IN all buildings the maine is to settle the Foundation. First of all, next to Christ the founda­tion is laid upon the Prophets and Apostles. So Paul, (are built upon the foundation of Eph. 2. 20 [Page 2] the Apostles and Prophets) meaning the foundation which the Apostles and Prophets laid: Laid where? In their doctrinePrelect. 17. p. 140 Joh. 5. 39 contained in their Writings: So Doctor John Rainolds the fa­mous. Hence that of Christ, search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternal life. By which place it is put beyond all Queries and Question, that the Scriptures are the foundation of Religion, sith in them is said, Ye think (and ye think well in it) to have eternal life. So againMat. 22. 29 ye erre (saith Christ to the Sad­d [...]ces)Act. 18. 28 not knowing the Scriptures. And again, Apollos shewed, and convinced the Jewes publickly by the Scriptures, that Jesus was Christ: and once more, all 2 Tim. 3. 16 Scripture is given by inspiration [Page 3] (by the breath of God.) Now by Scripture is meant the Word of God written. Written then, Printed now; (by the way note and grant that written and printed come all to one; writ­ten then, printed now) so then by Scriptures we meane the Word of God written.

Now here the first case is, What ground there is that we should ground our selves on the Scriptures, sith for a matter of two thousand years the Church was without Scripture, and ma­ny went to heaven when there was (before Moses) no Scripture at all, and the Christian Church was best and purest before the New Testament was written at all? This was pleaded in the Councel of Trent to justle out [Page 4] the Scriptures, and to place Traditions in the place of the Scriptures. All this should not shake and totter the heart of a Christian. Before Moses the Lord did teach by tradition, without Scripture, and the Church did by the providence of God walk by as certaine rules then, as now. For this they whoTit. of Traditions will may see Dr. Abbot against Bishop.

Many Reasons are given why then the written word was not necessary as 'tis now; as that the Church was in families: after it came to be all one Nation o­ver, now over all Nations. As also that the Patriarchs then had a spirit we have not. Ana­baptists say they have an infalli­ble spirit, which Wotton calls (a [Page 5] lewd opinion) yet they say this as onely for themselves But sure the Patriarchs, and the Church under the Patriarchs, had a certain and infallible rule to walk by, which was to them as the Scriptures are to us Their rule was the Word of God (but not written) ours is the same Word of God (but writ­ten) It is enough that the Law hath now tied us to the Word of God written. And for the A­postles time, the Apostles, men immediately inspired being li­ving, and other infallible men (not Apostles) as Mark, Luke, there was no such necessity to have the Word of God written, as there was after. Wherefore they did provide for this ere they died, and committed the [Page 6] Word of God to writing, when there should be no such men to consult with.

Let us then sit down by the Scriptures, the Word of God written, as the onely sure card, and rule to guide us in all mat­ters of faith, and life: For if we leave this once, there is no­thing but Sea and Aire, no place for this poor Dove, this poore soul of ours to rest her foot; without which, when, and where to stay, none can tell.

That then we may not run from opinion to opinion, from Christ to Christ, from Church to church, till we have run our selvs out of all, our onely sure way is to flie to the Scriptures, to the written VVord of God, as to an Anchour, that so we may have hope, if hope, then faith.

[Page 7] Before we go further we must take it as cleare, that by Scrip­tures, Christ and his Apostles do meane the VVord of God written. Our enquiry is, What written word? Not the Origi­nal Copy, for that was in the Ark, and there onely, and not1 King. 8. 9 Heb. 9. 4 to be seen of every body, if of a­ny body, but the high Priest: and I know nothing but those Tables perished with the Tem­ple. Nor can it be, that when he did call upon them to search the Scriptures he did send them to the Ark, which then was not. I doubt not but he meant by the Scriptures, the writings of Moses & the Prophets. Now who can think that Christ and his A­postles did turn over the Church and people of God to the Scrip­tures [Page 8] written by Moses and the Prophets own hands? those were not then extant, nor when ex­tant to be seene of every body. What then? when he bade them search the Scriptures, he must needes meane some transcribed Copies, or some Translations For Copies in the Hebrew, I doubt me whether the common people did then understand the Hebrew, and amongst the Bereans, who did search the Scriptures, I think it past question, that there were many ordinary people, and per­haps Coblers or Taylors, or such, as Dr J. Rainolds seems to judg.

If this be granted that those who were commanded to search the Scriptures, and commended for searching the Scriptures, did not, could not search the Origi­nal [Page 9] Hebrew, what shall we think then? No other can be imagined but some Translati­ons, which they did understand, Syriack, Chaldee, but chiefly the Greek Translation, which the most, if not all, understood.

But you will say, the Trans­lators were subject to mistake, and erre, or worse, being no Pro­phets; and if they did understand the Hebrew, yet sith they could not come by the first Original Copy, they must needs have recourse to some transcribed Copies. Whe­ther the Church were to repaire to Translations, or to transcribed Copies, all comes to one, sith neither Transcribers nor Transla­tors were Prophets. Very good men let them be, yet men they were, and subject to errour. May I [Page 10] speake my Opinion, I think when Christ said search the Scriptures, he meant the Sc i­ptures translated into Greek, and by Scriptures, the Apostles meant the Greek Translation, which tongue, if not in Christs time, yet in the Apostles times in a manner all did understand. VVherefore when the Apostle saith (is given by inspiration, and is profitable) he meanes it is profitable to be read, or heard read in the Greek Translation. And the rather am I of this minde, because Schollars do know that the New Testament doth cite the places out of the Old Testament according to the Greek Translation, and most an end are very punctual in it. However, whither we look on [Page 11] Translations, or Transcripti­ons, sith the first Table writ­ten by God himselfe was lost with the Temple, and the O­riginal Greek Copy of the Translation of the Old Testa­ment was, the Learned think, (and I think they think well in it) burned by Julius Coesars Army, when they fired Alex­andria, and the famous Library there.

The Ephesians were built on the Prophets and Apostles; the Apostles they had with them, but the Prophets were dead and gone; Malachi was the last; the Apostles they might consult with and they had their wri­tings, but for the writings of the Prophets, the Ephesians being Gentiles (I take it for granted) [Page 12] understood not the Hebrew, at least the body of them, but be­ing Grecians, they might and did understand the Greek trans­lation, which I doubt not was purer then, then it is now: yet then being but a translation, and the Original it self but carried up and down in transcribed Copies, it is consented unto by all par­ties, that the Translators and Transcribers might erre, being not Prophets, nor indued with Nullos a­lios libros Canonicos babemus five veteris five Novi Testamentiquam quos Apostoli probave­runt atque Ecclesi [...]e tradide­runt. Can. l. 2. cap. 7that infallible spirit in translating, or transcribing, as Moses and the Prophets were in their Ori­ginal writings.

The tentation lies on this side, how the Ephesians then, and much more sith there are no Prophets, no Apostles, no nor a­ny infallible spirits in the Church, [Page 13] how can we build on the foun­dation of the Prophets and A­postles now, sith the Scriptures in their translated Copies are not free from all possible corru­ptions, in the Copies we have ei­ther by transcribers or translators

Besides, many are unlearned, and cannot read a Letter. For these last, though they cannot read, yet they can hear it read to them. Do not we see many blinde men in Schooles come to great learning by hearing o­thers read Philosophy, and Di­vinity, and the body of other Arts & Sciences to them? & so it is with the Scriptures, they can­not read them, but they can hear them read & preached by others.

Dr. Jackson in his first book of his Commentaries on the [Page 14] Creed, and Mr. John Goodwin in a set and large Treatise to justi­fie the authority of the Scrip­tures, have shewed much learn­ing, and taken great paines in this Argument. But like two Elephants, they both swimme so deep, that the benefit and comfort of it can reach but to a few, we must fight lower and in a briefer way (least we wea­ry the Reader and charge the Printer) and set down the brief of the matter in it, so that com­mon people, and men of ordi­nary braines, (who are most subject to Tentation) may find a way to spell out the right of this, how faith can be had, and the soule built on the foundati­on of the Prophets and Apostles, sith this foundation was in their [Page 15] Writings, and their Writings are under no other notion to any, but either the Original transcri­bed or translated.

Take it either way, it is done by ordinary men, not by Pro­phets or ▪ postles, and so sub­ject to mistake, insomuch that Cajetan was wont to say, That to believe translations of the Scri­pture was not to beleeve the Word of God, but the words of men: Yet the Papist is more to seek then the Protestant; for the Papist hath no Translation to compare as we have: most of them allow, no not Schollars to correct their translations, as we all do. The Papist doth al­low no translation to be read in Churches, no nor in Houses (but under caution) but the [Page 16] Latine; none in the mother­tongue, which all the people understand. And therefore they are to take up their faith on the credit of the Priest, and he many times little wiser then a foole, little better then a son of Belial.

Hist. of Trent. p. 155. Cajetan did much rely on the words of Hierome, who said, That to prophesie and write holy Books proceeded from the Holy Ghost, but to translate them into another tongue was a work of hu­mane skill. Nay, for the Ori­ginals themselves Wotton is bold to Print, That no man can tell what the signification of the He­brew and Greek Word is, even in the Bible, but by the report of man; And another as learned as he tells us, That we can know fur­ther [Page 17] that that is the Hebrew tongue, or Greek tongue, wherein the Old and New Testaments are in the O­riginals, but by the credit of men, who tell us so.

In the Councel of Trent, there were many great wits, and men of great learning too, who did tosse this Argument up and down about Translations, and when they had done, left it lit­tle better then they found it. Upon these grounds the third of the Popish Articles, (passing under the name of Wrights Ar­ticles) in termes is thus. All Protestants who are ignorant of the Greek and Latine Tongues are Infidels: and why? because (forsooth) he relies upon the Ministers, who may and do erre. The second Article is, That all [Page 18] learned Protestants are Infidels; so that by his sentence, all Pro­testants, learned and unlearned are Infidels, because they relie on a private spirit. Thus with him and the rest of that Tribe, all Protestants are damned. All this is to take us off from the Scrip­tures, and to cast us, and our consciences on the authority of the Church.

We list not to dispute with them about the Infallibility of that which they call their Church. For I doubt not but that the learned among them do not themselves beleeve what themselves do write. But our work lies not in that road. We grant what they would have as touching the Church by way of Ministry; but for that which [Page 19] they call the Churches Autho­rity, we know not any such authority, the Church as Church, 2 Cor. 1. [...] being not a Domination, but a Ministration.

But that we may not leave any rubb in the consciences of the weak, as touching the au­thority of the Scriptures, as touching the Originals and Translations, we will shut up all in brief.

For the Originals, though we have not the Primitive Co­pies written by the finger of God in the Tables, or by Moses and the Prophets in the Hebrew, or by the Apostles, and the rest in the Greek for the New Te­stament, yet we have Copies in both languages, which Copies vary not from the Primitive [Page 20] writings in any matter which may stumble any. This con­cernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides amongst Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt.

What if there be variety of readings in some Copies? and some mistakes in writing or Printing? this makes nothing against our doctrine, sith for all this the fountaine runs clear, and if the fountain be not clear all translations must needs be muddie.

Besides, 'tis a saying of a wise Philosopher, That, what some say is like to be false, what many say, may be false; But what all say is [Page 21] more then like to be true. Now Christians of all parties do a­gree, as touching the Origi­nals that they are kept pure: Onely some of and among the Papists, passionate men do bite at the Originals; but herein they do but bl [...]t their own vulgar translation, sith they confesse it to be drawn out of the O­riginals. I confesse some men by their picking quarrels with the Originals, as a matter whereof they talk, as though there were no certainty of faith as touching them, have troubled the spi­rits of some men with a thor­ny tentation, which my b [...]si­nesse is to do what I can to re­move, which I now endea­vour to do as briefly as I can.

[Page 22] The foundation I first lay is, That we may have a certain­ty moral of things whereof we have no evidence: which is suf­ficient to settle us in an acqui­red faith, free from all feare, and material doubt of the con­trary. We beleeve without making any question of it, thatScot. prole. Sent. q. 2. quart. there is such a place as Rome, though we never saw it, that such a man is our father, such a woman our mother, and we out of conscience do duties to them, albeit we have no evi­dent certainty of it, but by belief that such a Prince is true heir to a Crown, and out of conscience we do performe o­bedience, and yet we can have Howard. p: 37.no more certainty of this but moral: For who hath or can [Page 23] have an evidence of this, that such an heire is the true begot­ten of such a King.

It's agreed on by almost all Divines of all sides, that if one of the Propositions be in the Scripture, and the other be but a moral certainty which leaves no dubitation behinde it, the conclusion bindes the consci­ence. As thus, every childe is bound in conscience to honour his Parents (this is an act of faith grounded on the Scripture) such or such a man is my father, this is but a moral certainty, yet hence it followes, that in con­science I stand bound, in consci­ence to honour such a man as my Father. And that he is my Father, all the certainty I can have is but moral, built on the [Page 24] credit of my mother. If these reasonings were not firme, it would destroy all Policy and Order in this life, nor could Gods Law to honour father and mother binde the conscience, nor can a man tell that he was baptized in his youth but by such Testimonies as these.

De concili­is l. 2. 0. 9. Therefore I like that of Bel­larmine, who stands upon it, that of such like things a certainty may be had from the testimo­nies of men, in some sort▪ comparable to natural evidence it self, for that it leaves no scru­ple or dubitation in our minds: But what of all this? Why it shewes that the general consent of (in a manner) all Hebricians and Grecians in the Christian world, consenting that our O­riginals [Page 25] are by the good hand of God preserved uncorrupt, and pure, is a sufficient perswasion, to breed a moral certainty an­swerable to natural evidence, excluding all reasonable dubita­tion to the contrary.

That the Originals were for the provision and food of the soules of his Church kept pure and uncorrupt by the Prophets and Jewes for the old; by the Apostles and Christian Chur­ches for the New Testament,Scot l. 1. D. 26. contra istam. sealed up by St. John the Secre­tary of Christ, as Scotus calls him. Else the Lord must have been wanting to his Church, which cannot be imagined. And that acquired faith makes way for infused faith to act I have Lib. 3. D 34. q. 1. ad questionem.learned long since out of Scotus.

[Page 26] Thus the case stands. The Originals are to be received and believed. That the Hebrew and Greek are the true Origi­nals we believe by humane te­stimonies, which leave the mind without perplexitie, without all doubting, and so it follows, that by mans testimonie the O­riginals are to be received, and believed by us, so that the heart stands free from any true cause of any doubting at all, which being equivalent to the highest certainty that is, it can­not but lay a foundation to build our faith upon, this cer­tainty being a meanes by which we come to the other of the Scriptures, being the last ground on which we build our faith; we are not to look for demon­strations [Page 27] in arguments of this nature. It's a foolish thing to expect from a Mathematician to deale by perswasion: his Art lies in evident and ocular demonstration. Now 'tis as absurd to expect demonstrati­on from an Orator or Moralist; his businesse lies in perswasion. But yet in our point in hand, our perswasions must be grounded on such moral cer­tainty as is to us without que­stion, and without feare of the contrary. It is a piece of wise counsel of Aristotle, That it is Eth. l. 1. c. 3 the wisdome of a learned man so farre forth to seek after proofs of truth in any matter as the nature of the subject matter will beare. And it is agreed upon, that in all learning, in the highest sci­ence [Page 28] of all, the principles are proving, but not proved: For that which is the first cannot be proved by any thing before it; else the first were not the first; as the first mover is never mo­ved And in all Inferiour Scien­ces, the first principles of that Science, must be proved in an higher Schoole. Now the first principle in the School of Christ is the Scriptures, which being the first is to prove, not to be proved but in an higher School the Schoole of heaven, by evi­dences unprovable, and unre­provable evidences taken from the Prover, and Spirit of God. Of which hereafter.

History of Trent. p. 155. I No way like that of Cajetan, That to understand the Latine Translation, was not to under­stand the infallible Word of God, but the word of the Translatours subject to errour. Though he took it from Hierome, that to write holy Books proceeded from the Holy Ghost, but to translate them into another Tongue was a work of humane skill. For if an Ambassadour deliver his minde by an Interpreter, are not the words of the Interpreter the words of the Ambassadour? Right, say you, if the Interpreter do it truely: So, say I, a Trans­lation, is a translation no further [Page 30] then he doth translate, and in­terpret truely: for a false trans­lation, Verum & cus conver­tuntur.as farre as it is false, is no translation.

Can. lib. 2. cap. 14. I have read in a great Papist, That it is a great error for a man to think, that he can understand, or interpret the holy Scriptures without some peculiar guift of the Holy Ghost. And sith the Lord hath commanded his people to heare and read the word, and the cōmon people cannot read the word, but in some translation of other, that therefore translations are in special a special Ordinance of God, and that therefore God being in his providence very careful, that his Church shall not want sufficient provision for their soules, hath ever, doth, and will ever so assist Translatours, that [Page 31] for the main they shall not erre. I am of minde, that there was never any Christian Church, but the Lord did so hold the hands, and direct the pens of the trans­lators, so that the translations might well be called the Word of God.

The vulgar Latine (which the Papists out of a veine of op­position do advance too much) is faulty enough, yet it is so sound, that I think many have beene led by it to their conver­sion. Why may I not think that those many who have been con­verted from Popery in the Church of Rome, and joyned themselves to our Church, have beene beholding for the most of them (next to God) to their vulgar translation, as Martyr, [Page 32] Zanchius, Luther, Oecolampadi­us, and a many others?

The Ephesians were builded in their faith on the Prophets and Apostles: the Apostles were living, but the Prophets were dead, and gone long since, & they could no way build their faith on the Prophets, but on their wri­tings: For 600. years after Christ the Church u­sed no translation but the Greek cal­led the se­venty sixt. Se [...]en. l. 8 haeres. 13. Rain. prael. 28. p. 241. Bellar. cont. 1. l. 1 [...]. 20. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 18, c. 43Now the writings of the Prophets in the Original were in Hebrew; and I take it for grant­ed, that the Ephesians being bred and borne Grecians, did not un­derstand the Hebrew tongue, and that therefore there were trans­lations of the Prophets, which translations were made by such men as were ordinary as ours are, subject I confesse to some errour, but not such errour, but that it did serve to help the [Page 33] Church to faith, for the salvati­on of their souls.

In the Apostles time I know that they that did know the A­postles to be Apostles, and that they did preach, they did preach as Apostles, they were to take them at their words. But when they did heare them preach (as the Bereans did not, so I think aPaul did not always speak in the Church by Revelation 1 Cor. 14. 5 many else) did not look on them as Apostles, and infallible speak­ers: And no question there were many Pastours, and Teachers then, who, though many had more then a common gift of prophecying, yet had not the infallible spirit of the Apostles. Those Prophets had not the same supreame spirit which the Apostles had (as saith (to me)Rain. prael. 34. 299, 300. the most Learned amongst the [Page 34] Learned) but yet, saith he, they had a more extraordinary spirit, (not to write, nor to translate, but) to interpret Scripture then the ordinary Pastors and Teach­ers had: but I think that gift of interpreting died with them.

Now what the Bereans did to Paul, so all stood bound to do to the ordinary Pastors and Teach­ers, even to examine by the Scriptures, whither those things they taught were right or not: And those who were thus to examine the Sermons of the or­dinary Pastors and Teachers, were to do it by the Greek Translation, sith many did not understand the Hebrew; and they that did understand the Hebrew, yet were to do it (no [Page 35] question) by Transcripts made by ordinary men after the Pro­phets ended with Malachi, which Transcripts of the Hebrew text some quarrel at as done by or­dinary gifted men, which were (they say) subject to mistake in transcribing, as well as translatours might mistake in translating: In which neither of them must be look­ed as free from all mistake.

Wotton saith, & saith truly, that many thousands were convert­ed, Tryal. c. 14 p. 243and many Churches settled, by the preaching of the several Apostles sent abroad to convert the world amongst the Jewes and Gentiles, without the know­ledge, and before the penning of the Books of the New Testa­ment; but that they did it with­out the use and authority of [Page 36] the Old Testament, and the Word of God written there, there is no proof, nor I think can there be any.

Besides the Apostles carried the Word of God in their bo­soms, having that holy Library in their Heads, by immediate and infalible inspiration. I doubt not but the Ephesians were convert­ed by Paul, but yet Paul when he did convert them, did it by the truth of doctrine left behinde them by the Prophets; which is cleare in that the Apostle makes the Prophets, the Foundati­on, as well as the Apo­stles.

By Prophets, I take it for granted he meanes the writing Prophets of the Old Testament, not the preaching Prophets of the [Page 37] New. And I take it also to be clear of it selfe, that the Ephesi­ans living so long after all those Prophets were dead and gone, had their writings only; so then the Ephesians were converted by the truth of doctrine left for them by the Prophets, and preached to them by the Apo­stles.

I will also take it for granted till I heare, or reade any deny it, that the Ephesians understood not the Hebrew. (In which tongue the Prophets left their doctrine as the Canon of the Church.) And hence it cannot but follow, that (saving what help the Ephe­sians had from Paul) they were to have recourse to the doctrine of the Prophets (not in Hebrew, which they understood not, but) [Page 38] in some Translation of others, which without dispute must be the Greek translation of the Se­venty, there then being no other translations: The Ephesians be­ing also not Jewes, but Greci­ans.

The resolution

• 1. As touching the Originals.
• 2. As touching the Translations.

1. I cannot but confesse that it sometimes makes my heart ake, when I seriously consider what is said, That we cannot assure our selves that the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, are the right Hebrew and Greek, any further then our Masters and Tutors, and the Ge­neral consent of all the Learned in [Page 39] the world do so say, not one dissent­ing. But yet say these, since the Apostles, there are no men in the world but are subject to deceive, and to be deceived. All in­fallibility in matters of this nature having long since left the world. Again, too like unto this is that of Master Wotton, who Answ. to Art. 3cantell (saith he) what the signi­fication of the Hebrew and Greek words is even in the Bible, but by the report of men? And to the like purpose is that observation, That the two Tables written im­mediately by Moses and the Pro­phets, and the Greek Copies imme­diately penned by the Apostles, and Apostolical men are all lost, or not to be made use of, except by a very few. And that we have none in Hebrew or Greek, but what are [Page 40] transcribed. Now transcribers are ordinary men, subject to mistake, may faile, having no unerring spirit to hold their hands in wri­ting

These be terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head and heart, but open the doore to Atheisme, and quite to fling off the bridle, which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and pi­ety: this is to fill the conceits I have r [...]ad how Austin (contra Faustum) calls the Jews Scri­niarios Ec­clesiae christi; that is the Keep­pers of the Rolls of the Church i e. the Scrip­tures▪ Can. 588.of men with evil thoughts a­gainst the Purity of the Origi­nals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be clean.

The best is, this doth concern the learned, who can best get out of such scruples as these, it being made plaine to them by [Page 41] the Jewes themselves (no friends to Christian Religion) That the Hebrew Text is curiously pre­served by them in its integrity. For if the Oracles of God were (as they were, Rom. 3. 2.) committed them, it deeply concernes the Providence of God to look to it, that the Jewes should keepe the Oracles of God not onely safe but pure, not onely from Rain. Conf.not being lost, but also from not being corrupted.

It's out of question that the same God, who committed the Oracles to the Jews, did also take care that they should preserve them fafe and sure, uncorrupt and pure.

It is the use of Saint Paul, much to follow the Greek trans­lation, which doth use to use the [Page 42] [...] Greek word translated Ora­cles, to meane the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets. And what if there be scapes in some Copies, yet other Copies runne clear? But sith this concernes the Learned, whom I much look not after, from the Originals, let us turne to the businesse of the Translations. As for other matters about the Greek and Hebrew, which it is, and what is the meaning of the words, I passe, as a meere excrement of wit, sith this is cried downe by all the learned world, whither Christian or unchristian, and therefore is not like to take to doe any hurt unto the soules of any.

IT is granted that translators were not led by such an in­fallible spirit as the Prophets, and Apostles were. In the Councel of Trent, after much debating by witty and learned heads, they concluded, That Canus Bel. Translators were not Apostles, but very near unto them. The great­est Papists are of the same mind, onely Sixtus Senensis is of opi­nion, the seaventie two Trans­latours of the old Testament into Greeke were infallible. Some are so quite another way, that they like not any translati­ons Difference of Churches c. 11at all. Smith, the Se-baptist is utterly against reading trans­lations in times of worship. A­mongst [Page 44] his Reasons, two are the chiefest. One is, that we must worship God with the best we have: Translations are not the best, but the Originals. Yet I hope they that know not the Originals, Translations are the best they have.

If this were true, then none can worship God in and by reading of the Scriptures, but such as understand the Origi­nals; nor is that currant in rea­son or Divinity, that we must serve God with the best. There is good, there is better, there is best of all: So that if one do that which is good, he sinnes not, though he do not that which is better, if he do that which is better, he sinnes not, though he do not do that which is best of [Page 45] all. He sinnes not, who keepes within the circle of that which is good, albeit he do not do that which is better, or that which is best of all.

Againe, a thing may be ab­solutely better in it self, yet a lesse good thing in it selfe may be better in some respects and circumstances. As simply in it self, marriage is simply better then a single life, yet in some respects Paul shews that a single life is better then marriage; 1 Cor. 7.and this is Pauls Divinity, Though a man do not that which is better, nor that which is best, yet as long as he doth do that which is good, he sins not.

His other reason is, That we must worship God with our owne gifts, not with anothers: As [Page 46] Translations are not our doing, but made by the gifts and paines of o­thers. To this we say, that 'tis true, we must worship God with our owne gifts, but it is not true, that in the worship of God with the help, and by the meanes of that which is a­nothers we do not exercise our owne gifts. The maine of the worship of God is, That we worship him in and with the Spi­rit, and truth in the inward parts: and so we must and may doe, and do do, when we make use of Translations. When we reade translations, we must reade them with Faith, and with the Spirit, which are our inward gifts and graces, else our reading is not to profit our selves withal: and what hin­derance [Page 47] the translation is, to the use of Faith and the Spirit, they do not▪ they cannot prove.

So we are said to sing with the Spirit, and yet we sing with the Spirit the better for that; and to pray with the Spirit, and yet the book is no hindrance to that neither. Others gifts as long as they rather further then hinder the use of our own gifts, can be no blur in the worship of God.

The same man doth wrangle with the originals too, not deny­ing them, but denying the use of the book in the originals them­selves in worship, for that the Prophets and Apostles wrote books, but did never divide their books into Chapters and Verses, till Henry Stephens, but the other [Page 48] day first made the verses of the New Testament, which being man invention, is not, saith he, to be used in the worship of God.

But whether Stephen Langton Arch-bishop of Canterbury, did it first for chapters, or Robert, or Henry Stephens for the New Testament did it into verses, is not material, sith we place no Religion in it, and this provisi­on is known to be a great helpe to men in the worship of God▪ We passe by this as a giddinesse of a weak braine in this Seba­ptist.

He grants Translations are of good use, but not in the worship of God: and if of good use else­where, why not there? Saint Paul exhorts the Collossians, [Page 49] That the Word of God might dwell Col. 3. 16. in them richly, in all wisdome. They being Grecians, I take it for granted, that the most of them were not skilled in the Hebrew, the New Testament being not written, not any of it, till after Pentecost, not all of it nntill John a matter of sixty years after Christs death. This to the Colossians could not be meant of the New Testament, but of the Old. So againe, the Thessalonians, being Grecians, did not understand the Hebrew, yet they were commanded to prove all things: By what? why by the Scriptures, and this was the Old Testament which, they understanding not (the Hebrew) then it cannot but be meant of the translation.

[Page 50] This Conclusion I think is clear, sith the Churches of the Gentiles were commanded to read Moses and the Prophets, and read them they could not but in a translation; therefore trans­lations are commanded by God, as an Ordinance and constitution of Heaven it felf.

The same Smith in the same book falls foule on the Greek translation of the seventy, as that it was a grievous sin to trans­late the Old Testament into Greek, or any language else. His reason is, for that this ought not to have bin done til the fulnes of time of the calling of theCartw. Hist. Chri­sti. part. 3 page 85. Was it not lawful for the Jews in captivity to labour the conversion of the Gentiles? Did Daniel sin, when he urged Nebuchadnezzar to break off his sins by repentance? Dan, 4. 27. Tho. Cart. in Prov. 16. 6. holds this was onely for this life; But though I am not of Melanctons mind, that Nebuchadnezzar was converted, yet I see no reason but Daniel might seek for converting and the saving of his soul. Gentiles: other [Page 51] reasons he hath not worth a fig, nor is this reason much better. It's known that Euseb. de praep. E­vangelii. l. 8. c. 1. Ptolomy King of Egypt had together certaine Learned Jewes, skilful in the Greek Language, in number seventy two, and by them he caused the Old Testament to be done into Greek about two hundred and ninety years before the Birth of Christ: And this is observed to be a fit time to have it done; for, if it had not been done till after the coming of Christ, either the Jewes out of envy would have kept and hid the Hebrew Copies, or corrupted them, or else cast some suspition, and evil report of evil doings on the translators; All which (it being done at this time) was prevented.

[Page 52] Now though this were done before the coming of Christ, and so of the time of the full calling of the Gentiles, yet it was not so long before, but that it was a fit preparative against the calling of the Gentiles, (whose language since Alexanders conquest gene­rally was Greek) and sith there then was no printing, no Copies could be scattered a­broad but by manuscripts, and writing, which is great labour and cost, and this being such a slow work, there needed that this translation should be done some good space before the cal­ling of the Gentiles, that so a suf­ficient number of Manuscript-written Copies might be had and scattered abroad among the Gentiles, they all under­standing [Page 53] the Greek, and but few or none the Hebrew: that the books being the foundation of the Prophets, might be rea­dy done against the time of the calling of the Gentiles for theirThe Greek translation in the Old Testament doth trans­late [...]eho­vah by [...], i. e. Lord. Now the New Te­stament in citing pla­ces one of the Old Testament where Je­hovah is in the Hebrew, they follow the Old Greek, and use for it [...], [...]. e Lord, and vet this translation must be called to be (a grievous sin) w [...] ch the holy Ghost doth so punctually follow, and allow in to gra d [...] matter as the signal name Jehovah. If the Apostles do, (as hey [...]o) justifie the [...]se of it, do not they with the same breath justifie the making of it? So Mat. 1. Luke 3. in the Genealogies the names are according to the Greek, not the Hebrew. Junius exported by D. Rainolds in his second edition of his translation of the Syriack Te­stament, altered those names, which in the first edition he had set down according to the Hebrew, into those names which are accord­ing to the Greek in the 70. translation. need and use.

Vid. Ju [...]. Parall. p. 11. The time of this translation being after the Jewes had been amongst the Gentiles in captivi­ty, we finde that the Gentiles being to creep into the Church, and now and then some to turn Proselytes; and was it not fit that there should be a translation, rea­dy to bid them welcome into the [Page 54] Church? And what if it were a sinne to attempt the full calling of the Gentiles, before the full time, yet who can say with any reason that it was a sin to provide a trans­lation (which they understood) a­gainst their calling? Nor could this translation be sufficiently provided for number in writ­ten Copies, and sufficiently scat­tered till the time of their cal­ling▪ So that this was not to go about to call them before the time was they were to be called, but rather an excellent Provi­dence to have Copies ready in a language they understood a­gainst the full time of their full calling.

And whereas it is objected, that these Jewes who did put it out of the Hebrew into the Greek, [Page 55] were profane men, is more then I knowe, or then they can prove.

Againe, to make it good, that the act of translating the Scriptures into Greek was no un­lawful thing, I need go no fur­ther then to the Apostles, who becoming all things to all men to save some, were careful in ci­ting places out of the Old Testament) to tie themselves much to this Greek translation. Insomuch, that though they did never vary from the Hebrew in sense, yet they did chose rather to follow the phrase and words of the Greek, then the Hebrew, to condescend as far as might be to the Gentiles who were ac­quainted with the Greek trans­lation, but not with the Hebrew original.

[Page 56] Wherefore it must needs be the froth of a giddy head in this man, to call this act of translation into Greek a grievous sin; sith the Apostles did so much use and re­verence it, and chiefly Paul who chiefly the Apostle of the Gen­tiles.

We all do or should know, that the Gospel began at Hieru­salem, from Gre [...]a leguntur in omnibus f [...]re genti­bus, Latina suis sinibus exiguis sine conti­nentur. Cie O [...]t. pro. Archia peet. The Greek tongue was of that publick use in those dayes that Jimes, Peter, and Paul writing to the Hebrews, [...] in Hebrew but in Greek: and Paul in his E [...]st e to the Hebrews, cites the places h [...] quotes out of the Old Te­stament accordi g o th [...] Greek Sep [...]uagi [...]t translation, rather then the Original Hebrew c [...]n [...]. Hierusalem it went to Judea and Samariah, thence to Syria and Cilicia, from thence to Ciprus, Asia, Greece, Italy, and from these parts to the utmost coasts of the earth according to the commission of Christ. Now in all Isa. 2. 3 Acts 1. 8. Paul writing to the Romans (wh se n [...]ot [...]er tongue was I a [...]ine) w i [...]e [...] in G e [...]k, following the Greek translation in places cited ou [...] [...] O [...]d Testament▪ R. m. [...].those parts the Greek [Page 57] was most in use in most, onely in use in some, and of necessity they had recourse to the Greek translation.

Smith speaks fowle of it, as a false, and forged translation. I dispute not what it is now, but what it was then: If it had been such a piece, the Apostle Paul would not have looked after it so much as he did, nor the church have used it so long as it did, is well known to those who know the state of the Church, that the church did generally use this Greek translation, & a Latine one framed out of this, & scarce any other, if any other at all, for six hundred yeares after Christ.

I know Sixtus Senensis, andSenen. Bib. l. 8. haer. 13. Bell. dc verbo D. i. l. 2. c. 6. Bellarmine (men of great reading) do write that the seventy Inter­preters, [Page 58] though they were not Prophets, who wrote Scripture, yet that they had a line, and light of the spirit, which did direct them, so that in transla­ting they did not er [...]e at all: which perhaps is too much on the other hand: however it held very pure I am perswaded a­long time, till the greek tongue began to grow out of use, and then came in a world of trans­lations in Latine, and popular languages.

I am cleare of opinion, that those Anabaptists, who are a­gainst all learning, are against all translations whatsoever: For without the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, it is not possible to turne the Old and New Testament into any [Page 59] language whatsoever. Nor without the understanding of those two languages can any un­derstand the Bible in the Origi­nals neither: And on this ground God may be said to binde us to what is impossible, I meane to build on the Scripture, when we can neither have it (by their principles) in any Translati­on, nor understand it in the Ori­ginals.

Tryal. p. 112. Mr. Wotton saith, that the Anabaptists do every one claim a priviledge of not erring for himself, (yet not for others) which opinion, he calls a false and lewd opinion. And on the matter, if that they do so hold, I know no great need or use they have of the Scriptures in the Originals or translation.

[Page 60] Before we come unto the maine of the businesse, we can­not skip over a businesse of Mr.Tryall. p. 94 Wotton: his words are these. No man ever dreamed that we commonly build our faith upon our English translation. What he would have by the word (com­monly) I know not, except his heart did faile his penne, when he wrote this, and by this word (commonly) he had a conceit that he might finde by it some shift and starting hole.

A strange speech it is to me, that English men (of such he speaks) who can understand no language but English, should be said not to build their faith on the English translation. On what then? The Original they know not, other translations they un­derstand [Page 61] not. And if they must not build their faith on the English translation they are left nothing to build their faith on. And what is this, but to leave all unlearned in the Originals with­out a rule. And if this be not to steale Atheisme into the hearts of the common people, I know not what is, sith Atheisme is such a welcome guest to the corrupt heart as it is.

Counsellor of State. Which makes me call to mind an Observation of Villeroy, a late wise Secretary of France, That the maine different Sects of Reli­gion in the East, and the fierce op­position they made each against each, made the people weary of the Christian Religion, and so Maho­met crept in with his religion, and was too welcome to almost all, who [Page 62] were almost weary of the sundry He­resies and Schisms, which were so brief and rife amongst Christians of the East: And this (saith he) overthrew the Christian Church first, and the Christian Empires and states next, over the East, and let in Mahomets Alchoran, and Mahomets Sword.

I doubt there is scarce any strange opinion pressing hither, but would be welcome to us: The Christian Religion was ne­ver in such danger since my time as it is now, sith men runne so many and so contrary wayes, that few can now tell which is true. And since so great a Clerk, and so great a Reformer as Wot­ton, hath left the poore English man no rule to prove his own, or to disprove the contrary: [Page 63] For if the English translation be not to an English man, let Elias come, and tell us what, and which is the rule, and on what an English man may build his faith on, being that there is no­thing left him but his English translation.

So the old Church after Ma­lachi, what was left to the most but the Greek Translation? and after the Apostles were dead and gone, the Christian Church­es were tied to the Greek trans­lation of the Old Testament, or else the Old Testament was no rule to them, except to a few, who understood the He­brew.

That which all men say, (saith Aristotle) is not to be doubted, but al the learned (I think) [Page 64] agree, that the Church used no translation but the Greek, for a matter of six hundred yeares af­ter the birth of Christ, for two hundred yeares before. So that for my part, I look upon it as a position full of danger for men to affirme, That translations are not a rule to ground our faith on, when we understand no other. That (say I) or none: not none, therefore that.

And now at last, after the clearing of what is past, we come to the maine point, to find out what it is that a poore soule who understands not the Originals must rest upon.

First, I say, that the Lord is not, nor will not be wanting to his Church in things necessa­ry to salvation: And to have [Page 65] a rule to build our faith on, is ab­solutely necessary to salvation. And that rule for common peo­ple must be the Scripture trans­lated, or nothing. And there­fore I take it to be a special Or­dinance, that the Scriptures should be translated for the use of the Church in several lan­guages.

Lib. 2. c. 7 p. 37 For the Original Copies, I must subscribe to that of Ganus a Papist, who tells us, That we are not to▪receive into the holy Ca­non both for the Old and New Te­stament, but such books as the A­postles did allow, and deliver over to the Church of Christ. And as the Church of the Jewes did preserve the Hebrew Original of the Old Testament safe and sure, so I doubt not but the same [Page 66] hand of the providence of God, hath and doth preserve the Greek Original of the New Te­stament.

And for that it is not possible that the Originals should serve the turne of all, or immediately of any, but of such as have the knowledge of those tongues, (who are but a poor few in respect of all the world over) wherefore I take it for granted that the line of Gods providence hath, and doth, and will carry the matter, in having translations of several languages so inti [...]e, as to be a sufficient rule to ground their faith: else God in his providence must needs be wanting in providing necessaries for his Church. Nor do I think that there was, or [Page 67] ever shall be a Church of Christ, or a Church of Christians in the belly of Antichrist, but have had translations sufficient to rest their souls on.

I doubt not but the vulgar, for all its faults hath sufficient for the saving of some soules Besides among the Papists they have Pagnine allowed by twoAdrian 6. Clement 7 Popes, which runs as pure as a­ny Translation in the world; and Arias Montanus a translati­on without exception. Senen­sis Ann. 1290 much commends Jacobus de Voragine a Papist, Arch-Bishop of Genua his translation into the Italian, and Senensis could well tell, having great skill in the O­riginals.

To me it is much, that Senen­sis (so sharp a Papist as he is) [Page 68] should in print, and that since the Councel of Trent, so highly commend a translation of the Bible into the Italian tongue. And Leo the tenth, Bishop of Rome, did just before Luthers dayes, print a recommendation of Erasinus translation of the New Testament into Latine. So that I look on it as a special providence of God, that there were translations, and those ex­act too in the heart of Popery: And if so, then he will not suf­fer the visible Church to be with­out a sufficient translation, as a sufficient rule.

Smith himself the great back­biter of translations, saith, That if the Translation agree with the O­riginal, it may well be said to be [Page 69] the Word of God: and if it do not agree with the Original, it is not the translation of the Origi­nal.

And now we will draw to­wards the main conclusion, How a simple Countrey-man is to be­lieve our Bible to be the Word. Doctor Jackson, and Master John Goodwin have set downe many, and many excellent things, but they flie so high, that they are for Eagles. One may say of their books, as Aristotle said of his books of Philosophy, That they were published, yet not published, seeing not to be un­derstood without his help. Now all the considerations these great Sophies have, and let there be as much more added to them, [Page 70] yet they will not do the work, till they come to the testimony of the spirit: They may and do work, and acquire in us an humane faith, which may stand free from actual hesitation, and doubting, but not from possible dubitation, for lay them all to­gether, yet they may deceive, or be deceived.

Canus disputes strongly a­gainst L 2. c. 8. Vid. Vellos. ad q. 27. quaefit in Ambrosium dub. ult. Scotus, Durand, Gabriel, and others, who rested themselves on the authority of the Church by an acquired faith first, before they come to an infused faith: This (saith he) were to sit down by the Authority of man, not of God, and the formal reason of our infused faith would be other then the increated truth of God: whereas the difference of faith got­ten [Page 71] by helps may erre, but faith in­fused by God cannot erre.

So that when we have all done, and got all the help we can to rest on the Scriptures, the work is not done▪ till we by the Spirit of God have this seal­ed by infused faith in our souls that these books (which we have translated) are the very words of God.

Diff. of Churches c 8. A translation so far forth as it doth truly and fully ex­press any thing of th Or gi­nal may be said to be inspired of God▪ and no farther. Smith himself, that grand backbiter of translations confes­seth at last, that if the translations of the Word of God do agree with the Originals, that then they are the Word of God; nor are they the Translations except they do, and as far as they do concord w th the Originals. If an Ambassadour deliver his minde by an Inter­preter, and the Interpreter do [Page 72] relate things right (else he is not an Interpreter) then his words are the speeches of the Ambassa­dour.

Well then, though all hu­mane reasons, the consent of all the world, will not help us to that faith in the Word, which will help us to heaven, yet they are a preparation, and such a preparation to this faith infused, that we cannot ordinarily look for faith infused, but by the way of this faith which is gotten by the arguments, reasons, consider­ations, convictions, and helps wrought by the Argumentations, and considerations proposed by men which do work (as most of­ten it doth) in us an acquired hu­mane faith free from actual (though not from possible) mi­stake and doubting.

[Page 73] This may be and is, a faire meanes to bring us to look on the Scripture without any actu­al question made of it as the Word of God. And then by the use of the Word to attain to a Divine faith, which is infallible by reason of the Divine infal­lible truth rightly conceived and believed by it. For it is out of question that by the Mi­nistry of men, who are not sim­ply infallible, both we may, and do attain unto that faith in the divine Revelations of the Word, which are or is infal­lible.

Its no Paradox to hold, that a thing not infallible, may by way of Ministry lead us to that cer­tainty which is infallible: For my part, I hold universal tradition as [Page 74] far as it looks onely on the votes and vices of men to be of all rea­sons the weakest. For the argu­ments from the authority of God be the strongest, yet conclusions from the authority of men is an unartificial argument, & the weak­est. However, what Arminius saith is true, that this humane faith built on such an universal tradition, may be a fit preparation to that other faith which is built on the Authori­ty of God: I am far [...]e from once thinking, that in universal tra­dition men do once dreame to make the last resolution of their faith into the veracity of any such universal tradition: For our faith must rest on the same that the Apostles and Prophets did rest their faith on But they did resolve their faith onely on [Page 75] truth uncreated, and divine, and not on the votes of the Church, or any universal tradition.

Loc. 1. 2. 8. p. 47. Canus speaks the truth, when he saith, that the authority of the divine Scriptures is not to be sought from the reason, or authority of men. For the as­sentArist. 1. post. to a conclusion cannot be more certain then the assent to the premisses, and proofs of that conclusion. Now if our infu­sed faith did rest onely or chief­ly on the credit of the Church, or universal tradition, then our infused faith could go no high­er then an humane and created truth: I mean onely or chiefly on the voices, or reasons of men, and not on the voice and authority of God.

But what is this to translati­ons? [Page 76] Much every way. I ar­gue thus: The end of the Church, and people of God is that they should be saved: Now if God set down the end, he will provide the means of theirQui dat sinem, dat consequen­tia ad finem salvation, and that is faith: and faith is not built on the au­thority of the Church, or of u­niversal tradition, (all which are the voices of men) but on the Word of God: Now this Word of God cannot concerne common people, but onely as translated.

Now, what shall a poore un­learned Christian do, if that he hath nothing to rest his poore soul on? the originals he under­stands not; if he did, the first Copies are not to be had; and he cannot tell whether the He­brew [Page 77] and Greek Copies, be the right Hebrew, or the right Greek, or that which is said to be the meaning of the Hebrew, or Greek, but as men tell us who are not Prophets, and may mistake. Be­sides, the Transcribers were men, and might erre: These consi­derations may let in Atheisme like a flood: To help all this, we will deliver our mind in some Propositions.

I. That God (as I shewed) did lay up the Hebrew Copies to be kept by the Jewes, who were or­dered by God to be faithful nota­ries to keep these Records, and a world of places are cited out of the Old in the New Testament according as they are nowe in the Hebrew Copies: and the [Page 78] Old Testament hath in it the life and soule of the New Testament. Moses and the Prophets wrote of Christ. The New Testament is but a cleare, and infallible counter-part of the Old. Its cleare that the Hebrew of the Old Testament stood cleare and uncorrupt, without any breaches made in them by tran­scribers, or otherwise, till the time of the publishing of the New Testament, as appears by the manie places cited in the New out of the Old: chiefly where Hebrew words are kept, and repeated, as Hosanna, Gol­gotha, Eli, Eli, Lamasabachthani, Mat. [...]7. sutable unto the places whence they are taken out of the Old, chiefly in Saint Mat­thews Gospel, who was most [Page 79] punctual in applying and suiting the Prophesies of the Old Te­stament of all the holy penmen of the New Testament.

And it is easie to be proved that Matthew wrote after that was done, which Luke wrote inIn his eight book of the Creed. p. 322. the Acts of the Apostles. Doctor Jackson saith a long time after Peter made that Sermon, Act. 1. Saint Matthew addes, and saith (saith he) it was called the field of blood unto this day Which argu­eth, that he wrote his Gospel a long time after St. Peter made his Comment upon the Psalmist, Acts 1. 15, 16, 17.

Well then, as God committed the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and do [...]h move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: [Page 80] So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncor­rupt, and clear: As for some scapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, then to cen­sure a book to be corrupt, be­cause of some scapes in the print­ing, and 'tis certaine, that what mistake is in one print, is correct­in another.

A second Proposition is, That God never did suffer his Church to be without a sufficient Rule, and there can be no rule but translations to the Vulgar: Therefore I make no question, but the sweet pro­vidence of God hath held the hearts, and hands, and pens of translators, so in all true [Page 81] Churches in all times, that the virnacular, and popular transla­tion into mother tongues, have beene made pure, without any considerable tincture of errour to endanger the soules of his Church.

For what if Interpreters and Translators were not Prophets, yet God hath and doth use so to guide them, that they have been, are, and shall be preserved from so erring in translating the Scriptures, that the souls of his people may have that which will feed them to eternal life, that they shall have sufficient for their instruction, and consolati­on here, and salvation hereafter? This is the opinion of Bellarmine himselfe, albeit he appropriates it to their vulgar Translation, yet [Page 82] I think the eye of providence provides for all vulgar, and ver­nacular translations in their mo­ther tongue for all true Church­es in the world.

3. Propos. Translations are sufficient with all their mistakes to save the Church. I will deliver this in the Spiritual arm [...]y. 263, 264 words of Master Baine. Faith cometh by hearing of the word from a particular Minister, who by confession of all is subject to errour; As God hath not immediately and infallibly assisted Ministers, that they cannot erre at all, so we know that he is in some measure with them, that they cannot altogether erre. A Translation that erreth cannot beget faith, so farre forth as it erreth, The word Translated, though subject to errour, is Gods Word, and begetteth, and increaseth [Page 83] faith, not so farre forth, as man through frailty erreth, but as he is assisted through speaking, and tran­slating to write the truth. So he, This gives full satisfaction to me, and I hope it will to o­thers.

4. Propos. The maine Conclusion, for a ground of all, is the evidence and seale of the Spirit of God, which perswadeth us of the saving truth in the Translation, and by way of Ministry to come to saving faith by the preaching of the Word by our several Mini­sters Papists cry up the inerra­ble and infallible authority of the Church, and yet they them­selves deny not but their parti­cular preachers (whom they heare) are as subject to erre as any of ours are: I know no [Page 84] In the Church it is rather [...] then it. [...]. authority the Church hath, whatever the Church doth is but Ministerial. The Papists and we agree in this, That Trans­lations, Originals, Reading, Preach­ing, is of no saving effect without the Revelation and Testimony of the Spirit: Canus (I ratherRain. conf. p. 424 choose to mention him the of­tener, because Dr. John Rai­nolds saith, that he was of better minde, and sounder judge­ment then Popish Doctors areLoc. 1. 2. [...]. 24, p. 109 the most of them:) It is a great errour (saith he) in them who think they can either under­stand, or interpret the Scrip­ture without the peculiar gift of the holy Ghost: And againe,c. 8. The last resolution of our faith must be in the inner efficiency of God mo­ving to beleeve. We believe not [Page 85] for that John or any man else saith it, but because God hath revealed it. Now that God hath revealed his minde, we do immediately be­lieve it by special instinct. And a­gain, The formal reason of our as­sent is the light of God, which God doth infuse into us; and for this he cites Aquinas, Lect. 2. ad Rom. 10.

And as the understanding in us discernes of natural things, and the taste in matters of sense, so when the minde of a man is inlightened by the Spirit; we are inabled to discerne doctrines necessary to falvation from er­rours which are not of God. This his resolution is often up and down in his book.

De grat. l. 6. c. 2. Bellarmine is for the same con­clusion. A man cannot (saith he) [Page 86] without the special illustration ofDe bapt. l. 1 c. [...]1. & tertio. God believe the mysteries of faith. And again, Faith cannot arise in the heart, but by divine revelation, which is either immediately from God alone, or by the instrument of the Word reade or preach­ed.

I think it hath truth in it, Loc. l. 2: c. 8 p. 48. which Canus observes, That Pe­ter had heard the Testimony of John Baptist, when with open voice he proclaimed Christ to be the Son of God, John 1. 84. and had more­over with his own eyes seene many miracles of Christ, yet after all these, Christ doth ascribe Peters Mat. 16. 17 confession of his saith to none of of these, but onely to divine re­velation.

So then Protestants and Pa­pists, we and they concurre in [Page 87] this, That at last we must sit down by the evidence and sealing testimo­ny of the Spirit; but with this dif­ference: They say, The Spirit gives light and evidence to the au­thority of the Church; we say, To the Sovereignty of the Scriptures. 1 Cor. 2. Nothing can be seene without some light or other: Things of Reason cannot be conceived without the light of reason, nor things of the Spirit without the light of Faith, and of the Spi­rit.

Though Wotton hath cast an unhappy stone or two at trans­lations, yet when he comes to answer Fisher, who said, That the Spirit of God teacheth, and per­swadeth men to believe the Church, Are you (saith Wotton) Tryal. p. 72 they who mock at private spirits, [Page 88] and yet are glad to flie that help? Is it not as likely the Spirit should teach men which is the Scripture, as which is the Church, and assure them of a translation, as of this or that mans Ordination and Priest­hood? So he, thus at last, he is for the divine authority of transla­tions.

But is not this to fall upon private revelations? No such matter: for we call not in for the Testimony of revealing of the Spirit to teach us any thing but what is revealed in the word; that wer to bring in privat reve­lations: But because none doth, or can know the secrets of God, but the Spirit of God, therefore1 Cor. 2. 10 we say, that we are made to see the evidence of truth first revealed in the Word, and then by that light, [Page 89] which the Spirit kindleth in our hearts, both the Scripture to be the Word of God, and the minde of the Sripture is not onely revealed, but confirmed to us by the Testimony of the Spirit in us and to us.

So here is no use of the Spirit to reveal new lights, but to shew us the evidence of these truthes which are in the Word. A private spirit is to lead us from, this is to lead us to the Word. And all this is done by illightning our understandings, and sanctifying our wills to dis­cern and to approve the evidence of truth, which is in the Scripture and no other.

They say, their Church cannot erre in matters of Faith. And why forsooth? Because it is infallibly guided by the strait line of the spirit. We say, The true Church cannot so [Page 90] erre in matters of faith or life, as to fall away from Christ, and so to fall into damnation. And why? Because (besides other helps) the true Church is guided by the certain and infallible direction of the spirit, the vicar gene­ralJoh. 16. 23. to our Lord Jesus. Why then may not we twit them, rather then they do us with the private spirit?

Aquinas, the first through-PapistPart. 1 9. 1 a. 8. ad 2. that ever was, (It is Dr. John Rai­nolds censure of him) shall speak last for this point▪ All holy learning is proved out of the Scriptures onely, necessarily; out of all other authors on­ly, probably: For our faith doth rest on the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canoni­cal Books, and not on any other reve­lation, if any be made to other Do­ctors. So he, and he was preferred by Innocent the Pope before all [Page 91] Writers next to the Scriptures, & well might the Pope so do (saith the same Dr. Rainolds) for that he deserved better of the Papacy then all the Fathers.

These things are so plaine, that to argue more were to weakenPerspicui­tas argu­mentatione elevatur. Cic. them. As I have read it to be the observation of Tully, That things perspicuous and clear are much ob­scured by much arguing: I hope the Papists for shame will give over fooling against us, that we run af­ter private Spirits and revelations, since Aquinas the flower of the Pa­pists speaks out as much as we do, as touching the sealing of the Spi­rit.

I have made a long and tedious discourse about the Originals and Translations, because I find by my [Page 92] self, that things let fall in Print by learned men and great reformers as touching the Originals, that none can say this is the Hebrew, that the Greek, but because Linguists and learned men say so, and they may erre: Nor that this is the English of the Hebrew, or of the Greek which we say is, but men subject to trip, do so say, That the Originals transcribed into many Co­pies might erre, and mistake: and for the translations, that there be flaws in them too, since the transcribers, and translators were no Prophets, but men, though not willing perhaps, yet sub­ject to speak and write besides the matter: that translations are not the Word of God, nor our rule.

These and such things as these, I doubt not do stagger the thoughts of weak, & of strong Christians too, and drive a many towards Athe­isme: [Page 93] And now saith a sick soule, What shall a poore feeble-hearted Christian do?

My counsel is, that when he is come to be certain without actual doubting by reasons, arguments, consent of times, & of the Church, that our Bible is the Word of God, that he would in all humili­ty and sincerity apply himselfe to read it, to hear it read, to heare it preached; and he may promise to himself that by the use of the word the Spirit of God will infuse & in­spire divine & saving faith into his soul, and free him not only from all actual, but possible doubting, that the Bible translated is the word of God. And if the translati­on, then the Originals: For what ever is the instrument to convert the soul; must needs be the pure word of God.

[Page 94] Some are firme that God never works a miracle, but to confirme truth: This is past question, that the Spirit of God doth never work this miracle to convert the soule, but by Gods word: So say, Now I know that it is the pure word of God, for that it is a means to convert my soul: so Psal. 19. 7: The Law of the Psal. 19. 7. Lord is perfect, converting the soul; By this then I know that it is with­out dispute the perfect Law of the Lord, because it doth not only e­vince and convince me, but con­vert my soul: St: Austine saith, that he was converted by reading the last verse of the thirteenth to the Romans, and that did prove to Au­stine that it was the perfect Law and word of God: It is storied, that Cyprian was converted by reading the Prophet Jonas: And [Page 95] Iunius in his life written by him­self,Niceph. l. 5 [...]. 27 saith that he was converted by reading the first Chapter of the Gospel of Iohn: For Austine & Cy­prian, I think neither of them hadAustine was con­verted by eading the translation his skill was little or none in the Creel; and Cypri­an by read­ing Jonas in the translation he having no skill in the Hebr. much skill in the Originals, no, nor Iunius neither at that time: wherefore it is plain enough that they were converted by reading translations.

When then a man doth finde that by reading or hearing trans­lations read or preached upon, it hath pleased God to warme thy heart, to turn and change thy poor soul, to convert thee into a new creature, go thy ways, doubt no­thing its an argument past answer, that the Bible even as translated is the Word of God. Go on, look on it as Gods word, read on still, be dili­gent to hear it, with the best ears [Page 96] thou hast, and thou shalt finde it more and more to convert and sanctifie thee, and so by conse­quence to assure thee by an un­doubtful, and divine faith inspired and infused into thy poor soul by the Spirit of God, that this book, & no other, is the very Word of God.

By this you see, where, and how the poor crazy soul may find rest, and it is to rest on the translated Word of God, waiting therein on the line of the sweet providence, who by the use of the word will breath into his soul divine faith in­fused by the sure influence of the Spirit of God, which spirit brings a light with it by which we know that, & what we know, this is done by a divine faith, not by humane conjecture, being wrought in us by a special providence of God per­swading [Page 97] and drawing us to ac­knowledge the contents there­in to be of Divine authority.

Nor is this (as I said) to make our private spirit the rule of our faith, but we lay all at the foote of the divine provi­dence to put light into our minds, and then to work in us a firm assent to the Word of God, that it is indeed and truth the very Word of God. And none of this is done otherwise then by the Word of God itself, and the spirit joyning with the Word.

In a word, nothing can work saving grace in any man to the conversion of his soule, but the very Word of God: But this the word translated hath wrought in me, there­fore I know by this, that the [Page 98] Scripture translated is the wordPsalme 19 of God, sith nothing but Gods word can turne and convert the soul.

Make the most of that which some call universal tradition▪ it can bring us no farther then an humane belief, little better is it then that which the Papists call the authority of the Church.

The Ministry of the Church we grant needful, and useful, but for the authority of the Church, we acknowledge none. Thus the Jewes are for their Rabbines, and their universal tradition. So did the Saracens; like as the Gen­tiles did, build on the universal tradition.

But after this tedious dis­course, [Page 99] the thing which we Christians are to rest our faith on, which is common to all, even to the meanest, is that internal light infused into us all by the Spirit of God, where­by we most firmely, and most certainly are moved to believe that the bible, and all the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is our most certaine rule which cannot erre; but that the Ʋniversal Tradition of Jewes, Saracens, Papists, hath beene, is, and will be subject to errours more or lesse.

The end and use of all, is to call upon all Christians, chiefly when they are in some doubting veine, to turne a­way from all authority of Churches, of men, of univer­sal [Page 100] 1 Pet: 2. 2 Tradition, and to looke up to the providence who hath provided sincere food and physick for our poore soules, which Christians have found, do, and shall finde, to be the Bible translated into severall Languages, for the use of those, who cannot skill in the Originals. And I think no man dares deny, but a Minister who hath himselfe lit­tle skill in the Originals, may by expounding and propoun­ding the Translations convert the soules of such Christi­ans as are the hearers of such Preachers.

HOnest Melancthon speakes against some in his Coun­trey in his dayes called Swenk­feldians, who held themselves after new birth to be just and per­fect. I have, not long since seene a little English printed book, cast into sundry propo­sitions, one whereof, and as I remember the first is, that after they are renued once, they are as perfect as Jesus Christ was, and as Adam was in Para­dise; which was the tenet of the Familists of old, that being once indued with the Divine na­ture [Page 102] in their conversion, that then they are Goddified.

The report is that those sprung up amongst us, common­ly called Quakers, are of the same fancy, and that they presse this place of John, that being once borne of God, they do not commit sinne, for Gods seed re­maineth in them, and that they cannot commit sin, because they are borne of God.

Their senslesse sense cannot1 John 1: 8, 9, 10. be the meaning of that place. For the same Apostle in the same Epistle saith, that, if we say that we have no sinne, we make him a liar. And is notConcil. Milevit. can. 6. this a sinne, and a very great one too, to make God a liar? John saith not, if (you) but if (we), comprehending himselfe too: [Page 103] and I hope it cannot be thought but John, a chiefe Apostle, was born of God.

Besides it is not onely said, That he who is borne of God doth not sinne, but (cannot) sinne. And all over the Bible in the stories of the best of men who were borne of God, we see that they could sinne, and did sinne, and those sinnes which were very great too.

This then is not the sense of the place, that there was, is, or ever shall be any meere man borne so of God as not to sin, or to be in and under such a con­dition, as to say truly of him, that he (cannot) sin.

Now for that which these write, that when once made par­takers of the Divine nature, they [Page 104] are as perfect as Adam in Para­dise, This is but their owne fancy, it is no such matter: But say it were so, and not one­ly so, but as perfect as the An­gels in heaven, yet from that it followes not, that it could, or can be said of them simply, that they cannot sinne: For Adam did, and therefore could sinne: he had indeed a Tempter with­out, but no concupiscence to tempt him within. Nay, more then that, the lapsed Angels be­fore their fall had nothing from within, nothing from without to tempt them. Within nothing but purity and holinesse, no sin, no shadow of sinne: Nothing from without to tempt them; nothing within but holinesse, nothing without but holinesse, [Page 105] without spot, or wrinkle, yet then those very Angels were sin-able, for they did fall, and therefore could sin.

The truth is, None but God ia absolutely free from all pos­sibility of sinning: God onelyApoc. 15. 4 in this sense is holy, he not on­ly doth not lie, but he cannot lie: Adam in Paradise was made up­right, the Angels in Heaven were made more pure then A­dam, both Adam and the An­gels had the advantage of the places to be kept from sinne, but being creatures crea­ted with free will, those Angels in heaven, and Adam in Para­dise (that heaven upon earth) might and did sinne; and so might all the rest of the Angels too, had they not been support­ed [Page 106] by grace for those were1 Tim. 5. 21 elected, andRom. 11. 5 Election is of grace. And should the e­lect Angels sinne but once the least sin that is, they could not be saved, as it fell out with those Angels which did sin: ForHeb. 2. 14 Christ took not the nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham; therefore they can­not sin, because they cannot be restored by a Mediatour. The Angels are holy, Daniel 4. 13. and so must be saved, which could not be, if they could and should sinne, Matthew 21. 30, 31.Mat. 18. 10 Againe, those ministering spi­rits do alwayes see the face of God, which were not true, if they should sin: For no soon­er did those non-Elect An­gels sin, but they presently left [Page 107] their habitation, Jude 6. and were cast downe into Tartar, that is Hell, 2 Pet. 2, 4.

Indeed when men are once in Heaven they are safe from sin, there is no place for tears, there­fore not for sinne, Revel. 21. 4. Now Luke 20. There is no more promised to the blessed men after the resurrection, then to the Angels, that then they shall be equal, not superior to the Angels: therefore nor men, nor Angels Elect can or shall sin in Heaven, which the other Angels did once in Heaven, for that they were not Elect, nor confirmed in and by grace.

Thus then you see that it could not be said of the unelect [Page 108] Angels once in heaven, nor of any sort of men till they come to heaven that they nor do, nor can sin. For my part, I think, that those who say they do not, they cannot sin, though they say so, yet I think they them­selves do not think so. I re­member a golden saying of Au­stine: He saith, he who thinksDe Civit. Dei. l. 14. c. 8 he can live without sinne, doth not avoid sinne, but rather ex­cludes all pardon. So that this is not the sense of the words, That ever any man was, is, or shall be in the world, who either cannot or doth not sin.

Of Idol. p. 15 Doctor Hammond following many Learned men saith this (cannot sin) is meant that upon that head and score he cannot sin, to signifie that their being [Page 109] borne of God can be no patent,Aug. hom. 4 in epist. Joan de bap. parvul. c. 8. contra Parmenia­num. c. 7. l. de prof. Justitia sufius or security for their sinning. The same saith Austine, to wit, That the borne of God sinne not, as, or upon this, that they are borne of God. For this is alled­ged that of the same Saint John 1 Epist. 3. 6. Whosoevor sinneth hath not seene him, neither known him, meaning, that the seeing and knowing him doth not let in sin, but rather this is against sin. So Paul, I do that I would not, I do not do what I would: there is no question, but there is some ignorance, some not knowing of him when any sinne is sin­ned.

Master Anthony Burges speech I think is in the right. All sins saith he are called, because all sinners are ignorant of some­thing [Page 110] they should know, there being no sinne which doth not pro­ceed from some errour in the pra­ctical judgement: For although a man sin wilfully and advisedly, so that there is no other cause of the malice, but the malice it self, as Austine speaks of some of his sins; yet even then there is an errour in Burgesse a­gainst the Antinom. p. 237 that mans conscience. Thus he, and to this I subscribe. So that it is not faith, nor knowledge which dwelleth in us, is the cause why we sin, but as Paul speaks of himself, it is sin which dwel­leth in us: Not I (as I) but sinne that dwelleth in me. So then a man borne of God, when he treads beside the line, he may say, it is not I, but sinne that dwells in me: so in this sense, it is a truth, that he that is borne of God, as [Page 111] born of God doth not sin, nor cannot sin.

This is pious, and truth, but under correction I do not think it to be the square meaning of this text. What then? some think it to be this. He that is borne of God, sinneth not, that is, sinneth not as the devil did, who ve▪se 8. of this chapter, sinneth (not sinned) but sinneth from the beginning. And this is like to be the mind of this text, for that it is said in the same verse before, He that committeth sinne is of the Devill. That I think is too short which some say, that the proper sense of this Text is, he that is born of God sinneth not, that sinne of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

In a word then, the full mean­ing [Page 112] is, that he that is borne of God doth not commit sinne, that is, he doth not make it his practice, his occupation, his work; he doth it, when he doth it besides his minde, and when he doth it, heLuke 15 is besides himself in that particu­lar, as the Prodigal was. It is long of some fits in his disease, when he doth it not onely as his act, but as his work, who giveRom. 6. 16 themselves over to be sould, and servants to sin. So Paul, so Christ, Matth. 7: 23: Depart from me all ye that work iniquity: Therefore Saint John speaks of such who are not regenerate, whose desire is to sin, and are a­fire to commit it: For other­wise all the regenerate do sin: so this our Apostle, If we say we say we have no sin we seduce our selves.

[Page 113] Nor do they sin onely of in­firmity, but sometimes they fall into greater sins, even into some of the greatest sins, but this is not1 Joh. 5. 16 unto death as our Apostle saith. So that such as are born of God sin they may, sin they do, and sometimes great sins, but to go on in a course of finning to the death, this they do not, that they cannot do, because they are born of God.

The onely shew of exception that can be taken, is, that Adam who is called (they say) Luke 3. ult. the son of God did sin, and might, as the state stood with him, unto death: And the An­gels called the sons of God, Job 2. 1. did a many of them sin un­to death.

[Page 114] But we read not that these were said to be borne of God, or that they had this seed remaining in them. They were called the sons of God in respect of that that holinesse wherein they were created; but the regene­rate that are (said to be borne of God) are so said, not onely in respect of the image of God, but of Christ, and the grace of regeneration, which is rooted in Christ, which as it cannot die in Christ the roote, so it cannot wither away in Christians the branches. The sap, which is still alive and fresh in Christ, is by the Spirit of Christ kept so alive in them, that albeit it do not keep them from sinning, yet it doth so preserve them, that [Page 115] they cannot sin unto death; they are so the members of Christ, that he will not suffer a­ny of his true members to sin all their spiritual life away.

Answ. 'Tis true, they are so, and should always shew themselves to be so. And Divines make this difference between moral ver­tues acquired, and spiritual ha­bits and graces: that for habits moral, we may use them as we will, that they are under the free [Page 116] Power of our wills; but for ha­bits and graces infused into our wills (the seat of them) our wills are rather under them and their power.

Then thus (under the power and determination of God) that there is a force in them to rule, and over-rule all. In this, the string is in the hand of God, and therefore it is said in the Word of God, that he it is, that doth make us walk in his wayes, and keep his Lawes. Had we a fulnesse of created graces as the Angels had, yet if God stand by, and leave us to them and our selves, and do not uphold us we may fall for all them; though there be nothing from without, or from within to push us down, [Page 117] the mutability only of our own free will might do it in us, as it did in the lapsed Angels. But those habits or divine qualities being lost in Adam (in whom we all sinned) such as are re­generated and born againe have supernatural graces of redemp­tion, which albeit they be not so full, yet are more firme then those of creation were. Those of God as Creator were lost, those of God in Christ our Re­deemer can never be so lost, but as the same St. John saith, There is a seed remaining in them, which doth so keep spiritual force up in them, that they cannot sin unto death.

Quest. But how then is the spirit stronger then the flesh, and the [Page 118] infused habit of grace may be said to have a ruling hand over our will?

Answ. It hath such a rule many ways, but in this one thing the power of the Spirit appeares above the power of the flesh, for that the Spirit doth ever bring us first or last, one way or other to repent of the works of the flesh, but the flesh is never able to make us sorry for, and repent of the fruits, and acts of the Spirit. No man is sor­ry for his vertues, all good men are for their vices.