Oecumenical Bishop, and an Infallible Judge of Controverfies, are thought abfolutely neceffary to the Unity of the Church, and Certainty of Faith, and confounding of Schifms and Herefies. If there be not a Supreme Paftor, there can be no Unity; if there be not an Infallible Judge, there can be no certainty in Religion; every man must be left to his own private Judgment, and then there will be as many different Religions, as there are Faces. Now if I thought all this were true, (as I believe not a word of it is) I fhould onely conclude, that it is great pity that there is not an Univerfal Paftor and Infallible Judge inftituted by Chrift; but if you would have me conclude from thefe Premifes, Ergo, there is an Univerfal Bishop and Head of the Church. and an Infallible Judge of Controverfies, I must beg your pardon for that; for fuch Arguments as these do not prove, that there is fuch a Judge, but only that there ought to be one, and therefore I muft conclude no more. from them. Indeed this is a very fallacious way of Reafoning, because what we may call ufeful, convenient, necessary, may not be fo in it felf; and we have reason to believe it is not fo, if God have not appointed what we think fo ufeful, convenient, or neceffary: which is a truer and more modest way of Reafoning, than to conclude that God has appointed fuch a Judge, when no fuch thing appears, onely, because we think it so useful and neceffary, that he ought to do it. These Directions are fufficient. to Preferve all confidering Protestants from being impofed on by the fallacious Reafonings of Papists.

2%

L

SECT. II.

Concerning Scripture-Proofs.

Et us now confider their Scripture-Proofs, though it is not choice, but neceffity, which puts them upon this Tryal: When they have good Catholicks to deal with, a little Scripture will ferve the turn, but Hereticks will be fatisfied with nothing else; and therefore in difputing with them, they are forced to make fome little fhew and appearance of proving their Doctrines by Scripture; but they come very unwillingly to it, and make as much of a little, as may be. The truth is, there is Evidence enough, that they have no great confidence in the Scripture themselves, and therefore do not deal honeftly and fairly with poor Hereticks, when they make their boasts of Scripture.

For did they believe that their Doctrines which they endeavour to prove from Scripture, were plainly and evidently contained in them, why should they deny the People the liberty of reading the Scriptures? If the Scriptures be for them, why fhould they be against the Scriptures? The common Pretence is, that those who are unlearned, put very wild fences upon Scripture, and expound it by their own fancies; which in many cases indeed is too true: but why fhould the Church of Rome be more afraid of this, than other Proteftant Churches? If they think the Scripture is as much for them, as we think it is for us, why dare not they venture this as well as we? We are not afraid men fhould read the Scripture, though we see what wild Interpretations fome put on them, because we are certain we can prove our Faith by Scripture, and are able to satisfie all honest men, who

will

:

will impartially ftudy the Scriptures, that we give the true fence of them; and if they believed, they could do fo too, why do they avoid this tryal, when ever they can? For though they admit People to difpute from the Scripture in England, where they cannot help it, yet they will not allow them so much as to fee the Scriptures in Italy or Spain, where they have power to hinder it Nay they themselves do in effect confefs, that the peculiar Doctrines and Practices of their Religion, wherein they differ from all other Chriftian Churches, cannot be proved by Scripture. And therefore to help them out, where the Scripture fails, they fly to unwritten Tradi tions, which they make of equal authority with the Seriptures themselves; which they would never do, were they not convinced, that the Scriptures are not fo plain on their fide, as to fatisfie any man, who has not already given himself up to the Church of Rome with an implicite Faith.

And therefore, before you enter into any debate about the fence of any particular Texts of Scripture, and their way of proving their particular Doctrines from Scripture, ask them two Queftions, without a plain Answer to which, it is to no purpose to difpute with them out of Scripture.

Ask 1. Whether they will allow the Holy Scriptures to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith; that no Christian ought to receive any Doctrine for an Article of Faith, which cannot be proved from Scripture? This to be fure they must not allow, unless they will reject the Council of Trent, which gives as venerable an Authority to Tradition, as to Scripture it felf: Since then they have two Rules, Scripture and Tradition; when they pretend to dispute from Scripture, it is reasonable to know of them, whether they will stand to Scripture, and

reject

reject such a Doctrine if it cannot be plainly proved out of Scripture: For if they will not ftand to this, they give up their Cause, and there is no need to difpute with them: For why should I difpute with any man from Scripture, who will not ftand to the determination of Scripture? We Proteftants indeed do own the Authority of Scripture; and what we fee plainly proved out of Scripture, we must abide by: which is reafon enough for us to examine the Scripture-proofs which are produced by our Adverfaries. But it is fufficient to make them blush, if they had any modefty, to pretend to prove their Doctrines from Scripture, when they themselves do not believe them meerly upon the Authority of Scripture, and dare not put their Caufe upon that iffue; which gives a just suspicion, that they are conscious to themselves, that their Scripture-proofs are not good, and should make Protestants very careful, how they are imposed on by them. To difpute.upon fuch Principles as are not owned on both fides, can establish nothing, thô it may blunder and confound an Adversary; it is onely a tryal of Wit, where the fubtileft Difputant will have the Victory; and it is not worth the while for any man to difpute upon these terms.

This is not to reject the Authority of Scriptures, because the Papists reject it, which no Proteftant can or will do, but it is an effectual way for men, who are not skilled in Difputations, to deliver them felves from the troublesome Importunities of Popish Priefts, when learned men, who can detect their Fallacies, are out of the way. Let them but ask them, Whether all the peculiar Do&trines of the Church of Rome can be proved by plain Scripture-evidence? If they fay, they can; then they must reject the neceffity of unwritten Traditions, and acknowledge the Scripture to be a complete and perfect

Rule

Rule of Faith. A point, which I believe, no understanding Prieft will yield. If they fay, they cannot; ask them, With what confidence they pretend to prove that from Scripture, which they confefs is not in it? Why they go about to impofe upon you, and to perfwade you to believe that upon the Authority of Scripture, which they themselves confefs, is not, at least not plainly, contained in Scripture.

2. Ask fuch Difputants, who alledge the Authority of Scripture to prove their Popish Doctrines, How they themselves know what the fence of Scripture is, and how you shall know it? For it is a ridiculous undertaking to prove any thing by Scripture, unless there be a certain way of finding out the fence of Scripture. Now there can be but three ways of doing this, either by an infallible Interpreter, or by the unanimous Confent of Primitive Fathers, or by fuch Humane means as are used to find out the fence of other Books.

. I. If they fay, we must learn the fence of Scripture from an infallible Interpreter: Tell them, this is not to difpute, but to beg the Caufe. They are to prove from Scripture, the Doctrines of the Church of Rome; and to do this, they would have us take the Church of Rome's Expofition of Scripture. And then we had as good take her word for all, without difputing. But yet,

1. They know, that we reject the pretences of an infallible Interpreter: We own no fuch infallible Judge of the fence of Scripture. And therefore, at least, if they will difpute with us, and prove their Doctrines by Scripture, they muft fetch their Proofs from the Scriptures themselves, and not appeal to an infallible Interpreter, whom we disown: Which is like appealing to a Judge in Civil matters, whom one of the contending Parties thinks incompetent, and to whofe Judgment they will not

H

ftand,