THE Popish Proselyte THE GRAND FANATICK OR AN ANTIDOTE AGAINST The Poyson of Captain Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Non-conformists And many other Signs and Wonders truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that in believing you might have life through his name John 20.30 31. London Printed for Samuel Tidmarsh at the Kings Head in Cornhill next House to the Royal Exchange MDCLXXXIV TO THE READER AN exact answering of the whole Epistle by Paragraphs would have swelled my intended little Book into a great Volume nor did I conceive it needful and that because the Captain himself hath contracted the pith of all that is pertinent into his sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule His Argument from Heaven for the Roman Church being Judge and Guide and his six Queries supposed utterly destructive to and altogether unanswerable upon the grounds of Protestants and now all these be at large transcribed examined and solved And yet lest the less intelligent Reader should stumble or the Adversary insult I have in an admonitory prefatory discourse so far taken notice of all his mostly seeming important conclusions and objections as to make it apparent that they have nought else save ignorance inadvertency selfishness and strong delusion to support and give rise unto them Nor yet have I made it my only business to pull down though that must needs be their great work that have to do with Babel-builders but have all along ascertained what I would or should establish from such common principles of Religion and Reason as are assented to by Papists Protestants and the Vniversality at least of Christians As for reviling had not his own guilt put him on to caution against it I should never have thought of it what is of personal concern is occasioned by his own writings circumstant to the matter under debate and all contained in one single Page the whole is closed with a vindication of the Great Saint Augustin from favouring the proceedings of so grand an Apostate as Robert Everard Joseph Harrison An Answer to Robert Everard's Epistle to the several Congregations of the Nonconformists I Shall at present suppose Robert Everard to be no Romish Jesuited Priest Pag. 91. but Quondam Captain to a Troop of Rebellious Souldiers and do conclude from his own Printed papers attended with some obvious circumstances that four things did chiefly concur to the shipwracking of his Faith First Ignorance Secondly Inadvertency or Imprudence Thirdly Self-interest Fourthly A just judgment of God in sending such strong delusions that they should believe a lie The mans ignorance appears First in that he cannot construe credo Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam I believe the Being but renders as if he had read credo Sanctae c. I believe the saying of the Holy Catholick Church sets hence in the front of his Book and urges all a-long the Churches and in the issue the Roman Churches pretended infallible declaration for the foundation of Faith When yet the very Creed teacheth him First To confess I believe in God the Father in the Son and in the Holy Ghost as that which must necessarily forego and found his believing first that there is a Holy Catholick Church as well as that there is a Communion of Saints nor doth it give any more ground to conclude the one than the other for to be infallible Secondly Though the Captain before the closure of the Book be so well taught as to prove the Roman Church infallible in teaching from certain stories about Miracles no more than pointed at out of Breerleys Index no more than surmised to be done by S. Francis S. Dominick and the Monk Austin with such like to confirm and that but some few of her superstitious Doctrins Nay can chide such as Persons destroying Faith Pag. 78. taking away all humane converse c. that shall refuse upon such fallible Testimonies to believe stories so extreamly improbable yet is he such a Novice in the beginning that he cannot so much as offer an argument for the truth of Christianity from all the undoubted Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles Pag. 6. for no other end save the confirming thereof Heb. 2.3 4. recorded in Sacred Writ that we might believe John 20.31 not denyed by the Adversaries of our Faith and most celebriously attested by the unanimous consent of all Christians in all succeeding Ages Nor has he a word to say to the Gentleman that in opposition to the Evangelist calls Faith thus founded an opinion an humour But instead of that gratis grants that unless we know what ex parte rei is impossible to be known our selves or those that teach us to be infallible Christianity as to us can be no more than probably not most probably true Jews Turks and Pagans may be as well perswaded of their several ways as we can be of ours both upon a fallible certainty Not knowing sure that the Christians certainty hath no fallible save that they may the Jews Turks and Pagans fallible no certainty save that they do imagine it And secondly that it is irrational thus to argue à Doctore ad Doctrinam from the Person to the thing from what may be to what is Euclid may be fallible and yet his demonstrations not deceive we may know our selves and those that teach us to be subject to mistake and yet know too that in this or that particular neither they nor we are mistaken Christianity as to us may be certainly true certainly so demonstrated to Jews Turks and Pagans and yet every Man confessed to be a liar every Church ex parte sui in a possibility to commit an error in this thing But 3dly The man cannot distinguish betwixt the internal testimony of the spirit vouchsafed sometimes unto some and that constant historical evidence which is afforded unto all When he was a Quaker it 's like he confounded the original Cause and the original Language and now he cannot make a difference betwixt the efficient cause of our believing and the formal object ground or Reason of Faith He discourses with a man sensual as if he had the spirit and imagines that the Holy Ghost which is sent to witness with our spirits that we are the children of God should in the same manner and measure witness the Divine truth of every particular Book and Text of Scripture And hence instead of Firstly telling the sensual Lay Gentleman that he believed the Scriptures to be the word of God fide Historica by an Historical Faith upon the account of universal Tradition He talks with him about an inward infallible Testimony of the Spirit and makes that spiritual sense and feeling which is peculiar to Gods Elect sealing up their interest in Christ to be the common convincing ground of that being indeed the Spirits
visible body Politick different from that invisible Church which is Christs mystical body the Texts you cite Acts 20.28 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Col. 1.24 2 5. Mat 16.18 do import no such thing for the four first distinguish betwixt the Church and the Overseers Officers or Ministers thereof seeming thereby to suppose that the Overseers not as Overseers in their Politick capacity but as believers respect had to their spiritual Union be truly members of the Church there mentioned and for the fifth if by Rock might be understood Peter it would as to this business be of the same import Augustin de verbis domini secund Mat. Serm. 13. Chamier Tom. 2. l. 11. chap. 23. And if by Rock with the great St. Augustin we understand Christ and so we ought and may as is made appear by Chamier the remoteness of the antecedent notwithstanding that Text relates to the Church builded the Church which is Gods own workmanship Eph. 2.10 holding out that to be it against which the Gates of Hell whether sin or death or the power or policy of spiritual Adversaries shall not prevail Secondly Your Doctors usually blame us for making two Churches the one visible and the other invisible And now you seem offended because we do not However without regard to either we affirm that the same Holy Catholick militant Church is both visible and invisible invisible respect had to its union and visible respect had to its profession of Faith in Christ Thirdly Yours I think do and therefore sure should you in this case distinguish inter Ecclesiam judicantem docentem betwixt the Church judging or defining and the Church teaching and have pleaded for that not this to be infallible as and for ours though its true they do affirm that the Church while teaching conformable to Scriptures teacheth Doctrine infallibly true yet do they never say that the Church in any sense is or ought to be denominated infallible No Sir the Church hath other precious priviledges other benefits by these promises and the Doctrine of Christ as hath and shall be made appear is and may be abundantly otherwise confirmed you need not for fear of debasing the Church below the Devil suppose her thus guilty of robbery in making her self equal with God Equal I say with God because infallibility is not an effect or fruit like love peace but an essential attribute of the Holy Ghost no more communicable to or predicable either of you or us than Omnipresence or Omnipotency It 's God alone that cannot lie Titus 1.2 howbeit in some cases others through his grace shall not Fourthly The books of Scripture Pag. 83. which you are pleased to accept as Gods written word and Divine revelations were first delivered unto you by Catholicks and accepted of by your Ancestors upon the score and word of Roman Catholicks Priests and Monks together with the same sense and interpretation which the Roman Catholick Church now teacheth and which was then confirmed by miracles as aforesaid First You confess Pag. 84. Querie the third that there is a Greek Church and an Ethiopian Church distinct from yours and we can tell you out of Reinerius cont Haeret. cap. 4. of Leonists or Lollards that were dispersed into all Countries have continued ever since the Apostles lived justly and believed all the Articles contained in the Creed Our Ancestors might receive the books of Scripture as Gods written word from Catholicks and yet never be beholding to the Romanists for it But be it so that our Ancestors did as you say what then Did not the Primitive Christians receive the books of the Old Testament from the Jews and yet rejected their Traditions nay disputed against the Jewish Traditions out of those very books How ever Secondly These books were not accepted as aforesaid upon the score and word of the Roman Catholick Priests and Monks for our Ancestors had the Priests and Monks word for the Apocrypha books as well as for the Canonical and yet did they reject those and accept these because they found convincing reasons so to do Thirdly True it is your Priests are sworn not to interpret Scripture against the sense which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold but that they do so or ever delivered unto our Ancestors any such an interpretation much less any confirmed by Miracles remains for you to prove and is a fable we know nothing of though yet Fourthly If you your Priests and Monks or any body else can bring us to the certain knowledge thereof or any other traditions so confirmed we shall without further ado accept of hold them as fast as we can and in the mean while no little marvel that you knowing so well of such a sense should spend time in troubling us with your own private glosses Nor yet is the last the least sign of a brazen forehead the Apostate blushes not to tell to all the world that he has now learned to hate and abhorr Rebellion and Treason as much as Hell and Damnation Pag. 86. notwithstanding that First The general approved Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third decrees that if the Temporal Lord being required and admonished of the Church shall neglect to purge his Country of Heretical defilments the Pope may from thenceforth denounce his Vassals absolved from their fidelity and may expose his Country to be seised on by Catholicks who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and keep it in the purity of Faith The Popish Bishops and Priests declare and swear extra hanc veram fidem Catholicam non est salus out of this true Catholick Faith there is no Salvation The summ of all the Captain has learned and would have us to learn is to believe as the Church believes and consequently is so far from having learned to hate and abhor rebellion as Hell and Damnation as he believes all such shall be damned to Hell as do not hold it lawful such procedure first had by the Church and Pope to rise up in Rebellion against their Lord and King Secondly The Oath of Allegiance was composed and imposed on purpose to distinguish the Loyal and disloyal Romanists the Popes power of Excommunication not at all therein touched no point of doctrine inserted and yet is the Popish Religion so near allied to Rebellion that it commands her Vassals rather to suffer death than bind themselves by Oath to perform Allegiance to their Lord and King though yet to say truth Thirdly The Papists in this deal more candidly than in any other thing that I know of for should they take this Oath as sometimes some of them in policy may do it were no better than taking Gods name in vain The Pope if antecedently he have not may yet at pleasure absolve them from it they may this notwithstanding be free to rebel so soon as there is an opportunity and â—ill there be an opportunity it is not likely that men so wise
may evidently be proved from Scripture for if you or any else shall evince that Infants-Baptism cannot be proved from the Scriptures the Church of England Article the sixth hath expresly declared against the necessity of it 2. You cannot but have heard of haec homo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a Man examine himself c. 1 Cor. 11.28 Women as well as Men are there required self examination and not Auricular confession first had to receive the Eucharist Nor 3. Can you be ignorant that there is a difference betwixt the Lords-day being necessary to be observed and its being necessary that Christians should observe the Lords-day That would imply a Doctrinal This no more than an obediential necessity That if held by any the Church of England will tell you ought to be proved particularly from Scripture This needs no more but a general warrant Eleventhly It is a sin as the generality of Christians agree an heresie to re-baptize any one which hath been baptized by an Heretick where doth the Scripture say so 1. Those that hold it a sin and heresie to rebaptize any one Videtur quod Baptismus possit iterari sed contra est quod dicitur Eph 4. una fides unum baptisma Aquinas 3. quaest 66. Art 9. c. found their opinion upon Scripture One Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5.2 Cyprian held such ought to be re-baptized dyed in that opinion and yet dyed a Saint and Martyr 3. The Thesis here laid down without restriction is apparently false contradicting the Nineteenth Canon of the Council of Nice Si quis confugit ad Ecclesiam Catholicam de Paulianist Cataphrygiis statutum est rebaptizari If any one of the Paulianists and Cataphrygians fly unto the Catholick Church it is Decreed That they ought to be re-baptized And now it being evident that neither your Argument nor instances make against but for the Scriptures being a sole sufficient Rule let us try what they 'll do on that account against or for your Romish Church Whatsoever is a sole sufficient Rule must be plain and clear in all necessary points at least which relate to Faith But the Roman Church is not plain and clear in all necessary points that relate to Faith Therefore the Roman Church is not the sole sufficent Rule The major is your own nor shall I need to trouble any body else for instances to prove the minor First then it is necessary you say to know how many Sacraments Christ ordained and yet your Church leaves it doubtful whether anointing with Oyl was ordained by Christ a Sacrament or not Insinuated she says it was Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 1. Mark 6. but does not dare not say it was there or any where else instituted as such Secondly It is necessary to salvation you say to believe all the Books of the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal And yet as to this Your Church is so dark and dubious See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 7. that though Bellarmine contend that the Council of Trent did define the additaments to the Book of Hester to be canonical Sixtus Senensis believes otherwise and brings Arguments against it Nay if it be necessary to know which Books be the Word of God and which Apocryphal it is necessary sure to know which Traditions be Dominical or Apostolical which not and yet concerning this your Church is silent Thirdly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted it is necessary to know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when Mystically it is necessary to know that the very Copies and Translations of the Scriptures which we have and upon which we ground our selves are certainly true it is necessary that the many manifest controversies about the true sense of Scripture should be decided it is necessary to know what is Fundamental what not and yet as to none of these your Church is plain and clear Fourthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth from the Father and the Son that Christ is of one substance with the Father and that these Three are One and that One Three and yet suppose these points not plainly and clearly to be found in Scriptures how possibly could the Church for the first three hundred years be said to be plain and clear concerning them for during that time there was no General Council whereby she might explain her self and if she did explain her self in General Councils after that implyed her former darkness and deficiency with respect to those very points Fifthly It is a sin and heresie you say to re-baptize any one who hath been Baptized by an Heretick and yet as hath been said your Church that I mean you take the boldness to call your Church is so far from being plain and clear in this that she hath defined the contrary Nay plainness and clearness owned as it is and ought to be for an essential property of the Rule of Faith P. 54 56. the whole of what you have said in behalf of the Church if granted true will amount to as much as nothing For suppose Christ judge the Nations not by his Word and Spirit in the mouths of his Ministers but as you phrase it by his Churches Tribunal in passing of Acts and pronouncing Anathema's suppose the Church to be what you would have it and not only led if she will but so drawn that she follow the Spirit into all truth sic de caeteris yet what were all this to the purpose For it would not necessarily follow thence that she is plain and clear in all necessary points the Apostles sure if any might so judge and were so drawn Pag. 37. and yet you say that they in their Epistles are defective dark very subject and that in fundamentals desperately to be misunderstood Nor do you trouble us with telling that the Church is always in being Pag. 61. and capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense For 1. If we cannot certainly understand the Apostles when explaining and declaring their sense and meaning how shall we be able certainly to understand your Church when explaining and declaring hers sith the Church hath no other way to explain her meaning save by words most intelligible which way the Apostles had and did make use of as is evident from 1 Cor. 14.2 The question is whether the Church be actually plain and clear in all necessary points not whether the Church be capable upon demand to explain and declare its own sense being plain and clear and capable upon demand to explain and declare be different things this belongs to an Interpreter of no concern here it 's that that is pertinent and the
to be instituted by Christ and no more and sure then the man may count two and need not complain for want of the number numbring Secondly It 's necessary to Salvation to believe all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God and to believe nothing written to be the word of God which is Apocryphal but by the Scripture it cannot be made out plainly and clearly which Books are the word of God and which are Apocryphal First Your own Doctors distinguish betwixt an affirmative believing and a negative disbelief and though they make it damnable to disbelieve any one point when sufficiently represented to the understanding as revealed by God yet do they not make it necessary positively and expresly to believe all or any of the Books of Holy Scriptures to be so revealed and suppose they did it matters not sith it 's evident that the Scriptures themselves make believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and not believing all the Books of Holy Scripture to be the word of God to be that Vnum necessarium that one thing necessary to Salvation And the Fathers in the Primitive times had differences and doubts about several Books of Scripture now commonly received for Canonical and yet were saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as we 2. Christians convinced by any means whatsoever that such and such Books in themselves Apocryphal be the word of God ought during that conviction believe them to be so and it is so far from being necessary to Salvation for them rebus sic stantibus to believ otherwise that it were obstinacy and interpretatively a denying of Gods veracity for them not so to believe formally as Chillingworth though not materially an Heresie 3. True it is that it cannot be made out by Scripture as by a Testimony or Argumentum inartificiale which Books are the Word of God and which be Apocryphal yet may this be made out plainly and clearly by Scripture Tanquam per Argumentum artificiale scilicet The Divine Characters that God himself hath imprinted on those Books that be indeed the Word of God nor need we trouble your Churches Authority though we confess our selves much beholding to the Churches ministry for the finding of them out Thirdly It is necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but there is no Text or Texts of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word 1. It is necessary for you and me to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we are perswaded though upon several grounds that they be so but that it is necessary for all persons so to believe will not be granted till you further explain your necessary and add proof for the evincing of it And yet however 2. There is a Text of Scripture to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word For if there be a Text that expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God there is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word But there is a Text which expresly declares that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in the Primitive times were the Word of God ergo There is a Text to prove that the Scriptures which we have are Gods Word The major is evident from universal Tradition assuring us that the Scriptures we now have be the same that the Jews and Christians had then The minor is evinced from that of Paul to Timothy whose Mother was a Jewess and Father a Greek all Scripture is divinely inspired 2 Tim. 3. Fourthly It is necessary to know that the Scriptures are not corrupted for if they be corrupted they cease to be the Word of God and then they cannot be any rule or sure guide to us But of this we have no assurance in Scripture 1. It is not necessary as hath been said to know the Scriptures to be the Word of God and therefore not necessary sure to know they are not corrupted Scripture or Writing is no more than one special means whereby God is pleased to make known and preserve in the World the knowledge of his Will if he do it any where by another Medium that will suffice Nay suppose as the man seems to do all along that the Scriptures be corrupted it cannot be necessary to know that they are not corrupted unless it be necessary to know that which is not possible to be known and so all men be necessarily damned 2. When we say the Scripture is the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies it is usually restrained to such controversies as do not concern the Scripture You will not allow us to argue the Church is no infallible Judge or Rule because the Church is forced to seek for other and higher proof than her own words to prove her self to be Infallible and if so why should we argue the Scripture to be no Rule because we cannot have assurance in Scripture that it is not corrupted it will be sufficient that we have assurance some other way 3. Scripture may be said to be corrupted in Essentials or Accidentals in whole or in part It may be corrupted in Accidentals the Words mis-spelled Sentences misplaced Words or Letters inserted or omitted and yet the mind and meaning of God what it is all that notwithstanding be evident from thence Every Book almost after its most perfect Edition hath Errata's and yet the Authors meaning may be plain enough Nay further Scripture may be corrupted in some parts and yet remaining pure in others Scriptura per Scripturam Scripture may be corrected by Scripture as a Jesuit of your own hath well observed Fifthly It is necessary in order to the knowing of the true mind meaning and will of God and what he intended by such and such a Text that we know when a Text is to be understood literally when figuratively when mystically but this cannot be understood from Scripture as daily experience informs us 1. The Scripture supposes men to have the use of sense and reason and if so they may easily conclude as sure as God is truth the Spirit spake by the Prophets and Apostles accordingly as he meant the Prophets and Apostles writ according as the Spirit spake and writ for that end that the true mind meaning and will of God might be known and understood which could not be without perpetuated new Revelation except we might and ought to take that for his mind and meaning which the words in their literal construction hold out unto us Eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur De verbo Dei l. 3. c. 3 certum est esse sensum Spiritus Sancti That says Bellarmin which is immediately gathered from the words is certain to be the sense of the Holy Ghost And therefore 2. vainly does he enquire and fondly distinguish of several senses of this or that Text whenas it is
Revelation and though of two contraries one sense only can be true and he that refuseth that sense which he knows to be true does deserve Damnation yet that God will certainly damn him or that the not believing in case he had not known were a sin damnable is more I think than God ever told you 3. Such controversies as are necessary to be decided in the use of lawful means have been are and may be decided by Scripture without either compleating it by or introducing in the stead thereof any other Rule and for the rest a mutual forbearance of the Controvertors were far better than your Pretorial decision of the controversies Eighthly It is necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not that is as you say what is fundamental and what not fundamental and to be informed of this plainly lest we erre and be damned but in this the Scripture is silent 1. If it be necessary to know what is purely and absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed and what not How comes it to pass that your Church only declares negatively what is not to be believed or what must not upon pain of Damnation be disbelieved and yet never tells affirmatively what is purely and absolutely necessary for us to believe True you will have all believe affirmatively implicitly what ever your Church believes but that is nothing to this business where knowledge of the what in an explicit Faith is necessarily required All your Doctors conclude Somewhat must be explicitly believed and you say It is necessary to know the Particulars and yet will not your Church ever be gotten to declare unto us which they be let her do it when it shall seem good unto her in the interim I shall tell you plainly That 2. So much of the what is fundamentally necessary to be believed as is needful to bring such or such a person to believe in the who and rest on the foundation Jesus Christ and consequently more may be necessary for one than another and not necessary at all that the particulars should be determined For 3. Saving and Damning depends not upon a precise knowing and believing just so many points and no more but upon a hearty believing or not believing in Jesus Christ He that believeth in the Son of God hath eternal life He that believeth not c. He that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life 1 John 5.12 Ninthly It is necessary to believe that God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by the Father only that God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that from the Father and the Son that Christ is of one substance with the Father and that these three are one and that one three I refer to consideration whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture If they were it had been almost impossible for so many divisions to have hapned about them as have done amongst persons on all sides admitting the Scripture to be the word of God 1. I refer it also to consideration Whether all these points be not plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture And wish you to consult with almost any large English Catechism or common Place book concerning it 2. The Heart of man is desperately wicked and many are possessed with a Spirit of blindness It is one question whether all these points be plainly and clearly to be found in Scripture and another whether all persons that admit the Scriptures to be the word of God can or will so search as to find them to be there Both Jews and Christians admit the Books of the Old Testament for Divine and yet differ about the weightiest and as we say the clearest point You say the Scriptures are plain and evident for the Churches Infallibility and yet the Protestants that admit the Scriptures for the Word of God as well as you do all deny it 3. Those so manifold divisions in the Primitive Church make more against the Churches being a Pretorial Judge than against Scripture being a perfect Rule It had been sure altogether impossible that such and so many points should have been so long controverted but that either the generality of Christians did not then judge a Pretorial decision of controversies necessary or that there was none then impowered so to decide them Howbeit 4. Is it necessary to believe these points implicitly or explicitly if but implicitly it is not necessary in order to the constituting of Scriptures an adequate object or rule of believing than these points should be plainly contained in them For plainness respects knowledge of the particulars to be believed which this kind of Faith supposeth not and if it be necessary to believe these points explicitly knowingly your own Doctors will not deny but that the Scriptures do plainly and perspicuously contain and teach them We deny not saith Costerus that those chief heads of the Faith which are to all Christians necessary to be known to Salvation are plainly and perspicuously comprehended in the Writings of the Apostles Enchirid. c. 4. p. 49. Cujusmodi sunt mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis incarnationis Filii Dei Of which sort be the mystery of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God The Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the Antient Prophets planè instruunt nos do plainly instruct us what is to be thought concerning things Divine Therefore hostile discord laid aside let us take the explication of Questions from the words Divinely inspired says Constantine to the Council of Nice And now what think ye does Bellarmine reply why See Bellarmin de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 1. he takes occasion hence to suspect Constantine for a person unbaptized that as yet non noverit Arcana religionis had not been acquainted with the secrets of Religion howbeit better considering answers 2. That there be Testimonies extant in the Holy Scriptures of all the Doctrines which appertain to the nature of God and that concerning these Doctrines we may be plenè planè fully and plainly instructed out of the Holy Scriptures Tenthly It is necessary the Church of England saith that Infants should be Baptized and Women should receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and Christians should observe the Lords-day and yet none of these points are clearly and particularly proved from Scriptures 1. It matters not much what you say elsewhere this passage sufficiently manifests what sort of Nonconformists you write against scil not Nonconformists to the Church of England but to the Chair of Rome for if otherwise wherefore should you urge them in this case with The Church of England saith c. And yet however 2. You must know that if the Church of England say It is necessary that Infants should be Baptized it is upon a supposition that the affirmative
Scripture is not the Judge Rule and Guide and therefore the Church is be of any force for never to take notice that it founds an affirmative conclusion upon negative premisses it supposes that some Presbyterians Independents c. should hold the Spirit alone some Reason some the Scripture each exclusive of the Ministry of the Church to be the Rule Judge and Guide of Faith whenas all they joyntly in this business joyn all these together and look up unto God according to his command and promise for his Holy spirit in the Churches Ministery throughly to direct their understandings in judging of things according to the written Rule Fourthly The man never perceives that his own vain ratiocinations and needless concessions are the sole ground that is given for him to bottom his belief upon a strong fancy he has and need on for his Faith 's no stronger To evince this I shall instance in these six positions laid down and supposed as the Basis of his whole discourse First Faith is an infallible assent of the understanding submitting it self obediently to believe the Revelations of God Secondly There must be some means appointed of God by which we may know this one true Faith from all false opinions Thirdly These means must be infallible Fourthly The understanding must submit to these means under pain of Damnation Fifthly Two men of two different faiths or beliefs cannot be saved Sixthly Ignorant people by such reasonable diligence as is very tolerable to Humane frailty and yet possible for them may come to the knowledge wisely done to leave out certain of these means And now if you ask what foundation he has whereupon to ground his belief of these assertions he 'll tell you I gathered them from the true interpretation of certain Texts of Scripture Pag. 16. And if you ask further how he knows that interpretation to be true Has he Divine Revelation for it According to the tenour of his own first position Has he the unanimous consent of the Fathers for it Or does he certainly know beyond all possibility of being mistaken that the Church in all Ages hath and the present Church now doth give that interpretation accordingly as 't is decreed by the Council of Trent No but from hence I thought says he it did very naturally follow Firstly 17. Secondly and Thirdly c. And yet that it may appear he only says could not possibly think any such a thing observe from that exhortation Heb. 10.23 Let us hold fast the profession of our Hope so in their own Authentick Translation undeclining does he inferr Faith is an infallible assent of our understanding and because the latter part of the verse for he is faithful that hath promised founded the confidence there spoken of upon the promise of Grace and the former Verse fixed faith with its full assurance upon the High Priest Jesus alone The man slily passeth over both and leaves the other part of his proposition obediently submitting c. destitute of any proof From 2 Cor. 10.5 bringing into Captivity every thought to the Obedience of Christ he infers the understanding must submit not dispute all be Damned that disobey the Authority of the Church and adds withal that saving faith is seated in the understanding as if Paul had been mistaken when he said with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness Rom. 10.10 or as if he himself knew not what he had done in putting obediently submitting into the definition of faith sith all conclude obedience and disobedience to be subjected in the will From Eph. 4.5 there is but one Faith respect had to the personal object in whom the Lord Jesus He concludes that two men of differing faiths Dogmatical or that believe two contrary opinions cannot be saved nor is he ashamed from Isaiah 35.8 plainly pointing at Christ the new and living way first to take out and the unclean shall not pass over it as incoherent because their unholy Mother admits of such for her children and then inferrs that ignorant people by reasonable diligence may come to the knowledge of those means about which yet their learned men to this very day could never be agreed Nor can he himself tell when it comes to the pinch how those means should be certainly manifest save by miracles of which we ignorant folk may often hear but never come to the knowledge of however that I most admire at is That the man designing to prove that true acceptable faith consists in believing as the Church believes a believing that the Roman Church is infallible should quote Heb. 11.6 that holds out the faith without which it is impossible to please God to be a believing not that the Church but that God himself is so he that comes to God must believe that he is c. And further that he should stand hafling and pafling and proving by halfs there must be some means appointed by God by which men may know c. those means must be infallible the understanding must submit to those means under pain of damnation when the very Text quoted Mark 16.16 shews plainly that there be means infallible means and which be the means appointed whereby true faith both is begotten and may be known from all false opinions and unto which all that heartily submit shall be saved and those that do not shall be damned and lest you should mistake in reading the means be the word of truth the Gospel Preached though by the mouth of never so weak a Minister Go into all the World and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned A Genere ad speciem affirmat non valet Argumentum nor yet is it unworthy of remark 1. That means in general is here all along found in the premisses and Authority in speciall put after into the conclusion there must be there is an infallible Means and therefore there is there must be an infallible Authority And 2. That the man seriously endeavours to found the very foundation of his own faith upon Scriptures dark Scriptures privately interpreted howbeit the main scope of his Book is to evince that faith true faith neither first nor last can or ought to be founded thereupon That self-interest had a hand in the Captains overturning seems more than probable Pag. 4. because First The Captain in the late Wars as his Book relates had run through the several forms of Religion Presbyterian Independent Anabaptist c. and yet never that we read of lost his preferment upon any Turn nor missed of it for want of timely turning and sith so the man might easily foresee that such a notorious Jugler was never like to be trusted at the Kings Court Best for him now at last to turn Papist do the Jesuits some signal service declare against his old friends and their old enemies the Nonconformists and perhaps by that wile he might in the
as they should ever offer to rebel Non licet Christianis c. says Bellarmine it is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an Heretick if he indeavour â—o draw his Subjects into Heresie And if you would know how Christian Papists in England and some parts of Germany can be excused from neglect of duty Dominicus Bannes will â—ell you because that generally they have not power to make such Wars against Princes and great dangers are â—mminent over them however an Apology might easily be framed out of Bellarmine in the place fore-quoted quod si Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem Dioclesianum Julianum Apostatam Valentem Arianum similes fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis If Christians in former times did not depose Nero Dioclesian Julian the Apostate and Valens the Arian and such like it was because temporal forces were wanting unto Christians nor may it with any colour of Justice be pleaded that Bellarmine Bannes Mariana Suarez c. be but private Doctors unless it be firstly made appear that the Roman Church might and has legally reversed the foresaid Lateran Decree and anathematised the persons and opinions of these and such like as Heretical however Captain Robert carries it throughout like a man that is indeed an Heretick for while a Protestant he did act as a rebellious Traytor and now being turn'd Papist will needs profess himself a Loyal Subject both in their several times apparently against his own principles The sixth reason against the Scriptures being a Rule examined THe sixth reason I meet with was whatsoever is a sole and sufficient rule Pag. 42. must be plain and clear in all necessary points at least which relate unto faith or the Means by which salvation is to be had which the Scripture is not and above all things it must not contradict it self which the Scripture seems to do To prove this I shall give some few instances which I think can never be infringed The man comes here home to the point waves his impertinent sophistical jumbling in of Judge and Guide and most industriously indeavours to prove from the Scriptures deficiency and obscurity that it is not the sole sufficient Rule nor is it any marvel that we find him now so serious and earnest for if this argument fail all his other seven Antiscriptural reasons come to nothing with it for though Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists c. should disagree in matters of Faith raise different senses to serve their several interests cannot all of them understand and some of them do desperately wrest several places to their own destruction the Scripture supposed plain and clear in all necessary points the fault and folly is their own The Scripture all this notwithstanding may and does still remain as it was a sole sufficient Rule or if some Books be lost all Copies corrupted and several Texts mistranslated yet what 's this to the purpose while we can and shall evince that the Books we at present have are so intire the Copies so pure and the Translations so true that all points necessary at least be therein plain and clear nor will it avail to tell us of the Primitive Christians consulting with the Apostles and that it is all one to judge by our own reason and by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason For we might suppose the Apostles with all their Authority now in being go and consult with them or in their absence with the Pastors of the several Churches as the great Moderators of all controversies and yet the Scriptures if plain and clear still remain a sole sufficient Rule according to which the controversies might and ought to be decided Nor need we in this case be troubled with interpreting of Scriptures according to our own reason sith 't is supposed and shall be proved that the Scripture is so clear in all necessary points that it needs no interpretation though yet you may take notice by the way that to judge by our own reason as the only rule is not the same with judging by a Law to be interpreted by our own reason as one special means your Argument would perhaps strike at that but this is all that in any case we practise and so do because Christ bids us search the Scriptures and the Apostle adds judge ye what I say comparing spiritual things with spiritual however sith the faith or means by which salvation is to be had is a believing on Christ the foundation as hath been said not a believing of just so many as you or others are pleased to call fundamental points If the Scriptures be plain and clear as without peradventure they are in their testifying of him according to Joh. 5.40 they are plain and clear in what necessarily relates to Faith or the means by which Salvation is to be had according to John 20.31 and consequently what ever becomes of all the other whether necessary or unnecessary points may be a sole sufficient Rule according to the tendency of this your present discourse the seeming contradictions shall after your infringible instances come now to be discussed Pag. 42. That they are not plain and clear as aforesaid consider all Christians generally except some few do agree that the Sacraments of the Gospel are necessary in order to Salvation Now as to these the Scriptures are so far from being clear that they do not so much as denominate what a Sacrament is how many Christ ordained or whether there be any Sacrament or not First All Christians may agree that the Sacraments are necessary and yet they not be so for it 's Christs saying that they are not at all the Christians agreeing that can make them necessary Did not all Christians generally agree for six hundred years together that the Eucharist was necessary for Infants and yet now the Church concludeth otherwise But 2. it is here granted that some Christians deny the Sacraments of the Gospel to be necessary and if some may be Christians and yet deny the necessity of Sacraments it 's an argument sufficient that they are not necessary Nor indeed does the man assert that Sacraments be simply necessary but qualifies it with in order to Salvation and limits it to Sacraments of the Gospel perhaps he may think there be two ways whereby God brings his people to Salvation one ordinary with and the other extraordinary without Sacraments nor shall I say more of that but tell him that if Women and Male Children under the Law might much more the Catechumeni and Infants under the Gospel may be saved by grace without Sacraments to confer or convey it 3. Though it be not the Scripture mode to observe Logick rules in framing definitions nor always Arithmetical in making up of accounts Yet is the nature and end of these Ordinances we call Sacraments described in Scripture so far as is meet for us to know The number numbred Baptism and the Lords-supper said
property of a Rule And yet 3. The Church diffusive is not capable either of explaining or of being demanded to explain its own sense Council or Church representative there has been none at your own account for a whole Century of years nor likely to be any more and it cannot be imagined that by Church you should mean the Pope because other reasons at present omitted you referr to a Church always in being However 4. Frustra est potentia quae non reducitur in Actum What are we nearer having or the Church nearer being a Rule of Faith for her being capable of doing that which by no means she 'l be gotten to do Often has she been demanded I now demand and desire you to demand her to explain her self touching the points forementioned as also touching those after instanced in the close of my answer to the third Querie and if she do explain her sense as to those points we shall conclude that hitherto she hath not been a sole sufficient Rule for want of that explanation if she do not at the best she 'l be but remotely capable of being hereafter and at present be no Rule of Faith nor yet indeed is she capable at this account of being hereafter or rather would you speak properly making such a Rule because disenabled by the first general Council at Ephesus from ever making tanquam de fide any such an explanation Can. 7. That there are in the Scriptures several places which to common reason seem contradictions and consequently some parts of Scripture seem untrue is easily proved And I shall here give you some few plain instances for example to which many more might be added First It 's well you distinguish betwixt private and common Reason for though you exempt each mans private Spirit or Reason from meddling about interpreting of Scriptures you 'l sure admit common Reason to be of special use unless you 'l say that Reason ought to be abused for finding out of contradictions in Scriptures but must by no means be employed either in unfolding or reconciling the difficult places that occur therein Secondly Either Reason can judge of things and propositions when contradictory or not if not wherefore do you tell stories of several places seeming to common Reason to contradict one another so seeming that thereupon Scripture must be rejected from being a Rule and if Reason can thus judge wherefore should not your Church be rejected from being a Rule as well as Scriptures sith her Doctrines seem to Reason and often to common Sense too to be more contradictory than any of these Texts A Council is above the Pope A Council is not above the Pope hoc this scilicet bread or nothing is the body is really Christs body at London at Rome on Earth in Heaven the very same moment Every man is a lyar The Pope as Pope is a man unless he be either Accidens or animal irrationale and yet the Pope as Pope is no lyar in no possibility to be mistake Nay further these very places you say seem contradictory your Church teaches to be certainly true in her Authoritative approval of the Canon of Scripture so that if upon this account you 'l reject Scripture upon the same account you may must reject the Church from being a Rule and yet rather the Church than the Scripture for the Scripture barely presents us with the places your Church passeth sentence says they are all true unless you 'l tell us your Churches saying can make contradictions true at once and warrant you to believe it howbeit Gods saying cannot do so Thirdly Had you had many more plain instances it is not like you would have troubled the Reader with these your task is to prove that the Scripture is not plain and clear in all necessary points and is it not then for want of some more pertinent that you present us with doubts and difficulties about Chronologies and Genealogies concerning which the Apostle forbids us to dispute you had better have said with the great Master of Reason Grotius afflatu Dei locutos quae locuti sunt scripsisse quae scribere jussi sunt Prophetas de scriptis Historicis Moralibus Hebraeorum sententiis aliud puto In 2 Kings chap. 8. verse 26. you read thus Pag. 45. Twenty two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem and his Mothers name was Athaliah the Daughter of Omri But 2 Chron. chap. 22. verse 2. you will read thus Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem his Mothers name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri Now against the infallibility of Scripture Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demonstration viz. No one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other can be said to be infallible in speaking but to affirm of the same person that he began to reign when he was two and twenty years old and that he was two and forty years old when he began to reign is to speak two things the one contrary to the other therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking First I am glad to find you in hand with infallible demonstrations for if demonstrations Theological be to be had and may be owned as infallible I hope there will be no great need amongst sober persons of your judicial Decisions unless you can get licence to demonstrate against and we neither for by nor from the Scriptures Secondly Your Major is denyed for heat and cold are two things contrary one to another and yet I hope God himself may be infallible notwithstanding he hath said Summer and Winter heat and cold Gen. 8.22 You would say if you could speak No one that delivereth two propositions the one contrary to the other can be said to be infallible though yet this will not do neither for you your self might speak and write too these two propositions Ahaziah began to reign when he was forty and two years old And Ahaziah began to reign when he was twenty and two years old and yet this notwithstanding did nothing else hinder be infallible But that it may be sense and pertinent your Major must be supplied from your Minor No one that affirms two things of the same person that are contrary the one to the other can be said to be infallible in speaking But to affirm of Ahaziah that he was twenty and two years old when he began to reign and that he was forty and two years old when he began to reign is to speak two things contrary the one to the other yes and more too or else nothing to the purpose scilicet to affirm of the same person two things contradictory one to the other See Light-foots Harmony in â—oc which yet this Scripture doth not for the Book of Chronicles in this place meaneth not that Ahaziah was so old when he began to Reign but these
two and forty years have relation to another thing namely to the Kingdom of the House of Omri and not to the Age of Ahaziah for count from the beginning of the reign of Omri and you find Ahaziah to enter his Reign in the two and fortieth year from thence The Original words therefore Ben arbagumi Vshethaiim Shunah are not to be translated as they be Ahaziah was two and forty years old but Ahaziah was the Son of the two and forty years as Sedar Olam hath acutely observed long ago nor should you tell us now of our different translations unless it could be made appear that the Church in all ages had and of necessity ought to have one authentick Translation Or Secondly that our Translations do not clearly and with one consent deliver to us all points necessary to be believed differing only in some punctilio's of an inferiour concern Or Thirdly That it may not be as lawful for us to propose what seems agreeable to Reason for the removing as 't is for you to urge what seems contradictory to Reason for the raising of objections against a book of Scripture so universally received for Canonical And your Minor thus mended is denyed for contradictories must be ad idem in the same respect as well as de eodem See Peter Martyr in loc concerning the same person Ahaziah began to reign with his sickly infirm Father when he was twenty and two years old and the same Ahaziah was forty and two years old when he began to reign himself alone or if this will not satisfie you may consult with your own Cornelius de lapide upon the place he 'l tell you of the Syriack and Arabick Translations both those of Antioch or Mount Sinai the Alexandrian or Coptick that for forty two have twenty two and he that is offended at the other may use this reading Nor is it saith he the interpreters but the Scripture it self that corrects it self corrupted by the Transcribers The book of Kings corrects the book of Chronicles nor need we go further than Scripture for salving of the other difficulties for 1 Chron. 3.16 will teach you to insert Joechim or Jachim betwixt Josias and Jeconiah Mat. 1.11 and so compleat your number of forty two and Gen. 10.22 will tell you to put out Cannai from betwixt Sem and Arphaxad put in upon special Reason as is conceived by the Seventy See Light-foots Harmony in loco and retained as is likely by S. Luke chap. 3.36 the better to win upon the Gentiles The Argument from Heaven for the Roman Churches being Judge and Guide solved ANd now that I may conclude my whole proof with an Argument from Heaven Pag. 74. and by a Testimony of the highest nature make it evident to you that this Roman Catholick Church must be this Church which God hath appointed to be this Guide and Judge I shall insist upon the gift of Miracles this was that Testimony which our blessed Redeemer did himself produce as his Letters of Credence and as both necessary and sufficient to prove his mission If I had not saith our Lord Joh. 15.24 done among them the works that no other man did they had not had sin namely in not believing me to be the Messiah God therefore hath decreed it as a Law that whosoever refuseth to believe and submit unto that authority unto which he sets his hand and Seal by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles that Person committeth sin the reason is given in the same Text viz. because he thereby sheweth that he hateth God namely by not believing him Now I urge But the Roman Catholick Church hath done Works and Miracles amongst us such as no other Christian Church upon Earth hath done Therefore if we give credit to any other Church or Churches and disbelieve or refuse to believe her we shall have sin and shew our selves to be haters of God First You pretend here to conclude your proof with an argument from Heaven and yet have you not hiththerto produced so much as one Testimony of the lowest nature somewhat you have said indeed which is already touched to prove what we grant scilicet that no other Church can be but have not said a word to make good what you your self affirm viz. that the Roman Church is this infallible Rule Judge and Guide And let me tell you by the way either you can prove this your Church infallible or you cannot If you cannot wherefore should we believe it If you can either by Revelation or by Reason Divine revelation it 's apparent you neither do can nor attempt to produce and as for Reason you have already proved it to be fallible so that at best how much soever you may seem to be taken with your own fallacies your Church can be proved but fallibly to be infallible But Secondly There is a difference betwixt the gift and the power of working Miracles You do it 's true insist upon the gift but should make it out that your Church has power of working Miracles if you 'l evince her Christ-like to be infallible this was necessary that had not been sufficient to have proved his mission It is therefore somewhat loose arguing for you to conclude the Jews committed sin were haters of God for not believing Jesus to be the Messiah who did amongst them the work which no other man did viz. wrought Miracles by his own power and therefore Christians commit sin shew themselves haters of God in not believing the Roman Church to be infallible because she has the gift can do works howbeit none among us like other men viz. work Miracles in the name and power of another And hence Thirdly We deny Gods having decreed any such a Law as you tell of 1 Sam. 10. Numb 11. for though an Authority to which God sets his hand and seal by bestowing on it the gift of Miracles may be rendred thereby like that of Saul and the Seventy by the spirit of Prophecy more than ordinary venerable and whosoever refuseth to believe and submit to an Authority knowing it to work Miracles by its own power that person committeth sin and sheweth himself an hater of of God yet may an Authority divinely signed and sealed by having that gift be disbelieved however submission still due whether it have the gift or not without contracting any such a guilt not disbelieved do I mean in a particular Doctrine that it shall actually and visibly confirm by Miracles but disbelieved when teaching it self and all other Authorities that have that gift to be disbelievable upon that account or de debito believed in all that they should dictate forth unto us That being indeed a Doctrine never confirmed by Miracles nor delivered by him that had the power of working of them Though yet Fourthly It cannot be made out that Christ did set his hand and seal either to this or that Authority by bestowing on it any such a gift for particular believers
had that gift bestowed upon them as well as the Apostles these signs shall follow them that believe c. Mark 16.17 Nor did the Apostles work Miracles by virtue of their Authority but by Faith If ye have Faith as a grain of Mustard-seed c. Matt. 17.20 And though I have all Faith c. 1. Cor. 13.2 And when Peter saw it he answered unto the People Ye men of Israel why marvel ye at this or why look ye so earnestly on us as though we by our own Power and Holiness had made this man to walk His name through Faith in his name hath made this man strong c. yea the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all Act. 3.12 16. And hence sure it is that in your Minor you leave out Authority mention neither Seal nor Gift but barely urge and assume Now the Roman Catholick Church hath done c. not now God hath set his hand and seal to the Authority of the Roman Catholick Church by bestowing upon it the gift of Miracles Nor is it any marvel that you do so for if that gift were bestowed upon that Authority the Pope and Council that are invested with it should work Miracles which yet they do not nor do you insist on any such a thing and yet if that gift be not bestowed upon that Authority it cannot bestow â—t upon inferiour Officers it wants Gods Hand and Seal and may according to the tenor of your own Argument be disbelieved be disobeyed without either committing sin or shewing hatred against God However 5. If a Church may properly be said to work Miracles when yet indeed it is not the Church but some particular believer that works them and that not in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ Other Christian Churches have done as great Works or Miracles in former Ages as the Roman Church ever did witness the Church of Corinth that came behind in no gift 1 Cor. 1.7 and yet were not they reputed thereupon either Judges of controversies or infallible nor does the present Roman Church do any greater Works or Miracles than other Christian Churches now on earth What does she what can she do here amongst us more than our Protestant Church doth amongst you save make louder lying boasts of what she has done elsewhere And therefore shall not we refuse to believe them or resolve to give credit unto her upon any such account and conclude our so doing to be warrantable and well enough consistent with the love we owe unto the Lord wishing you yet withal to remember That the Question is not solely or chiefly whether this or that Church ought to be believed or disbelieved in their Doctrinal teaching but whether the Roman Church be the infallible Rule Judge and Guide of Faith Doctrinal certainty will not infer Judicial Authority nor è contra Nay suppose your Church were Doctrinally infallible and had universal Jurisdiction yet would it not necessarily follow that she is the Rule of Faith The Prophets of old you will say were infallible and the High Priests had judicial power and yet to the Law and to the Testimony Isaiah 8.20 It was therefore prudently done of you to alter the Question First leave out Rule and undertake to prove no more by your Argument from Heaven but that the Roman Church was Judge and Guide and then finding after a while that that would not do neither you leave out Judge or Authority and tell us of believing and disbelieving as if it would follow The Roman Church ought to be believed in all that she says and therefore has she plainly said all that we ought to believe is a Rule of Faith compleat and evident howbeit indeed had she authoritatively and infallibly so said not she but her sayings in propriety of Speech were to be owned for the Rule Now that the Roman Church hath done these works or Miracles P. 76. is a thing so evident both by the testimonies of the Holy Fathers and authorities of approved Historians that those who deny it must shew themselves either not to be Men or Men who purposely shut their Eyes against the truth yea Heathens and Atheists will be as justifiable in their denial of the Miracles related in the Old and New Testament as those will be who deny these The Magdeburgenses who were all professed and known Lutherans do almost in every one of their Centuries recount multitudes of Miracles wrought by persons whom they affirm to have been infected with what they call Popery Namely S. Bernard S. Malachy S. Dominick S. Francis and the like as you may particularly see in Brerely if you examine the several places to which his Index at the word Miracles will refer you By which it will appear That most of those Miracles were done not in confirmation of those Points and Articles of Faith which you hold with us but even of those Points and Doctrines which you call Popish Superstitions and Idolatries as the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass the respect and veneration which is given to Saints Reliques Images c. Certainly there are few amongst you but have heard and read how and what Christian Faith was first brought into England amongst our Progenitors the Saxons and by whom brought in It was by S. Austin a Monk of S. Benets Order and his fellow Monks sent hither by S. Gregory the then Pope of Rome and it was the same Faith that Catholicks now teach which was then confirmed by wonderful Miracles from Heaven as is testified by our own Writers Venerable Bede and others yea and by our Protestant Chronologies Holingshead's Chronicle the last Edition Vol. 1. Book 5. Cap. 21. Page 100 102. Fox's Acts and Monuments Printed Anno 1576. Pag. 117. Stow's Annals Printed 1592. Pag. 66. Goodwin in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England Pag. 4. Also Fox in his aforesaid Book at the Word Miracles in the Index To this I shall add the Authorities of our own late Protestant Writers for proof of undoubted Miracles wrought in this latter Age. In the Book entituled A report of the Kingdom of Congo a Region of Africa Printed Anno 1597. Published by Mr. Abraham Hartwel Servant to the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury mention is made Lib. 1. Cap. 1. of the discovery of that Kingdom 1587. by Odoardo Lopez and of the conversion thereof to the Christian Faith Lib. 2. Cap. 2. and of the great and undoubted Miracles shewed by God in the presence of a whole Army Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Insomuch that the said Hartwell in his Epistle there to the Reader confesseth That this conversion of Congo was accomplished by Massing Priests after the Romish manner and saith he this action which tendeth to the glory of God shall it be concealed and not committed to memory because it was performed by Popish Priests and Popish means God forbid In like manner Mr. John Pory of Gonvile and Cajus Colledge in