transubstantiation nothing occurres butfrom sense Then you pull downe Faith place sense in her place Tantae molis erat sanctum subvertere dogma The my steryes about God Christ say you are exalted above the reach of our facultyes But reason it selfe teacheth that it must be soe Here Faith is above reason But after wards pag. 134. Our faith rests on the evidences our senses give Here Faith doeshomage to sense Faith (a) Heb. 11.1 is an argument of things which appeare not Soe that it relyes not on senses for its object doth not appeare nor on Reason otherwise it would be science if the reason be evident or opinion if it were uncertaine Soe it relyes only on Gods veracity which consists of two qualityes one that he cannot be deceived being omniscient The other that he cannot deceive being good Nether is possible to God for to be deceived is an error in the understanding to deceive argues malice in the will Soe the assurance we have by Faith is greater then that of our senses which may be baffled greater then that of Reason which sometimes is mistaken in its principles ofter deceived in its deductious from them Thus (a) Rom. 3.4 God is tru every man alyer which later part imports a possibility oferror in our cleerest operations whither of sense or Reason To say that Faith rests on the evidence of senses as you doe p. 134. is soe contrary to the nature of faith that both Divines Phylosophers doubt whither the same object (b) S. Thom. 2.2 q. 1. ar 4. s. can beseene beleived generally speaking deny the possibility of it And to what our B. Savioursaid (c) 10.20.29 because thou hast seene me thou hast beleived They answer with S. Gregory Aliud vidit aliud credidit He saw man beleived him to be God To what purpose then are miracles if Faith doth not rely on them ANS To dispose our understanding to receive with attention submissiō the word of God by shewing it was God who spoke And when Christ appeales to his workes If (a) 10.10.38 I donot the workes of my father doe not beleive me but if I doe them if you will not beleive me beleive the workes he assignes only the out ward motive of Beleife by which his hearers were ether drawne to beleive or made inexcusable if they persistedin their incredulity Now it is the grossest errour imaginable to think that faith rests on all those things which dispose to it otherwise it would rest on the skill in tongues which is necessary to understand the originall Scriptures item on the masters who teach them on the stationer who prints them c. But what if the man who confirmes his mission by evident miracles teach things contrary to sense or Reason ANS Our duty is to silence both these harken to him (b) 2 Cor. 10. The Armes of our warfare are not carnall but myghty through God to the pulling downe of strong holds casting downe imaginations every hygh thing that exalts its selfe against the knowledge of God bringing into captivity every thought Who says every thought cōprehend's both those grounded on sense others more speculative But to say as you doe that Reason must be subject to Faith but not senses is very preposterously to put reason the mistresse under faith sense the servant above it You declame against Catholicks for acknowledging in the whole Church an authority in order to the word of God much lesse then that which you give to the senses of every particular man What an occasion doe you give us to returne uppon you all your declamations G.B. p. 134. We cannot really doubt but things are as they appeare to us for we cannot beleive it midnyght when we see cleerely the sun in our meridian ANS We should not doubt of what God says who we are sure cannot tell a lye We perceive dayly the Halluzinations of our understanding J am sure sometimes my senses are mistaken my reason corrects them All man is a Lyar every knowing faculty in him is subject to Deceite God cannot tell me it is midnyght when it is noone day because he cannot tell a lye But if God should tell me it is midnyght my eyes should represent to me a luminous body in the meridian perfectly like the sun I should suspect my eyes or guesse I saw a meteor or that I dreamed or raved or were yet in a worse condition The least last of my thoughts would be that God told a lye which is the first thought you suggest G.B. p. 135. Senses unvitiated fixing on aproper object through a due meane are infallible ANS Are they more infallible then God Are we infallibly certain all those conditions concurre may there not be more ways to delude oursenses then are discovered may there not be some latent defect in the Organ unperperceived by us or some want in the meane Answer to these questions withall tell me whiter you have as greate certainty of your answer to these queryes as you have of the veracity of God With more colour another may say that faith cannot be against Reason with Socinus refuse to beleive any thing contrary to discourse soe turne Antitrinitarian I think my self as assuredly certain of that metaphysicall Principle eadem uni tertio sunt idem inter se as of any thing I know by senses yet knowing what Christ hath taught concerning the Blessed Trinity I beleive that explicate that principle as I can why should we not proceede in like manner with oursenses when they seeme to contradict what Christ hath taught we are commanded to (a) Mat. 18.8.9 put out an eye cut off a hand or foote if it draws us to sin What shall we doe if they draw us to Infidelity or doe you think it unlawfull to keepe them yet lawfull to follow their suggestions deny our Faith in obedience to their depositions Heape up then your absurdityes your impossibilityes your incredibilityes your sophismes against Transubstantiation to as greate a bulke as your little studyes lesse diseretion will permit you will only multiply proofes of the insolency folly of the Reason of man which dares enter the lists against the Truth of God G.B. pag. 136. It is little lesse unconcevable to imagin that a man of no eximious sanctity nor extraordinary skill in Divinity should have the Holy Ghost at his command that his decrees must be the dictates of the spirit ANSWER I passe that disrespectfull expression having the Holy Ghost at his command No Catholick everspoke so Doe you think the assistance of the Holy Ghost whence flows all jurisdiction both spirituall temporall is restrained to only saints learned clerks doth Prelate Prince loose their jurisdictiō by every mortall sin Was Amos the sheepe heard a greate divine were Salomon Cayphas greatesaints were the Scribes Pharisyes such whose words all
his humble applications to God bowing to him lifting up his hands to the throne of Grace Heb. 4.16 ro receive thence Mercy then turne to the People to powre it uppon them Thus on Jacobs Ladder the Angells appeared going up downe up to God downe to Jacob a type of what Preists doe when they officiate But he gives them a short Barbariais Benedidiction That Benediction which you a very civilized person disdaine as Barbarous is taken out of Scripture the words of an Angel to Gedeon Judges 6.12 Our Lord be with you Dominus vobiscum Scripture it selfe cannot escape your censure if a Papist use it Your contempt of the language of Angels in this world will scarce make you worthy of their company in the next G. B. page 35. After Adoration the God is to be devoured by the Preist which made the Arabian say Christians were fooles who devoured what they adored ANS Aworthy authority for a King's chaplain in ordinary to build uppon Sir Christ sayd Take eate this is my body Because he says it is his body we adore it because he commands us to take eate it we obey do so But a Turk says it is foolish Let it be soe no Turk's opinion is the rule of my faith Is it of yours Is not this Prodigious that against the expresse words of Christ the practice of the whole Church the authority of a Turk should be brought nay preferred before it this by a minister G. B. pag. 38. Rome enioines severer censures on the violation of these ceremonyes then on the greatest transgressions against either the morall or positive Laws of God ANSWER I know no motive you can have for advancing such notorious untruths but that of Cicero Cum semel limites verecundiae transieris oportet gnaviter esse impudentem You have past those bounds there I leave you CHAPTER XIII Scripture the Church where Of the Resolution of Faith G.B. pag. 41. Papists call the Scriptures a nose of wax the sourse of all Heresyes c. ANS If any Roman Catholick compared Scripture to a nose of wax it is only because the letter may be wrested to different senses made to lookenot that way which the Holy Ghost designed but that which men's Passions leade them to The world affords not amore convincing instance of this flexibility of Scriptures then that of your owne Brethren in the late troubles who brought it to countenance Sedition Rebellion Heresy Murther the horriblest of all Murthers Parricide the killing of the father of the Country Did Scripture of it selfe Looke towards or abet all those crying sins nosure it condemnes them formally It can then be wrested from its owne naturall sense to another meaning contrary to it which is all that is meant by that phrase As for its being a sourse of Heresyes it is not tru that Scriptures doe found heresyes or that heresyesspring out of them but that men draw heresyes out of the words of Scriptures taken in a sense quite contrary to that of the holy Ghost G. B. pag. 41. Papists will have all the authority of the Scriptures to depend on the Church A greate difference is to be made betwixt the testimony of a witnesse the authority of a Iudge The former is not denyed to the Church ANS Here you grant to the Church as much as we desire provided you owne in this witnesse such a veracity as the nature of its Testimony requires to bring us to a certaine undoubted beleife of the Scriptures The Church never tooke uppon her the title of Iudge of Scripture In her Councils she places in the middle of the assembly a hygh Throne as for Christ in it sets the holy Ghospels as his word according to which she Judges of the Doctrine controverted Conc. Calced Act. 1. Soe she judges by Scriptures of the Doctrine of men but doth not Iudge of the Scriptures themselves At the first admission of a writing into the Canon of Scriptures the Church proceding is of another nature A writing is brought to her as writen by a man Divinely assisted of S. Paul for example to the Romans by Phebe or to Philemon by a fugitive servant Onesimus nether as a witnesse give any greate credit to the writing they brought The Pastors of the flocke of Christ consider the writings examin the messengers recurre to God by Prayer to demand the assistance of his Holy Spirit to know whither he were truly the Authour of the writing exhibited If after all these meanes used to discover the Truth they remaine convinced the thing was writen by inspiration of the Holy Ghost they obey it themselve command obedience to it as to the word of God use it as a Rule of Faith manners Soe when an unknowne person brings into a corporation a new Patent as of the King's Majesty presents it to the Major He before he allows the Patentee to act in vertu of it with his Brethen considers the writing the signet the seale the stile c. to know whither it be counterfitte or sincere with a Resolution to obey it himselfe make others doe the same in case it appeare to be truly the Kings The Major cannot be sayd to Judge of the Kings Patents to which as a subject he owes obedience but only to discerne whither an unknowne writing be the Kings Patent or no. You say this makes the authority of Scriptures depend on the Church Which is as rationall as if you should say the authority of the King's Patent depends on the Major of a petty corporation because the Patent is exhibited to him before it be executed If any man hath soe little common sense as not to discerne the difference betwixt these two Propositions to Iudge of the Kings Patent to Iudge whither an unknowne writing be the Kings Patent I am to seeke how to helpe him This authority of the Church to recommend the Scriptures as an undeniable witnesse occasioned that saying of S. Augustin 1. contu Epist Fundam c. 5. Ego Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae commoveret authoritas I would not beleive the Ghospel did not the authority of the Catholick Church move me to it Which words are cited by all Catholick controvertists as containing an implicit decision of all one controversys they shewing evidently S. Autstin's discourse against the Manichees to be just the same which we use against the moderne Protestants that as we are heyres of that Faith which S. Austin the Church of his time defended against its Opposers the Ancient Hereticks soe are we of the titles by which they enjoyed it the armes with which they defended it I will put downe the whole discourse of S. Austin atlarge that soe we may the better understand his meaning more convincingly shew how much the most understanding of our Adversarys are out of the way in explicating it The thing sought for in that
never mentioned Manichaeus ergo the Church on whose word he received the Ghospel was that of his time not that of the Apostles When therefore E. S. pag. 220. says It is plain S. Austin meanes not the Iudgment of the present Church but of the Catholick Church as taking in all ages places he evidently contradicts the very text of S. Ausstin whence I conclude that ether he speakes against his conscience which I am unwilling to beleive or else which is more excusable that he had not reade the text which he understakes to explicate A third yet more improbable explication is delivered by W.L. pag. 82. He speakes it ether of Novices or doubters in the Faith or else of such as were in part Infidels Mr. Fisher the Iesuit at the conference would needs have it that S. Austinspake it even of the faithfull which I cannot yet thinke For he speakes to the Manichees they had a greate part of the Infidell in them And the words immediatly before these are If thou shouldst find one qui Evangelio non credit which did not beleive the Ghospel what wouldest thou doe to make him beleive Thus W. L. This is like wise plainly fals for S. Austin was nether a Novice nor a doubter in the faith nor in part an infidel when he writ that Booke for he writ it after he was made Bishop as you may see l. 2. retract c. 2. But he speakes of himselfe describes the ground of his owne faith ergo he doth not speake of Novices Doubters or halfe Infidels nor describes the ground of their fath but of those who are firme beleivers I prove that S. Austin speakes of his owne Faith shews the ground on which it relyed For first he says I would not beleive the Ghospel without the authority of Catholicks commending them Secondly he says If you weaken the authority of Catholicks I will reject the Ghospel This I beleive Mr. Stillingf saw therefore sayd pag. 220. If you extend this beyond Novices weaklings I shall not oppose you in it And I cannot think that W.L. had reade that place at least with attention when he writ he could not think S. Austin spake of the faithfull Stillingf pag. 220. Nether you nor any Catholick Author is able to prove that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible authority in the present Church Answer seing S. Austin expressely says he would renounce the Ghospel if the authority of Catholicks were weakened in him by discovering they had delivered any one lye he must ether think them exempt from all possibility of lying or else he adhered very loosely to the Ghospel I hope E.S. will not assert the later part wherefore he must grant that S. Austin thought the Church free from all possibility of errour Let us returne to Mr. G. B. G. B. pag. 43. Christ's prophetick office is invaded by the pretence of the Churches Infallibility in expounding Scriptures And why Good Sir should the infallibility in expounding Scriptures be an invasion of the prophetick office of Christ seing infallibility in writing them was no such thing Certainly it is more to compose a writing them to understand it as many can understand Cicero's speech pro Milone who cannot compose such an one And your old women pretend to understand severall parts of Scripture which yet I think will scarce undertake to pen the like By this Say you the whole anthority is devolved on the Church No more then it was on S. John when he writ his Ghospel or S. Paul composing his Epistles Nor soe much nether seing these were so assisted as to compose Holy Scripture when the Church only pretends to expound the word of God How doth such an assistance of the divine Spirit derogate from the infallibility of God from which it is derived But her exposition must be admitted say you though contrary to the sense As if Infallibility did not exclude all possibility of such a wrested exposition The infallibility of the Church may slyght your attempts whilest you are armed only with such straws We have seene you arguments Let us see your Answers to ours G. B. pag. 44. The Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church Mat. 16.18 Proves not the pretence of infallibility Why not learned Sir Not a word for that but as if you had forgotten what you were about your fall uppon the Inglish Translation of that text which you say deserres amendment And I will leave you to be taught better manners by your fellow Ministers or your mother the kirk of Scotland G. B. pag. 45 The spirit leading into all truth Joan. 16.13 advances not the cause a whit since that promise relates to all beleivers Here is another assertion without proofe as if we were bound to take your word Those words are part of the sermon after the last supper at which only the Apostles were present which was directed immediatly to them You should then give some reason why they relate to all beleivers althô spoken to only the Apostles G. B. The Church's being built on the Rocke Peter proves nothing for a series of Bishops of Rome seing the other Apostles were also foundations ANS If it proves all Bishops together Infallible firme in faith as a Rock it confounds your Reformation which is condemned by them all G. B. The keys of the Kingdome of Heaven Mat. 16.19 import no more then that Peter was to open the Ghospel When you shall give in a proofe we will consider it Till then I will beleive not you but Christ who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addes the office of the Keys to open shut not the Ghospel but Heaven by loosing binding sins G. B. pag. 46. It is certaine that vice as well as errpr os destrictove of Religion If then there be no authority for repressing of vice but that same of the discipline of the Church it is not incongruous there be no other authority for suppressing of error but that same of the discipline of the Church ANS It is certaine that both in the old new law severall persons have beene secured against Error who were subject to sin S. Peter was truly reprehensible (a) Gal. 2.11 for a thing he did not for any thing he writ or preacht The same of David of Salomon c. For this reason our Blessed Saviour commanded (b) Mat. 23.23 all to follow the Doctrine of the Scribes Pharisys because they sate on the chaire of Moyses but not their example Soe your question why God should provide more against error in faith then against vice in manners can find no place amongst Catholicks who are taught to adore God's holy will even when they understand it not to Bring (c) 2. Cor. 10.5 into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ To you who think it absurd to deny a man the use of his Reason in judging discerning all things submit even Divinely
of Traditions ANS You speake as dogmatically as if it were ex Tripode Here is an Assertion without any proofe soe is a convincing proofe that you have none Tradition is indeede our Sanctuary to which you have no claime By it we received 1. Scriptures 2. the sense of Scriptures which is their soul Now when Scriptures are doubtfull in any point or as you phrase it seeme not to reach home without Stretching can we have better assurance of their tru meaning then by the authority of the Church which is cleerely commended us in Scriptures themselves And in following her sense we are certain we follow Scriptures which is the discourse of S. Aug. l. 1. contra Crescon cap. penult Quamvis hujus rel de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum Scripturarum etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat auctoritas ut quoniam Sacra Scriptura fallere nonpotest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quostionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sin◠allâ ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat G. B. Ibidem Till it be proved that an errour could not creepe into the world that way we must be excused from beleiving ANS Unlesse you prove that errours have crept in that way you are inexcusable You actually rejected those things as errours which were in possession all over the world unlesse you prove them to be such your fact is criminall G. B. Ibidem It is not possible to know what Traditions came from the Apostles ANS Habemus hic confitentem reum For if it be impossible to know what Traditions were Apostolicall your Reformers act in rejecting soe many was rash inconsiderate They had beene better advised to retaine all as they found them in the Church them to cut them off But your proceedure is as different in this as in the rest from S. Austin For was any thing doubted of this Saint's methode was to consult the Church adhere to what shee beleived or practised as you see in his discourse above you consult the Church too but it is only to reject her practice condemne her sentiments The weyght of the authority of the Church may be sufficient to convince which are Apostolicall Traditions as it convinces which are Apostolicall writings Yet we have other signes I will instance in two one taken from S. Austin l. 4. de Bapt. contra Donat. cap. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Apostolicâ traditum auctoritate rectissimè creditur We ought to beleive those things to have come from the Apostles which the whole Church holds were not introduced by Councills but were always in use To prove this it is enough that the first persons who mention them speake of them not as of things newly begun but which were of ancient practice The second rule is taken out of Tertullian l. de praescript c. 28. Age nunc omnes erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de testimonio reddendo quibusdam nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus uti eam in veritatem induceret ad hoc missus est à Christo ad hoc postulatus de Patre ut esset Doctor veritatis neglexerit officium Dei villicus Christi vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter in terris intelligere aliter credere quà m ipse per Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est ut tot ac tantae Ecclesiae in unā fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus est unus exitus variasse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Coeterùm quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum Suppose says he that all churchs have erred that the Apostle was deceived in the testimony he gave to some the holy Ghost looked to none to leade it into truth to which intent he was sent by the son demanded of the father to be the Doctor of truth let the steward of God the Vicar of Christ neglect his duty permit the Churchs to understand beleive otherwise then he had taught by his Apostles Is it probable that all Churchs should by error fall into one the same opinion when there are soe many by ways those who loose the hygh way wonld scarce wander into the same error Soe that certainly what is sound one the same in many Churchs is no ertor newly invented but it is faith of old delivered Thus Tertullian Answer you to his discourse if you can G. B. pag. 108. A late ingenious writer whose sincere zeale had drawne censures on himself his booke tooke away to repayre his reputation by a new method of proving Popish doctrines that they had them from their Ancestors they from theirs But this pretence hath beene baffled by Mr. Claud as all know who have beene soe happy as to reade his workes ANSWER I am perswaded that your Prelates will scarce think it sincere zeale in Monsr Arnaud of him you speake that the stood out solong against his spirituall temporall Superiors But let that passe You discover your ignorance in saying that Method was new or that Arnaud invented it Mr. Tho. White had it before Arnaud Mr. Fisher a Jesuit before T. W. Bellarmin before him S. Austin S. Stephen Pope Tertullian before them all I have reade Mr. Claude's workes was far from finding soe much satisfaction as you promise your Reader I beleive rather uppon heare say then on your owne experience Nay I have from one of the eminentest wits of the french Hugenots that Claud was not much esteemed a mongst his owne for those workes which would have beene neglected had not Arnaud's enemys commended them You say Claud Bussled him others are of a different opinion I confesse Mr. Arnaud though very learned yet seemed not qualifyed to manage a controversy in defence of Church-Authority Tradition having as much as lay in him weakened both by his writings practice during the time he stood out against the Censure the Formula Which gave such advantage to Mr. Claude who industriously gathered together cunningly returned uppon him his owne arguments that some thought he foyled his adversary Yet without any prejudice to the Catholick cause which is not concerned in Mr. Arnaud's personall faylings Let us now heare what you can alleadge against the authority of Tradition to prove a change unobserved in our Faith G. B. p. 121. Weknow the chalice was taken from the people 250. yeares agoe ANS 1 ò You are mistaken in your epocha S. Th. 3. p. q. 8o a. 12. assures it was in his time taken away in many places he lived 400 yaeres ago from the beginning some persons on some occasions received but one species 2. This is an argument that changes cannot happen without some notice taken of them As in this we know when it begun with
can heare him The Divine Scriptures are hygh majesticall in the sense simple without affectation in word they are plaine yet in them are hygh Hills which no naturall wit can surmount They are perspicuous yet full of mysterious clouds which baffle the most peircing eye They are all Tru yet S. Austin (c) l. 3. cont Faust c. 2. Piè cogitantes tantae auctoritatis eminentiam latère ibi aliquid crediderunt quod petentibus daretur oblatrantibus negaretur takes notice of some seeming contradictions which cannot be reconciled with our recourse to God the Authour of scriptures Lesse is learnt by study then by Prayer if Prayer be accompanyed with humility The (d) Psal 18. or 19. 7. testimony of God is faithfull giving wisdome to the little ones or making wise the simple as the Inglish hath it And the Author of our faith glorifyes his Father (a) Mat. 11.25 for concealing his mysteryes from the learned wise revealing them to little ones S. Gregory furnishes us with a fit comparison (b) Greg. ep ad Leandrum c. 4. Instar fluminis alti plani in quo Agnus ambulet Elephas natet of a shallow deape river in which a lambe may wade an Elephant swimme That is in it the simple humble find ground to stand uppon which the Proud loose by it are lost The words are plaine easy but the sense sublime hard not to be reacht by humane industry but by Divine inspiration which is denyed to those who rely on their owne abilityes given to such as recurre to God No bookes of the Sybills nor oracles of the Divills or other humane writing can equall Divine Scripture in this point Another character of Divine Scriptures is the force which accompanyes them workes uppon the hart of those who are well disposed which insinuates its selfe into the will enflames it with the love of God breakeing in pieces the stony hart of sinners Art (c) Ierem. 23.29 not my words like fire like a hammer that breakes a Rocke No precepts of Pagan Phylosophers had this energy I will not assure you ever perceived ether of these two qualityes in reading of Scripture in your workes there appeares little signes of ether or of the disposition which they suppose CHAPTER VI. Scriptures Supprest G. B. Pag. 13. Scriptures being the Revelation of the whole counsell of God written by plaine simple men as first directed to the use of the rude illitterate vulgar for teaching them the mysterye of Godlinesse the path of life it is a shrewd indication that if any study to kide this lyght under a candlestick to keepe it in an unknowne tongue or forbid the body of Christians the use of it that those must be conscious to themselves of greate deformity to that rule ANSWER Here you begin your charge of AntiChristianisme against your mother-Church as the charge is false soe in your managing it you mingle many Errours with some few truths A bad cause is not capable of a better defence I will take notice of some of your most considerable slips leave the reader to Judge of the rest That Scriptures were written by plaine simple men is not tru Was Moses such who was learned in all the learning of the Aegyptians Was David the swette singer of Israel a plaine simple man What shall we say of Salomon to whose wonderfull knowledge the Scripture it selfe beares witnesse Amos it is true was but Esayas was not nor Daniel nor Samuel And who ever was Author of the Booke of Job he was certainly far from being plaine simple for in him are found in perfection Phylosophy Astrology Divinity as a queene gouverning them if Caussinus the Jesuit may be beleived as compleate Rhetorick as in any whosoever And as to the Authors of the new Testament as long as S. Paul S. Luke S. John are amongst them you will never perswade the learned part of the world that your speech is not rash inconsiderate But suppose it tru that they were all plaine simple men what then Doth it follow that what they writ is easy to the meanest capacity for that you intend if you intend any thing Doe you not know that these men were only the Scribes of the Holy Ghost that in a scribe capacity of understanding is not necessary but only fidelity in writing No greate science is necessary in a Printer who only Prints what is given him by an Author the Same of a Scribe who writes what is dictated unto him Now all Authors of Canonicall bookes are the Scribes of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soe their doctrine is to be calculated according to the Meridian of that Divine Spirit not of their qualitys Take the most plaine simple of them all (a) Amos 1.1 the herd man of Thecue reade him over if you say you understand him quite thorough I will say you have confidence to say any thing G. B. pag. 14. The hardests part of Scripture are the writings of the old Testament yet those were communicated to all ANSWER Some parts of the new are as hard at any of the old viz. the Apocalypse some parts of S. Paul's Epistle are hard to be understood (b) 2. Pet 3.16 Likewise Is it not tru that all the writings of the old Testament were made common to all the Israelits The King (c) Deut. 17.18 was indeed commanded to write to himself a copy of the law out of that which was before the Preists the Levits By which it appeares that even Copyes of the law were not soe ordinary Which may be gatheted also out of the 4. of Kings c. 22. there was such astonishment at the finding reading of the booke of the law newly found in the Temple The tencommandments were common the Pharisys Phylacteryes prove it As for the rest it was divided into Parashots sections read unto the People when they met on the Sabboth as you may see Acts 15.21 And in the second of Esdras cap. 8. And the Same custome is still in the Cat. Church which in her service doth dayly reade some of the new old Testament G. B. pag. 14. What paynes are taken by Papists to detract from the Authority of Scriptures how they quarrel its darknesse its ambiguousnesse the genuinesse of its Originalls ANSWER This is a calumny We all unanimously owne Scripture to be the word of God that no untruth can be found in it Out of its darknesse Ambiguity we shew the necessity of receiving its sense from Tradition not sticking to the bare letter of the Scripture without the sense which is to the letter what a soul is to the body G. B. pag. 15. We complaine of Scripture being too much perused ANSWER Another calumny In all our universitys we have masters of Scriptures who in those I know take place of