If they banish and silence faithful, holy, able ministers, they must accuse them of some villanies which may make them seem worthy of the punishment and unworthy to preach the Gospel of Christ! What different characters did Constantius and Valens, and their party on one side, and Athanasius, and the Orthodox on the other side, give of one another! What different characters were given of Chrysostom! How differently do Hunnerichus and Gensericus on one side, and Victor Uticensis, and other historians on the other side, describe the bishops and Christians of Africa that then suffered! They were traitors and rebels, and rogues, and enemies to the king, and heretics to Hunnerichus but to others, they were holy, blameless men; and those were tyrants and heretics that persecuted them. What difference between the histories of the orthodox, and that of Philostorgius, and Sondius! What different characters do Eusebius and Eunapius give of Constantine! And Eunapius and Hilary, &c. give of Julian. What different characters are given of Hildebrand on one side, and of the emperors Henrys on the other side, by the many historians who followed the several parts! How false must a great number of the historians on one side be! I know that this doth not make all human faith and history useless: it hath its degree of credibility answerable to its use. And a wise man may

much conjecture whom to believe. 1. A man that (like Thuanus) sheweth modesty and impartiality, even towards Dissenters. 2. A man that had no notable interest to bias him. 3. A man that manifesteth other ways true honesty and conscience. 4. Supposing that he was himself upon the place, and a competent witness.

But there is little or no credit to be given, 1. To a factious, furious railer. 2. To one that was a flatterer of great men, or depended on them for preferment, or lived in fear of speaking the truth, or that speaketh for the interest of his riches and honour in the world; or for his engaged personal reputation, or that hath espoused the interest of a sect or faction. 3. There is little credit to be given to any knave and wicked man. He that dare be drunk, and swear, and curse, and be a fornicator or covetous worldling, dare lie for his own ends. 4. Nor to the most honest man that taketh things by rumours, hearsay and uncertain reports, and knoweth not the things themselves.

But how shall strangers and posterity know when they read a history, whether the writer was an honest man or a knave; a man of credit, or an impudent liar? Both may be equal in confident asserting, and in the plausibility of the narrative. Mere human belief therefore must be uncertain.

From whence we see the pitiful case of the subjects of the King of Rome (for so I must rather call him than a bishop). Why doth a layman believe transubstantiation, or any other article of their faith? Because the Church saith it is God's word. What is the Church that saith so? It is a faction of the Pope, perhaps at Lateran, or forty of his prelates at the Conventicle of Trent. How doth he know that these men do not lie? Because God promised that Peter's faith should not fail, and the gates of hell should not prevail against the church; and the spirit should lead the apostles into all truth. But how shall he know that this Scripture is God's word? And also that it was not a total failing, rather than a failing in some degree, that Peter was by that promise freed from? Or that the Spirit was promised to these prelates which was promised to the apostles? Why, because these prelates say so! And how know they that they say true? Why, from Scripture, as before.

But let all the rest go. How knoweth the layman that ever the Church made such a decree? That ever the bishops of that council were lawfully called? That they truly represented all Christ's Church on earth? That this or that doctrine is the decree of a Council, or the sense of the Church indeed? Why, because the priest tells him so. But how knoweth he that this priest saith true, or a few more that the man speaketh with? there I leave you: I can answer no further; but must leave the credit of Scripture, council, and each particular doctrine, on the credit of that poor single priest, or the few that are his companions. The layman knoweth it no otherwise.

Quest. But is not the Scripture itself then shaken by this, seeing the history of the canon and incorruption of the books, &c. dependeth on the word of man?'

Answ. No; 1. I have elsewhere fully shewed how the Spirit hath sealed the substance of the Gospel. 2. And even the matters of fact are not of mere human faith; for mere human faith depends on the mere honesty of the

reporter: but this historical faith dependeth partly on God's attestation, and partly on natural proofs. 1. God did by miracles attest the reports of the apostles and first Churches. 2. The consent of all history since, that these are the same writings which the apostles wrote, hath a natural evidence above bare human faith. For I have elsewhere shewed, that there is a concurrence of human report, or a consent of history, which amounteth to a true natural evidence, the will having its nature and some necessary acts, and nothing but necessary ascertaining causes, could cause such concurrence. Such evidence we have that King James, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, lived in England: that our statutebooks contain the true laws, which those Kings and Parliaments made whom they are ascribed to. For they could not possibly rule the land, and overrule all men's interests, and be pleaded at the bar, &c., without contradiction and detection of the fraud, if they were forgeries: (though it is possible that some words in a statute-book may be misprinted.) There is in this a physical certainty in the consent of men, and it depends not as human faith, upon the honesty of the reporter; but knaves and liars, have so consented, whose interests and occasions are cross, and so is it in the case of the history of the Scripture-books: which were read in all the churches through the world, every Lord's-day; and contenders of various opinion, took their salvation to be concerned in them.

VIII. Those things must needs be uncertain to any man, as to a particular faith or knowledge, which are more in number than he may possibly have a distinct understanding of; or can examine their evidence whether they be certain or not. For instance, the Roman Faith containeth all the doctrinal decrees, and their religion also all the practical decrees of all the approved General Councils, that is, of so much as pleased the Pope, such power hath he to make his own religion. But these General Councils, added to all the Bible, with all the Apocrypha, are so large, that it is not possible for most men to know what is in them. So that if the question be whether this or that doctrine be the word of God, and the proof of the affirmative is, because it is decreed by a General Council, this must be uncertain to almost all men, who cannot tell whether it be so decreed or no few priests themselves knowing all that is in those

Councils. So that if they knew that all that is in the Councils is God's word, they know never the more whether this or that doctrine, e. g. the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, &c. be the word of God. And if a heathen knew that all that is in the Bible is the word of God, and knew not a word what is in it, would this make him a Christian, or saint him?

You may object, That most Protestants also know not all that is in the Scripture.' Ans. True; nor any one. And therefore Protestants say not that all that is in the Scripture is necessary to be known to salvation; but they take their religion to have essential parts, and integral parts and accidents; and so they know how far each is necessary. But the Papists deride this distinction, and because all truths are equally true, they would make men believe that all are equally fundamental, or essential to Christianity. But this is only when they dispute against us; at other times they say otherwise themselves, when some other interest leads to it, and so cureth this impudency.

It were worthy the inquiry, whether a Papist take all the Bible to be God's word, and de fide,' or only so much of it as is contained particularly in the decrees of Councils? If the latter, then none of the Scripture was de fide,' or to be particularly believed for above three hundred years, before the Council of Nice. If the former, then is it as necessary to salvation to know how old Enoch was, as to know that Jesus Christ is our Saviour!

IX. Those things must needs be uncertain, which depend upon such a number of various circumstances as cannot be certainly known themselves. For instance, the common rule by which the Popish doctors do determine what particular knowledge and faith are necessary to salvation, is that so many truths are necessary as are sufficiently propounded to that person to be known and believed.' But no man living, learned nor unlearned, can tell what is necessary to the sufficiency of this proposal. Whether it be sufficient, if he be told it in his childhood only, and at what age? or if he be told it but once, or twice, or thrice, or how often? Whether by a parent or layman that cannot tell him what is in the Councils? Or by a priest that never read the Councils? And whether the variety of natural capacities, bodily temperaments, education and course of life

before, do not make as great variety of proportions to be necessary to the sufficiency of this proposal? And what mortal man can truly take the measure of them? And how can any man be certain what those points are which are necessary for him to believe?

X. Those things are uncertain which depend upon an uncertain author or authority. For instance, the Roman faith dependeth on the exposition of the Scriptures by the consent of the Fathers, and on the tradition of the Church, and the decrees of an authorised Council. And here is in all this, little but uncertainties.

1. It is utterly uncertain, who are to be taken for Fathers, and who not. Whether Origen, Tatianus, Arnobius, Lactantius, Tertullian, and many such, be Fathers or not. Whether such a man as Theophilus Alexandrinus, or Chrysostom was the Father, when they condemned each other. Whether such as are justly suspected of heresy, (as Eusebius) or such as the Romanists have cast suspicions on (as Lucifer Calaritanus called a heretic, Socrates, Sozomens, falsely called Navatians, Hilary, Arelatensis condemned by the Pope Leo, and Claud. Turonens. Rupertus Tuitiens. and such others). When the ancients renounced each others' communion, (as Martin did by Ithacius and Idacius and their Synod,) when they describe one another as stark knaves, as Socrates doth Theophil. Alexandrin. and Sulpitius Severus, doth Ithacius, which of them were the Fathers.

2. How shall we know certainly which are the true uncorrupted writings of these Fathers among so many forgeries and spurious scripts?

3. How shall it be known what exposition the Fathers consented on, when not one of a multitude, and but few in all have commented on any considerable parts of the Scripture, and those few so much often differ?

4. When in the doctrine of the Trinity itself, Petavius largely proveth that most of the writers of the three first centuries after the apostles were unsound, and others confess the same about the Millennium, the corporeity of angels, and of the soul, and divers other things; doth their consent bind us to believe them? If not, how shall we know in what to believe their consent, according to this rule?

2. And as to the Church, they are utterly disagreed among themselves, what that Church is which hath this authority.