; and then we can Intuitively per­ceive them.

3. And by easie collection, the Intellect without further help of sense can gather, that [I that understand and will, am sure I have a Power so to do: For nothing doth that which it cannot do: And hereby I ap­prehend that there are Intellective Volitive Agents, and what they are].

§. 7. It is here supposed, that God hath not a Voice to speak by as man hath; but yet that he can cause a voice at his plea­sure, either by the use of a creature, that [Page 34] naturally hath a voice, or by the motion of other creatures, a thousand waies, of which it is not needful for us to be acquainted.

§. 8. When God revealeth his mind, not by voice, but by inward Inspiration, it car­rieth its own notifying Evidence with it, which no man can formally conceive of, but he that hath it; But this is the case of Pro­phetical persons only, and not of us.

§. 9. In this Question, How to know that a Revelation is of God? It is supposed that the Revelation it self, that is, the notifying sign, whether Voice, Writing, or other Act or thing, be known already, For we must first know that such a thing really is, before we can know whence it is. And this is af­terward to be spoken of.

§. 10. And here it is not enough to know that God is some way a Cause of that Act, Voice or Writing. For no doubt but he is a universal cause at least, of all the Real be­ings, and actions in the world: But we must be sure that he is the Determining Cause of this special and individual act or thing as such; so as that he may properly be called The Author of it, and it be called His work.

§. 11. And here (Negatively) 1. We have not sensible Evidence ascertaining us, that these words or signs are the word of [Page 35] God. Sense is not the perceiver of this, as it is of light, heat, motion, &c.

§. 12. 2. Therefore neither doth the In­tellect perceive it, by the sense, as it doth these sensed things forementioned.

§. 13. 3. Nor is it the object of Imme­diate Intellective Intuition, or known as we know the acts of the soul it self, by Im­mediate perception, as that we Think, Know, Will, and Feel.

§. 14. 4. Nor do we (alwaies at least) know it as we do self-evident Principles, which a man using Reason about them, can­not choose but understand.

§. 15. 5. Nor are all the Parts of Divine Revelations, notified to us with equal Cer­tainty, nor altogether by the same media; nor are they all of equal necessity to be known to be Divine, and so to be belie­ved.

§. 16. But (Affirmatively) 1. We know these Revelations to be Divine, as we know the Truth of Conclusions, by Virtue of the Evidence of their Premises. 2. And this variously, as the Consequence is more or less evident and certain.

§. 17. 1. Supposing that we are Certain that there is a God; (whether as a self-evident Principle, or as the Certainest of Conclusions) and so that he is Perfect, and [Page 36] therefore True, we are certain, as of a most neer and Evident Conclusion, that all Gods Works are his Revelations to man (which are within our reach): that is, That they are signs by which God Revealeth Himself and his Will to us: The Glass in which he must here be seen: The Divinity of this Na­tural Revelation is past doubt: But all the doubt is of the sense of it.

§. 18. 2. There are Naturally Evident Verities in the Scriptures, which upon the first considerate hearing we may be sure are true: As that there is a God, that he is One, that he is Infinite, Perfect, most Power­ful, Wise and Good, the Beginning, Gover­nor and End of all things; that he is our Owner, Actor, Ruler, Benefactor and End: That we ought to Love him, Please and Obey him, above all others, with all our hearts and Powers. The whole Body of the ne­cessary Law of Nature is there conteined; and so is known by a double Revelation.

§. 19. 3. There are other points which are so greatly congruous to the common experi­ence of mankind, as that they have also a Certainty in the thing from that experi­ence; As the common pravity of mans na­ture, and the great necessity that we have of Deliverance by Pardon and Sanctification; the malice and endeavour of Devils or evil [Page 37] spirits to tempt us from God, and destroy us; the need of Gods continual help against them and our selves, with such like. And these also we have a double Revelation of.

§. 20. 4. The Principal part of the Su­pernatural Revelations, are so exceeding congruous to those which are of Natural and Experienced Certainty, and are so aptly adjoyned to them, and have so Divine a de­sign and tendency apparent in them, as that they are the more easily believed.

§. 21. 5. And the main frame of the book hath so much of the same spirit and design, and is adapted to the Communication of these principal parts (that is, the Essentials of Christianity) and thereto so compagi­nated, as that the Belief of the said Es­tials, maketh it the more easie to believe that the whole system of books is of God.

§. 22. 6. But where we are uncertain of any thing whether it be really a part of that book or system (as some questioned Books, some various Readings, some Texts whose sense is not understood) we must needs be equally uncertain whether those be the word of God.

§. 23. 7. But that Medium which ascer­taineth us that these supernatural Revelati­ons are indeed Divine (I mean the proper [Page 38] Truths of Christianity) must be something, which is Lower, or is Notius & prius cog­nitum, better known than Christianity, and known (in order of Evidence) before it. For all proof of conclusions must be from something first and better known.

§. 24. 8. These things which are sooner and better known than the supernatural Re­velation, can be nothing but Natural Reve­lations, by Gods works in the Nature of things compared, and our natural experience. For there is nothing else antecedent to be a medium of proof. The forementioned natu­ral Verities, about God and Holiness carry their own Evidence with them, either as first principles or as certain conclusions; And the Essentials of Christianity have a self-com­mending Goodness, which rendreth them sweet to a man that is already a true Believer, and desireable to all truly rational men, and the Congruencie rendreth it credible, sup­posing further proof. But that really the Incarnation, Deity, Life, Satisfaction, Re­surrection, Ascension, Offices and Coming of Christ, are truth, with the Trinity of persons, and such other points, must be proved by some more notorious Medium, proving that they are Divine assertions; which must be some Natural Verities.

[Page 39] §. 25. 9. Therefore the Ascertianing Infe­rence must be this, that If this be not a Divine Revelation, then some Certain Na­tural Verity must be denied; (which at last will amount to the denying of a God.)

§. 26. 10. Here the Matter of fact is supposed to be known by sight and other senses to the first Christians, and the first Churches, where Christ and his Apostles, and multitudes of other Christians wrought them. And to be known by Certain Hi­story to those that saw them not; And the existence of the Persons, Words and Books is supposed known the same way. And on this supposition, we infer that [These Im­pressions of Divine Power, Wisdom and Goodness, set upon this Doctrine: and all these Miracles by Christ, and multitudes of his servants wrought, in attestation of it, and all this sanctification of all true Belie­vers by this word through the world, are either done by Gods will, or against his will. If they be done by his will, he is the Author of them and approver: And seeing it is evident that they are to the common capacity of mankind, so notorious a signifi­cation that God is the Author or approver of that word which be so evidently and won­derfully attesteth, if yet this word prove [Page 40] false, mankind is unavoidably deceived, and Governed in the greatest concernments and business of all his life by this deceit. For he hath no principle, no means left him to know that these are not Divine at­testations, nor to disoblige him from judge­ing them so to be. But if God shall thus necessitate mankind to a false belief and thereby Govern him, while in Nature he hath taught man to value Truth and hate Lying, he must do this either for want of Power to do otherwise, or for want of Wis­dom to do otherwise, or for want of Will and Goodness to do otherwise. And if he wanted any of these he is not God. Or if he Govern not the world himself, but per­mit some Evil Spirit to do all this; he is not God. For to be God is to be the Su­pream Governor, and to be every where, the nearest universal Agent.]

These consequences being plain, (though there are vain Objections which I must not stay to answer) we certainly infer: There is a God who is the perfect Governour of the world, and therefore is Gracious, True and Iust; and therefore doth not rule even the best of men by unavoidable deceit and falshood: and therefore this word is True which he so notoriously owneth and attest­eth as aforesaid.

[Page 41] §. 27. And hence it is that we take our selves bound about the Sacrament to be­lieve that all mens senses are not deceived; because if they be, man hath no remedy: For God hath made our sense the perceiver of things sensible; and if it be not a Cer­tain perceiver, we have no Certainer nor other about those objects. And if the ap­prehensions of sense be uncertain, (having all the natural requisites) then all Gods Miracles by which he attested the word, (as well as the word it self) are so: And if it be not contrary to Gods perfection, Veracity and Justice, to deceive all mens senses in the Sacrament, we cannot prove it contrary to them to deceive them by Mi­racles.

§. 28. As an unbeliever is not so well di­sposed to receive the Gospel as a holy per­son after is, and recipitur ad modum reci­pientis; so usually a more wavering belief goeth before a fuller Certainty: And the holier and more experienced any man is, the more he is Certain of the truth of the Gospel, because he hath the witness in him­self, in the Gust and Certain Effects of it: But yet there is that Evidence of Truth which Preachers may and must use to the Conviction of Infidels, to bring them to true belief.

[Page 42] §. 29. The holy Scripture Containing all the Divine Revelations belonging to Re­ligion, compleatly, Essentials, Integrals and Accidentals; the parts of it are not of equal necessity to us. All that truly have the Es­sentials in Head and Heart and Life, shall be saved: yea though culpably they under­stand not other points as plainly revealed, and so believe them not to be Divine. For this is the Covenant of Grace: No wonder then if many less necessary parts are less evident.

§. 30. We have a fuller Evidence that all these Miracles, Prophesies and subsequent operations of the Sanctifying Spirit, do at­test the New Covenant, and Substance of the Gospel, than we have that they attest­ed every book, (e.g. the Chronicles, the Canticles, &c.) or that they attested every phrase, method, yea or the truth of every word of the penmen, so as that none of them could through oversight or forgetfulness, misrecite a name, number or circumstance. Though we have here sufficient satisfaction, yet not so full a Certainty as we have of the Doctrine of the Gospel, which the Apostles converted the world by Preaching of, before the New Testament was written; and which in the Sacramental Covenants, the Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalogue and Catechisms, was distinctly by it self de­livered [Page 43] to the Churches; and so cometh to us by a double way of tradition.

§. 1. Answ. THE same that we have of the Statute Books in Eng­land (save that the Recorded Originals of some Laws remain) And the same that you have of the Copies of the most Certain Councils, and Authors extant.

§. 2. 1. They are delivered to us by men of so many Countries, minds and interests, as could not possibly agree to falsifie them, in the substance, and in those points in which the Copies agree.

§. 3. 2. They were constantly read in the holy Assemblies through the Christian world, and by private Christians, and especially all Teachers: And therefore any great deprava­tion could not grow common.

§. 4. 3. The Copies all over the world, of Greatest antiquity, still agree so far as is [Page 44] aforesaid; and the Commentaries of the Fa­thers, containing the Text, with all the Ci­tations, are the same in the main. So that we have a Historical Certainty of the Co­pies so far as they are commonly known to agree: which the Old Translations also Confirm.

§. 5. The words in which they disagree, though many, are such as no article necessary to Salvation dependeth on: and are plainly the errors of Scribes, and not of the holy Penmen.

§. 6. In the points where any late or in­considerable Copy differeth from the gene­rality which have Evidence of Antiquity and Concord, that singularity, is no cause of doubting.

§. 7. Many slips are such as the Context will sufficiently detect.

§. 8. In all those points where the Copies so differ, as that it cannot be proved which is the truest, by certain proof, we can have no certainty: Nor is our uncertainty of any danger to us.

§. 1. Answ. 1. OF all those Canonical Books which the Christi­an world now commonly receiveth, there is the same Certainty by the same means, which I before mentioned of the Copies. The Doctrine of them was spoken of before, it being that Divine Revelation which God hath attested as was opened. We have the Certain History and Tradition of all ages from the first common notice and reception of them, agreeing which are the true Books.

§. 2. 2. But yet even of these Canonical Books agreed on, the Evidence of Divinity is not equal. For, 1. Some of them have. more Evident Impressions of Gods Image up­on them in the Matter than others have (As the Psalms more than Ruth, the Chro­nicles, &c. The Doctrinal Books more than the Genealogies, Chronologies, particular Histories,) 2. God did confirm some more [Page 46] notoriously by Miracles and publick attesta­tions than others: So Moses his words, had more confirmation by Miracles than Ruth, Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, &c. 3. Some have had a fuller testimony by Tradition than others; As the Pentateuch and Psalms, more than the Chronicles, part of Daniel, &c. 4. In all these respects, the New Testament cometh to us with fuller and clearer Evidence than the Old: As being of later date, and so the Historical proof more discernible; And hath more clear Impressions of Divini­ty, and was confirmed by the most notori­ous multiplied long-continued Miracles, and by the most notable effects of holiness in all true Believers, &c. And indeed its at­testation to the Old Testament is not our weakest proof of its Divinity.

§. 3. There is less doubt of those few books of the New-Testament, which were un­known or doubted of but by some Churches for a time, than of those which are contro­verted as belonging to the Old.

§. 4. As to those Books which he saith the Ebionites and Valentinians denied, they have as full Historical proof as any; And those that denied them denied Christs Resur­rection or some Essentials of Christianity, and were no Christians, but mad-brained facti­ons withdrawn from Christians, (the Valen­tinian [Page 47] Gnosticks in their whole heresie, plainly shewed themselves crackt-brained Fa­naticks, as Irenaeus and Epiphanius describe them,) so that for Number, Quality and Cross-interest their Exceptions were not any considerable discredit of the History; and indeed but excite the Christians the more carefully to examine and preserve their Ca­non: Nor were their exceptions so much against the Matter of Fact (whether Mark, &c. wrote those books,) as about the Divi­nity of them: And were but of the like na­ture with all the Turks, Heathens and other Infidels exceptions against the whole Gos­pel.

§. 5. And as for those Apocryphal books which are in Controversie between the Pa­pists and us, some Protestants say that they are Certainly none of Gods word, and some that it is utterly uncertain to any man that they are his word: And let the Papists who assert the Certainty that they are, give us the proof of it, and we will thank them. Till then our denial or uncertainty of those books, maketh no alteration in the Great and Necessary Articles of our faith.

§. 1. Answ. 1. THose that understand the Original and the Language into which it is Translated; have a Certainty from the Known signification of the words, answerable to the degree of their skill in those tongues. The signification of the words is Certain to them by Infallible Tradition. The use and sense of the words in Hebrew and Greek is known by Lexicons, and the constant use of Authors, and by the confession of all parties, friends and Enemies, and by present use: so that as your Priests understand a true Translation of any Latine, Greek or Hebrew Author, ( Cicero, Plutark, Demosthenes, Antonine, Maimonides, &c.) by the same means do the Learned know a true Translation of the Bible.

§. 2. In the Essentials of Christianity, and all the necessary Articles of faith, the Ignorant themselves have an Infallible Cer­tainty [Page 49] that the Translations are true, so far as that all that is necessary to Salvation is contained concordantly in them all. 1. Be­cause it hath pleased God to deliver all those Necessary points, in various words, distinctly by themselves by all Baptizers and Pastors of the Churches, as is aforesaid: With which the Scripture Translations do agree. 2. Because there is a natural Impossibility that men of so various minds and interests as all the Translators, and all the Defen­ders of those Translations, should agree till this day to deceive the world, and not be discovered.

§. 3. And by the same evidence it is cer­tain to an unlearned man, that all other plain points in which the Translators agree, are truly translated: Though the knowledge of it in lesser points is not so necessary.

§. 4. And thus (and no other way) both unlearned Protestants and Papists, that can­not read, must know that there is a Bible in the world, and that the Priests do ordi­narily read truly that publickly read it to them, and that there are Canons of Coun­cils in the world, &c. Because it is not pos­sible, for so many men of cross interests to agree in feigning it, without detection.

§. 5. There are some passages in some Translations so palpably distorted to the [Page 50] Translators interests and ends, as that the Text and Context to the Learned, and the common agreement of the world to the un­learned, may notifie the error.

§. 6. There are many passages or words so difficult, about which Translators differ as that few or none are Certain which of them is in the right. And this uncertainty is of no danger to the Church or to mens souls.

§. 1. Answ. THis Question is partly the same with the former; For to Translate is to give the sense of the original, in other words. The sense is ei­ther, 1. The sense of single terms; 2. Or the sense of propositions and sentences, 3. Or the sense of many sentences conjunct in Method.

§. 2. The first is known to Translators as is aforesaid; As you know the sense of all words of all languages; by common usage and common Tradition.

The second is made up of the first by common reason; As a sentence is made up of common words. He that understandeth what these words [Repentance] and [is] and [necessary] signifie; may know without a Pope, what this sentence signifieth [Re­pentance is necessary].

[Page 52] The same is to be said of divers sentences conjunct. The sense is known by the way that men learn to talk and to understand one anothers speeches. And as you understand Baronius, Bellarmine, the Councils, or any of your Priests; even by the common ac­ception of words, and reason setting them together, as man from his Infancie is taught to reason.

§. 3. But as Infants understand not com­mon talk till they are taught, nor children and untaught persons so well as men and Scholars; so the plainest things in Scripture require some use and consideration, and Teaching to the understanding of them: Much more the harder parts. And God hath made it the duty of Parents to teach the Scri­pture to their children at home and abroad, lying down and rising up, Deut. 6. & 11. without asking the Pope the sense of it: And God hath appointed the elder and wi­ser to teach the younger and more ignorant, and especially Pastors and Teachers, to teach the world, and instruct their flocks, to un­derstand the word of God. Not barely to rest in their opinion and words, but to shew men the same Evidence which doth convince themselves. Which Teaching is not a final Iudging.

[Page 53] §. 4. But yet where the Teacher knoweth what the Learner doth not, the Learner must have the humility of a Disciple, and not set his untaught wit conceitedly against his Teacher, and wrangle before he understand­eth; but must judge his Teacher (whether it be Grammar, Logick, or Theologie, words or sense, that he Teacheth him▪ to be wi­ser than himself. Else why will he be his Scholar? And so he must believe him as a fallible man, with a humane faith, in order to his attaining of a proper Certainty.

§. 5. But there are in Scripture many pas­sages so exceeding difficult, that we have no Certainty of the sense; And some that only a few extraordinary Students have a Certain­tainty of; neither Protestants nor Papists further understanding them. And this is no disparagement to the Scripture, nor hazard or injury to us.

§. 1. HEre are two Questions for haste in­cluded: I. What Unity in faith may be expected? II. What Certainties are necessary thereto.

§. 2. I. To the first, 1. A Unity in all the Essentials of the Christian faith, is already existent among all Christians in the world; For they were not Christians if they agree not in all Essentials of Christianity.

§. 3. 2. A Vnity of faith in the Integrals of Christianity is desireable, and so far hope­ful, as that the wiser all Christians are, in the more of the Integrals they will agree.

But here will never be an universal Con­cord or Unity, any more than in mens age, strength, Stature and complexions: This [Page 55] Paul openeth at large, 1 Cor. 12. & Rom. 14. & 15, &c.

§. 4. 3. A perfect Vnity in the common knowledge of all things in Scripture, or all the revealed Accidentals of Religion, will ne­ver be found between any two persons in this life; because that no ones knowledge is perfect.

§. 5. II. From hence the other Question is easily answered. 1. To a Unity of Chri­stians as Christians, or the body of Christ and Church Universal, and of necessity to Salvation, no Certainty is necessary but of the Essentials of the Christian Religion.

2. To the more Comfortable progress, and the melius esse of Christians and the Churches, as great a Concord and Certain­ty in the Integrals of Christianity is needful, as the degree of melius esse doth require.

3. To mens peaceable and comfortable Communion in Christian Societies, an Uni­ty and consequently knowledge of the points of Christian Love and holy communion is ne­cessary.

4. To our Heavenly Union, Heavenly perfection is necessary.

§. 6. But to insinuate that a Certainty of the sense of all the Scripture, or all that God [Page 56] hath revealed to us Objectively, or of all that Popes and Councils determine, is ne­cessary to that unity of faith, which maketh all Christians to be Christians, and one body of Christ, is but a cheating trick, which is against Scripture, reason and their own Doctors.

§. 1. Answ. 1. GOds Determination of the Object, by Verity and Evidence, and his helping the faculty in de­termining it self in act, is necessary.

§. 2. 2. The inward true Determination of every mans own perceiving faculty, (sense and Intellect) is necessary to his true per­ception.

§. 3. 3. A Parent, Schoolmaster, Senior, and Pastor, must tell the Scholar their own Judgement, and then open to him the Evi­dence of truth.

§. 4. A Magistrate or other Superiour (Parent, Master, &c.) hath a determining Judgement, under God and his Laws, in order to the ends of their proper Government; and no further. That is, They are the only pub­lick Judges in their Society, who shall be pu­nished or not punished by the sword; re­strained [Page 58] or encouraged, as teaching false Doctrine or true. But this is not an abso­lute and unregulated power. If they deter­mine contrary to Gods word, they sin, and bind not me to obey them though I am bound to continue my subjection, and not to resist.

§. 5. Even so it is with Pastors in the Church, who have power to try particular mens cases, and judge them according to Gods word, and that only in order to the ends of their Society, which is holy Communion in Love.

§. 6. But this much power (as it supposeth the sense of the Law, and declareth it only as far as the decision of the particular case requireth, and not an Universal Regulating determination which hath the nature of an Universal Law it self, so) it belongeth to none but true Pastors of the Church, and that only within their proper charge: And if any one will do as the Pope, who will be Ruler in all Churches of the world, his usurpation maketh him a sinner, but not an obliging determiner.

§. 7. And thus you have our Answer to all his Questions, which he thrust into one, as plainly and distinctly as I can well speak. And because his snare lieth in putting you on [Page 59] the deciding of all these cases, while he doth nothing to it himself, that so he may destroy where he cannot build, and so would make the world believe that they have a greater Certainty in all the cases propounded than we have, I will next try their Certainty com­pared with ours and shew you the difference; And withal I will tell you why we use not their Medium and take it not for any Certi­fication at all.

§. 8. But withall professing that if I knew where to find that Man or company of men that I could be sure could Infallibly certifie me of all the doubts and difficulties in the matters of faith, it would save me such abun­dance of labour in my long studies, and so gratifie my love of ease, and my earnest de­sires of the greatest Certainty in these greatest things, that I would spare no possible labour and cost to find out such an Oracle: And I wonder not that slothful men had rather con­ceit that others (by number or prerogative) are Certain, and so to trust upon a common faith, than to search and pray till they have a Certainty of their own.

§. 1. THough I will not intitle my An­swer as Mr. Pool doth his book, The Nullity of the Romish faith, yet you might be ashamed if you have any modesty lest, to go about still with confident challen­ges with the same case, whilest neither that book of his, nor his Dialogue, nor the ma­ny in which I fully answer this very Questi­on, have any reply. And indeed I have said so much to this point already, that with­out repeating the same things, I scarce know what is yet to say. Almost the whole book called The Safe Religion is of it; But most directly all the third part: Where pag. 186, 187. I briefly and plainly give you the grounds and resolution of the Protestants faith. And pag. 189. and for­ward I shew you the lamentable difference among the Papists about the Resolution of [Page 61] their faith. And pag. 195. and forward I give you abundance of unresistible Argu­ments to prove, 1. That It belongeth not to the Pope and Roman Church to be the Judge of Scriptures to all the world. 2. That they are not Infallible. 3. That our faith must not be resolved into their Infallible Judgement. And in my Reasons for the Christian Religion; and in my more Reasons for it, and in my Life of Faith, I have ful­ly opened and desended the reasons, resoluti­on and certainty of our faith. But seeing their Impudency and Designs are such, as that nothing of this must be considered (though they are referred to it,) but they must lay snares for souls, by canting over the same things, and calling out for that Answer which they will not take notice of when it is before them, some more they shall have, for the sake of those whom they would deceive: But in great brevity lest I tire the Reader by repetitions of things that have been so often said.

§. 2. Though the Papists are disagreed greatly among themselves in this matter, yet the most prevailing opinion is, that it is upon the Authoritative Determination of the Bishop of Rome and a General Council if he approve it, that all Christians in the [Page 62] world must have the Certainty what is in­deed the word of God: And men must take all for Certain which is so determined of, and no more: even because this Authority hath so determined: And that this is to be­lieve by the common certain faith of the Church, when otherwise men must have but an uncertain private faith of their own: And consequently that he that will convince an Infidel and convert he world, must first make them believe that the Pope and Council are Authorised or Enabled, to deter­mine judicially (and not only to Teach by Evidence) what is Gods word and what not, before any thing can be Certainly taken for Gods word]

§. 3. The difference between the Papists opinion and ours, for brevity sake, shall be included in our Reasons against their pre­tended Certainty: which are these.

Reason I. We have another Certainty al­ready by notorious Evidence of many things in your present Question. And must we quit all that Certainty, to take the same things only on trust from your Pope and his Coun­cil? We cannot do it; Because some evi­dence is Cogent, and the Intellect is neces­sitated by it: Must we not know that [Thou [Page 63] shalt Love God and thy neighbour] is Gods word, by its proper Evidence? We have the witness within us; we see on all true Christians that Holiness wrought by this Gospel, which God will not use a lie to ef­fect (even to save men from sin, and reco­ver the hearts of men to himself, and repair his Image on mans soul). Must I needs give the lie to this Evidence till the Pope speak. He that Loveth God may be sure by inward perception (yea Intuition if Ocham say true) that he Loveth him; and consequently is beloved of him; and this Gospel wrought it. Must I not know that [He that belie­veth shall be saved] is truly translated out of the Original, till the Pope determine it? Must I believe no Grammar, no Lexicon, no Antient Author, no Jew, no Teacher of Greek or Hebrew, no vulgar use, concerning the sense of words till the Pope determine it? Must I not know what the Baptismal Tradition of all Christians in the world doth tell me, that we must believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost till I know that the Pope determineth it? Must I not receive the Creed, Lords-Prayer, or Deca­logue by all other Evidence till his word cometh in? Then I must throw away Cer­tainty for uncertainty?

[Page 64] II. Your own party do not thus receive all in your Question. They teach and learn the Hebrew and Greek Grammars, and the Rules of Translating, and Criticize upon the Text, and search after the Copies to discern the best by intrinsick Characters, and by comparing them, as any man may see who readeth all your Gramarians, Cri­ticks and Commentators: And yet must we know Translations and Copies only by the Popes determination?

III. Your own Popes ex Cathedra have given the Church various Translations: That Edition of the Vulgar Latine made by Six­tus 5. and that made about two years after Clemens 8. differ in so many hundred passa­ges, and abundance of whole verses and sen­tences, that if a Bible be a Divine Reve­lation, one of them shamefully erred about Divine Revelations, or de fide. See Dr. Iames his Bellum Papale, and its Defence against Gretser. Where then is your Cer­tainty?

IV. You are utterly uncertain and disa­greed among your selves, who it is that hath this Ascertaining Determining Authori­ty: [Page 65] You say it is your Church: But some say that the Infallibility and Power is in the Pope alone, in Cathedra. Some say it is a General Council though the Pope dis­sent: Some say that the Pope and Council must agree: and some say that the Church Essential of all Countries must receive the decrees before they are infallibly ascertain­ing. And who can be Certain of Gods word by an Authority which is it self so un­certain? See the proof in Safe Relig. p. 192, 193, 194.

V. Your own sentence condemneth your own Judges as uncertain: General Councils (as Constance and Basil) have concluded that Popes may err in matters of faith: yea accused and Condemned them as Hereticks, if not Infidels. And shall we not believe a Gene­ral Council in matter of present fact, and yet must believe them what is Gods word? And that one Council hath Condemned another, and Popes have Condemned Councils, I have ibid. proved at large. And if Popes and General Councils distinct are deceitful, how shall we be sure that two false parties when they meet do make one true one?

VI. Popes and General Councils have often erred from the faith (as our Church [Page 66] of England truly asserteth): and therefore we are not sure that they never will do so more. Bellarmine himself noteth about fourty Popes charged with error or Here­sie. Liberius subscribeth the sentence against Athanasius, and received the Arrians to Com­munion, and subscribed the Sirmian faith, Hane ego libenti animo suscepi in nullo con­tradicens: See his Epist. 7. in Binnius To. 1. p. 465. and his notes on it. See more in my safe Relig. p. 249, &c. And of Councils, p. 274, &c. The sixth General Council at Constantin. approved by Pope Adrian and by the seventh Council, hath many errors, as have many others there instanced in. What Certainty then can they give us?

VII. The Ancient Christians and Churches received not the Certainty of their faith upon the Authoritative determination of a Pope and Council. Therefore there is a Certainty to be had without it. The Churches that Paul or any Apostle Convert­ed, believed not at first upon the Authority of a General Council, nor of a Pope. Till the Council of Nice, for above 300. years the world was without a General Council: And were they without faith? Frumentius and Aedesius that preached to the Indians and all other Christian Preachers that then con­verted [Page 67] souls took another course. They did not first convince men of the Authority of a Pope and General Council to tell them what was Gods word, before they brought them to believe it.

VIII. Scripture it self never mentioneth this Method or Evidence: And would it be silent of the only way of Certainty? It never saith to the world [You must know by the Judgement of Peter, or the Pope and a General Council what is the word of God] Did Christ forget it?

IX. The Ancient Defenders of the Chri­stian Faith did all go another way: Iustin, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Minutius Faelix, Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius in his two first Volumes de Praepar. & Demonstrat. Augustine, and all such writers, seek to prove our faith by other Evidence, and never say [ the Pope and a General Council are the only ascertaining declarers of it.]

X. Our Proof of the Matters of fact is incomparably more certain than yours: For, 1. As to the Power of Judging, we main­tain a concurrence of the peoples Discerning Iudgement, the Pastors Teaching or Direct­ing Iudgement, and both Magistrates and [Page 68] Pastors Deciding and Governing Judgement, not to be the only Determiner of mens minds de fide, but to Rule the publick Doctrine and Communion of the Church according to Gods foreknown Laws. And as to the Truth of Copies, Miracles, and the actual delivery of the Gospel in the Scripture, and in the distinct Catechistical Articles aforesaid, we rest on Tradition which hath a Natural Infallibility, and not a pretended Authorita­tive Iudge. Your Tradition receiveth its credit from pretended Power to Iudge, which all the wise men in the world will deny till its pro­ved. Our Tradition hath its credit from a Natural Impossibility that the History should be false. I have shewed you the proof of this in my More Reasons for the Christi­an Religion and else where: If you will not read them there, I know not whether you will read them here, and therefore will not write them again. We have all your Evi­dence which is Evidence indeed, and far more with it; And as Hierom saith, The world is more than the City. Your Traditi­on is that of a Popes judging Power only as some say; and of a Pope with his Council as others say; and of the Pope with his sub­jects as your few moderate Latitudinarians say▪ You are not above the third or fourth part of the Christian world: If you deny [Page 69] this, your Impudent lying may cheat a wo­man that never read the state of the world, but will shame you the more with learned men: And is not the Tradition, 1. Of all the Christian world for 300. years before there was any General Council, 2. And of all the Christian world since (even Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Copties, Abassines, and all others) more than the Tradition of a Pope and a few inslaved Priests? The Council of Trent had for a considerable time but 42. Bishops, even when it set up your Tradition as a supplement to Scripture. And is the Pope and these 42. of equal histo­rical credit to all the Christian world?

3. Yea our History takes in Hereticks, yea and Infidels and Heathens too so far as they have left us any Testimony of these things. Even a Pliny, a Celsus, a Porphyry, a Iulian, and any other the bitterest Enemies: Because we prove it Impossible that so many men of different Countries, and no converse, and contrary minds and Interests, should confede­rate or agree to deceive the world, and be un­detected in such a matter. And what is the Pope and 42. or two hundred Prelates (most of Italy) to such Historical Evidence as this?

O that you could lay by partiality and base selfish respects but for one day or hour? [Page 70] What if the Question among us were whether ever Paul was at Rome? Or Iustin wrote his Apologie? Or Origen was a pro­fessed Christian? Or Constantine the Great professed Christianity? Or whether the wri­tings of Iustin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Au­gustine, &c. be true or spurious, &c. Whe­ther do you think that the Intrinsick and Extrinsick Evidence, with the Consent of all the world that knew them, Christians, Hereticks, Heathens, &c. be not a more satisfying Evidence of truth, than if a Pope of Rome and his Council should say, so and so it was, (as Liberius condemned Athanasius,) without or against the rest of the world? If the Question were whether ever there was such a man as Gregory the first or seventh, or such a man as Luther, or as Charles the Great, or Car. 5. or King Iames in England, or such a thing as the French Massacre, &c. Is not the current uncontroled self-evidencing History of these matters, more certain than if the Pope and Council of Trent only had told us of them?

And we have all your valid testimony in, with ours. As you are part of the witnesses that received the Scriptures, and as you have among you the Teachers and Professors of them, or have any other Evidence of their truth, besides a pretended Power to Iudge [Page 71] for all the world, you are a part (and but a part) of our Historical witness. And can­not the Pope and his Council tell us as cre­dibly whether Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Cicero, were ever in the world, and their writings be not spurious, as they are part of the world that hath credibly received it, as if they pretend a power to judge infallibly whether it be so or not?

XI. It is an injury to God for such arro­gant fellows to pretend that he hath entail­ed on them a power to do that, which he enableth men by Natural means to do as well and better without them. As to pretend that God hath given them a judicial power, to tell us whether the Statutes of England are true or spurious? Whether ever there were such Kings or Parliaments as made them? &c. Doth not the Certain Historical Tradition of the world suffice for this without a super­natural power? If you say that soul-con­cernments must have more certainty than bodily? I answer, 1. The more impudent are you that would give us less. 2. The na­ture of the matter alloweth ordinarily no more. As sense told the seers of Christs and the Apostles Miracles that they saw them, and the hearers and readers of the Gospel that they heard and read it, so all the difference [Page 72] between their way of faith and ours is, that what they took by their own sense Immedi­ately, that we take by a concatenation of successive senses and Tradition historical by currant proof. 3. You your selves find you have no more certainty that the Scripture is not a forged writing than you have that there was such a man as King Iames in England, whatever you pretend: 4. Do you not know that you must resolve even your pretended Authoritative Certainty into our Rational Historical Certainty. He that knoweth not that ever there was a Pope, (e. g. Greg. 7. Innoc. 9. Clem. 8.) or that ever there was a Council ( e. g. of Trent, Lateran) know­eth not what they determined: But how know you what Popes and Councils you have had but by common Historical proof. Do you believe it only by the Iudicial de­crees of later Popes and Councils?

XII. If the Pope and his Council know the Certainty of these things, it is either by Evidence and History as all men may do, or by Inspiration. If by Historical Evidence, it is extant before: If by Inspiration, let them prove themselves to be Prophets: Ei­ther by their Prophesyings, Miracles, or other Evidences, that may satisfie a man that is not mad.

[Page 73] XIII. Alphonsus a Castro tells us, some Popes understood not Grammar, and common history tells us what lads and ignorant fellows divers of them have been; And their own writers and General Councils tell us how horridly wicked many of them have been, (as Ioh. 22. Eugenius and other damned as he­reticks by Councils: And Honorius the Mo­nothelite, &c.) And is it probable that God should Inspire to Infallibility, Hereticks, Ignorant fellows, debauched wicked men, and work a Miracle to teach them to know that Infallibly which they knew not at all? When the Scripture and Nature tell us how he abhorreth such men.

XIV. They give us no Proof of their In­fallibility; Either from any promise of God antecedently, or subsequent effect: How then shall we be sure of it.

XV. It is impossible for us to know who is a true Pope: And is every man that will call himself Pope, or only the true ones possest with this Infallibility? If all; then one of our Bishops may have it when he will: If not, no man can be sure of Gods word for want of being sure who is a true Pope? Read but what a plunge poor Mr. Iohnson, alias Terret, [Page 74] alias &c. is put to, as to the Questions about what makes a Pope in his answers to me, and you will see how they are bewildred: Their fourty years Schism, in which there were di­vers pretended Popes, and the uncertainty who is the true successor to this day, especi­ally since Eugenius was deposed as a Here­tick by a General Council, hath left this matter unrecoverably uncertain. If Electors give the Essence, People, Priests, Princes, Prelates, Cardinals, have been Electors by turns. If Consecration be necessary; it must be by an Inferiour, and no man knoweth by whom, and some have been Popes unconse­crated, and their power defended. If the Churches acceptance be necessary, no man knoweth in many schisms which had the greater party; but certainly neither had the Church.

XVI. It is impossible to know which have been true General Councils: and there­fore impossible to know which of their De­crees are Gods word, and the Churches faith. They are utterly disagreed of this among themselves. Bellarmine and the Papalines tell us it is those only that are approved by the Pope, (and so if all the Christian world had no more wit than to send their Bishops from all parts of the Earth, to sit as long as [Page 75] the Council of Trent did (divers Popes Reigns) it is in the Popes power whether they shall be Approved Councils when all is done). But how know we which are Appro­ved? Is it by the Decree of other Councils? No: None hath ventured to determine it. It is therefore by Common Historical Evi­dence: And so your faith must be thereinto resolved. And yet here History faileth you. How many Councils are Controverted? Bel­larmine will partly tell you. What wanted Ephes. 2? What wanted that at Basil? And many more such, I have elsewhere debated.

XVII. There never was a real General Council in the world (unless you will call the twelve Apostles one.) This is the great cheat of the Papists: which I wonder all men that ever read History do not see as plainly, as any lie in History can be seen. Was it not the Romane Emperours that called the Councils? Had they any power out of their own dominions? Were not all the Patriarchs only in one Empire? Is their Jurisdiction mentioned in the Concil. Nicen. any further extended? Read in Binnius Surius or any others, the subscribed Names to all the Councils, and then peruse the Maps and To­pography of the Roman Empire and the noti­tias Episcopatuum (even Aub. Myraeus famed [Page 76] for a feigner) and you will see that all the Councils were made up of the subjects of the Empire alone, or such as had been thereto accustomed while they were their subjects, (and but few of them,) unless some odd Bishop that no man knows what he was: Indeed when Scythia and Persia wanted help, they placed a Bishop in an Imperial City neer Scythia (as Tomis) and Persia, and gave him leave to help the Country as far as he could, and called him Bishop of Scythia or Persia.

But what is this to a true General Coun­cil representing all the Churches in the world (on the terms as Dr. Holden honestly requireth.) If you have a mind to laugh at the mans Ignorance in Cosmographie you may read Mr. Iohnson, alias Terrets Reply to me (which I am not so idle yet as to answer,) confuting me by instances out of Thracia and such like. But the thing is most Evi­dent in History that as the Scots call the meeting of their Ministers a General Assem­bly, meaning of that Kingdom, and not of all the world, so the Councils in the Empire were called General, only as to that Empire and not to all the world: which I am ready to make good to any man that can understand History. The Pope was by one Prince made the chief Patriarch of that Imperial Church [Page 77] as the Kings of England preferred the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; And four others they joined with him; of which one claimed Primacy when the Imperial seat was remo­ved thither (never dreaming of a Divine right; else he could never have laid that claim;) And the Councils were only as our Convocations, and seldom extended to half the Empire. And little did those Empe­rours think, that thence their subject Popes and Councils would claim Supremacy at the Antipodes, and turn the orbis Romanus to orbis terrarum.

XVIII. There never will be, nor must be, nor can be a true General Council in the world. I have fully proved it in the second part of my Key for Catholicks; Read it there or Choose.

XIX. Your Popes and Councils have made no determination at all of many of the matters in your Question. Where have they determined, which are the true Copies of the Hebrew and Greek Text? Do you call us for our only Certainty to a Deter­mination that was never made to this day! O for Modesty and Conscience! Where have they determined which are the right among all the various Readings? What [Page 78] need Lucas Brugensis, Alba, and so many others search after this with so much industry if the Pope have determined it? Where have they determined which are the only Currant or true Translations (however they have extolled the Vulgar Latine.) Is Mon­tanus and other such Condemned? Where are all the Translators differences reconciled by the decision of Pope or Council? When did they determine the Controversies of Commentators of the sence of a thousand Texts of Scripture.

I must confess that a just indignation ari­seth in me at the reading of such soul-cheating snares; where men have the Impudence to perswade us that we can be sure of none of our faith, unless we be sure of Copies, Translations, &c. by that Authority that never durst nor did determine of the many remaining Controversies thereabout? And where hath the Pope or Council given us a Grammar or Lexicon to know the true sense of words by, for the future? Fathers differ: Papists differ; the world is disagreed of the sense of words and many Texts: The Pope hath an infallible skill, and power with his Council to decide all, and will not: Was there ever a crueller wickeder wight in flesh? To see all this difference and darkness, and not vouchsafe to speak a few words, or [Page 79] write one Infallible Commentary to end them? Just as if the plague or feaver were common, and one Physicion would say, all men shall die that will not believe that I can cure all men; when in the mean time he will not cure those that do believe it?

What is it that your Pope and Councils are to determine? Is it the great Essentials of Religion? We thank them for not­thing: Cannot we know that there is a God, and a Christ, till the Pope judge it? Have we not the Sacramental Covenant of Grace, the Creed, Lords Prayer and Deca­logue surely delivered before any Pope or Council judged of them? Or is it of the hard controverted points: Do it then; and let us see that you can do it.

XX. Hath the Pope power to judge in utramque partem, either way, or only one way? May he judge that there is a God or no God, a Christ or no Christ, a Heaven or no Heaven, a Scripture or none, at his pleasure? If so, must we believe him if he be for the Negative? Take you that Certain­ty: we will have none of it: Or is he only to Iudge truly, and then only to be believed? (that there is a God, a Christ, a Scripture, &c.) So may and must every Teacher, yea and every Christian Judge. If you say that [Page 80] he cannot go besides the truth, General Coun­cils and Pope Adrian himself said otherwise.

XXI. The Pope and his Council differ from the Council of Laodicea and the ancient Church, upon this very Question, What is the word of God, even of the Canon of the Scri­pture: For full proof whereof I refer you to Bishop Cousins Book, which bringeth full testimony from antiquity.

XXII. The use of Authority is not to disclose all Verities, but to Govern Societies in the management of them; If the King of Rome could prove himself King of all the world, that would but enable him to Govern the world: When one man that is at his foot­stool that is more Wise and Learned, may know better than he and his Council too, what's true or false.

XXIII. Your very foundation is a Con­tradiction in its self. What do you make a Pope to be but the Vicar of Christ? And (mark Reader) can any man be sure that he speaks true as Pope or Christs Vicar, that ne­ver knew that he was Pope or Christs Vicar? Or can any man believe that Christ hath an Infallible Vicar before he believe in Christ himself, and that he is Infallible? It's a con­tradiction [Page 89] to believe the Pope as his Vicar or Pope, before we believe Christ. If you believe that the Pope hath Power or Infallibility, you must believe that Christ gave it him. And if you believe that he gave it him, it must be by some Revelation that he gave it, and that you must believe it. And can you believe that Revelation that made him Pope or Infal­lible, before you believe any Revelation?

XXIV. The same contradiction there is in believing a Council or the Church, before you believe Divine Revelation: For you can­not know till you believe Divine Revelation, that Council or Church have any such being or power.

XXV. Either the Pope and Council themselves know the true Copies, Readings and Translations from the Authority of former Councils, or by their own: or by the Evidence of the thing: and Common History: or by In­spiration or Supernatural Revelation: If all the rabble of wicked Popes and Prelates pretend to Rule the Church and our faith by Inspiration, they are crackt-braind fanaticks: Sure they were no Prophets before they were Popes or Councillers. But if it be by their own Authority, who will take a self-made faith, of men that Believe only because they [Page 90] Believe? And must have all others believe on­ly because they believed before them? Then it is themselves and not Christ that they be­lieve. If it be, former Popes and Councils that they believe, tell us whom and why the first believed? Mark, that you cannot arise to St. Peter: For the various Copies and Transla­tions which we are in question of, were all made since St. Peters daies.

XXVI. When in a Council the major part carry it by vote (perhaps by one or a few) How shall we be sure that all the minor part were deceived?

XXVII. How shall all those Abassines, Armenians, Indians in New-England or others that know not that ever there was a Pope or General Council, in the world, become Chri­stians? Or are you sure they are none?

XXVIII. We see by experience in the foresaid Nations, and feel in our selves, that men may have a certain faith without recei­ving it from the Pope. Can you make me know that I do not believe, when I know that I do? And can you prove that only the third part of Christians in the world are true Chri­stians, and have Certain faith, because all the rest receive it not from the Pope? and why [Page 91] may not the major part of the Church be sure as well as he?

XXIX. Hath the Church a twofold foundation for faith? If the Pope and Coun­cil believe Gods word to be his word on one Ground, and all other men on another ground, (that is, because they say it,) then we have two faiths and two Churches on two foundations. But if otherwise, then Pope and Council do as we must do (by their doctrine,) even be­lieve it, because they say it themselves.

XXX. The Councils Decrees of Faith are so Voluminous that not one Priest of four­ty knoweth them all; and not one lay man of many thousand: The very bulk therefore of your faith, must make it more uncertain than ours is: And who can tell whether he have it all?

XXXI. The words of your Councils are as obscure as Scripture words; and are con­troverted by your Doctors: And how can it be otherwise when humane language is so am­biguous, in such huge Volumes? How then shall the sense of your Councils themselves be certainly known?

XXXII. Councils are rarely extant: God [Page 92] only knoweth whether ever there will be ano­thor, (even a pretended one:) And must we have no judge in the mean time to give us a Certainty of the meaning of the very forego­ing Councils themselves? Most confess that the Pope himself may err?

XXXIII. It is but few persons in the world that ever saw and consulted with a Pope and a General Council? How then shall we be all sure, what they said or determined? How know we whether the Records of them be truest in Crab, in Surius, in Nicolinus, in Binnius or in none of them? What was Ca­ranzas's fault that he is blamed for? Which of the various Copies of Canons are true which are given us oft by the same Author? Who knoweth what alterations the Index expurgatorius (not infallible) maketh in the books? Have we no more or other Certainty of our Creed than of all these Councils, so variously and doubtfully delivered?

XXXIV. Seeing that each lay man that never saw Pope or Councils, can know them only by believing the Priest that telleth him, This the Church saith, is that Priest Infalli­ble? Can no man be be certainer of the Creed than of that Priests words? Is not the faith of almost all your vulgar Papists, resolved into [Page 93] the Priests affirmation? And so is it not a hu­mane faith? And how ignorant and wicked is many a Priest? Is our faith uncertain be­cause we take it not on such a mans credit?

XXXV. If you say that an Implicite faith that all is true and of God which the Pope and Council saith is so, will save men; 1. How do the people know whether the Pope and Council determine any thing at all but on the Priests credit? 2. Then all Infidels may be saved without believing that there is a Sa­viour or salvation, so they do but believe in the Pope and Council. 3. Then believing in the Pope and Council is made far more neces­sary than believing in Christ. 4. Why will not an implicite belief in Christ go as far as yours?

XXXVI. By your way we can never be Certain when we have all the Christian faith: For more Councils may still make more de­crees as hitherto they have done; and who knows when they will hae done? And so you make a Christian quite another thing, than he was in the primitive Church; And you cruelly make it far harder to be saved: when as then, a man might be saved that be­lieved the Covenant and Creed; and foresaid Catechism; and now he must also believe so many Canons, as that the Councils contain­ing [Page 94] them in the last Edition, exceed the pur­se of a poor Minister to buy them; and the time and brains of most to read them.

XXXVII. You confess all our faith and Religion to be true (as far as I can learn) but we deny all your additions: Both parties there­fore being agreed of the truth of ours, it's like to be the surer. Our Religion in the Essen­tials, is nothing but the Sacramental Cove­nant, the Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalogue with the Law of Nature; And in the Integrals, it is nothing but the Scriptures which we re­ceive as Canonical: And all this you com­monly confess to be true: And I told you be­fore how Bellarmine, Costerus and others con­fess less to be sufficient to Salvation (as com­monly necessary.) But your additions we re­ject as uncertain or false.

XXXVIII. We see you to be a Car­nal Kingdom set up against Christs express determination, Luk. 22. 26. 1. Pet. 5. 3. As the Geographia Nubiensis saith ( In Vrbe Roma, &c. In the City of Rome are the seats of a King called the Pope: Nor is there any superiority in dignity above the Pope, and Kings are lower (or inferior) than he.) We see that you have compaginated your policie all for these carnal Ends; and that dignity, [Page 95] and dominion, and riches, and worldliness is promoted by your faith: And that your Reli­gion is propagated and upheld by most inhu­mane cruelties and bloodshed, and they must be burned that seem not to believe as you do: And will it not raise suspicions in us of the fi­delity of such men, when they make their own faith, and tell us that we have no certain­ty of ours but by their determination: When also we see the wickedness of mens lives among you, in common Fornication and other heinous sin; when the certainest faith, will have the holiest life, when it is Subjectively as well as Objectively certain.

XXXIX. You destroy or greatly discre­dit the Grand Evidence of the Christian faith, even Miracles: How then can your faith be the most Certain? For when you pre­tend that Miracles are as common through all the world as Priests Masses are (in turning bread into no bread as aforesaid) and yet no man seeth any proof of one such Miracle, when really it is no less than Christs Resurrection which you pretend to be so common before all the Churches; what is this but to tempt men to take all the Scripture and Apostolical Mi­racles to be no surer? And then where is our faith?

[Page 96] XL. Lastly, I end where I almost began: If our sense be true, the Pope and his Coun­cil are false, and therefore our faith not to be received only nor chiefly on their trust. For their faith teacheth us, not to believe Gods most Natural Revelations, to the sound senses and Intellective perception of all men in the world, as I have shewed about the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament: And when a Con­troversie it brought to sense it self we can bring it no lower: And when we must either believe your faith and its foundation false, or believe Gods most Natural Evident Reve­lation false, and all mens Senses and Intel­lective perception false, we are not able, I say not able, to be of your faith.

And now judge whose faith is more Cer­tain the Protestants or the Papists? And whe­ther you do well so zealously and busily; to make use of such soul-traps and fool-traps, as the paper is which I have answered.

September 12. 1672.