the times, and make them fashionable? How you fhall know what the true meaning of those words are, which they cite from them? which the words themselves many times will not discover, without the Context: How you fhall know that fuch Sayings are honeftly quoted, or honefly tranflated? How you fhall know whether this Father did not in other places contradict what he here fays? or did not alter his opinion after he had wrote it, without writing publick Recantations, as St. Austin did? Whether this Father was not contradicted by other Fathers? And in that cafe, Which of the Fathers you must believe?

You may add, That you do not ask thefe Questions at random, but for great and neceffary Reasons: for in reading fome late English Books both of Proteftants and Papists, you find large Quotations out of the Fathers on both fides; that fome are charged with falfe Translations, with perverting the Fathers fenfe, with mis-citing his words, with quoting fpurious Authors, as it seems many of those are which make up the late Speculum, or Ecclefiaftical Prospective-glass; to name no more. Now how fhall you, who are an unlearned man, judge of fuch Disputes as these? What Books are fpurious or genuine? whether the Fathers be rightly quoted? and what the true sense of them is? For my part, I know not what Answer fuch a Difputant could make, but to blush, and promife not to alledge the Authority of Fathers any more. It is certain, in fuch matters, those who are unlearned, must trust the learned; and then, I suppose, an unlearned Proteftant will rather truft a Proteftant than a Popish Doctor, as Papists will rather trust their Priests than Proteftant Divines; and then there is not much to be got on either fide, this way: For when a Proteftant fhews an inclination rather to believe a Popish than a

L 2

Prote

Protestant Divine, he is certainly three quarters a Papist before hand.

Indeed unlearned Proteftants, who are inquifitive, and have time to read, have fuch advantages now to fatisfie themselves even about the fence of Fathers and Councils, as it may be no Age before ever afforded; there being fo many excellent Books written in English, as plainly confirm the Proteftant Faith, and confute Popery, by the Teftimonies and Authorities of Ancient Writers; and fuch men, though they do not understand Latine and Greek, are in no danger of all the Learning of their Popifh Adverfaries and any man who pleases, may have recourse to such Books, and fee the State of the Controverfie with his own eyes, and judge for himself; but thofe who cannot do this, may very fairly decline fuch a Trial, as improper for them. For,

2. Let our Proteftantask fuch Difputers, whether a plain man may not attain a fufficient knowledge and certainty of his Religion, without understanding Fathers and Councils? If they fay he cannot, ask them, how many RomanCatholicks there are that understand Fathers and Councils? Ask them, how thofe Chriftians understood their Religion, who lived before there were any of thefe Fathers and Councils? Ask them again, whether they believe that God has made it impoffible to the greateft part of Mankind, to understand the Chriftian Religion? For even among Christians themfelves, there is not one in an hundred thousand, who understands Fathers and Councils, and it is morally impoffible they fhould: and therefore certainly there must be a fhorter and easier way to understand Christian Religion than this, or else the generallity of Mankind, even of profeft Chriftians, are out of all poffbility of Salvation. Ask them once more, Whether it be not a much eafier matter for a plain honeft man to learn

learn all things neceffary to Salvation, out of the Scriptures themselves, especially with the help of a wife and learned Guide, than to understand all Fathers and Councils, and take his Religion from them? Why then do they fo quarrel at Peoples reading the Scriptures, and put them upon reading Fathers and Councils? I fuppofe they will grant, the Scriptures may be read a little fooner than so many Voluminous Fathers, and Labbe's Councils into the bargain; and, I believe, moft men, who try, will think, that they are more eafily understood; and therefore if Proteftants, as they pretend, can have no certainty of the true fence of Scripture, I am fure there is much less certainty to be had from the Fathers: A fhort time will give us a full view of the Scriptures, to read and understand all the Fathers, is work enough for a man's life: the Scripture is all of a piece, every part of it agrees with the reft; the Fathers many times contradict themselves and each other: and if men differ about the fence of Scripture, they differ much more about Fathers and Councils. That it is a mighty Riddle, that those who think ordinary Chriftians not fit to read the Scriptures, fhould think it neceffary for them to underftand Fathers and Councils; and yet they are ridiculous. indeed to dispute with every Tradefman about Fathers and Councils, if they do not think they ought to read and understand them.

The fum is, fuch Proteftants as are not skilled in Booklearning, may very reasonably tell these Men, who urge them with the Authority of Councils and Fathers, That they do not pretend to any skill in fuch matters, and hope it is not required of them, for if it be, they are in an ill cafe: the Holy Scriptures, not Fathers and Councils, is the Rule of their Faith; if they had read the Fathers, they fhould believe them no farther, than what they

taught:

taught was agreeable to Scripture; and therefore whatever Opinions any of the Fathers had, it is no concern of theirs to know, if they can learn what the Doctrine of Christ and his Apoftles was, without it: learned men may dispute about these things; and they have heard learned Proteftants affirm, that the Church of Rome can find none of her peculiar Doctrines in the Writings of any of the Fathers for the first three hundred years; and it's certain, if this be true, all the later Fathers are of no Authority to establish any new Doctrine; for there was no more Authority in the Church, to bring in any new DoArines, after three hundred years, than there is at this day.

Unlearned men may very honourably reject all difpute about Fathers and Councils, (though learned men cannot, and indeed need not;) for if they are not bound to read Fathers and Councils, I think, they are not bound to understand them, nor to dispute about them; and it is very unadvisably done, when they do for it is past a Jeft in so serious a matter, though otherwise it were comical enough, for men to be converted by Fathers and Councils, without understanding them.

CHAP.

CHA P. III.

How to Answer fome of the most popular Pretences urged by Papifts against Proteftants.

SECT. I.

1. Concerning the Uncertainty of the Proteftant Faith.

UR Popish Adversaries of late,have not so much difputed, as fenced; have neither down-right oppofed the Proteftant Faith, nor vindicated their own, but have betaken themselves to fome tricks and amusements, to divert and perplex the Difpute,and to impofe upon the ignorant and unwary. One of their principal Arts has been to cry out of the Uncertainty of the Proteftant Faith. This every body is nearly concerned in; for there is nothing wherein certainty is fo neceffary, and fo much defired, as in matters of Religion, whereon our eternal State depends. This has been often answered by Proteftants, and I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Caufe, and fhew upon what a firm and fure bottom the Proteftant Faith ftands: this is a Cavil eafily enough exposed to the fcorn and contempt of all confidering men, without fo much trouble:

For 1. Suppofe the Proteftant Faith were uncertain, How is the Caufe of the Church of Rome ever the better? Is this a sufficient reason to turn Papifts, because Proteftants are uncertain? Does this prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible, because the Church of England is Fallible? Muft Certainty neceffarily be found among them, be

cause