THE FIRST SECTION.

Contayning five proofes that Scripture is not this Iudge or Rule.

1. ALl Proteſtants, and all that numberles number of our new Sectaries, do affirme that the Scripture, and only the Scripture by it ſelfe alone, is that infallible Rule, by which all neceſſary controverſies that are, or can be, are to be decided. As for the meanes to regulate our ſelves in the knowledge of true, and falſe Scripture, and for the finding the certaine and vndoubted true ſenſe of the ſame, they make no other vſe of the authority of any Church, or any generall Councel, but to conſider of what they ſay, and ponder how agreable, or diſagreable theyr opinions be to Scripture, And then, if, by theyr private judgement of diſcretion, they in theyr own, vnderſtandings be convinced that, what they ſay, is agreable to Scripture, they, for this reaſon, give beliefe vnto it. If they by theyr private judgement of diſcretion be convinced that, what they ſay, is not agreable to Scripture, they freely reject it, and disbelieue it. And this hath ever been the proceeding of all ancient Heretikes and is ever like to be the proceeding of all Heretikes to come For by this meanes thy all come to that, which they all deſire, that is, to have that paſſe for truth which each of them, in theyr private judgements of diſcretiō, do think to be true according to theyr manner of vnderſtanding the Scripture. And they all truſt more to theyr private vnderſtanding of the Scripture, then they do truſt to the interpretation of it made by the greateſt Doctors that ever the Church of God had for theſe thouſand and ſix hundered yeares, how holy or how learned ſo ever they were: Yea more then they will truſt all the cheife Paſtours and Prelats of the Church-aſſembled in a General Councell, after they have with all mature deliberation conſidered all the texts of Scriptures coneerning ſuch a point and conferred them with the originals, and with other places, and after they have examined each Biſhop of each nation what they find to have been delivered to them by theyr āceſtors touching this point, by much prayer, and publick faſts of all the Church diffuſed, implored the aſſiſtance of Allmigty God to direct them to the knowledge of the truth in ſuch a poinct. For after all this done, and after all theſe prime learned, and Holy Prelats of the Church, have, by full conſent, defined ſuch a point to be held as true, and that vnder paine of excommunication. Behould! When this decree Cometh forth, there will ſtart vp ſome devout Cobler, or Weaver: he will take this decree into the one hand, and in the other he will take his Engliſh Bible, tranſlated by ſome body (though neither I, nor he have any aſſurance of his honeſty or skill, or of the vncorruptednes of the Coppy by which this Engliſh Bible was tranſlated) yet into his hands he will take it. And then ſincerely he will make a reuew of this decree, or of the whole book of decrees, made by this, or by any generall Councell. And then if after his ſerious peruſal of the matter his rude vnderſtanding, according to his privat judgement of diſcretion, doth in good earneſt think this Decree (or all theſe Decrees) to be contrary to the word of God (rightly interpreted by him) this man, according to the principles of our adverſaries, may ſecurely disbelieve this doctrine, though propoſed by ſo great an authority as I have ſayd, yea though this authority, as they them ſelves ſay, be the very greateſt authority vpon earth. To relate this prodigious opinion is enough to refute it; and to ſhew how far more rationally wee Roman Catholiks rather truſt to the interpretations of generall Councels, which wee on the one ſide find ſeconded every where by the authority of the graveſt Doctors of the Church of God, according to theyr judgement of diſcretion, and the Tradition and judgemēt, ād perpetuall practiſe of their Anceſtours. And thē on, the other ſide wee ſee our own ſelves, that all this is to the very full as much yea and farre more agreable to the word of God according to our owne private judgemēt of diſcretiō, wherefore in this reſpect wee are to the very full as well grounded as they, and wee ſee as well what wee do: But wee infinitly exceed them in the advantage that wee have, by following not only our owne, but alſo a farre better ſighted judgement thē our owne, even in the uſe of naturall reaſō, beſides which reaſon thoſe Generall Councels have a more ſpeciall aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt. And thus wee perſever in all ages in all vnity, whileſt they in this one age have ſo runne diviſion vpon the ground of Scripture, that the meer relation of theyr ſeverall Sects in this one age, with the ſeverall opinions of every Sect of this age, filleth whole books, which be to to be ſeen in every Stationers Shoppe. And it is a wōder if any new year paſſe without one or more Religions ſpringing vp, as long as this one Principle paſſeth for current, and men may have free liberty to follow the conſequences which manifeſtly follow from it, as of late they have it. If this dayly hatching of Religions happened not ſooner, it was becauſe this liberty was not graunted ſooner. For althouh theyr Biſhops held the doctrine of giuing all liberty to follow in Conſcience what they in theyr private judgements of diſcretion held to be conformable to Gods word; yet they very inconſequently, forced theyr Conſciences to an exterior conformity, as long as theyr power laſted, for fear that ſhould not laſt long, if men were permitted to practiſe what they were permitted and taught to believe.

2. But to go on more orderly, wee ſay the Bible by it ſelfe alone is not this Iudge, or rule appointed by God to decide all neceſſary Controverſies, without you take the Bible as it, by many and very cleer texts, ſends vs for more full inſtruction to the Church. In this ſenſe, it is moſt true that the Bible is a very ſufficient Rule, as ſhall hereafter be more fully declared. But wee deny that, which our adverſaries affirme, that the Bible, taken by it ſelfe, doth ſuffice to decide, and end all our cō troverſies. This I prove firſt; by an argument ſo manifeſt, that, in theſe dayes, he muſt put out his eyes who will not ſee the truth of it. For who ſeeth not now the Bible dayly conſulted, place conferred with place, the beſt originals ſearched for, and looked for, and publiſhed more then ever (wee having the advantage of printing:) and yet after this; who ſeeth not that Controverſies about the very cheefe points of Religion, are ſo far from beeing leſſened, that never was age ſeen, or heard of, in which they multiplied more No ſooner had Martin Luther broached this Principle, that every man might take the Bible into his hand, and follow that interpretation, which after due diligence vſed, he thought to be beſt; but preſently, there ſprung vp an incredible number of different Sects. For An. 1526. Caroloſtadius, Zuinglius and OEcolampadius began to preach that opinion of the Sacramentaries, which denieth Chriſt to be really preſent in the Sacrament (an opinion which Luther did curſe vntill his very death.) The next year after Paciomontanus and Rothomannus, reteyning other opinions of Luther brought in Anabaptiſme. And theſe Anabaptiſts are now growne to be devided into twenty different Sects, all deſcribed particularly by Spanthemius. In fine Luther himſelfe ād his diſciples did ſo tumble about theyr new Religion, turning it with ſo many chopps, and changes, that OEcolampadius objected vnto them, If wee reflect vpon your diſſentions, ſurely there are almoſt found among you ſeventy ſeven changes. Aequa reſponſio ad Lutherum. Praefat. Theyr cheife permanent Sects were, the Antinomians, Oſiandrians, Majoriſts, Synergiſts, Stancarians, Amſdorfians, Flavians, Subſtantiatians, Accidentarians, Adiaphoriſts, Muſculans, Pſeffringians, Vbiquiſts. So much for Lutherans.

3. Now in the year 1538. Iohn Calvin a diſciple of Zwinglius, deſpiſing his maſter did ſet vp of him ſelfe, adding many opiniōs to that of the Sacramentarians. This mans Religion, and his diſciples began ſo quikly to be divided, and ſubdivided in to ſo many ſects, that Luther did live to write thus of them: I ſcarce ever read of a more deformed bereſy, which preſently in the beginning was divided into ſo many heads, ſuch a number of Sects (mark what followeth) not one like an other, and ſuch variety and diſagreeing of opinions. Tom. 7. f. 380. And in another place he addeth, Six or ſeven Sects of them to have riſen in only two yeares ſpace. T. 6. f. 335. Thus much could Luther ſay of theyr very beginnings. Wee, at this day, ſee that his Engliſh diſciples can ring the Changes as well as any of theyr forefathers, ſo that now every family is like a houſe in which the Maſter ſpeaketh high Dutch, the Miſtres French, the children one Spaniſh, one Iriſh, one Scotiſh, and ſome ſervants welch, ſome Iaponian, ſome Polonian &c. And all this Babilonian confuſion proceeds from this one principle, of thruſting the Bible (in the vulgar language) into every hand with teaching them this Principle, Behould here is the only Rule God hath given you to Rule your owne ſelves by; and by which Every one is to Iudge for him ſelfe, which is true doctrine, which is falſe, after he hath vſed ſuch induſtries, as ſhall be declared, Sect. 2. n. 13. Though evē after the vſe of all thoſe induſtries wee do ſee with our eyes no end preſent, or ever like to be made of our Controverſies ſtill encreaſing, and encreaſing like Snow falling from a mountain.

4. A Second Reaſon much illuſtrating and declaring the former (becauſe it diſcouereth the true original cauſe why wee ſhall ſee no controverſies ever ended by ſtanding only to the Sentence given by God in the Bible) is this, that whilſt wee take thus the Scripture for our only Rule, and God, as he ſpeaketh by the Scriptures alone, for our only Iudge, wee needs muſt fall into a vaſt confuſion. For every one of vs having our private Iudgements as different almoſt from one an other, as our faces are, and theſe Iudgements beeing ſo very weake in hard, and high matters, how can it be but that preſently wee ſhould come to frame different Iudgements of the true Sence and interpretation of that ſentence which wee find giuen by God in Scripture as ſhall be very fully declared Sect. 7. well then in this variety of judgements you ſay wee may refuſe to ſtand to the interior imbracing of that interpretatiō, which is made by the graveſt generall Councell that can be gathered vpon earth, vnles, peruſing the definition of this Councel, wee, in our private Iudgement of diſcretion, Iudge it conformable to the word. But if (after vſe of ſuch induſtries as you require) wee, according to our private Iudgement (ſo very various and ſo very weake in points ſo hard) do really think the definition not to be conformable to Scripture, then (you ſay) wee may interiorly diſſent from it, And yet it is true that all faith cōſiſts in the interior aſſent. Whēce it followeth that the laſt Rule which is followed, when all comes to all, is the Scripture, not taken as it ſounds (for that wee all reject) but taken in that ſence which our private Iudgement (for this is your doctrine) draweth from it. This is that, ſay wee, which openeth a wide gap to all Sectaries and D. Fern in his 13. Sect. in vain labours to ſhew the contrary by telling them they muſt bring evident Scripture and demonſtration againſt publick authority of the Church And that vpon diſſent and gainſaying they muſt vndergo the Churches cenſures, which cēſures, according to our adverſaries doctrine, ſhall nothing hurt your Soul. And he concludeth, that there is no other meanes to preſerve vnity proper to the Church. But queſtionles this meanes is moſt vneffectuall, which both experience teacheth vs (as I have juſt now ſhewed) and the very confideration alſo of the Nature of the meanes. For this meanes muſt at laſt be applyed by men, that is, by thoſe to whome Nature hath given as different judgements in theyr vnderſtandings, as affections in their love and wills. Well now, when this weake, this moſt fallible and moſt various vnderſtanding, hath got in to his hands the Rule, by which only every one is to be directed in Faith, what can wee expect but that, as every ones judgement is different, ſo alſo will the Faith of every one be. And every one believing that to be evident which he judgeth to be ſo, Every one will ſincerly ſay that he bringeth evident demonſtrations of Scripture, and therefore he contradicteth publick authority vpon as good ground as you did, when you (at your diviſion from the Roman Church) did contradict, not only her authority, but alſo the publick known doctrine of all other Churches which God had viſible, at that time, vpon the face of the earth. Tertulliā wittily ſayth: what was lawfull to Valentinus was lawfull to the Valentinians. As lawfully as Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin, and others did ſeperate from all the Prelats and Paſtors of the Church of theyr age. So lawfully at the leaſt the Lutherians, Zuinglians, Calviniſts may ſeperate from them and theyr few new Prelats and Paſtors, and may according to the example which theſe men gave them, make them ſelves independents ād caſt of this remnāt of depēdency not only of higher Prelates, but alſo of all inferior Curates: for this is but to go on conſequently to the example given vnto them.

5. But for the importance of the matter, I will further declare this by a cleer example, which may here after be vſefull to vs. Let vs take an Arrian Cobler, and give him one great principle more of D: Ferns, that his part is the negative: for he denieth the affirmative doctrine of thoſe who teach, that God the Sonne is of the very ſelfe ſame ſubſtance with his Father; and that conſequently our Church muſt ſhew him evident Scripture for what wee affirme. If you tell him, the great Councel of Nice hath vnanimouſly declared the ſenſe of theſe words in Scripture, I and my Father am one thing, to be this, that God the Sonne is one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtance with is Father, though yet he be a different perſon: well, will he ſay, I reverence Councels very higly, yet I muſt peruſe theyr decrees, and conſider how conformable they be to Scriture. I beginning to do this, began to ponder how God the Father and his Sonne are one thing; being they be quite different perſons? And ſurely this different perſonality, in all reaſon, ſhould be a different thing. How then (ſayd I) are they one thing? Is it not perhaps the true meaning of theſe words, that they are one thing only by affection? As I have often been tould by our great Doctors. This I can eaſely vnderſtand: I will ſee a litle further whether this interpretation, conferred with other texts of Scripture, may not be found to be very good. I conferred it with the text, which one of our Doctors cited out of Iohn. 17.21. where Chriſt prayeth to his Father That all his diſciples may be One thing, as thou Father in mee, and I in thee. Here I marked that Chriſt demanded, that his diſciples might be one thing, as he and his Father are one thing. Now every body ſeeth, that Chriſt never begged, that his diſciples might be one thing in ſubſtance with him. Hēce I manifeſtly cōclude that I now am not cōvinced of my negative opinion, for which I have all human reaſons; but contrary wiſe I bring for my opinion the evident demonſtratiō of Scripture, againſt the publick authority of the Councel of Nice. Wherefore if the followers of that Councel preſſe mee to make publik profeſſion, that God the Sonne is of the ſame ſubſtance with his Father, I may and muſt gainſay them all. Good M. Doctor either convince this Arrian Cobler, or give vs better ſatisfaction why you deny, that theſe your principles open a gap for Sectaries, ād even ſuch Sectaries as overthrow the foundations of true Religion, as you confeſſe this Arrian beliefe doth. And juſt as this Cobler proceeds in denying this Conſubſtantiation, ſo you proceed in denying Tranſubſtantiation. Only he who denyes Confuſtantiatiō hath incomparably ſtronger reaſons and better authority of Scripture for himſelfe. Of this review of Councels ſee Sect. 18. n. 5. 6.

6. A third reaſon, why wee ſay Scripture not to be our only Iudge, is; that our very adverſaries confeſſe, no one Book of Scripture, nor no certain number of Canonicall Books, to be our Iudge: but they ſay the whole Canon, or all the Canonicall Bookes together, make vp the only Rule, by which wee are to be wholy directed. Now if this be ſo, that you will have vs judged by all Canonicall Bookes, then you muſt agree to tell vs, which Bookes for certain be thoſe which belong to the making vp the whole number of Canonicall Bookes. For it is a moſt juſt requeſt to ask of you, by what Iudge you would have vs to be judged? You ſay by all Canonicall Bookes. Give vs leave to aske how many, and which bookes they be? Your Engliſh Bible thruſteth out of the Canon, and placeth among the apocrypha, ſome halfe a ſcore Bookes which wee hould for Canonicall. Again, your Engliſh Bible taketh into the Canon of Scriptures, divers Bookes which your Lutheran Bretheren caſt out: as the Epiſtle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, the Epiſtle of S. Iames; the ſecond Epiſtle of S. Peter, the ſecond, and third of S. Iohn; the Epiſtle of S. Iude; the Apocalyps or Revelation. Wee then ſay vnto you, agree at leaſt firſt, by which Bookes you would have the Canon to be compleatly made up, and then preſſe vs by your arguments to be judged by them alone. This at leaſt wee have reaſon to ſay; but wee conceiue our ſelves alſo to have reaſon to exact of you, to demonſtrate vnto vs, that the Bookes of Machabees (by which wee prove Purgatory) and the other Bookes which you are pleaſed to diſcannon, do not Belong to the making vp of the true Canon. Yet when you have done this, or allowed vs all theſe Bookes for Canonicall, wee ſhall not have the number of bookes requiſite to make the full Canon. Hence followeth.

7. A fourth reaſon, that many, and very many of the Canonical Bookes of Scripture have quite periſhed, and not ſo much as appeared in the dayes of the very ancient Fathers: ſo that nothing but the names of theſe Bookes are come vnto vs. Adamus Contzen in his Proëmiall Queſtions to his Commentaries vpon the 4. Ghoſples Q. 4. §. 8. doth not only affirme, but moſt ſolidly prove, that no fewer then twenty ſeverall Bookes of Scripture have thus wholy periſhed. Serrarius doth the ſame. I will give you the names of ſome of theſe Bookes. In the Book of numbers c. 21. v. 14. wee read thus: It is ſayd in the Book of the wars of the Lord. Where is this Booke? It is quite periſhed. In the third Book of Kings (which you call the firſt) c. 4. v. 32. Salomon Spoke three thouſand Proverbs: and his Canticles were a thouſand and five. Where be theſe Bookes? What a ſmall part have wee of them? In the ſecond Book of Chronicles c 9. v. 29. it is ſayd. Now the reſt of the acts of Salomon firſt and laſt, are they not written in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Propheſie of Ahijah and in the viſion of Iddo.? Where be theſe three ſeverall Prophets Bookes. They are all quite periſhed. And the firſt Booke of Chro: endeth with theſe words, Now the Acts of David the King firſt and laſt behould be they not written in the Book of Samuel the Seer, and in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer? Where alſo be theſe ſeverall Prophets Bookes? They be quite loſt. In the laſt to the Coloſſians S. Paul Commands to read in the Church the Epiſtle from Laodicia. Whereis it? It appeares not. He alſo in his firſt to the Corinthians c. 5. v. 9. ſayth. I wrot to you in an Epiſtle. Where is this Epiſtle to them which he wrote before the firſt that wee haue vnto them? It appeaers not. S. Matthew (whoſe Hebrew Ghoſpel is now quite loſt) in his 27. Chap. v. 9. citeth words ſpoken by the Prophet Ieremy, which be not to be found in all Ieremy as wee now have him. Wherefore part of Ieremy the Prophet is alſo periſhed, as Contzē on this place excellently proveth out of Chron: 2. c. 35. v. 26. S. Matthew alſo c. 2. v. 23. ſayth. It was ſpoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Na • aren. The Bookes of thoſe Prophets who ſpoke this are alſo periſhed, for wee find Chriſt never called a Nazaren in all the Prophets Bookes which wee have. Whence S. Chryſoſtom writing on this place Homil. 9. in Mat. ſayth, Many of the Propheticall monuments have periſhed; for the Iewes beeing careles, and not only careles, but alſo impious, they have Careleſly loſt ſome of theſe Monuments: others they have partly burned, partly torn in peeces. So he, Now thoſe Bookes which the Iewes out of impious malice burned, or tore a peeces, are moſt likely to have been ſuch as they did ſee the Apoſtles to cite moſt for the proof of Chriſtian doctrine as alſo it appeareth by theyr making away the Prophets Bookes cited by S. Matthew. See S. Iuſtin againſt Tryphon ſhewing that the Iewes did make away many Bookes of the ould Teſtament, that the new might not ſeeme to agree with it, as it ſhould.

8. Well then by all this it is manifeſt that many, and very many Bookes of Scripture have quite periſhed, beſides thoſe many which you your ſelves thurſt vniuſtly out of your Bible. Will you have us now, in all our Controverſies about neceſſary points, be wholy judged by all the Bookes of the Scripture? Then bring them forth all, that wee may know what is writē in all of them. For who can doubt but many things, as neceſſary as others that are in the Bookes wee have, were writen in theſe Bookes which wee have not? Eſpecially the Iewes malitiouſly beeing moſt likely to have deſtroyed thoſe Bookes firſt, which conteyned the moſt cleer places for our Religion. Where is it written that all things neceſſary to be beleeved, be written in the Bookes which wee now have? Cite mee a Text proving this, and I have done. Nay you your ſelves teach, that all the whole body of the Bookes of Scripture is required, to give us thoſe points which are neceſſary to Salvation: and the reaſon is, becauſe you cannot aſſigne any particular Bookes, or particular number of particular bookes, conteyning cleerly all theſe neceſſary points. Yea, wee ſhall prove, that there bee no fewer then twenty foure neceſſary points, which are, not conteyned in any of thoſe Bookes of Scripture which wee have, whether they were conteyned in the Bokes which have periſhed, no man but a Prophet can tell; or if they were, then (now at leaſt) ſince they are periſhed, wee cannot know theſe neceſſary points by them. Yet, theſe points beeing neceſſary to be known, God muſt provide vs of ſome other meanes to know them.

9. A fifth reaſon. If either all the bookes of Scripture, or ſome particular number of them, had conteyned the only neceſſary direction, for every man to guide him ſelfe by, in all points neceſſary to Salvation, it cannot be doubted but the Apoſtles, who ſpent all theyr labours and liues, in ſeeking the Salvation of Soules, and who knew very well that, on the one ſide true Faith in matters neceſſary for beliefe ād practice, was wholy neceſſary to the Salvation of every one; and knew alſo on the otherſide (as you muſt ſay) that the only meanes, appointed by God for theyr neceſſary direction in this neceſſary Faith, was the Scripture, and nothing but the Scripture, by which every man was to Iudge for him ſelfe; it cannot, I ſay, be doubted but they (had this been true) would either them ſelves have procured, the Scriptures to be put into ſuch toungs, and languages, as the vulgar people of ſo many different nations vſe, and only underſtand; for without theyr underſtanding the Scriptures, it is impoſſible to direct them ſelves by them: and with out they direct them ſelves by them, it is impoſſible to be rightly directed to the knowledge of that Faith, with out which it is impoſſible to pleaſe God. The Apoſtles knew this to the full as well as you, if it be true; And yet wee could never heare, that they tooke ſo much as the leaſt care by them ſelves, or charged theyr ſucceſſors to take the leaſt care, to turne the Scripture, either all, or that part which is ſo wholy neceſſary, in to ſuch languages as the ſeverall people of theſe ſeverall nations (which they converted) did vſe: neither could wee ever hear, that theyr ſucceſſors (ſo very well inſtructed by them) did ever take the leaſt care to do this, ſo wholy neceſſary to be done, if your doctrine be true. Yet you all deny, that theyr immediate Succeſſors did ſet forth our Latin vulgar edition, which is the moſt ancient of all Latin editions, S. Peter and S. Paul living ſo long in Rome cauſed no part of the bible to be tranſlated into the Romiſh language: yea S. Paul writes to them in Greek.

10. Some anſwer, that the Apoſtles tooke this care becauſe they writt the greateſt part of the new Teſtament in Greek. And then, they beeing put to prove that greeke was vnderſtood either by all, or by the greater part of the world, they prove this moſt pittifully, by only citing Tully pro Archia Poëta ſaying. Graeca omnibus fere gentibus leguntur. Greek is read almoſt in all nations. I anſwer, that as wee commonly ſay, that Tully and Virgil in latin, are read in al nations; and yet our meaning only is, that the more learned ſort in all nations read theſe latin bookes: ſo, in this ſence, Tully may ſo much the eaſier be ſuppoſed to haue ſaid, Greek was read almoſt in all nations, becauſe he added the word Almoſt even then, when he delivered this his ſaying in an encomiaſticall Oration, in which Orators make freeſt vſe of amplifications, and hyperbolicall exaggerations ever without any reſtrictions at all; eſpecially when ſuch Amplifications be for theyr turn, as here it was for Tully his turne, becauſe he was to ſhew that this man (though a Greek Poët) could by his Greek Poëtry make the Romans famous, Greek Poëts beeing read, by the learned ſort of the neigbouring nations, and the fame among the learned of thoſe natiōs beeing cheefly to be regarded. And either, in this vſuall ſenſe, Tully muſt be vnderſtood; or elſe flat Scripture muſt be denied. For the Scriptuer Act. 2. intending on ſet purpoſe to give vs the names of ſeverall people whoſe languages were all different one from another, at the beginning of the Church, nameth Pontus, Cappadocia, Aſia (minor) Phrygia, Pamphilia, all which places are ſituated between that Citty, which now wee call Conſtantinople, and the citty of Antioch, in which town Tully ſayth that Poët, which he vndertook to prayſe, was born. Within that compaſſe alſo is Galatia, which S. Ierom teſtifieth to haue had a language ſome what like that of Trevers. Now, if even in theſe places, where a man, by Tully his words, would moſt imagin the Greek toung to be the Vulgar lā guage, it is manifeſt (by Scripture it ſelfe) that it was not ſo; ſurely wee haue all reaſon to imagin, that in remoter parts, both in Eaſt, Weſt, North, and South, it was in few places the vulgar language in reſpect of the farre greater part of the world. Call here to mind how much you vſe to cry out againſt vs, for uſing our common publik prayer in latin, though this language, be ſo common among all wel bred people; and yet, this our Common publik prayer is a thing only offered to God, for the people of all Nations; and not a thing ſpoken to the people of all Nations, for theyr neceſſary inſtruction, as you ſay all the Scripture was. And moreover Maſſe is offered vp by a Prieſt, who vnderſtādeth the language in which he offereth vp theſe publike Prayers: But the Scripture, eſpecially the new Teſtament, is delivered to every one of the people (as you teach) for every one to judge by it for himſelfe, what is neceſſary for him to believe, and to doe, to work his ſalvation; and this is his neceſſary direction appointed by God to be ſo. Why then do you not cry out much more againſt the Apoſtles, and theyr ill inſtructing theyr Succeſſors in ſo important a poinct, as was the communicating or delivering to the people of all nations, in ſuch languages as were knowne to all nations vulgarly and commonly, that very Rule of Faith, ſo wholy neceſſary for theyr direction, that all other meanes are accounted by you fallible, and conſequently vnſufficient to bring forth an infallible aſſent, ſuch an one as true ſaving faith muſt be. But the truth is, that the Apoſtles knew well enough, that orall tradition, joyned to the dayly profeſſion of the faith ſo delivered, and to the dayly practiſe, anſwerable to what they ſo profeſſed, would abundantly ſuffice for the ſufficient communicating of Gods infallible word to all Nations.

11. All this is confirmed by this demonſtration. The Iewes in theyr Captivity at Babilon did wholy looſe the vulgar vſe, and knowledge of the ould hebrew tounge in which the Law and Prophets were written, and ever after ſpok Syriack, a language Mixt with Hebrew and Chaldean, and wonderfull few by theyr private ſtudy did ſo much as vnderſtand Hebrew. This is teſtified by your own greateſt Doctors of antiquity, who now are ſetting forth that admirable bible at London (of which I ſhall ſpeak Sect. 4. n. 8.) in theyr introduction they ſay: Certum eſt ante Chriſtum nullam fuiſſe verſionem Syram. It is certain that before Chriſts time (and ſome time after) there was no Scripture tranſlated into the Syriack language. So that for fourteene generations the Iewes had not the bible in theyr own vulgar language: but the law and Prophets were read in theyr Synagogue, ād the Pſalmes were ſung, in a language which the people no more vnderſtood thē they now vnderſtand latin. This was done before Chriſts own eyes, and he never found fault with it. An evident proofe of the lawfullnes of prayer in an vnknowne toung, and that God gave not the Iewes the Scripture only for theyr Rule or Iudge: for then it would have been judged neceſſary to have been tranſlated into Syriak; the only toung they vnderſtood. Let us go on. Yet before wee proceed, let us note by the way; how ſoon you came to call your publick ſervice into queſtion, when once you had got it in your vulgar language: every vulgar fellow preſumes to cenſure it; yea it hath in your Courts been araigned and condemned: and is ſo vulgarly contemned that ſcarce any miniſter dares offer to read it. But wee muſt proceed to other Matters.

SECTION II. A SIXTH ARGVMENT.

That Scripture conteyneth not playnly all things neceſſary to be believed or done to ſalvation. This is here shewed by 14. Examples.

DOctor Ferne in his Sect. 22. tells us: That Scripture cōteynes all things of them ſelves neceſſary to be believed or done to Salvation: not expreſly and in ſo many words, but either ſo; or elſe, deducible thence by evident, and ſufficient conſequence. And in his Sect. 26. What is neceſſary to life ād faith is for the moſt part, plainly ſet down. I ſuppoſe he ſayth it is ſo, for the moſt part, becauſe ſometimes it is only deducible by conſequence, which muſt be evident and clear; as a litle after he ſayth. And yet for fear all this ſhould come ſhort, he preſently adds that things thus neceſſary are not deducible, all by every one that reads: but 〈…〉 if done by the Paſtors and guides which God appointed 〈…〉 Church to that purpoſe, vſing the meanes that are needfull to that purpoſe; ſuch as is attention and diligance in ſearch, of the Scripture, collation of places, and obſerving the connections, alſo ſincerity and impartiallity in the collection or deduction which they make, alſo prayer and devotion for aſsiſtance in the work. So he; very diſcomfortably for the farre greater part of the world, who (though moſt vnlearned) are moſt prepoſterouſly by Proteſtant Doctors invited, yea declared to be commanded, to read the Scriptures, to the end they may plainly know by themſelves what is neceſſary for them to be beleeved and done to ſalvation; and yet here they are plainly tould that theſe neceſſary things are not all, but only for the moſt part, plainly ſet down, and though they be deducible from Scripture, yet they be not all deducible by every one that Reades; but it is enough if done by theyr Paſtors and Guides. What by them all? No, not by them all, but only ſuch as have vſed all theſe great diligences here expreſſed: to which he ought to have added ſeverall things more, as perfect skill in Greek, and Hebrew, with the peruſall of the true, and certainly true, Originals: which diligences, with all theſe conditions, one Miniſter amongſt one hundred vſeth not, and thoſe, who have vſeth it, cannot b • • vidently known by the people to have vſed them; and hough they could be known to have done ſo, yet they ſhould be known to have vſed meanes that are fallible. How then grow theſe conſequences to be evident? Yet all the people are all to hould ſuch conſequēces evidently deduced; and yet without they themſelves vſe theſe meanes (impoſſible vnto them) they cannot know the evidence of this deduction. For how ſhould they know it evidently? And yet again, theſe poor good people are moſt prepoſterouſly taught, to prefer the doctrine of theyr Miniſters, thus and only thus deduced, (even according to theyr own confeſſion) before the quite contrary conſequences deduced by incomparable better meanes: for what our Church teacheth in her generall Councels, is deduced from Gods Word by moſt skilfull, and moſt learned Prelates aſſembled frō all parts of the world, bringing with them the beſt Schollers that can be got by them in the world: all chiefly hauing regard to what was firſt delivered with theyr firſt faith. Moreover all the Chriſtian world is ſtill helping them by theyr prayers all the time they are aſſēbled. Again the very conference of ſuch men with one an other, is a thing wonderfully helping to the finding out truth; to ſay nothing of the ſupernaturall aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt, made farre ſurer; by promiſe of Chriſt, to them, then to any private Miniſters: what then more vnreaſonable then to forſake them, to follow theſe?

2. But let vs go on. The world conſiſteth of people, commonly not very learned: For theſe men, God muſt have provided ſome way, to know clearly what they are obliged to believe, and to do for theyr ſalvatiō. For many things which are to be believed, are moſt hard to vnderſtand: And many things muſt be practiced, which are very hard to be done. And the beliefe and practice of theſe things muſt oblige all the world, as long as the ſame ſhall continue. Now to oblige all for ever to this with out giving them meanes to know plainly and clearly, what they ſhould beleeve or doe, had been a thing vnreaſonable, in ſo ſweet a Providence, as that of our Heavenly Father is. This obligation then in every particular point which is neceſſarily to be beleeved, and done by vs, for the obteyning heaven and avoiding hell, muſt be clearly intimated to vs all, even in all and every one of theſe particulars. The meanes, by which this is only to be done, is the Scripture taken by it ſelf alone, as all you Proteſtants teach: Wherefore an vnavoidable neceſſity doth fall vpon you, to affirme; that all things neceſſary to be beleeved, or done, are plainly ſet down in Scripture: And conſequently what is not ſo delivered, is thereby ſufficiently ſignified not to be neceſſary. As for your limitations, in declaring theſe words, plainly ſet down, whe ſhall (beſides what wee have already ſaid) ſay much more in the end of this Section and Sect. 7. Now wee muſt give a diſtinct declaration of this your opinion, which perforce muſt be held by all kind of Proteſtants; for neceſſity enforceth them, who disagree ſo often, here wholy to agree. Firſt then, let vs declare thoſe firſt words of theyr aſſertion: All things neceſſary to be beleeved, or done. Theſe words muſt of neceſſity be vnderſtood ſo, that all things are plainly ſet down in Scripture, which are thus neceſſary: Firſt, to the vniverſall Church, as it is a Community; Secondly, all things which are neceſſary to all ſuch ſtates, and degrees, as muſt needs be in ſo vaſtly diffuſed a community; and Thirdly, all things which are thus neceſſary, to every ſingle perſon, bound to be of this community. As for the firſt; the Church beeing intended by Chriſt to be a Community diffuſed through the whole world, and intended to be continued to the end of the world; ſuch a Community as this is, muſt, by infallible authority, be plainly tould many things, wholy neceſſary for her direction, and perpetuall preſervation, which no one of you can ſhew to be plainly ſet down in Scripture.

3. As firſt; ſhee muſt by infallible authority be plainly tould in what manner ſhee is, in all times and places, to be provided of Lawfull Paſtors, and that with perpetuall ſucceſſion? As, whether it be in her power only to appoint the manner of chooſing theſe Paſtors? Or they may be appointed her by meer laymen, having ſecular authority: and that, whether this ſecular authority be lawfully obteyned, or vnlawfully vſurped? The knowledg of this is neceſſary: For wee are bidden, not to heare thoſe Paſtors which enter not by the doore.

4. Secondly; in like manner, ſhee muſt be tould, what power theſe Paſtors have in reſpect of one an other; whether there be one, or none at all, to have ſupreme authority over the reſt? And who they be? Or whether they be all equall, ſo that the one cannot be judged, corrected, or depoſed by the other, or by the ſecular Magiſtrate? Or how many of theſe Paſtors, muſt concurre to the lawfull judging, correcting, or depoſing of theſe Paſtors? Paſtors have ſuch a main influence into theyr flocks, that, in ſo vaſt a Community, ſcarce any thing is more neceſſary, then due and Lawfull ſubordination among them, legally appointed, legally obſerved. What plaine texts of Scripture telleth her how this is to be done?

5. Thirdly; in like manner, ſhee muſt be tould, what power theſe Paſtors have over the laymen, be they Emperors, Kings, or other Magiſtrates, or common people? What Lawes any of theſe Paſtors ſeverally taken can make? And how ſtrictly theſe Lawes oblige? How juſt the cenſures be, which are impoſed for the breach of them? All which things are of apparent neceſſity for the direction of the Church, that every one of theſe Paſtors may know what in conſciēce he can, and ought to do, not to exceed his power, or not to be defective in his duty.

6. Fourtly; Shee muſt in like manner be tould that which ſo mainly concerns her, in point of vniverſall government; by the higheſt Tribunall vpon earth; which Tribunall Proteſtants acknowledge to be Lawfull generall Councels, and then nationall Councels. For vpon the lawfulnes of nationall Councels, and vpon theyr legall power (even in matters of making ſo great a change of Religion, as was made, by bringing in Proteſtant Religion, in place of the Roman faith, and dividing from the whole world) dependeth wholy the lawfulnes of the Engliſh diviſion from the Church of Rome, according to the great Defenders thereof D. Hammond and D. Ferne who Sect. 9. Sayth; A nationall Church hath its judgment within it ſelfe, for the receiving, and houlding the definitions and practices of the Church generall: and may have poſsibly juſt cauſe of diſſenting (he meanes in matters of faith) and reforming; and can do it regularly, according to the way of the Church by Provinciall Synods. And this is conſiderable in the English Reformation. So he here; and again more fully in his new booke. C. 1. num. 24. againſt D. Champny. A ſtrange, though a neceſſary contradiction, in places ſo very neer of ſo ſmal a booke, to lay for one ground of theyr faith; that all things neceſſary muſt be evidently deduced from Scripture; and that, againſt publick authority evident demonſtration of Scripture muſt be brought in points of diſſent (as I ſhewed out of his 13. Sect.) And yet here to make this authority of a nationall Synod to be ſo very great, with out ſhewing any ſingle Text of Scripture, ſo much as obſcurely intimating any ſuch thing: Yea a Doctor could not but evidently know that in all Scripture, there is no where any mention of the authority of nationall Synods, eſpecially in ſo mainly important matters for the Salvation of a whole Natiō. Alſo a Doctor could not but know that neither the name of ſuch a Synod, nor the thing ſignified by this name, were ſo much as conteyned in the Bible. What then is this but to ſpeak juſt what is for the preſent turn? Mr. Doctor this authority of nationall Synods, beeing made by you the fondation of your regularly reforming, (though perhaps out of policy to oppoſe theſe dayly borne Sects) ſhould have been proved by you, by evident demonſtration of Scripture, to be ſo great, that it may lawfully ſtand in oppoſitiō to all Churches vpon the face of the whole Earth. Now as the ſalvation of a whole nation is ſo neerly concerned in the true, or vſurped authority of a nationall Synod, or Councel; ſo the ſalvation of all nations is no less concerned in the true, or vſurped authority of a generall Councell: and yet firſt, the Scripture neither tells you, who muſt of neceſſity be called to this Councel, to make the calling lawfull? Nor ſecondly, who muſt of neceſſity be aſſembled, to make the aſſembly full and lawfull? Or how many may ſuffice? Nor thirdly, who, or how many of thoſe, who are aſſembled, muſt conſent to the voting of a decree, or definition before it obligeth? Nor fourhtly, who muſt call theſe men? Or what power he hath to force them by cenſures to appear at the time, and place appointed, and to continew there? Or whether any one be bound to come, except thoſe who pleaſe, and when they pleaſe? Nor fiftly, who muſt preſide in this aſſembly? Nor ſixtly, what power this aſſembly hath to declare all doubts in faith? Or whether it can impoſe precepts vnder paine of damnation? For example, commanding all vnder this penalty to keepe Chriſtmas day, aſſenſion day, and to communicate once a year, to faſt on Chriſtmas Eve, yea to faſt a whole Lent? Or whether, after all theyr decrees, every one, without Sinne, may leave all they command in theſe, or the like matters, quite vndone at his pleaſure? Here you ſee ſix things, all mainly neceſſary to be known by the Church, as a Community; none of the which are plainly tould her in Scripture. Theſe ſixe points, added to the former three, make nine. Let us then proceed.

7. Tenthly, this Community or Church muſt alſo be plainly tould, what publike ſervice her Paſtors may, and ought to performe in the Church? Whether they may have none at all, as now the faſhion is? Or whether they may have ſuch an one as is different, even in the prime ſubſtance, from all the world; as the faſhion was heretofore? For it cannot but be a thing highly importing, in a whole Community, to retaine ſuch or ſuch a publik ſervice as was, at leaſt in ſubſtance, appointed by the Apoſtles; and not to make what changes private men, or nationall Synods pleaſe; nor to diſcard all publik ſervice: Yea, that very ſervice which all Chriſtians of all Nations, (which were not confeſſed Heretickes) every where vſed; as appeares by all theyr moſt anciēt ſervice bookes which you could find in any Corner of Chriſtendome. The beginning of the ſubſtantiall things in this Lyturgy, or publick ſervice, cā never be found out, by all diligent ſearch vſed by Proteſtants this laſt hundred yeares; though the time of every litle accidentall change be extant in many records, which would not have failed to record the beginning, of the ſubſtance of the Liturgy, had it had any beginning, different from that common beginning, of all practiſes of Chriſtian Religion brought in by the Apoſtles.

8. Eleventhly; the Church is primely concerned in the uſe lawfull or vnlawfull of Sacraments, ād therfore this (as all other things neceſſary for her) ſhould be plainly taught her in Scripture: And yet in all Scripture ſhee can neither find the name of Sacrament in this ſenſe which wee, and our adverſaries take it, nor any rule, to direct her to know what a Sacrament is? Or what is required to the lawfull adminiſtration of true Sacraments? which our adverſaries hould to be ſo neceſſary to the true Church, that in theyr Tenth Article, they make it one of theyr two certain ſignes and marks, by which the true Church may allwayes be known from the falſe Church; and yet (O prepoſterous proceedings!) they, who will have all neceſſary things ſet down plainly in Scripture, know very well that many neceſſary things, concerning the true vſe of Sacraments, be no where expreſſed therein, as no one of thoſe things are which I have now named, nor many other things concerning theyr true vſe; for example, by whom is every Sacrament neceſſarily to be adminiſtred? Whether muſt the Miniſters of all Sacraments of neceſſity have any Orders, or none at all? And what order muſt they have? by whom, and in what manner, or in what forme muſt theſe Sacraments be conferred? or whether are wee bound to uſe theſe Sacraments only when wee liſt, and as often, or as ſeldom as wee liſt? For nothing of this point is delivered in Scripture, nor of the other things I juſt now named, whence very many, and very important differences be amongſt vs; all vndecidable by Scripture, which is ſo deeply ſilent in all theſe points. Hence ſome of you, for ordering Prieſts and Deacons, require Biſhops ordeyned, and ordeyning with ſuch a forme as never antiquity vſed; And without theſe Prieſts, they ſay, there is no lawfull adminiſtring Sacraments, at leaſt in publik: Yea, though they hould Matrimony no Sacrament, yet wee ſee a world make ſcruple about the Lawfulnes of it, except by ordeyned Miniſters or at leaſt tickett Miniſters: A thing manifeſtly not expreſſed in Scripture, to which notwithſtanding they all contēd nothing to be added. Others therefore farre more conſequently anſwer, that what is not plainly ſet down in Scripture, is thereby ſignified not to be neceſſary; but it is not plainly ſet down in Scripture, that of neceſſity Prieſts are to be ſo ordeyned, or are only to adminiſter Sacraments, or that they only ſhould have power to bleſſe the bread: for where is this writtē? For Chriſt, after he had taken the wine, ſaid: Drink you all: which words import a cō mand to laymen to drink (as you ſay;) why therefore do not theſe words: Do you this, cōcerne all Lay people as well as your Prieſts, who can ſhew no better authority why they only ſhould bless the bread and wine? You differ alſo, whether the bread of neceſſity muſt be of wheat, or barly? Oats, or peaſe? In baptiſme, ſome will haue ſuch, and ſuch words to be neceſſary; others will allow baptiſme in the name of Chriſt alone; others will ſay no words at all are neceſſary. For (ſay they) when our Saviour would haue his Apoſtles to ask in his name, Io: 16.23.24. he is not to be vnderſtood, that of neceſſity they ſhould vſe any words, ſo when he did bidd them Goe and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father &c. Matt. 28. he is not neceſſaryly and plainly to be ſo vnderſtood, as if he did bidd them to vſe any words at all, for this is not ſet down in Scripture, and what is not plainly ſet down in Scripture is there by held by you vnneceſſary. Loe here in this number, how many other things haue been ſet down by mee all, ſo neceſſary to the Church, as a Community; and yet not plainly tould her by the Scripture? But let all theſe many things go to make vp an even dozen. This dozen proues twelue times over what I ſayd of the Church taken as a Community.

9. But moſt of theſe things alſo are neceſſary to be known by ſome peculier ſtates of perſons, wich muſt of neceſſity be in this Community: For in it there muſt be Lawfull Paſtors, who cannot know them ſelues to be lawfull Paſtors, nor carry themſelves for ſuch, vnles they know them ſelves to be ſent by lawfull authority; becauſe (according to your doctrin), the other (and the only other) mark of the true Church, is ſet down in your tenth Article to be the true preaching of the word of God. But how ſhall they preach, vnles they be (lawfully) ſent? Rom. 10.15. They muſt know alſo whether, according to Gods ordinance, any other be theyr Superiours to iudg them, correct them &c. that ſo they may diſcharge theyr duty in obeying them. Thy muſt know the bounds and limits of theyr power over ſome, or all Lay men. They muſt know what theyr duty is to ſee the Decrees of national or generall Councels obſerved, when theſe Councels are lawfull; and conſequently they muſt be furniſhed with ſufficient meanes to know the lawfulnes of them: which they can never be, but by knowing thoſe ſix things ſpecifyed aboue N. 6, no one of which ſix things are clearly tould them by any Scripture. To theſe Paſtors alſo it belongeth to performe the publick ſervice in due manner, and to teach the people when they are bound to aſſiſt at it; and conſequently they, of neceſſity, muſt be tould which is the publick ſervice vſed by the Apoſtles, ād theyr ſucceſſors inſtructed by them to vſe it. For who can beleeue they vſed none at all, though what they vſed bee no otherwiſe written then in the publick Practiſe of, not one, but as many Nations as they converted; all which vſed Lyturgies conteyning the eſſence and ſubſtance of a true ſacrifice. Theſe Paſtors alſo muſt know all that in the laſt number wee ſaid to belong to the wholy neceſſary knowledge of true Sacraments: they muſt know, for example, whether they may permit woemen to baptize, in caſe of neceſſity; as I ſhall ſhew all antiquity to have held and practiſed, though there be no ſuch thing clearly ſet down in Scripture; And ſo for other things. And Thus much for Clergy men, and theyr ſtate. Marriage is alſo a ſtate of millions of lay men, and to which ſo many of them, not yet married, doe pretend: now ſome things vnder pain of damnation muſt be practiced, and conſequently known, by theſe men, which notwithſtāding are not plainly tould them in Scripture: as whether they may have two wives, or no, at one time? wee all hould this damnable, and yet this obligation of having but one (ſo hard to many) is no where clearly, and manifeſtly ſet down in any Scripture: Secondly, it is damnable to them to marry within ſuch and ſuch degrees of kindred, as wee all hould; where be theſe degrees cleerly tould vs in the new Scripture? If wee are to practice what is in the ould Teſtament, men may, at once, have one or more wives; againſt which you have no clear Text in all the new Teſtament. I might add that it is neceſſary, to thoſe who marry, to know whether it be lawfull to do ſo without a Prieſt, there being no ſuch thing intimated in Scripture; according to which holy and miſterious things are known to have beē lawfully performed by the Miniſtery of Laymen. For the killing of the Paſchall Lamb was both holy and miſterious, and yet done by Lay men. Why may not then marriage be performed without a Prieſt? Adde now theſe two or three things to the former dozen, and you have at leaſt fourteen ſeverall things, the knowledge of which are all neceſſary to men of ſeverall ſtates in the Church; and yet no where ſet down in plain Scripture. I ſay here nothing of the obligation which parents have, to ſend theyr children to be baptized in due time; becauſe of the obligation of baptizing children wee ſhall ſpeak hearafter ſect. 8. n. 3. as alſo of ſending them to ſuch who can lawfully adminiſter Baptiſme; of which I haue ſaid ſome thing.

10. Laſtly, ſpeaking of all in generall, whatſoever they be, many of the things now ſpecified muſt, under paine of damnatiō be known by them, that they may practice theyr neceſſary dutie which obligeth all and every one to be of a Church which hath lawfull Paſtors, and which hath lawfull Prieſts, Ordeyned, with the matter and forme which is neceſſary, by true Biſhops, and not falſe ones; and the Preachers of which Church muſt have true miſſion. All muſt know alſo, how farre they are bound to obey theſe theyr lawfull Paſtors, both with interior ſubmiſſiō of iudgemēt in ſome caſes, and alſo exterior cōformity, in others. They all muſt know thēſelues to be of a Church where God is publickly ſerved, with that publick ſervice which the Apoſtles brought into the Church, and cōmended to theyr ſucceſſors. Every one is bound not to work vpon the Sundayes, as wee will ſhew, though neither this, nor yet many other things (of which wee ſhall ſpeake in many of the next ſections) be plainly ſet down in any Scripture. Here wee haue had above 14. of theſe things ſpecified, only for the full declaration of theſe words; Neceſſary to ſalvatiō: all which you ſay are plainly ſet down in Scripture.

11. Let vs now declare theſe words, plainly ſet down in Scripture; that all may plainly ſee how many more great new difficulties ſpring from them. The firſt difficulty (cleared by no plain Scripture) is, whether the Book of Scripture, in which ſuch a point is ſet down, be Gods word, or no; as when it is written in the book of Toby, Iudith, the Machabees, the Apocalips? The ſecond difficulty, cleared alſo by no plain Scripture, is whether, though ſuch a book be Gods word; yet I be ſecured, that it hath not been corrupted in the Chapter, or verſe, expreſſing the point in cōtroverſy. The third difficulty, cleared plainly by no Scripture is, that theſe words, on which the controverſy depends, be infallibly taken in this place in theyr Common and vſuall ſenſe, or perhaps taken figuratively, or ſpoken miſtically of ſome other thing. For how is it poſſible, by Scripture only, to come to have an infallible knowledge of this, on which the controverſy wholy depends? beeing this dependeth meerly on the inward free will of God, who perhaps would vſe ōly the plain vulgar ſenſe of theſe words in this place, perhaps would vſe them only figuratively, or only myſtically. To know this ſecret free will of God, and that infallibly, I muſt have ſuch a Reuelation, or ſuch an aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, as you will not allow to the Church repreſented in a Councel, and therefore it cannot prudently be allowable to any private man: neither can any private man ſhew plaine Scripture for his particular pretence, to know infallibly this ſecret will of God. A fourth difficulty (not to be cleared by plaine Scripture) is, that after I have peruſed the whole Scripture, purpoſely to know what I am boūd of neceſſity to believe, and do, for my Salvation; I find no where plainly tould mee, that I am only to believe, and do that only which is plainly tould mee in Scripture: ſo that perhaps I may be bound both to believe, and do, ſomewhat not expreſſed clearly in Scripture, eſpecially it not beeing clear, plain, and manifeſt by Scripture, that I am not to hear the Church, nor admitt of vnwritten traditions, but ſtand only to what is written. But of theſe fower difficulties wee ſhall ſpeak fully in the following Sections.

12. Now wee muſt conſider how theſe words, Plainly ſet down in Scripture, be yet liable to a fifth difficulty; which is, that men of quite contrary perſwaſions in faith, ſay, that ſuch a text ſayth plainly this; an other ſayth, that it ſayth plainly no ſuch thing; yea, that it ſayth the plain contrary: witnes thoſe words, This is my Body; which, as you bring it about, muſt plainly ſignify, this is not my Body. And, thus we contend whether Scripture be plaine and cleare? which makes it plaine and clear, that Scripture, though ſubmitted to by vs both, endeth neither of our differences in moſt important matters.

13. A ſixth difficulty (and a moſt fruictfull Mother of a number of difficulties) ariſeth from your own explications, and declarations, and modifications, and limitations, and as good as annihilations, by which you ſo reſtrain this principle; which you ſtrain ſo much at other times, to make it reach home to all points neceſſary, by a clear deciſion of thē all, euen in any neceſſary controverſy. Doctor Ferne, with whoſe words I began this Section, tells vs, that all things neceſſary are not ſo plainly ſet down, that every one who reades Scripture, can manifeſtly draw out of it the knowledge of all points that are neceſſary; but (ſayth he) it is enough, if it be done by the Miniſters. So litle plain dealing there is in calling, or miſcalling that thing plain; which plainly proveth it ſelfe not to be ſo, by not beeing plain to any, who are not as knowing men as theyr Miniſters. All woemen (who ſo deſperatly read, ād cite the bible) may now deſpaire of knowing, by theyr own reading, even thoſe very things which are neceſſary to ſalvation. This, they now tell you, muſt be done for you by Miniſters, from whom if you will have it, you muſt take it on theyr word: For you are a reprobate if you tell them theyr plain deductions be not plain, nor conformable to Scripture; though you may be one of the elect, and yet ſay ſo much againſt what whole generall Councels have deduced from Scripture. But this which they would have you beleeve to be plainly ſet down, they tell you cannot be found out to be ſo by all kind of Miniſters, but only by ſuch (point them out with your finger if you can) as vſe all theſe things following. 1. Attention, 2. Diligence in ſearch of the Scripture, 3. Collation of places, 4. Obſerving the connexions, 5. Sincerity and impartiality, 6. Prayer ard Devotion for aſsiſtance in the work. To all which you muſt ever put this Notandum, that neither you can tell, when they have vſed theſe things ſufficiently, to come to the plain and wholy neceſſary truth; nor they can tell whether there hath not creapt in ſome error in the vſe of theſe meanes, ſpoiling all. Neither will the vſe of theſe only ſuffice: Skill in Greek, and deepe skill, is required for pervſing the new Teſtament, and no leſſe skill in Hebrew for the ould. To theſe, ſtill fallible Rules, ſo many more are to be added out of your own Divines, that your great Divine Sanchius (de Sacra Scriptura Col. 409.) aſſigneth no fewer then Nineteene Rules, beſides the having the Spirit of God (quite forgot by D. Fern) and beſides vnderſtanding the words and places of Scripture. No wonder then that your learned Scharpius (in curſu Theologico de Scriptoribus, Controverſ. 8. P. 44.) aſſignes full twenty Rules for the vnderſtanding of Scripture; which, vnles they be kept, wee cannot but erre, as he ſayth. I wonder how many more Rules be neceſſary for ordinary-vnderſtanding men, to know that you have not erred in the vſe of all theſe twenty Rules, eſpecially he and others exacting, among other Rules, to know Originall languages, to diſcuſſe the words and Hebraiſmes. Now, dear Reader, as thou loveſt thy ſoule, ſtand here a litle, and ponder how thy Miniſters abuſe thee, which do, all of them, teach this doctrine (delivered by D. Fern. in Sect. 8. 9. 10. 11. and 14. in theſe words, the place laſt cited) If you will be with vs, you shall ſee what you do. Wee require your obedience to what wee demonſtrate to be Gods will. The Church of Rome (becauſe, forſooth, ſhe will have you uſe the better light of Councels illuminated by the holy Ghoſt) ſayth; If you will come to mee, you muſt putt out your Eyes. So he, ſo all the reſt do plainly cheat thee, when they tell thee, thou shalt with thy own eyes ſee all things plainly ſet down out of Scripture: For now, when they come to theyr tryall, they tell thee thou muſt truſt Miniſters, and not all, but ſuch as can, and really do vſe 20. hard Rules. But of this more Sect. 7. n. 3. Here, I only beſeech thee to tell mee, how thou canſt come to think that he, who for our ſalvation gave his pretious bloud, would not give vs alſo ſome more plai • Rule to direct vs to the infallible beleefe of that, which he obligeth vs to beleve vnder pain of damnation. See my Preface num. 2. 3. Dear Lord? Is this that was promiſed for an extraordinary favour (not yet graunted) when God him ſelfe should come, and ſave us, and give us a way, ſo ſurpaſſing all former wayes. A way ſo direct vnto us, that fooles cannot erre by it: For ſurely wiſe, and very wiſe men know neither Greek, nor Hebrew, nor the meanes how to know that thoſe, who know theſe languages, have duly uſed theyr knowledge, and the other odde nineteene Rules, which vnles they be kept, wee cannot but erre. See alſo Sect 7. Here proteſtants with weeping eyes may ſay, what Iuvenal did ſing, O quis cuſtodiet ipſos Cuſtodes!

What Rules to men short-ſighted given shall be, To know when Overſeers overſee?

SECTION III. A SEAVENTH ARGVMENT

By Scripture wee know not which Bookes be Canonicall Scripture, which not? Neither is Scripture known to be Gods VVord by its owne Light; wherefore Proteſtants do not believe Scripture with divine Faith.

1. THe force of this Argument breefly is this. If Scripture were our only Rule of beleefe, it would tell us all things neceſſaryly to be believed: It doth not tell vs what bookes be the only true word of God; which is a point moſt neceſſary to be beleeved: It is not therefore our only Rule of beliefe: Here you ſee a fifthteeth neceſſary, and moſt neceſſary point, not plainly ſet down in Scripture. Luther denyeth the Apocalyps, the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, the Epiſtle of S. Iames, and other parts of Scripture, to be true Scripture what text tells him plainly he muſt beleeve the contrary? Wee hould ſome halfe a ſcore bookes to be true Scripture, which you hould Apocrypha: what Scripture, or one ſingle ſyllable of Scripture, tells vs wee hould falſe, and you true? Cite that text, and wee yeeld. If you cannot cite that text, then yeeld your ſelves to beleeve many, and ſo, very many, parts of Scripture to be Gods word, which by no one ſingle text of Scripture, you can prove to be ſo. Tell mee then, I pray, tell mee, as you tender your own and my ſalvation, vpon what ground you beleeve thē to be ſo? You beleeue all things for the ſaying of true Scripture: Why do you beleeve the Scripture to be Scripture and Gods word? Not upon any text, for you have not one: And yet you beleeue this infallibly. What other ground have you, beſides texts of Scripture, able to ſupport an infallible beliefe? Is the tradition of the Church to be relied vpon in ſo great a matter? Then much more may it be relyed vpon in leſſer matters. But if ſhee be fallible in the delivery of her traditions, how can I, vpon her authority, ground an infallible aſſent to the beleefe of all the books of Scripture beeing Gods certain word? For this is a very hard point, becauſe many of them contein things of them ſelves very incredible, as that, the perſonality of God the Father ſhould be all one thing with the divine eſſence; and that, the perſonality of God the Sonne ſhould not be all one thing with the perſonality of God the Father; and yet be all one thing with the divine eſſēce; which divine eſſēce is all one thing with the perſonality of God the Father. That the ſerpent ſhould ſpeak to Eve: that all the world ſhould be excluded Heaven for one mans eating an Apple. Is not that authority, which is able to ſupport the infallible beleefe of Books, which contain things ſo hard to beleeve, able alſo to ſupport the infallible beleefe of things farre leſſe incredible, as Purgatory, Prayer to ſaincts, an inferior worſhip of Images in reſpect of the perſons they repreſēt? Have you any text to tell mee, that I muſt beleeve the Church in this moſt hard and important matter, (to witt in this matter that ſuch and ſuch Bookes be infallibly Gods word) and that I muſt not beleeve her in leſſer matters? Give me this Text, or confeſſe that you volūtarily beleeue a moſt huge hard point, on which al your beleefe in all other points muſt rely, without any ſingle text of Scripture.

2. D. Fern, to prevent this argument, puts yet a new limitation to the common aſſertion of Proteſtants; that all things neceſſary are plainly ſet down in Scripture. For ſayth he ſect. 13. Wee ſay the Scripture conteyns all the materiall objects of fayth neceſſary to Salvation, that is, All things that had been neceſſary for Chriſtians to believe and do, though there had been no Scriptures. Whence ſect. 24. he, out of this principle, anſwers my objection thus; That to believe Scripture to be the word of God, is not of thoſe materiall objects of faith which wee ſay are conteyned in Scripture, and are ſuch as had been neceſſary for Chriſtians to believe though there had been no Scripture. And thē he proueth the impoſſibility, that there is, that Scripture ſhould ſufficiently tell vs which Bookes be infallible Gods word: and that, therefore wee muſt ſuppoſe vniverſall Tradition ſtill to bring it down to vs. But Sr. you mark not how pittifully you vndoe that very prime doctrine of yours, which forceth you all to maintayne, that all things neceſſary are plainly ſet down in Scripture, to witt; That (according to you) Scripture is given vs by God, to be our only direction, in all that wee muſt neceſſarily believe and do for Salvation; for if this doctrine muſt paſſe among all for ſo very true, that it muſt be imbraced by the beliefe of all, before they cā wiſely ſay; In this Bible only wee are to find all neceſſary truth; It followeth then moſt vndoubtedly vpon Gods giving vs the Bible, to be taken by vs as our only Rule, that there muſt needs ariſe a neceſſity of our believing ſomething which wee ſhould not have been bound to believe, if there had been no Scripture written. For there muſt ariſe a neceſſity of believing this very doctrine of yours, that the written word of God is given vs for our only direction in the points aforeſaid, Or elſe no man is bound to believe this, and to admitt of Scripture only for his Rule. For nothing can be more ſure, then that this doctrine hath not vniuerſall Tradition, ſtill to bring it down to vs: Therefore either this doctrine is moſt falſe, (as really it is:) or moſt falſe it is that wee vpon the writing of Scripture, are only obliged to believe that, to the beliefe of which wee ſhould only have been obliged though there had been no Scripture. For what ſay you to this argument. True faith is neceſſary to Salvation, therefore the only Rule guiding vs to true faith, muſt of neceſſity be known aſſuredly by vs: Becauſe, without the guidance of this Rule wee have no aſſured meanes (as you ſay) to true faith: But the only true Bookes of Scripture, are the only Rule guiding vs to true faith; as you all teach: therefore wee muſt have an infallible aſſurance of theſe true Bookes. Again, the more impoſſible it is for Scripture to informe vs ſufficiently which Bookes be Scripture, which not, and that infallibly; the more certain it is, that iuſt as this moſt important point of all points, and the hardeſt of them all (for it conteyneth all the points that are moſt hard in our faith) can be made infalliby aſſecured vnto vs without Scripture, ſo other points alſo may bee; as Purgatory, Prayer to ſaints &c? and therefore theſe other leſſe hard points may be, as infallibly, by the Tradition of the ſame Church, aſſecured vnto vs. For if tradition can ſupport an infallible aſſent to the hardeſt points, it cā ſupport the like aſſent to the leſſe hard. He that can carry a hundred pound weight, can carry three or fowerſcore pound weight.

3. Hence it is that D. Fern, in the ſame place, is forced to fly to that paradoxicall opinion, to which nothing, but deſperation of eſcaping any other way, hath driven him and his Proteſtant bretheren. Thus then he ſayth; Scripture beeing received vpon ſuch tradition, it diſcouers it ſelfe to be devine by its own light, or thoſe internall arguments which appear in it to thoſe who are verſed in it. Which others expreſſe thus; the Canonicall Books are worthy to be believed for them ſelves; as wee aſſent to the firſt principles by theyr own light, ſo wee do aſſent to Scripture to be the word of God, through the help of the Spirit of God; as by its own light The Canonicall Bookes beare witnes of them ſelves, they carry theyr own light, by which wee may ſee them to be Gods word: as wee ſee the ſunne, to be the ſunne, by his own light; ſo they.

4. Wee muſt then firſt ſpeake a word of this Tradition, which D. Fern called vniuerſall Tradition, that is the tradition of the whole Church, which you all ſay is fallible, ād ſo you muſt not reſt vpon it with an infallible aſſent, but take it as a prudent motive perſwading ſuch Bookes, as you hould to be Canonicall, to be Gods word, which you believe to be ſo for it ſelfe. But Sr. it is moſt falſe that vniuerſall Tradition hath delivered iuſt that number of Bookes, and thoſe Bookes, which you hould to belong to the true Canon. The Councel of Laodicea (in which you vſe to boaſt your Canon to be conteyned) omitteth the Apocalyps or Revelations, and, beſides Ruffinus, you will not find one ancient writer who eyther putteth not fewer or more Bookes in the Canon then you do. Our Canon you deny, and diſcard ſome halfe a ſcore Bookes out of it. Yet ours is the only Canon which can claime a ſufficient Tradition, as I ſhall here ſhew Num. 11. And as for the Councel of Laodicea, it is farre from beeing againſt us, for it defines in deed ſuch Bookes to belong to the Canon of Scripture: but it doth not exclude any one of thoſe which alſo afterward, when due examen was made, were found delivered, if not with as full, yet with a Tradition ſufficientlyfull; as you may ſee in the third Councel of Carthage, to which S. Auſten ſubſcribed in perſon. An evident Proof of this is, that the Sixth Generall Councel doth confirme both this Councel of Laodicea, and that very Coūcel of Carthage, which by name defined all the Bookes, ſet down in our Canon, to be Gods word: ſee Num. 11. And then tell mee with what face you can ſo much as pretend to vniuerſall Tradition, for admitting your Bible a Bible putting among the Apocrypha ſo many Bookes, flatly againſt the tradition of the precedent 12. hundered yeares. If this Tradition be a prudent inducement to imbrace what it commendeth, then it induceth vs to imbrace halfe a ſcore Bookes more then you putt in your Canon: If it be not a prudent inducement, it helpeth you nothing. If you fly to the tradition of the Church only of the firſt four hundered yeares, remember that the Councel of Carthage, iuſt after the end of thoſe yeares, alledged the ancient Tradition of theyr Fathers, which they iudged ſufficient for defining our Canon. They, who were ſo neere thoſe firſt four hundered years, knew far better the more vniverſall Tradition of that age, then wee can 12. hundered yeares after it. True it is (nothing beeing defined as then) privat Doctors were free to follow what they iudged to be trueſt: and as you find them varying from our canon, ſome in ſome bookes, ſome in others; ſo you will finde them varying from one an other, and varying alſo from you. For in thoſe firſt four hundered yeares Melito and Nazianzen excluded the book of Eſter, which you adde. Origen doubts of the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, of the ſecond of S. Peter, of the firſt and ſecond of S. Iohn. S. Cyprian and Nazianzen leave the Apocalyps or Revelations out of theyr Canon. Euſebius doubteth of it. Only Rufinus aggreeth iuſt with you. Doth he make alone a ſufficiently vniverſall Tradition from Chriſts time to this? Now then all of you, by refuſing the Canon commended by the Tradition of our Church; are left to the ſagacity of your own noſes, to hunt out that moſt important and infallible certain truth of the true Canon of Scripture.

5. Here wee muſt examin what help you will have by the true Bookes of Scripture, which you ſay carry theyr own light with them, by which they may be as clearly ſeen to be Gods word, as the Sunn by his own light. For to the truth of this ſtrange Paradox, explicated as aboue, you have brought the whole ſubſtance of your faith, which muſt all fall to the ground, to be trodden vpon by the Socinians, if this groundles ground houlds not ſure: Becauſe you believe all other particular points relying vpon Scripture only; All the Scripture you believe relying on this ground only, that you know by the very reading of ſuch a booke, that this booke is as evidently Gods word, by a certain light which the reading of it (with Spirit) produceth, as you ſee the Sun by his light. Indeed you have brought your Religion to as pittifull a caſe as your greateſt enemies could wiſh it in.

6. Firſt then this ground (vpon which you ground all) is accounted a plaine fooliſh ground, by your own renowned Chillingworth; I ſay, your own, for the moſt learned of both your vniverſities have owned, and higly magnified his booke, notwithſtanding his ſcornfull language concerning this ground of your whole Religion. Chillingworth then (p. 69. n. 49.) anſwering theſe words of his adverſary. That the divinity of a writing cannot be known by it ſelfe alone, but by ſome intrinſecall authority: replyeth thus; This you need not proue: for no wiſe man denyeth it. And M. Hooker (eſteemed the learnedeſt Proteſtant which ever putt penne to paper) writeth thus; Of things neceſſary, the very cheifeſt is to know what Bookes wee are to eſteeme holy, which point is confeſſed impoſſible for the Scripture it ſelfe to teach. So he Eccl. Pol: L. 1. S. 14. Pag. 86. And D. Covel in his defence, Art. 4 P. 31. It is not the word of God which doth or can aſſure us, that wee do well to think it the word of God. Yet that which ſuch men as theſe hould impoſſible, and a meer Chymaera, or phanſy, which no wiſe man would hould, you hould to be as evident as the ſunne beeing ſeen by its own light; as evident as the firſt Principles, which are ſo evident of themſelves that they need no proofe, but are clearer then any thing you can bring to proue them. For example That the whole is greater then any part. It is impoſſible that any thing ſhould be ſo, and not be ſo, iuſt in the ſame circumſtances &c. Do you think any rationall man will believe that it is thus evident that S. Matthewes Ghoſpel (for example) is the true word of God, by the only reading of it, to him, who did not before read this verity? Doe not all euidently ſee, that there is no ſuch evidence to be ſeen? About the truth of firſt Principles no man ever doubted, or could doubt; about S. Matthewes Ghoſpel the Manicheans, Marcioniſtes, Cerdoniſts &c. did not only doubt, but flatly reiected it. And incomparable more doubt hath been made of other parts of Scripture, as wee have ſeen, and ſhall yet further ſee. Sometimes indeed devines call Scripture the firſt Principle, an vndoubted principle, a moſt known and certain Principle, Not that it is ſo for any evidence it carryeth with it ſelfe, manifeſtly ſhewing it to be ſo: But the Scripture is ſayd to be ſuch a Principle among vs Chriſtians, becauſe all of vs now admitt Scripture, as of vnqueſtionable and infallible truth. Vpon this Suppoſition (evidently graunted by vs all) wee all, in arguing with one an other, ſtill ſuppoſe, and take for an vndoubted Principle, that the Scripture is Gods infallible word But this doth only ſuppoſe, and not proue this truth, even ſo much as to our own Conciences, that Scripture is the vndoubted word of God, which it cannot ſhew it ſelfe infallibly to be, by the only reading of it.

7. Secondly there be many millions who can moſt truly and ſincerly proteſt before God, and take it vpon theyr Salvation, that they are wholy vnable, by the meer reading of the bookes of Scripture (for exāple the Apocalyps, the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes &c) to come to an infallible aſſurance that they be Gods word, to which aſſurance, even your admirable Luther, and his moſt learned diſciples, never came: For they all reiect theſe, and other Bookes admitted for Gods infallible word by you. Now good Sr. tell mee what meanes hath God provided to bring vs (who have not theſe new eyes, requiſite to ſee the Sunſhine you ſpeake of) or to bring your Lutheran Bretheren who will be confeſſed not to want the true Spirit (for they had the firſt fruits of the ſpirit in the bleſſed worke of your Reformation) what meanes, I ſay hath God provided to bring them and vs, to this infallible aſſurance, by which wee are all obliged, vnder pain of damnation, to believe the Scripture to be Gods word?

8. Thirdly; how comes it to paſſe, that the Preachers of the Church find that concurrance of Gods grace, in delivering the verities conteyned in the Scripture to very Heathens, that millions of them have been thus converted: but no ſingle Man is reported (as farre as I know) to have found ſuch concurrance by only reading the written word, as thereby to have been illuminated with the beliefe of Scripture? How cometh this about, if the divinity thereof be to the reader (whē he is as well diſpoſed as the hearer) no leſſe evident then the broad Sunneſhine? Doth not this ſhew that it is true which wee teach, that theſe internall Arguments are only diſcovered after the Scripture is accepted for Gods word, ād not before, as the Cauſe of accepting it for ſuch?

9. Fourthly; as the Scripture is the only ground, vpon which you build your beliefe of all other things; ſo this divine light (diſcouered to you by reading the Scripture) is the only ground, vpon which you believe Scripture; and conſequently all other things which you believe. This ground then is the ground of all true faith, according to your doctrine. If it be ſo; how is it poſſible that the greateſt Doctors that ever God placed in the Church to the edifying the ſame, vpon no one ſingle occaſion (having ſo continuall occaſions) do ſo much, as once at leaſt profeſſe themſelves to believe ſuch or ſuch a book to be Gods word, becauſe they, by the reading of it (which was theyr dayly and nightly work) did diſcouer ſuch divine rayes, or ſuch internall arguments appearing in it, to thoſe who were verſed in it; as D. Ferne ſpeaketh? Neiher do any one of thē give, ſo much as once, this for a reaſon why they doubted of, or admitted not ſuch, and ſuch books, about which (before the definition of the Church) there were ſo frequent Controverſies, meerly becauſe they could not diſcouer this light, or theſe internall arguments Did theſe Men want the ſpirit of God, even in the foundation of all true belief? Yea, had not theſe Men of all others the moſt obſerving eyes, and the moſt irradiated vnderſtandings which ſo many ages have brought forth? This argument falleth heavier vpon D. Ferne, and thoſe who like his doctrine, then vpon any other. For Sect. 7. hauing vndertaken to ſhew, that Sectaries cannot make the plea which Proteſtants make; he proueth this by this Principle: That Sectaries do not pretend to confirme what they ſay by practice of antiquity as Proteſtants do, according to D. Ferne and Doct. Hen. Hammond. But O great Doctor I pray, if you can, ſhew us but one ſmall ſcrappe of antiquity for this your fundamentall Doctrine: For ſurely this moſt imports in the very groundwork of faith. And (to vſe your own ſo often iterated argument) your part beeing the affirmative, affirming a maine differēce to be betweē you ād Sectaries (ariſing frō your adhering cloſe to ātiquity) you are obliged to do this, at leaſt where it ſo imports, as it doth in the beliefe of that vpon which you beleeve all what ſoeuer you believe. Againe, if you be ſo good at finding out aſſuredly Gods true word, frō his falſe word, meerly by this your ſharp eye ſight, you might do notable ſervice to thoſe who now at Londen ſet forth the moſt famous Bible that ever as yet (as they ſay) did ſee light. For you could tell thē aſſuredly which were the true Coppies of the true Originals, which not; whearas thoſe ſhort ſighted Doctors do openly profeſſe them ſelves to ſweat at this by indefatigable labour in conferring every verſe with ſeuerall Coppies, and then culling out that which agreeth with the moſt and beſt Copies. To this induſtry they Profeſſe themſelves to truſt, and not to that pretended light, though you make it the ground of all your faith. See the next Sect. n. 8.

10. Fiftly; I argue thus, Take the Book of Baruch, (which you hould not to be Gods word) in the one hand, and the Book of Micheas in the other hand; this Book hath ſeven Chapters: Now I challenge you, if you can, to tell mee that Chapter, or the part of that Chapter in any one of theſe ſeven Chapters, which hath more divine rayes, or internall arguments for the holines of it, then appear in the ſix Chapters of the book of Baruch. Your part is the affirmatiue, affirming that there be ſuch internall arguments, and ſuch evidences, and that there be more of them in the one, then in the other: Shew mee but one of them, or elſe you will ſhew your ſelves to the world to vent your owne phanſies, for grounds of beleefe, even in the moſt important points of beleefe. So I ſay againe, take the book of Toby, take the book of Iudith, which you reject for Apocryphall, as not carrying with them a divine light, and thoſe internall arguments: take (I ſay) eyther of theſe books, and read it over, and be as well verſed in it as you are in the book of Numbers, for example; and ſee if it be poſſible for you, with all the help your Brethren can afford you, to point out any one Chapter, verſe, or word in the book of Numbers, carrying with it more divine rayes, or better internall arguments, then appear in either of the bookes I named. What would you have vs do with our eyes, to keepe vs from ſeeing how clearly this is impoſſible vnto you; which nevertheles ſhould be moſt eaſy, if your opinion were true, or any thing like to true. For theſe divine rayes (ſay you) carry an evidence of ſo high a degree, that you doe not only beleeue (as wee poore folkes do) but you doe know theſe bookes to be divine: and this you know with a moſt infallible knowledge, produced by the evidence carried in the clear Sunneſhine of this Light, and theſe ſo conſpicuous internall arguments making it no leſſe apparent then the firſt Principles.

11. Sixtly if any one verſe, or any one ſmall word, changing the ſenſe of the holy Ghoſt (eſpecially this litle word, Not) beleft out in any one Chapter, eyther through ignorance, malice or careleſness of thoſe writers (whoſe Coppies our printed Bibles have followed;) whom will you be able to make beleeve, that you are ſo ſharpe-ſighted as to ſee this ſmall omiſſion, and that by a light ſufficeing for an infallible beleefe of it appearing to you only by the reading that place. And yet this you muſt do to diſtinguiſh the true word of God from the falſe. But how farre all of you are from doing this, I will now declare: All the dayes of Queen Elizabeth your Bibles did read in the 105. Pſalm. v. 28. they were not obedient, contrary directly to the true text; which hath, They were not diſobediēt, or rebelled not againſt his words, as now you read it. Theſe, and two hundered more Corruptions in the true Pſalmes, you did ſing dayly. And who was there who did ſee in what places theſe corruptions were? Yea the Queen, then head of the Church, made her Clergy ſubſcribe that all theſe corruptions were Gods own word. See the 5. Sect. num. 4. whence appears that you cannot ſmell out theſe Corruptions; of which I ſhall ſay more in the place cited. They then of your Religion beleeve the Scripture vpon no ground which is not fallible, and which may not really be falſe as this light may be; and therefore it ſufficeth not to a divine faith: and ſo you have no infallible beliefe aſſuring you, that this book is Gods word; whence all that is in that book hath no divine authority, of which you are aſſured. And thus, moſt pittifully, all of you are deſtitute of divine faith, in all points you beleeue; becauſe you beleeve them all vpon the authority of thoſe bookes, which you, vpō noe infallible ground, can beleeve to be divine. See here how you, who boaſt of Scripture ſo much, come, by rejecting the Church, not to beleeue the Scripture it ſelfe with any divine faith; but only with ſuch human perſwaſion as may be falſe, becauſe it is fallible, hauing no infallible ground to ſtand vpon. Hence it is that your famous Chillingworth, having witt enough to diſcover the vngroundednes of this ground, and not having grace enough to ſet ſure footing vpon that firme rocke of the true Church, in plain tearmes comes to defend (P. 327.) it to be ſufficient to beleeve Scripture with noe other kind of aſſent, then wee beleeve, That there is ſuch a citty as Conſtantinople, or the Hiſtory of Caeſar and Saluſt. Whence the ground of his beleefe of the Scripture (vpon whoſe authority only he beleeveth all other things) beeing thus confeſſedly found to be human, and to have nothing of divine faith: he is forced to ſay (P. 159.) Wee have, I beleeve, as great reaſon to beleeve, That there was ſuch a Man as Henry the Eight King of England, as that Ieſus Chriſt ſuffered vnder Pontius Pilate. Is this a book to be owned by the prime Doctors of both vniverſities, and to be ſo vniverſally cryed vp by our Nation? Dear Ieſu! to what times were wee come? No wonder that theſe times are now come to vs.

12. Seventhly; I further ſhew the manifeſt falſity of your doctrine, by vnanſwerable experience, confirming what now I ſayd Nu. 9. Luther (a man acknowledged by common conſent of Engliſh Divines, to have had Gods Spirit in a very Large meaſure) did read the Epiſtle of S. Iames, and he held it to be an Epiſtle of Straw Praefat: in Nov. Teſt. and his cheefe diſciple Pomeranus, vpon the fourth Chapter to the Romans, ſayth: Out of this place you may diſcover the error of the Epiſtle of Iames, in which you ſee a wicked argumēt: moreover he ridiculouſly deduceth his argumēt: he citeth (ſayth this fellow) Scripture againſt Scripture. But I go on with Luther, he did read the Apocalyps, ād, for all the light and internall arguments he could diſcouer in it, he thought it not written with an Apoſtolicall Spirit. All our Engliſh Devines read theſe ſelfe ſame bookes, and there is not one of them, nor of theyr diſciples, ſo ill-ſighted, but they can diſcouer a light no leſſe clearly ſhewing theſe Bookes to be Gods infallible word, then the Sūne ſheweth him ſelfe to be the Sunne by his light; they all ſee internall arguments ſufficeing to an infallible aſſent of the quite contrary verity. But how can that ground be but falſe which groundeth plain Contradictions? If you reply, that Luthers not ſeeing ſuch Bookes to be Canonicall, is only a negative argument of ſmall force. I anſwer, that, where things are affirmed to be as evident as the Sunneſhine, and as clear as the firſt principles: and that theſe things, affirmed by you to be ſo clear, are alſo dayly ſet before the eyes of a man ſo well ſeeing, as Luther, and his prime diſciples were; and yet, that neither he, nor his prime diſciples, ſhould euer be able to ſee this light (though theyr ſharp-ſighted eyes ſo often laboured to diſcouer it:) this cannot be but a certain ſigne that either theſe men were pittifully blind, or that you miſerably phanſy ſuch a light to ſhine in the very reading of the Apocalyps, the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, the Epiſtle of S. Iames &c. Is it a weak argument to ſay; I have been in the hall on ſet purpoſe to ſee if there were a Candle ſet vp lighted there, and I could ſee none, though I moſt carefully endeavored to ſee it, and had my eyes about mee; therefore I cōclude there is no light ſet vp there? I cōclude alſo that eyther I, who ſay this, am blinde; or you, who ſay there is ſuch a light, are manifeſtly deluded by a falſe fanſy of your own? And I can alſo make my argument as ſtrōg in the affirmative, as in the negative. I do it thus; S. Auſten (the moſt ſharpe-ſighted mā that the Church hath had) a man confeſſedly indued with the true ſpirit; and a man of your own Religion, as you will ſay; and conſequently a man agreeing with you in that doctrine, on which all your whole beleef is built; to witt, that true Scriptures were infallibly believed to be Gods word, becauſe they were diſcouered in the very reading of them to be ſo, by a divine light, and by internall arguments ſufficeing to ground an infallible aſſent to this verity; this man, I ſay, and the whole third Councel of Carthage together with him, did believe that all and every one of thoſe bookes, which wee believe to be Canonicall and divine, to be ſo indeed; and to be propounded to be ſo to the people. Behould here, as good eyes, as you can pretend to have, reading theſe bookes, and beleeving them infallibly to be divine: which they could not do (according to your doctrine) but by diſcouering in them a divine light, ſhewing this truth evidently, and by ſuch internall arguments as ſuffice to infallibility. Therefore theſe books, (ſeen ſo infallibly to be divine) are indeed ſo: and you muſt graunt them to be ſo, and not to be Apocryphall, as you hould them; or elſe you muſt graunt, that S. Auſten and the Fathers of the Councel of Carthage and all the Fathers, who ever after this Councel held this our Canon, did not agree with you in the prime principle of your Religion, teaching that there is no infallible ground to believe ſuch and ſuch bookes to be Gods word, but that diuine light appearing in the reading of thē to ſuch Readers as they were. For if they agreed with you in this principle, then they did conceive themſelves to diſcouer this divine light in thoſe very books, which you call Apocryphall, as well as in the other, which you hould Canonicall: And if they all were deceiued by this principle, in thoſe bookes; then you may be deceiued in all the other, becauſe your only groūd for theyr beeing divine, is hence cleerly proued to be fallible and falſe, and moſt vnſufficient to ground an infallible beliefe: But you have noe other faith, then that which reſteth wholy on this groūd; Therefore all the faith you have is fallible. And if any one obiect that S. Ierom, (as great a Doctor in point of the knowledge of the Scriptures as S. Auſtin) did not hould the Bookes of the Machabees for Gods word, which S. Auſten helde to be Gods word: therefore one of them relied on a fallible ground; why not S. Auſten, as well as S. Ierom? I anſwer, that even from hence it is evident that neyther of theſe two (though the moſt Eagle-ſighted Doctors that ever the Church had) did make the ground of theyr receiuing or reiecting books for true or falſe Scripture, to be any ſuch divine light, appearing to ſuch readers as both they were: For then they could not have helde quite contrary one to an other; as I ſayd of the Lutherans and you. The true reaſon, why theſe two great Doctors were of contrary opinions concerning theſe bookes, as alſo divers other holy Fathers were concerning diuers other bookes, (which had bin impoſſible if the evidence of true Scripture had beē ſo great as you make it;) the true reaſon, I ſay, was, that as yet the Church of Chriſt had not defined which Bookes were Gods true word, which not: wherefore, then it was free to doubt of ſuch bookes as were not admitted by ſuch a Tradition of the Church, as was evidently ſo vniuerſall, that it was cleerly ſufficient to ground an infallible beleefe. For all thoſe holy Fathers agreed ever in this, that ſuch bookes were evidently Gods word which had evidently a ſufficient tradition for them; Now in the dayes of thoſe Fathers, who thus varied from one an other, it was not by any infallible meanes made known to all, that thoſe books (about which all theyr variance was) were recommended for Gods infallible word, by a tradition clearly ſufficient to ground beliefe: for the Church had not as yet examined and defined, whether Tradition did clearly enough ſhew ſuch, and ſuch books, to be Gods infallible word. But in the dayes of S. Auſten, the thirde Councel of Carthage Anno 397. examined how ſufficient, or vnſufficient the Tradition of the Church was, which recommended thoſe Bookes for Scripture, about which there was ſo much doubt and contrariety of opinions. They found all the Bookes conteyned in our Canon (of which you account ſo many Apocryphall) to have been recommended by a Tradition, ſufficient to ground faith vpon. For on this ground (Can. 47.) they proceeded in defining all the bookes in our Canon to be Canonicall. Becauſe, ſay they, wee have receiued from our Fathers that theſe Bookes were to be read in the Church. Pope Innocent the firſt (who liued Anno 402.) beeing requeſted by Exuperius, Biſhop of Toloufe, to declare vnto him which Bookes were Canonicall, he anſwereth Ep. 3. that hauing examined what ſufficient Tradition did demonſtrate, Quid cuſtodita ſeries temporum demonſtraret, in the end of his Epiſtle c. 7. he ſetteth down, Qui libri recipiantus in Canone Sanctarum Scripturarum. What bookes are receiued in the Canon of the holy Scriptures. To witt juſt thoſe which wee now have in our Canon: and though he rejecteth many other Bookes, yet he rejecteth not one of theſe. So that after theſe declarations of the ſufficiency of this Tradition, no one ever pertinaciouſly diſſented from it, but ſuch, as Proteſtants themſelves do confeſſe to be Heretikes; vntill the dayes of Luther, who preſumed to call Apocryphall, not only thoſe Bookes which you count to be ſo, but alſo divers others; as I ſhewed here nu. 1. Hence from the time of the Councel of Carthage, and Innocent the firſt, all in theyr dayly citations of Scripture, vntill the dayes of Luther, held thoſe very bookes to be Gods word which wee hould to be, and were defined by them to be held to be ſo vpon tradition duly examined; And this within four hundred yeares after Chriſt, yet after the time of S. Ierom. Now after this was done, there comes S. Auſten, and ſetts down all theſe bookes for Canonicall Lib. de doctrina Chriſtiana c. 8. After him comes Gelaſius the Pope (who lived Anno 492.) and confirmes the ſame Canon. After him comes the Sixt generall Coū cel celebrated Anno 680. which in the ſecond Canon (according to the Greek Coppy tranſlated by Gentianus) deſiring to eſtabliſh what theyr holy fore Fathers had delivered vnto them, confirmeth this, and the other Councel of Carthage. Go further downwards, and ſtill all Doctors and writers, in theyr dayly allegations of Scripture, cite theſe bookes as Scripture. The true Canon again is ſett forth by the Councel of Florence Anno 1438. To which Councel the very Grecians, Armenians, and Iacobites ſubſcribed: No man pertinaciouſly gainſaying this ſo well eſtabliſhed tradition vntill Luther. Now if the true diſcouery of Scripture be to goe by the votes of the beſt and the moſt eyes, who ſeeth not, but that even by this rule, wee ſhall have above halfe a ſcore bookes diſcovered to be Gods word, which your own ſharpe eyes cā not ſee to be ſo? eſpecially that ſecond book of Machabees in which wee ſo clearly diſcouer Purgatory c. 12. v. 43. 44. 45. If any man objecteth, that, in the Councel of Carthage &c. that one book of the Prophet Baruch is not ſet down by name (though never excluded:) he muſt remember that this book of Baruch, is ioyned in our Bible with Ieremy, whoſe Secretary he was, and as his Secretary he ioyned his book as an Appendix to Ieremy: And therefore it is vnderſtood by theſe Fathers to be admitted together with all Ieremy, excluding no part of him, as you exclude. I end then this Sixth reaſon thus. The beſt ſeeing eyes of antiquity have ſeen different bookes to be Gods word, from thoſe which you hould to be ſo: again, your own firſt bretheren in your Reformation have ſeen thoſe books not to be Canonicall, which you have ſeen to be ſo; therefore the true Scripture is not infallibly to be known by ſo evident a light as you ſpeak of, by which Contradictories can never be ſeen.

13. If any man think he can eſcape the force of any of theſe arguments, by pretending the private aſſurance of the Spirit, making this dimme light appear clearly to him, which ſo many others (for want of the aſſiſtance of this ſpirit) come not to ſee: this man will runne vpon two mayne inconveniences. The Firſt is, that he moſt vngroundedly layeth claime for him ſelfe, and for all the litle flock of his bretheren, to have in private this aſſiſtance of the ſpirit aſſiſting them, even as farre as infallibility, to the hardeſt of all points: and yet, moſt vngroundedly denyeth any ſuch aſſiſtance to the vniverſall Church, repreſented in a generall Councel. He denyeth alſo the ſame ſpirit vnto the greateſt Doctors of the Church, confeſſed by all to have been the cheefe lights of the world for Sanctity and knowledg in Scriptures: For all theſe are found ſtanding directly oppoſite to thē in their Canon of Scripture, and not one of them can be ſhewed to agree with them in this prime ground of admitting any book for Gods word, vpon the light which God gave him by the Spirit. The ſecond inconvenience is, that, when he is queſtioned to give an account, how he is aſſured that he in particular hath this aſſiſtance of the ſpirit, ſufficeing to groūd an infallible aſſent; and how he is moſt aſſured that this is not an illuſion? He can only anſwer, that he hath tried, as well as he (poor Soule) could, whether this Spirit were from God or no; and he found it (and that infallibly) to be from God. But S.r I ask you by what infallible meanes did you try it? If you ſay (as you muſt needs ſay) that you tryed it by the word of God: wee cannot but pitty your pittifull anſwer; for you forget that, before this triall was made, you could not have any aſſurance that the Scripture was Gods word; to the beleefe of which truth you cannot poſſibly come, vntill you have firſt an infallible aſſurance, that you in particular have Gods Spirit. For tell mee, by what other way you can come to this aſſurance? How can you then ſay, that you have tried your Spirit by that word, which, before this triall of your Spirit, you could not poſſibly know to be infallibly Gods word. You will all walk in a circle, as the wicked do, and as that wicked ſpirit who circles about to ſee whom he can devoure: vntill you come to ſtand ſtedfaſtly vpon the Rock of the Church.

SECT: IV. AN EIGHT ARGVMENT,

That the Scriptures cannot decide this Controverſie, which bookes bee the true vncorrupted Copyes of the true bookes of Scripture: And therefore Proteſtāts believe not Scripture with divine Faith. A word of the famous Bible now coming forth at London.

1. AS it is in vaine to know for certaine, that my Father did (to my great advantage) make a true authenticall will and Teſtament, of which I conceive my ſelfe to have a true Copy: without I can authentically prove, the Copy that I have to bee indeed authentical. So, it is to ſmall purpoſe, that God did, by his Prophets, write ſuch bookes as Geneſis, Exodus and the reſt of the old and new Teſtament, to our ineſtimable advantage; vnleſſe I can alſo, by vndenyable aſſurance, ſhew my ſelfe to have the true authenticall and vncorrupted Copyes of all theſe bookes; vncorrupted, I ſay, in all parts of them: for if it were not known to bee vncorrupted every where, it might bee ſuſpected of falſity every where Now, that the Copyes, which wee have of Scripture, even in the Hebrew, or Greeke tongues, bee vncorrupted, wee are no where told plainely in Scripture. The laſt part of the Scripture which was written, was written about a thouſand and ſix hundred yeares agoe. No Scripture hath been written, ſince that time, to telle vs, that ſince that time no corruption hath happened, or falſyfying the copyes written ſince that time: no Scripture then written did plainely aſſure us, that the Scriptures ſhould never bee corrupted by thoſe who printed, or writt them. Neither did the Apoſtles take care to haue the Copyes, written by them, to bee authentically ſigned, ſealed, and delivered into the hands of ſuch and ſuch, as might authentically declare their being true originals, or agreeing in all things exactly with the true originals; which is an evident ſigne, that God intended not the Scriptures for our Iudge, and only direction in all points: For all law-makers vſe this diligence, to ſecure their lawes from corruption. Behold then, here is now a ſixteenth point primely neceſſary to ſalvation, and yet no where ſett downe in Scripture: I ſay, primely neceſſary; for if it bee neceſſary to have faith, it is neceſſary to have the only Rule directing, and guiding to true faith, no where made crooked and directed falſe, as a falſe corrupted Copy would doe. Here then, you muſt flye to the tradition of the Church; yea, and to the Tradition of the preſent Church alſo: for the Church of other ages could not aſſeure vs that the Scripture ſhould bee vncorrupted in our Age. Is it not as great a contradiction as can bee, to ſay, wee know by the tradition of the preſent Church that; that very Scripture is vncorrupted, which very Scripture bids vs not to beleeue the Tradition of the Church: Which if I doe not beleeue, I cannot beleeue the Scripture to bee vncorrupt, and that infallibly if her Tradition (vpon which onely I beleeue this) bee fallible? The traditions then of the preſent Church bee as infallibly true as your faith; which I proue by this Demonſtration: Your faith cannot bee more infallibly true, then it is true that the Copyes of the Scripture bee vncorrupt; for your faith is built vpon the word of God, as delivered to you by theſe Copyes: juſt as wee ſay, our faith is built vpon the word of God, as propounded or delivered to vs by the Church: but it is not infallibly true, that the Copyes wee haue now bee vncorrupted, becauſe that very Tradition of the preſent Church which telleth vs this, is held by you to be fallible and ſubject to lye; and which in a multitude of her other Traditions, hath lyed vnto vs, according to your doctrine. Here you ſee againe that you beleeve nothing at all with divine faith; For all you beleeve, you beleeve vpon the word of God, as delivered to you by ſuch Copyes as you onely, by an humane faith, know to bee the true deliverers of Gods vncorrupted word: This ground is fallible, being meerely humane; therefore the ground which ſupporteth all you beleeve, is humane, and not divine; Therefore all your faith is humane, and not divine: And this holdeth true in all and every point which you beleeve.

2. I will now further ſhew you, how you cannot know by Scripture onely, that the copyes of it bee vncorrupt, in thoſe very languages in which the Scripture was written: And yet this point is primely neceſſary to ſalvation, as I now proved; And indeed if the Originalls cānot bee known aſſeuredly to bee vncorruptedly copyed out, all the tranſlations of theſe Originals may alſo bee falſe: Now the more they agree with corrupted Originals, the more wee are ſure they are corrupted. But of Tranſlations I will ſpeake in the next ſection: Here I will ſpeake of the Copyes, which are ſayd to be Copied out of the true Originall Copyes, agreeing word for word with thoſe very Copyes, which S. Paul, S. Mathew, Moſes &c. did write; Theſe Copyes wee know by no ſcripture to bee vncorrupt. Yea, if you will hold the Church to bee fallible; I will bring you ſeverall convincing proofs, that there can bee no certainty, that theſe Copyes agree with the true Copyes written by the true ſcripture writers. Theſe ſcripture-writers did write, either in ſuch Hebrew as was vſed in the Age in which they did write, (as did the writers of the old Teſtament:) or they did write in Greeke; as did moſt of the writers of the new Teſtamēt. Lett vs ſee firſt, how diſagreeing the Hebrew Copyes may bee, from the Originall Copye of the true writer thereof: Then wee will ſee the ſame of the Greeke Copyes.

3. Firſt; diverſe of the very originals themſelves were written by ſuch men as wee know not at all, and ſo wee cannot know them certainely to have been true Prophets, but by Tradition; which, if it may bee falſe, it may alſo bee falſe, that they were true Prophets, haveing Gods true ſpirit, aſſuring them infallibly in all that they did write: And ſo, though wee did infallibly know, that wee had a moſt vncorrupted Copye of what they did write, yet wee ſhould not bee able to know that it were Gods infallible word; For how could wee know that he who writ this booke, was a true Prophet; no body (as farre as any body knoweth) telling vs one word of that man, good or bad? For theſe bookes were written by God knoweth whom. Wee haue nothing but vncertaine opinions concerning the writers of diverſe of the moſt aſſured and protocanonicall bookes of ſcripture: as of the bookes af Ioshua, Ruth, Iudges, Eſter, the bookes of Kings the bookes of Chronicles, or Paralypomenon. So alſo, it is not certaine whether Solomon himſelfe did write his bookes of proverbs: or ſome that were about him did ſeverally, in ſcattered papers, one note what hee heard at one time; another what hee heard him ſay at another time: And then, in the dayes of Ezechias, ſome certaine men (God know's who they were) belonging to Ezechias; did make that collection of them which wee now have; as the moſt learned Lyranus holdeth, writing on that booke, and grounding himſelfe on theſe words, cap: 25. Theſe are alſo Proverbs of Solomon which the men of Ezechias Copyed out. Wherefore not vpon the authority of any ſcripture; but meerely vpon the authority of Tradition, wee know thoſe true Originall Copyes to have been penned by true Prophets: though wee know not who they were.

4. But, that which I preſſe moſt is; that, though wee had all infallible knowledge that could bee, that ſuch Prophets and Moyſes had writt, with their owne hands, ſuch and ſuch bookes: Yet it is impoſſible (if the preſent Churches authority bee fallible) to know infallibly, whether the Copyes, wee have now in our dayes, agree in all places exactly with the Originall. Yea, wee are ſure they do not agree with it, which I prove thus: Noe bookes of Scripture were ſo ſolemnly, publickly, and moſt authentically delivered to bee kept, juſt as they were written, as the bookes of Moyſes, witneſſe the Scripture, Exodus 24. v. 4. and Deutr. 31. v. 24. And it came to paſſe when Moyſes had made an end of writing the words of the Law in a booke, vntill they were finished: that Moyſes commanded the Leuites, which bare the Arke of the Covenant of our Lord, ſaying take this booke of the Law, and put it in the ſide of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord, that it may bee there for a witneſse &c. But theſe very bookes, thus written, vntill they were finished, have manifeſtly received the Addition of the laſt chapter of Deutronomy which was written after the death of Moyſes; as Calvin himſelf confeſſeth. So Gen. 26. the 31. verſe is cleerely added by ſome body, who lived in the times in which the Children of Iſraël had Kinges: which was long after the dayes of Moyſes: how then could he ſay, And theſe are the Kings which reigned in the Land of Edom, before there reigned any King over the Children of Iſraël? Who could ſett downe theſe Kings as haveing reigned vntill the dayes of the Kings of Iſraël, But ſome body who lived after their reigne? Bonfrerius, in his preface to the Pentateuck, addeth two other places, changed ſince Moyſes writt them. That the like changes have happened to the booke of Ioshua, to the fourth of Kings and to Ieremy, is witneſſed by Torniellus Anno Mundi 1612. But let no man thinke, that I recount theſe changes as corruptions; for wee all believe thoſe additions to have been made to the true Copyes of Moyſes, and thoſe other writers by men ſpecially inſpired by God to make them: Yet wee, ſtanding onely to the humane authority of hiſtory, cannot tell by whom thoſe changes were made: no hiſtory telling vs, that the authors of theſe changes were Prophets, or Impoſters. Onely wee have the tradition of the preſent Church, aſſuring vs infallibly (which ſhee could not, if ſhee were fallible) that the Scriptures, wee now at preſent have, are infallibly Gods word: and conſequently, what changes ſo ever have been made in them, were made by ſufficient authority from God. You, who reject this authority of the Church, can have no aſſurance that many other changes were not made, as well as theſe: and ſuch changes as may bee moſt foule corruption, for any thing you know. Again.

5. If wee ſpeake of ſuch changes as may bee both corruptions, and moſt pernicious corruptions, in the Hebrew Bible: You (who reject the teſtimony of the Church as a fallible witneſſe,) cannot poſſibly make it appeare, that the Hebrew Copyes bee not groſſely corrupted ſince the times of the Apoſtles: For many and great changes might, after their times, be made by the Iewiſh Rabbins (men moſt perfidious and malicious,) when they did adde points to the Text, vnder pretence of preventing ſuch miſtakes, as might eaſyly happen to the leſſe skillfull, in reading the Hebrew text; which to that day had no points to expreſſe the vowels: For in the Originall it was written onely with Conſonants, and the vowels were left to bee added by the well inſtructed Reader; for whoſe helpe (in reading the Scriptures right,) the Iewiſh Rabbins did firſt beginne to adde certaine points, ſo to tell vs where an A, or an E, or any other vowell was to bee added according to the true manner of reading that place. Now onely God knowes whether theſe, ſo malicious and perfidious Iewes, taught vs to reade every vowell as it ſhould bee read in ſuch a place: and did not; by the adding of what vowels they pleaſed change the ſence of the word, to ſignifye what they pleaſed. The putting of the vowels right or wrong depended, not onely vpon the aſſuredneſſe of theyr skill, which (for any thing wee know) might in ſome places bee deficient, and wee not knowing theſe places, are ſeure of no places: but alſo the putting of theſe vowels depended primely on their ſincere, and vpright honeſt dealing: which wee cannot, in true prudence, much expect from ſuch ſworne enemyes to Chriſtianity, as thoſe Iewes were. Such men then as theſe putting all and every one of the vowels, to every word of the Hebrew text, a good while after the Apoſtles time: what humane evidence have wee, ſufficing to a certaine aſſurance, of the adding the right vowell to every ſyllable of the whole Hebrew Bible? If wrong vowels bee added, the ſence will bee incredibly wronged: The vowell is the very ſoule of the ſyllable, either making, or marring the true ſound and ſignification, and altering it to moſt different ſences; In ſo much that, not onely in every word, but even in every ſyllable, alteration may bee made of the true ſence. So in the latine word monere to admoniſh, if you change the vowels at your pleaſure (as thoſe Iewiſh Rabbins might often doe, for any thing wee know) you may reade moneri, to bee admoniſhed; manere, to ſtay • manare, to flow from; minari, to threaten; munire, to fence; muniri, to bee well fenced; munera, guifts; minora, leſſe things: And thus the vowels change and alter the right word in ſeverall parts. The Hebrew lāguage is moſt ſubject to this inconvenience of any other, becauſe it cō ſiſts exceeding much of words of one ſyllable; in which the change of the vowell, maketh the ſence a perfect changeling. So in Engliſh, ſuppoſe the Scripture ſhould ſpeake againſt the abuſes in Balls: there comes a Proteſtant, and hee will ſay, it is againſt the abuſes of Popiſh Bulls; there comes a Puritane, and he will ſay it is againſt the abuſe of Bells, vſeing them in ſuch manners as have no authority in Scripture; ſome vpſtart Sectary will ſay it is againſt Bills, and other armes, which Chriſtian mildeneſſe doth not allow of. See heere how the change of one vowell in one ſyllable onely, quite altereth the ſenſe. This change of one vowell, makes a fatt man, to bee a fitt man: and fatneſſe in all places, to bee fitneſſe in all places: It maketh that which is Better, to bee Bitter: It maketh a pott full of Butter to bee a pitt full of Batter. Though you magnify ſo much the preſent Hebrew Copye, as wee have it now pricked and pointed, to point vs out the true vowels; yet your owne Engliſh Bibles, in ſeverall places, teſtifye their corruption, by forſaking their tranſlation to follow ours: I will give you but one example; Wee, (and you with vs) reade, They have pierced my hands and my feete, Pſal. 22. v. 16. So cleare a Propheſye for our Saviours Crucifixion, is quite turned to another ſenſe in the preſent Hebrew Copyes, where theſe malicious Iewes make vs reade, As a Lyon my hands and feete. Thus you ſee how very little is the aſſurance, which thoſe, who know Hebrew, have, even of their very reading it right as it ſhould bee, acccording to the true meaning of the ſcripture-writer: Of David for example, of whoſe true meaning, theſe falſe pointers have diſappointed vs. Wee then now have no aſſurāce, to know what vowels ſhould have been putt. And if any man now in theſe dayes, doth pretend to bee ſure that hee hath ſo much skill, as to tell, by the conſonants onely, what vowels ſhould for certaine bee putt, according to the meaning of Moyſes, of David, or of any other writer; I would onely deſire this cunning man, to giue mee a tryall of his skill, by telling mee what vowell I meane to have putt to theſe three Conſonants, Bll: whether I meane to ſignifye a Ball, a Bell, a Bill, or a Bull. You will ſooner tell mee whether the pinnes I hold now in my left hand bee even or odde? Here you will bee ſure to hitt right at twice; for ſurely they bee one of the two: But you may gueſſe twice two times, before you aſſuredly Propheſye, whether I meane by thoſe three conſonants to ſignifye a Bal, a Bell, a Bill, or a Bull.

6. Now for the Greeke Copyes; Though the Copye of the Septuaginta bee not Originall, yet queſtiō leſſe, if wee were ſure that wee had the true Originall of that Tranſlation, it would bee a ſtrong ground, for as much as concerns thoſe bookes which thoſe 70. Interpreters Tranſlated; who lived 300. yeares before the new Teſtament was written: But you your ſelves exceeding often refuſe, in your Engliſh Bibles, to follow the preſent Copyes of the Septuaginta, as copyes that are by you eſteemed corrupted in ſeverall places; and conſequently ſecure in no place. I ſhew this in ſeverall points of great conſequence. So Pſal. 118. v. 12. I haue inclined my hearte to performe thy Iuſtifications for a reward: S. Auguſtin vpon this place, ſayth; For which reward, he ſayth, hee did incline his hearte to performe the Iuſtifications of God: Hence proving, as you ſee, that David did make profeſſion to doe good works, and to keepe Gods commandements for the reward hee hoped to gett thereby. So the Scripture ſayth of Moyſes, that hee had reſpect to the recompenſe of the reward, ād out of this reſpect did that moſt noble act of preferrin • the ignominy of Chriſt, before the being great in the Aegyptia • Court: Heb. 11. v. 26. You to avoyd this argumēt drawne from the cleare text of the Septuaginta, flye from they tranſlation, to the Hebrew Copye of a doubtfull ſenſe, the one agreeing with the Septuaginta, the other agreeing to your turne of ſhifting off our and S. Auſtins ſenſe; by reading as you reade, I have inclined my hearte to performe thy ſtatutes alway even vnto the end. So in the fourth Chapter of Daniel, v. 27. Daniel ſayth to Nebuchodonozor, Redeeme thy ſinnes with almes: which words are moſt literally tranſlated out of the Copyes of the Septuaginta: but becauſe they make ſo manifeſtly for Popiſh ſatisfaction, by which they hope to redeeme their ſinnes, (Chriſts paſſion dignifyeing their good works;) you refuſe againe to ſtand to the Septuagint, ād flye againe to the preſent Hebrew Copye, which having both the ſenſe of the Septuagint, and another ſenſe helping you to ſhift off this place, you follow that ſense ād reade, Breake off your ſinnes by righteouſnes. Hence it appeares, that you yourſelves will not allow the true ſenſe of the Originall greeke Copyes of the Septuagint. And indeed S. Ierome findeth frequent fault with the Copyes hee had in his dayes of their tranſlation; (which tranſlation hee reverenceth:) See him in Quaeſt. Hebr. de optimo genere interpretādi, Epiſt. ad Suniam & Fritillam: And hee often cōplaines of the corruption of his Greeke Copyes in his commentaryes vpon the Prophets. Now in our dayes Bellarmine Lib. 2. de verbo Dei, C. 6. houldeth that the Copyes of this moſt famous Tranſlation are ſo corrupted, that they ſeeme to make a new, and quite different Tranſlation; as hee proveth by many arguments, of which one is this: Geneſis 26. Where the ſervants of Iſaac doe ſay, according to the Septuagint, wee have not found water: Whereas they ſhould ſay, Wee have found water; as is proved by the Hebrew, and by Iſaac his owne words, calling the name of that place Abundance, for the plenty of water found therein.

7. I come now to the new Teſtament, which almoſt all of it (except S. Matthewes Goſpell) was by the Apoſtles themſelves written in Greeke. The chiefe points of our our faith depend vpon the new Teſtament. If the Copyes in this language agree not exactly, and in all places, (for falſity in one place proveth poſſibility of falſity in other places) with the firſt Copyes written by the Apoſtles; our Iudge (for whoſe ſole authority you plead) will bee cō vinced of corruption, and therefore no infallible Iudge. Your greate Doctor Beza vpon Acts, 7.16. doth muſter vp a whole catalogue of corruptions in the Greeke Copyes. The ſame Beza iudgeth Eraſmus the beſt of all latter tranſlators: and yet Eraſmus, ſpeaking of the Sixt of S. Matt. condemneth the Greeke of trifling and rash additions. If you will bee Iudged by the Greeke Copyes, then you muſt confeſſe that Chriſt in the Sacrament did give vs his true blood; For all the Greeke Copyes of S. Luke cap. 22. v. 20. reade thus. This cup is the new teſtamēt in my blood, which (cup) is shed for you. So that the Cup, that is the thing contained in the cup, was that very thing which was ſhed for vs; But not wine, but Chriſts true blood, was ſhed for vs: Therefore not wine, but Chriſts true blood, was the thing contained in the cup. It is a memorable thing which is lately related by Mr. Creſſy Exomol: Ca. 8. Nu. 3. in theſe words; In my hearing, Biſhop Vsher profeſſed, that whereas hee had of many yeares before a deſire to publiſh the new Teſtament in Greeke, with various lections and annotations; and for that purpoſe had vſed great diligence, and ſpent much money to furniſh himſelfe with manuſcripts: Yet in concluſion hee was forced to deſiſt vtterly, leaſt, if hee ſhould ingenuouſly have noted all the ſeverall differences of reading which himſelfe had collected: the incredible multitude of thē almoſt in every verſe, ſhould rather have made men Atheiſticall, then ſatisfy them in the true reading of any particular paſſage. An evident ſigne that Governours of the Church did not rely onely vpō what was in writing. So hee. And though hee hath now twice printed this, and though others have alſo divulged the ſame in print; Yet Biſhop Vsher, ſeeing this done before his eyes, doth not diſclaime frō it; Therefore I cannot but believe the ſtory to bee true: And if it bee true, how wonderfully corrupted is your only Iudge. Now if B. Vsher alone, in this remote corner of the world, beeing a private man, could procure ſo many old Copyes in writing; what might have been done by ſome greate Prince, vſeing all induſtry to gett (by meanes of other greate Princes, and all other diligences,) all the old Copyes they could? For as the multitude of Copyes, procured by Biſhop Vsher, did increaſe the variety of different readings; ſo a farre greater multitude of Copyes, would, in all probability, have yet much more increaſed this variety & difference. And the ſame variety, for the ſame cauſe, might yet have been found to bee farre greater, if five or ſixe greate Princes, liveing in five or ſix Kingdomes (at the greateſt diſtance from one another,) ſhould have all conſpired to gather together all the ancienteſt Copyes that were any where to bee had. Wherefore, if in thoſe onely copyes procured by Biſhop Vsher, the multitude of ſeverall readings were incredible almoſt in every verſe: how much more incredible would the multitude of ſeverall readings bee, if the diligence, I ſpoke of, ſhould bee vſed to procure a greater multitude of written Copyes? I aske now, when, in theſe later dayes printing was invented, how thoſe, who cauſed the Greeke Tranſlation (which wee have) to bee printed: how (I ſay) could they know for certaine, that, that one reading (which they thought good to follow in their printed Copyes) was the true reading? Or how could any man tell which written Copye of B. Vshers was the true written Copye? I pray lett vs ſo much as know our Iudge, before wee bee obliged to accept of him in all matters. Yea, you make vs know hee is corrupted in many matters: and others may make vs know that he is corrupted in many more. And ſure I am, that corrupted Iudges, are not competent Iudges. Crooked Rules are not good directors. The Rule that is given to vs all by God, to direct vs all, muſt bee a rule eaſily applyable by all: For this reaſon, you ſay all muſt reade the Scriptures, and your meaning is (and muſt bee) that they muſt reade the true Scriptures; that is, ſome true copye of the true bookes of Scripture: by what meanes ſhall they bee aſſured, that they read the true Copye, there beeing ſuch an incredible difference between Copyes which are ſett forth for true? Not one, among an hundred thouſand, can have this aſſurance; either want of meanes to gett the reading of theſe manuſcripts, or for want of skill to reade them, and vnderſtand them ſo, as to bee able to informe himſelfe of their perfect agreeing in points neceſſary: eſpecially ſeeing that you ſo litle agree in teaching vs, which points be neceſſary and fundamentall, that you could never yet bee able to give vs the number of them; much leſſe to tell vs which they were, or in what bookes, or Chapters of the Bible, they were to bee found. Wherefore hee, who will vpon his owne knowledge, and not vpon ſome other mans credit, (farre inferiour to a generall Councell,) informe himſelfe of the truth of his Copye (ſufficiently to have a full aſſurance that it is the true vndoubted Copye of the true vndoubted Word of God:) hee (I ſay) who will ſo much as hope to doe this, is not one among an hundred thouſand. How then can this be that Rule given by God, to bee applyed by every man, to Iudge by it for himſelfe: by which one among one hundred thouſand cannot bee able to iudge for himſelfe, whether this vndoubtedly bee that Rule given him by God. Excellently Seneca, Omnia delibera cum amico, ſed priùs delibera de amico. All conſultations with thy ſure friend make: But firſt conſult Whom for this friend to take. Before thou conſulteſt the whole buſyneſſe of thyne eternity With this Copye, firſt conſult how ſure thou art of the ſureneſſe of this thy Copye. If every man (as proteſtants Will have it) bee to bee iudge for himſelfe, in points which ſo neerely concerne himſelfe, then doubtleſſe, in the very firſt place, hee is to bee iudge for himſelfe of this point aboue all points, which concernes him as much as that vpon which all other points of higheſt concernement doe wholly depend.

Thus you ſee, how, not one man among one hundred thouſand eſcapeth being gulled by you, Whileſt you all make him beleeve, that if hee will follow you, hee ſhall ſee with his owne eyes, what hee doth, and hee ſhall iudge for himſelfe: and not take his religion vpon truſt, as you make them beleeve wee doe, becauſe wee truſt generall Councels. O deareſt Brethren in Chriſt, for his and for your owne ſakes, ſett your eyes at leaſt halfe opē, and you ſhal preſently ſee, whether wee, or you bee thoſe who take vp our fayth on truſt. Doe wee doe this, becauſe wee beleeue and truſt general Councels? Theſe Councels, Euen in humane knowledge and ſincerity of iudgement, farre excell any private man, truſted by you in this capital point: and, beſides humane knowledge, they have the infallible aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt promiſed to them; at leaſt as much, if not more then to thoſe men, whom you truſt. Or rather do not you take your fayth on truſt? for who of you is able to iudge for himſelfe, Which is the true vndoubted Copie of the true Word of God, by which onely you muſt rule your fayth in all points? And who therefore is there among you, who ſeeing himſelfe wholly vnable to iudge for himſelfe in this point, (on which all others wholly depend) is not forced to rely vpon incomparable Weaker authority, then is the authority of a Generall Councell, to which the prime Prelates of this World are called, bringing with them the ableſt Divines they can gett, Each one in the Province, from which hee cometh: And all of the Councel deliuering not ſo much theyr opinion (equall at leaſt to yours) but deliuering what hath beē by thē receiued Vniverſally from their Anceſtors, without note of novelty. Whereas you, when all comes to all, muſt in this very point of points, rely wholly on the authority of thoſe few learned men, who have thought good to ſett forth this Copye, which you take vpon their word to agree faythfully in all places With the true vndoubted Originall. And this alſo muſt bee done by you Mr. Miniſter, and by you Mr. Doctor, Without you bee Perhaps a man more learned, then that one, who cannot bee picked out among an hundred thouſand. Now if this be the caſe of men though ſo very learned; What more cleer then that the leſſe learned (which make vp the multitude of ſoules redeemed by Chriſt) cannot poſſibly iudge for themſelves in this point of points; but muſt truſt others to iudge for thē, and rely wholly vpon their iudgement. What thinke you now? is this as ſafe as relying on the Church Vniverſall, repreſented in a Generall Councell? Now if this Councell may bee more Prudently relyed vpon in this point of high concernment; Why may it not bee relyed vpon, and iudge for vs, in points of leſſe concernment? Shall I wiſely truſt a man with a thouſand pounds, and bee vnwiſe, if I truſt him with an hundred pounds? ſhall it bee moſt prudently done, to lett Generall Councels iudge for mee, which Bookes I am to hold for the Copyes of Gods Word, and ſhall it bee imprudence to lett a Generall Councell iudge for mee, whether I am to pray to Saints, or no? to pray for the dead, or no? to hold Chriſt moſt really preſent in the Sacrament, or no? What Scripture, or any thing like Scripture, have you, to tell mee that the Church, repreſented in a Councell, ſhall not deceiue mee in this point (moſt important of all points:) but that it may deceiue mee in other things, in which it is more Eaſye to Iudge right? The Church is a Iudge, (as I ſhall ſhew hereafter) to which the multitude of people may have free acceſſe; and heare plainely, clearely, and moſt vndoubtedly, what is delivered for true, by the ſentence of this moſt grave Iudge: And ſuch a iudge it beſeemed the Divine Providence to give to the people, if hee ſeriouſly deſired to bring them, by belief of the onely true fayth, to ſalvation. Whereas it is not poſſible, for one among one hundred thouſand, to heare plainely, clearely, and moſt vndoubtedly, the ſentence delivered by any Booke of Scripture, concerning the true Copye of the true Scripture; though all my fayth muſt depend vpon this, as you ſay: Neither can you finde any other way to make mee ſecure of this choice of a true Copye, comparable to the authority of a generall Councell.

8. To ſhew this more plainely, I will moſt faithfully relate vnto you, that which you may ſoone ſee with your owne Eyes, if you pleaſe. Your prime maſters of antiquity, your chiefe Doctors in all thoſe languages, in which Scripture anciently was written, have begun to ſett forth the moſt compleate Bible that ever yet appeared (as they ſay) for the number of the ancient languages in which it is ſetting forth, and for the exquiſite exactneſſe of the Copyes, of which I ſpake Sect. 3. n. 9. The firſt five bookes are already printed, and to be ſeen in many perſons hands. The ſame men have alſo (in order to their Bible) ſett forth an introduction, printed at London by Tho. Roycroft, Anno 1655. In the preface to this Introduction, they profeſſe, they cannot produce any one Copye, which they can aſſure vs to agree in all things with the true Originall handwriting of the Authors; Wherefore (ſay they) in the variety of Copyes, what better Meanes can ſo much as bee invented, to picke out the true reading, then the conferring of the moſt choice and moſt ancient Copyes; and then to ſtand to that reading, which agreeth beſt with the greater parte of the moſt ancient, and moſt choice Copyes? This courſe S. Ierom &c: This S. Auſten tooke &c: So they. The cheefe thing they pretend to excell others in, is Exemplarium optimorum delectu, In the choiceneſſe of the very beſt Copyes. Well now (deare reader) can humane induſtry, ſuch as this is (that is, as greate as is to bee expected in this world by thee) take more paines, or doe more, to procure for thee the trueſt Copyes, which can bee had for love or money? And, ſtanding in humane induſtry, millions of millions have wanted this meanes of diſcovering the true Copye, which theſe learned men have. But what doth all this availe another man? For your religion wil have every one in point of faith to Iudge for himſelfe: So D.r Fern, S. 8. thinks that, becauſe the Roman Church will have vs to truſt to her iudgement, pronounced by and with the conſent of a generall Councell; ſhee will have vs to thruſt out our right eye, the eye of our ſpirituall vnderſtanding Wherefore, ſayth hee, wee cannot yeeld, but muſt ſay, that no man can beleve any thing truely, vnleſſe hee bee convinced of it in his iudgement according to that Rom. 14. V, 5. Let every one bee fully perſwaded in his owne minde; Concluding, by the due vſe (note theſe words) of his reaſō, that it is Gods holy will that they ſhould ſo doe ād beleeve. And by ād by he tells you, why he ſayd, that hee muſt conclude (all that hee is to beleeve) by the due vſe of his reaſon. For notwithſtanding the publicke Iudgement of the Church in a full Counſell, (I adde notwithſtanding alſo the private iudgement of ſuch greate Doctors as theſe are, Who now ſo painefully labour in procuring the true Copye of the Bible For vs) Private Chriſtians (ſayth D.r Fern) have their private iudgement of diſcretion for themſelves onely, which is the diſcerning, and receiuing to themſelves onely, as the will of God, what is delivered and propounded to them. For they muſt anſwere alſo for themſelves, and live by their owne fayth; which cannot bee without allowing them due vſe of their reaſon and iudgement, to ſee the evidence of that to which they muſt aſſent. This is that which D.r Fern, and other proteſtant Doctors are pleaſed to call, The due vſe of reaſon. Behold here (you moſt learned Doctors, who ſo vnwearyedly ſweate in ſetting forth this your admirable Bible) behold a doctrine taught every where by your owne Divines, and moſt neceſſary to mainetaine your ſtanding out to ſubmitt your inward iudgement to the definitions of Councels: A Doctrine, making all your labour of very little or no vſe at all, to your Proteſtant Brethren: For ſome ſeven or eight yeares hence, when your Bible ſhall bee quite ended, (for vntill the quite finiſhing of it, wee cannot have the benefitt of it as a Iudge,) then your owne Brethren muſt not truſt your iudgement, iudgeing for them in the choice of the true Copye, picked now out of one of your old Copyes, now out of another; now truſting to this old Copye moſt in this verſe, ād by and by not truſting it moſt in the next, or almoſt the next verſe. The due vſe of reaſon (ſay they) permits vs not to ſtand blindely to the publike iudgement, even of whole generall Councels, when they define matters of leſſe moment, then is the taking vpon your word, our Iudge in all the points neceſſary to bee beleeved or practiſed. For though in the ſecond Councell of Nice Anno 787. no fewer then three hundred and fifty Fathers, did allow of the Worſhip of Reliques and holy Images of Chriſt and his Saints Act, 3: Yet wee have the private iudgement of diſcretion to Iudge for our ſelves, becauſe wee are to anſwere for our ſelves; and wee (duely vſeing our reaſon) Iudge Worſhip of Images to bee either Idolatry or ſuperſtition. Now, if you allow vs, by your own Doctrine, not to truſt a whole general Councell of three hundred and fifty ancient Fathers; you have not the due vſe of reaſon your ſelves, if you thinke wee may lawfully blinde our ſelves ſo farre as to lett you Iudge for vs in a farre more important point; that is, in the takeing the onely Rule of our whole fayth vpon your iudgement. I muſt, in this point, have your leave not to accept of any one of your Copyes, as ſufficiently true, to bee my Rule in my whole fayth, Without I alſo can ſee the evidence of what I muſt aſſent vnto: For ſo you teach mee. See what I ſayd in the very end of the ſecond Section. But I goe on, and confeſſe that I ſee it is evident enough, that you doe indeed ſay, that you give mee the beſt Copyes that can bee gott; and that, which is more, I ſee it is evident that you doe indeed ſay all your Copyes agree in things, which are neceſſary to ſalvation: But I doe not, nor cannot ſet (though one among one hundred thouſand bee not ſo learned as I) that all you ſay to mee is evidently true, vntill I have conferred all the Copyes as well as you; and vntill I bee as fully certifyed of the antiquity, and choice exactneſſe of all your Copyes, as well as you: and this is impoſſible for mee, vntill I can vnderſtand all thoſe languages as well as you; and pervſe all the authenticall teſtimonyes, which you have of this antiquity, and perfect exactneſſe of your Copyes. Beſides all this, how can I truſt you to Iudge in all and every point, whether the agreement of all the Copyes bee exact in all and every point fundamentall and neceſſary to ſalvation: for I know, wee our ſelves cannot agree which bee all the points fundamentall and neceſſary; and my iudgement may in this vaſtly differ from yours, as much and as lawfully as it differs from the Councell I now ſpoke of. Thus much your owne Brethren muſt bee allowed to ſay.

9. As for our parts, wee, to ſay nothing of what you mention concerning Beza, Munſterus and Eraſmus &c. (from whom, as from profeſſed enemyes, wee cannot without iuſt ſuſpicion receiue any thing) wee I ſay, beſides this, doe not onely ſuſpect, but alſo evidently know that you mainly diſagree from vs in vnderſtanding the ſenſe of your owne words, when you ſay, There is (in all the Copyes you have by you) great agreement in all things belonging to fayth, and neceſſary to ſalvation &c: And more towards the end, you ſay, That they agree in fundamentals. Biſhop Vsher, (whoſe Copyes you profeſſe to vſe ſo much) if hee had gone on with his worke I ſpoke of n. 7. had given vs better ſatisfaction in this particular, in that wee had ſeen how great, and where, the diſagreements bee: but you make vs rely wholly on your authority in this point; I know you could not doe otherwiſe. But as for your iudgement in fundamentals, wee know not how to rely on you; You tell vs our religion and yours agree in fundamentals: If your Copyes agree in fundamentals no more then our two Religions; this agreement will bee little to our ſatisfaction, nor much to the ſatisfaction of many of your Brethren: For beeing they know you account all the points, in which wee and you diſagree, not to bee points fundamentall or neceſſary to ſalvation: they, by your granting frequent diſagreeing in your Copyes in points not fundamentall, are not freed from, but confirmed in the ſuſpicion which many have, that the Copyes of the Bible agree no better then Papiſts & Proteſtants; and that (for any thing they can yet iudge by their owne iudgement of diſcretion) theſe your Copyes diſagree about the texts concerning the reall preſence; the Popes ſupremacy; Image-worſhip; Prayer to Saints, and for the dead; yea about our iuſtification it ſelfe; the number, the right vſe, the fruit, the neceſſity of Sacraments; and ſuch points as theſe are; which, though you account them not to be fundamentall, yet you account them of ſo great concernment, that the difference in theſe points, gave you moſt iuſt cauſe of ſeparating and dividing from the Romane Church, with all thoſe Scandals and publike evils enſueing vpon this diviſion. Will not then, this bee a ſufficient reaſon of not embracing the Copyes preſented vnto them in this moſt accurate Bible, they haveing no better aſſurance, that theſe Copyes agree with thoſe other Copyes concealed from them, in theſe points, (in which their greateſt difference from the Roman Church doth conſiſt) then the authority of theſe learned men, who moſt plainely confeſſe the frequent differences of their Copyes in points not fundamentall, and who alſo, by the name of points not fundamentall, are known moſt commonly to meane ſuch kinde of points, as containe no meaner differences then thoſe which are between Papiſts and Proteſtants; and which cauſed this great diviſion. A word more of this Bible in the next Sect: n, 5.

10. To end then this matter, you ſee (Gentle Readers) That you have not among you any Copy, which you vndoubtedly know, ſo much as by evidence of humane knowledge, to bee Gods vndoubted word: Will you, who contend ſo eagerly to have nothing beleeved, for which there is not cleare Scripture, have vs, in the moſt important point of beleefe, beleeve that for which wee have neither Scripture, nor evidence of humane reaſon? If you ſay the divine Providence would doubtleſſe keepe the Copyes of the Originals vncorrupted, becauſe otherwiſe wee ſhould have no ſure Rule of Faith: I anſwer that this is to ſuppoſe the very thing which is in queſtion, Whether Chriſt gave vs Scripture for our onely Rule. Yea, becauſe it is cleare that, ſtanding in humane evidence, no Copye can bee freed of the guilt of corruption: Therefore God would have no Copye at all to bee our only Rule of faith: but hath provided for out direction another way.

SECT: V. A NINTH ARGVMENT.

That the Scripture cannot decide this Controverſye, which Tranſlations of the word of God bee true: And therefore ordinary Proteſtants cannot believe Scripture with Divine Faith.

1. THe Divine goodneſſe deſiring paſſionately (as appeares by his paſſion for all) the ſalvation of all, and intending to make faith a neceſſary meanes to this their ſalvation, muſt conſequently provide ſome meanes to guide and direct vs to the truth of this faith; which muſt bee a meanes ſo eaſy to bee applyed by all, that all, by the uſe of this meanes, may (if they will) attaine true fayth, which is but one; for faith vnleſſe it bee one is not Faith, as S. Leo ſayth Ser. de Nativ. Hence it appeares, to the very eye, that if the Scripture cannot ſo bee vſed by all (or the farre greater parte) as to guide themſelves by it, in all points neceſſary to ſalvation; it cannot bee the onely meanes given them for their guide in points neceſſary to ſalvation: But it cannot doe this to the farre greater parte of the world, as I prove; For the farre greater parte of the world cannot make vſe of Scripture in thoſe languages, in which it was written, as hath been ſhewed in the laſt Section, even concerning men, who are more learned, then any one among one hundred thouſand; and it is in it ſelfe cleare enough concerning thoſe, who know not Greeke and Hebrew in any perfect degree of knowledge, in which languages the Scripture was written: whence it followeth, that the farre greater parte of the world, cannot know what the true word of God (their onely Iudge and director) did ſay, but by the meanes of a Tranſlator or interpreter. Now judge you, in what vncertainty that man ſhould bee left, who ſhould have a very good guide locked vp in ſome place; to which he himſelfe could never have acceſſe, but muſt heare all the directions given him by ſome other man who is exceedingly ſubject to miſtake very many things, which that good guide ſhould ſay to him; eſpecially this meſſenger beeing often to truſt others of no vndoubted credit: In this caſe, your own doctrine doth put you (O deare People) Who make Gods Word your onely guide, in a way full of a world of doubtfull turnings, in which to miſſe is euerlaſtingly to periſh. This word is locked vp ſo in Hebrew and Greeke cloſets, that you cannot know what it ſayth, but by the vſe of a Tranſlator, as by a meſſenger; who beeing a man, and haveing a weake vnderſtanding, and a will ſubiect not to take all the paines required for the exact knowledge of all that, which the word of God ſpeaketh, in ſo greate a booke as • he Bible is, in which there bee very many hard expreſſions in languages nothing eaſye to bee vnderſtood, in all words and phraſes; eſpecially ſeing that the Hebrew tongue was quite loſt (for as much as concerneth the vulgar vſe) in the Captivity of Babilon, ſome ſix hundred yeares before Chriſt. How hard then muſt it bee now to know the full force, which common vſe gave theſe words two or three and twenty hundred yeares agoe? What skill can bee knowne to bee heere ſecure? beſides the difficulty of the points of which I have ſpokē; I ſay nothing of the wilfull miſtakes, which this meſſenger may committ, either fully on ſett purpoſe, to make all goe the way which hee conceiveth to bee beſt, vpon his paſſionate affection to it, or diſaffection to the contrary: or rather, not ſo much with ſo plaine downe right wilfulneſſe; as with an overſwaying preiudice, which hath prepoſſeſſed his iudgement, that the way which hee, as from thy guide, biddeth the to goe, is the onely true way: not that hee is fully ſure that thy guide did clearely ſay ſo; but thy meſſenger thought beſt to putt downe clearely this way for thy true way, becauſe his owne preiudice of its beeing ſo, and his greate deſire that it ſhould bee held by all to bee ſo, have prevailed with him to deliver it clearely to bee ſo. Moreover this thy Tranſlator or meſſenger had not immediate acceſſe to Gods word, in that very hand writing in which it was written by the ſcripture writer: from ſuch but what he knoweth, he knoweth Copyes as were written by men of vnknown fidelity, who perhaps often were ſuch hireling pen-men as had more care to write much, that they might gain much; then to write with all perfect exactnes, and to take due paines and care in conferring theyr tranſcribed Copyes with the Copyes they tranſcribed. And thoſe very Copyes alſo were perhaps writtē out with the like careleſnes. Beſides this careleſnes; ignorance might likewiſe cauſe many a miſtake in ſo long a worke, becauſe all neither knew the lāguages perfectly which they tranſcribed, nor did not perhaps know ſo cunningly thoſe abbreviations which thoſe pennne men then vſed even almoſt at every word; in which alſo one writer often differs from an other: Hence in a long work numberles miſtakes are incidēt, which ſoon grow to a farre greater number, whileſt ſo many ſubſequent tranſcribers out of former Miſtakers come to adde theyr new miſtakes to thoſe former. And to do it in a hand fitt to cauſe theyr miſtakes to be yet more multiplyed, when more Copyes (ſubiect ſtill to the like inconvenience) come to be tranſcribed out of them ſucceſſiuely for many ages. Now thy meſſenger or Tranſlator, in this vaſt variety of Copyes, (of which wee ſpoke more in the laſt Chapter) if hee findeth but one or two Copyes, which more favour that way which hee would have all goe, or thinketh in his private iudgement to bee true; hee makes choiſe to interpret this miſtaken Copye for Gods owne word, and ſets it downe as advantageouſly as he can, to further his opinion and his deſire to bring ſuch a way into greateſt requeſt. From ſuch men as theſe, you are immediately to take that direction for your onely Rule and guide: And yet, though you ſee with your eyes, your onely direction to come ſo indirectly to you; and, that you moſt manifeſtly neither doe here Iudge for your ſelves, nor can poſſibly Iudge for your ſelves in this Capitall point (comprehending all the points you are to beleeve:) yet you are taught by all your prime Doctors, that, as you are to anſwere to God for your ſelves in all you beleeve; ſo you muſt, by your ſelves alſo, Iudge for your ſelves in all you beleeve. Yet (O prepoſterous! O Monſtrouſly prepoſterous!) you, in this cheefeſt point of all, muſt rely vpon the authority of a few Engliſh Tranſlators; who exact of you to rely on them with more confidence, thē they will permitt you to rely vpon the authority of a whole generall Councell, ſeconded by the authority of the graveſt Fathers which the church of God hath had: And you, who are taught to follow and believe nothing but ſcripture, are now taught, without any one text of ſcripture to take the Trāſlations of men for your onely guides, in all and every point of your fayth; and ſuch Tranſlations alſo as wee iuſt now deſcribed, and ſhall here more fully deſcribe. In the meane time note, that here I have one more neceſſary point, not clearely ſett downe in ſcripture, to adde to the former ſixteen. If any deny this point to bee neceſſary to ſalvation, let him anſwer this Argument: that is neceſſary to ſalvation, without which I cannot come to bee aſſuredly guided to true fayth; But I (who vnderſtand not both Greeke and Hebrew) can not, without a truely Tranſlated Bible, come to bee aſſuredly guided to true fayth; the true Bible beeing (as you teach mee) the onely rule guiding and directing to true fayth: Therfore it is neceſſary for mee, to vſe a truely Tranſlated Bible: But no ſcripture doth direct mee in the choice of a truely tranſlated Bible; Therefore ſcripture doth not direct mee in all points neceſſary for mee to ſalvation.

2. Here againe I inferre, that all that vaſt number of people, who, knowing not perfectly both Greeke and Hebrew, are forced not to Iudge for themſelves which is the true word of God, muſt of neceſſity rely vpon many vncertaintyes in this very point, vpon which all their whole fayth doth rely. Firſt they muſt rely vpon this vncertainty, whether the Copye which this Tranſlated Bible doth interpret to them, were a true Copye of the true vncorrupted word of God; which, how greate an vncertainty it is, hath been ſhewed in the laſt Section; Where I ſhewed alſo (and here you may ſee it againe) how much more you take your religion vpon truſt, then wee doe: Even thoſe greate Doctors, who now ſett forth the famous Bible, Confeſſe (in their Introduction) that Copyes are onely ſo farre Gods true word, as they agree with the true Originall Copye, written by the Prophets or Apoſtles. How thy Tranſlators Copye agreeth with the true Originall, God knoweth; I am ſure thou knoweſt not, nor thy Tranſlator himſelfe. Secondly, it is vncertaine, whether thy Tranſlator did in every place interpret ſincerely, and not follow his owne private opinions, in expreſſing ſome points of Controverſye. Thirdly, it is vncertaine whether hee were not, in ſeverall places of ſo greate a worke, careleſſe to expreſſe the true ſenſe of his Copye, not marking at all times attentively enough, or not vſeing at all times due labour to ſearch for the true ſenſe of ſuch and ſuch a word, in ſuch and ſuch a place. Fourthly, it is vncertaine whether thy Tranſlators skill was great enough to performe his duty in ſo vaſt a worke as the Tranſlation of the B • ble is, even though hee ſhould vſe as great paines as hee could. A fayth relying vpon ſo many vncertainetyes, for certaine cannot but bee vncertaine: But all the fayth, which ſuch Proteſtants have, is thus vncertaine; vnleſſe they have skill and will to vſe the Hebrew and Greeke Bible: Therefore their fayth is not certaine nor divine in any one point; becauſe in all points they rely vpon a Trāſlators authority, which is ſubiect to ſo many vncertaintyes. See this clearely confeſſed by prime Proteſtant Doctors, whoſe words I give you hereafter ſect. 16. 11. 7.

3. And, that you may ſee this the clearer, I will ſett before your eyes ſeverall vndeniable proofes of the groſſe falſity which is in the Tranſlators of your owne Religion, in whom you truſt moſt; that hence you may ſee, how litle they are to bee truſted by you in ſo greate a matter; eſpecially to bee truſted more then a generall Councel. Luther (that greate beginner of this Reformation) did ſett forth a Tranſlation, which, how good it was you shall hear from your great Doctor Zvinglius lib. de ſacra. fol. 412. Luther was (ſayth hee) a foule Corrupter and horrible falſifyer of Gods word. One who followed the Marcioniſts and Arians, that razed out ſuch places of holy writt as were againſt him. Thou doeſt (ſayth hee to Luther) corrupt the word of God, thou art ſeen to bee a manifeſt and Common corrupter and perverter of the holy ſcriptures. How much are wee ashamed of thee who have hitherto eſteemed thee &c. And Luther himſelfe, twenty yeares after, confeſſed hee had often erred becauſe hee had truſted too much the gloſſes of the Rabbins; as witneſſeth Coc •• aeus in actis Lutheri. Behould here another way for Tranſlators to erre, of which wee thought not before. It is alſo worth the noting which Bellarmin in his Sermon vpon Pentecoſt sayth of Luther; Thoſe (ſayth he) who moſt diligently have read the Bookes of Luther do beare witnes that he, in the New Teſtament only (ſo ſmall a part of the Bible) hath changed aboue a thouſand places. He did ſet forth the Goſpels ſeuen times, euery time moſt different from all the former, as the ſame Bellarmine there noteth. So much for Luther. After him came Zuinglius, and ſet forth a Bible, with the help of his diſciples, which beeing printed at Zurich, the Printer ſent one of them to Luther: but he, reiecting it, ſent it him back again, as you may ſee in the Proteſtants Apology Tract: 1. S. 10. Subd. 4. out of which place I cannot but adde diuerſe moſt pertinent things to our preſent purpoſe. This Apology then ſetteth down all that here followeth; as that Luther ſaide of thoſe Zuinglian Tranſlators, that they were fooles, Aſſes, Antichriſts, Deceauers and of an Aſſe-like vnderſtanding. That Beza reproueth the tranſlation of Oecolampadius (who with Zuinglius and Caroloſtadius did firſt begin your Reformation in point of the Reall Preſence:) He then hauing ſet forth his Bible at Baſile, Beza ſaid thus of it; The Baſilean Tranſlation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghoſt. The ſame great Beza accounteth that ſo highly eſteemed Tranſlation of Caſtalio, to be Sacrilegious, wicked and Ethnicall. But Caſtalio was quitt with Beza, for he writt a whole book againſt the Tranſlation which Beza made, ſaying; That to note all his errors (in tranſlating) would require a great volume. But Beza in his Annotat: goeth on and calleth Caſtalio his Tranſlation falſe, foolish, vnskilfull, bould, blaſphemous, vitious, ridiculous, Curſed, erroneous, wicked, peruerſe. Hitherto thou ſeeſt theſe Tranſlations of thy prime Doctors condemned by the authority of other no leſſe famous Tranſlators. And both thoſe who were condemned thus, and who did thus condemne, were men more famous among you then is any one tranſlator of any one Engliſh Bible: ſo that a greater authority, then is the authority of that man (whoſe tranſlation thou takeſt for the only Rule of faith) telleth thee that Tranſlations of farre more learned Trāſlators then thine, bee ſo full of Corruptions, that great Volumes would not conteyn them: How then canſt thou hope that thy leſſe skilfull Engliſh Tranſlator hath done his part better then any of thy greateſt Doctors. But I muſt yet further aske thee, how thou doeſt know this on thy owne knowledge? and how it is poſſible for thee here to Iudge for thy ſelfe, which thy Doctors ſo often tell thee thou ſhalt be able to doe if thou wilt follow thē? doeſt not thou here again ſee how in a moſt important poinct, thou art enforced to truſt an incomparable leſſe authority then that is of any one of our general Councels, which they ſo ſtrictly charge thee not to truſt even in farre leſſe points? O blindnes.

4. But thou canſt not but ſee how much thou art gulled herin, and how impoſſible it is for thee to iudge of truth and faith by theſe Engliſh tranſlations, when thou ſhalt yet heare what I have to ſay of them. Your firſt English Bible was ſet forth in the dayes of Henry the eight by Tindal, whom yours eſteeme the Apoſtle of England in this Reformation. May I not truſt him will you ſay? Truly Bishop Tunſtall noted no leſſe then two thouſand Corruptions in his tranſlation in the new Teſtament only, as witneſſeth the Remiſh Teſtament in the end of the Table of certain places; &c. How litle a part of the Bible is the new Teſtament? And yet two thouſand Corruptions in that only? Yet ſurely in Queen Elizabeths dayes, who lived ſo very long, and did ſee the Goſpell ſo well perfected, our Tranſlations (wilt thou ſay) were compleatly exacte: For then, if ever, our Doctors had the true Spirit. Indeed then they were ſo confident their Tranſlations did agree with the word of God, that the Queen (whom all your Doctors by oath acknowledge Gouerneſſe of your Church in England) in the 26. year of her Reign (as Sir Richard Baker writeth in that year) did command Whitgift her Archbiſhop of Canterbury, to ſet forth three Articles to be ſubſcribed by all her Clergy, and the ſecond of theſe was That the Book of Common Prayer conteyneth nothing contrary to the word of God. By reaſon of the vrging this ſubſcription, many, marking well that in theyr Common Prayer theyr Epiſtles, Goſpells, Pſalmes &c. were conteyned, all which were taken out of theyr Bible: and knowing by theyr learning that theyr Bible, even then, was full of groſſe corruptions, contrary to the word; began now openly to diſcover theſe errors. Hence divers Miniſters in a Treatiſe to her excellent Majeſty ſpoke thus; Our Tranſlation of the Pſalmes, comprized in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in Addition, Subtraction, and Alteration, differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at leaſt. And Mr. Burges in his Apology S. 6. writeth thus; How shall I approve vnder my hand a Tranſlation which hath many omisſions, many Additions, which ſometimes obſcureth, ſometimes peruerteth the ſenſe, beeing ſometimes ſenſeles: ſometimes contrary. And Carlict ſayth in his book of Chriſts deſcent to Hell. P. 116. The Tranſlators thereof (the Engliſh Bible then vſed) haue depraued the ſenſe, or obſcured the truth, and deceaued the ignorant. In many places they detort the Scripture from the right ſenſe; and finally they shew themſelues to loue darknes more then light, falshood more then Truth. When King Iames began now to reigne, the Miniſters of Lincolneshire, in an Abridgment of a book deliuered to the king. P. 11. 12, of the Engliſh Tranſlation ſpeake thus: It taketh away from the text, addeth to the text, and this ſometimes to the changing or obſcuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghoſt. A Tranſlation which is abſurd, and ſenſeles, peruerting in many places the meaning of the holy Ghoſt. Theſe things were ſo notorious that Sir Richard Baker, an earneſt old Proteſtant (as now they call them) in the firſt year of king Iames his • eign writeth thus: He called to Hampton Court diuers of his Bishops and Diuines, to ſee what they could ſay againſt the preſent gouuernement of the English Church. In this Conference D. Reynolds motioned that there might be a new Tranſlation of the Bible; becauſe the preſent Tranſlation were Corrupt, and not anſwerable to the truth of the Original; where of he alledged diuers examples, particularly that in the hundred and fifth Pſalme. V. 28 where it is ſayd They were not obedient; in the Original it is, They were not diſobedient. To this it was agreed that a new Tranſlation should be made. Thus farre Sir Richard word for word. By all which it is euident that your Biſhops, Doctors, Deuines &c. in Queen Elizabeths dayes, euen to her laſt day, did ſubſcribe, and by Publick Authority were ordered to ſubſcribe, that falſifyed word of God to be the true word of God; though it were flatly contrary (as in the place now cited) to the true word. How knoweſt thou that the Deuines now, though they miſſe not alwaye in the ſame places perhaps, yet perhaps they may miſſe in Others of as great conſequence? The Scripture was held then as confidently to be the only Rule of faith, and cited as faſt, and as thick, for Gods word then, as it is now; And yet now your very Bible coming forth on that occaſion, doth as good as tell you; the former Bible was not Gods true word. Diuers years after the reſolution made of ſetting forth this new Bible, there ſtill remayned ſuch open complains of the corruptions of the word of God, that Mr. Broughton (a man as skilfull in Hebrew and Greek as any was in England) according to his skill did giue this Cenſure in his Aduertiſement of Corruptions to the Bishops; ſaying, That theyr publick Tranſlation of Scriptures into English is ſuch as it peruerteth the Text of the ould Teſtament in eight hundred forty eight places; and that it cauſeth millions of millions to reiect the new Teſtament, and to runne to eternall flames. In what caſe then hath this your doctrine putt you, which hath taken you off from following the iudgement, of the Church in a generall Councel, to make you Iudge for your own ſelues: when your learnedeſt Deuines (who made ſo corrupted Tranſlations) did ſo ill Iudge for them and others? Vpon thy ſelfe then thou canſt not ſafely rely in this poinct; neither canſt thou rely vpon thy Tranſlators, who haue vſed thee thus: Find mee then, for Gods ſake, find mee, if thou canſt, any where any, but halfe ſo ſure, a ground as is that of the Church, which is the Piller and Ground of Truth. Thou doeſt not only venture the beeing deceiued in this great point of the vprightnes of thy only Rule, and Iudge; but it is manifeſt that thou art deceiued: for, thy Rule (which is thy preſent Engliſh tranſlated Bible) ſtill ſtandeth accuſed of many and groſſe Corruptions. Not to trouble thee much, I will tell thee only of one or two; Thy Tranſlator had a mind to make thee beleeue that faith only could ſaue thee; a damnable Doctrine, vnknown to the greateſt Doctors of the Church, which could not be, were it the only thing which did iuſtify and ſaue vs, as thy Tranſlator would perſwade thee, when tranſlating what Chriſt ſayd to the blinde man, whom he cured Luke 18.43. he makes Chriſt to ſay, thy faith ſaued thee, in place of ſaying, thy faith hath made thee whole. Again, though Chriſt, by way of Counſel, did propoſe in a generall manner the embracing of a chaſte ſingle life Matt: 19. v. 11. &. 12. ſaying; He that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it: Thy Tranſlator had a mind to make thee beleeue not only that euery one did not receiue this doctrine, but he makes Chriſt in the former verſe tell vs, All men cannot, receiue this ſaying. Whereas Chriſt ſayd only, All men do not receiue this ſaying, as is euident out of the Greek. Is this faire dealing? is it all one to ſay, All men doe not lead ſingle liues; and to ſay, All men cannot lead ſingle liues, though they vſe faſting, praying &c. This is as wilfull an errour, as it would be in one who heard mee ſay (and alſo ſet it down in writing to preuent miſtake) All men are not honeſt; ſhould report that I ſayd, All men cannot be honeſt. When I ſee a Tranſlator not to make any conſcience of ſo willfully falſifying Gods own word, in fauor of his own opinion; haue not I iuſt reaſon to ſay, I cannot be ſure of my faith in all points, if I (vpō this mans authority) take his trāſlation as the only Rule of my faith in all points? What more clear?

5. Here I muſt needs examin the doctrine which thoſe great maiſters of the anciēt languages, who now ſet forth that mighty work of the Londō bible, in ſo many learned ancient languages, who in the introduction to this theyr Bible (of which I ſpoke in the laſt Sectin. 8) ſpoke thus; It is not neceſſary for the producing faith in the people, that there • hould be a tranſlation wholy infallible; ſeeing that de facto it is evident, that among thoſe numberles Tranſlations which are extant this day in Europe, there is none of all them which is of divine and infallible authority: For faith doth rely on the authoritie or veracity of God, which allwayes is certaine and infallible, although all the meanes be not infallible; For tranſlations have only ſo farre authority as farre as they agree with the firſt own-hand written Originall: But they are ſufficient meanes of faith when they conteyne (who knowes when that is?) all things neceſſary to ſalvation, without any error againſt faith or good manners. So they. Lett vs examin, what they ſay, by parts as it lyeth in order, and that in order to our preſent purpoſe only: and not in order to examin how true all they ſay is. If true faith can be had now without any infallible Tranſlation, then the Bible is not our only guide to true faith, and our only Iudge in points controverted in faith: for this judge muſt be infallible, as all your Doctors teach. If you anſwer the Iudge is not the tranſlated Copy, but the Originall in Greek, and Hebrew. I ask you, what ſhall almoſt all the world do to hear this infallible Iudge ſpeak? For almoſt all are deafe to all that is ſpoken in Greek and Hebrew. If there be not one infallible Tranſlation in Europe at this day; how at this day are all deluded, who are taught on the one ſide to judge for them ſelves, and on the other ſide are tould that they cannot handle the Ruler by which they ſhould Rule theyr judgement in all points: but they muſt be contented with a fallible Lesbian Rule of lead, bent as it pleaſed the Tranſlator? Again, how is it poſſible God ſhould bidd the people to ſearch the truth in the Bible, not only as the only place to find it in; but alſo as the only place for them to find it in: For God knew all people could not ſearch truth in any Bibles, but ſuch as are tranſlated into a language they vnderſtand; God knew all theſe Translations were lyars, if indeed they be ſo as you ſay; Cā God bidde any man ſeek for the truth, only at a lyars mouth? Yea, would God, who loveth Soules ſo well, give them no better meanes to know the truth wholy neceſſary to Salvation? True it is, faith doth rely vpon the truth of God, who ſaid ſuch a thing to be ſo and ſo: but if my Tranſlator tell mee; that God ſaid ſuch a thing was ſo and ſo; and yet God ſayd no ſuch thing, but an other thing very differēt, in place of which my Tranſlator ignorantly or wilfully obtrudes this thing: here manifeſtly I am left leaning, with all my force, vpon a Lye. And whereas you tell vs that Tranſlation (the only Rule wee can handle) have only ſo farre divine authority as farre as they agree with the firſt own-hand-written Originals; This is ſmall comfort to vs, to whom it is impoſſible to know how farre this is. Yea you yourſelves know not which be the true own-hand-written-originals, which you confeſſe to have periſhed, though you ſay that they be faithfully reſtored by your laborious gathering ād cōferring together more exquiſite Copies then hitherto have been publiſhed: which how true it is, I know not. And then ſecondly, without wee alſo know the languages, which you preſent vnto vs very fayth ully, (as wee perhaps ſuppoſe,) it is impoſſible for vs to know how farre our Tranſlations agree with the Originals: therefore it is impoſſible for vs to know, how farre wee may truſt to theyr authority as divine, or ſuſpect it as human. And ſo by clear conſequence it is impoſſible for vs to know when and where wee may give a moſt full vndoubted aſſent to what wee find tranſlated in our Bibles. Is this the comfort you leave vs at laſt, when vpon our leaving to rely vpon the Rock of the Church, you promiſed to make vs men knowing what wee do in all points: and now, wee are ſure wee know not what wee doe in any? For wee know not what our only Rule bids vs to hould vpon Gods authority, or what that man bids vs vpon his authority only to hould, when offering vs his owne Tranſlation, he bids vs take it for a divine Rule; which if he giveth not, wee are gulled even in that point which neereſt concerns our ſalvation. Indeed you conclude with a ſmall, crumme of comfort, when you tell vs; Tranſlations are ſufficient meanes to divine faith, when they contain all things neceſſary to Salvation, without any errour againſt Faith or good manners. But I pray reflect, how wholy impoſſible it is for vs to tell when they do this, without knowing firſt for certain al the points neceſſary to Salvation: about which you your ſelves are not yet agreed; neither can you give vs vp a liſt or catalogue of them. Nay, I may affirme, that no ſuch liſt or catalogue can be given, (though even here it be ſo apparently neceſſary) that thence wee might ſee whether there be any ſuch error in our Engliſh Bibles, in thoſe matters: Yea, all of you tell vs, that there is no way to know what is neceſſary to ſaluation, but by the true Bible; and yet wee (poore ſoules) cannot poſſibly come to know, which is the true Bible conteyning all poincts neceſſary to ſaluation, without any error in fayth or manners; vntill wee know firſt that a true Bible hath tould vs ſo: And again, wee cannot know that Bible to be ſo true, which tould vs ſo; vntill wee know that, that very Bible conteyned all poincts neceſſary to ſaluation, without any errour in faith or manners. This is not only to blind vs (as you ſay the Papiſts do, when they make vs follow the Church:) but it is to vſe vs as the Philiſtians vſed Sampſon; firſt to putt out our eyes, and then to make vs runne round in a mill, as blinded horſes do in horſe mills: For no circle is rounder, and goeth more about and about again in the ſame footſtepps, then the circle wee are m • de runne-in blindfold; by hauing no other aſſurance, that the only Rule of all our faith is a Bible, conteyning all things neceſſary to ſaluation, without error againſt faith and manners; and hauing no other aſſurance of what is neceſſary to ſaluation, what not; what is againſt faith, what not; what is againſt manners, what not; but by an other Bible, of which Bibles truth wee haue noe other aſſurance then the former; but we ſtill require an other Bible to aſſure vs of the like things; and this other will require yet an other, and ſo with out end. What circle can be more endles?

SECT: VI. A TENTH ARGVMENT.

That the Scripture Cannot decide the Controuerſy about the truth of S. Matthews Goſpel. And that our aduerſaries doe not beleeue this Goſpel with diuine faith.

HERE alſo I muſt needs propoſe a difficulty, which, in the principles of your Religion, I conceiue to be vnanſwerable. You do no leſſe beleeue all things written in S. Matthews Goſpel, then you beleeue all things written in any other book of the Scripture: But euen your Doctors of the higheſt forme, haue no other authority for all things in S. Matthews Goſpel, but the Authority of a Tranſlation made by one, whome none of vs all know; and ſo wee can neither aſſure our ſelues of his fidelity, nor of his skill, nor of his care to vſe a true Copy, nor I of his induſtry in the vſe there of &c. Now you tell vs (and it is true) that Tranſlations (preſcinding from any decree of the Church approuing of them) haue only ſo farre authority, as farre as they agree with the true Originall; But it is impoſſible for you (great Doctors) to know, how farre the tranſlated Copyes of S. Matthews Ghoſpell agree with the Originall; becauſe, for theſe many ages, there hath not been known extant in the whole world, any one Copie of the Original-hand-writing of S. Matthew, who did write in that kind of Hebrew which the Iewes ſpoke in his dayes, as all and euery one of the ancient Fathers (who haue writt of this matter, and whoſe workes wee haue) do teſtify, and S. Ierom libro de Schriptorib. Eccleſiaſticis affirmeth himſelfe to haue ſeen, and to haue alſo written out that Hebrew Copy. But for theſe many ages noe one Hebrew Copy hath appeared in the world which, with any ſufficient probability, could be ſhewed to be a true Copy: whence it is euident, that none of you all can tell, how farre the Tranſlations wee haue of that Hebrew Copy, do agree with the Hebrew Copy; therefore, not one of you all can tell, how farre theſe Tranſlations, which wee haue now, be of diuine Authority, and how farre now wee may admitt them as Gods vndoubted word; there beeing no reaſon known to vs, why wee ſhould admitt them more in one place (vpon S. Matthews authority) then in an other: and there beeing no reaſon why wee ſhould admitt of the whole Tranſlation, made by I know not whom, rather then of other Tranſlations, whom wee know, to haue been made with all the beſt induſtries which human ability can afford: whence I can neither admitt the whole Tranſlation as diuine, nor any part of it, rather then the part I admitt not; I not knowing any one part to agree more with the true Originall, then the other. All the whole Ghoſpel I cannot receiue as diuine, for no Tranſlation at all, (much leſſe the tranſlations of a man vnknown) is to bee admitted as diuine and infallible, there beeing no one ſuch in all Europe as you ſay. Hence I demonſtrate, that you beleeue not S. Matthews Ghoſpel with diuine Faith: For you cannot ſay, that you giue credit to any one thing in it for the authority of the writer of it, becauſe you know not any one thing deliuered from God by the writer vnto you, but vpon the authority of the Tranſlation, which is no further diuine then agreing with the true Copy; which agreement you neither know to be in this one point, or any other you can name. How can I know, how the Tranſlation agreeth with the Originall: if I know not what the Originall ſaith?

2. Again, to beleeue S. Matthews Ghoſpel, is as neceſſary to ſaluation, as to beleeue S. Lukes or S. Iohns; but no infallible Scripture (Tranſlations not beeing infallible) doth tell you that S. Matthews Ghoſpel is the vndoubted word of God; How will you then proue this by Scripture againſt the Marcioniſts the Cerdoniſts, and the Manicheans, who deny this Ghoſpel to be Gods word? All points neceſſary to ſaluation, you ſay, are plainly ſett down in Scripture: Shew me this point plainly ſett down. Here then I haue one neceſſary poinct more, not plainly ſet down in Scripture which maketh the former ſeuen-teene poincts to be eighteene. Neither can you ſay, that, by the very reading this Tranſlation, you can diſcouer a light ſhewing it, as clearly as the Sunne, to be Gods word: For, though I can ſee no reaſon, why ſuch light might not be diſcouered, as well in true Tranſlations, as in true Originals; yet becauſe you of your Religion, who only haue eyes to ſee this light, do profeſſe (as wee haue lately ſeen your greateſt Scripture-Doctors to profeſſe) that there is not one infallible Tranſlation in Europe; and becauſe wee ſee, euen ſuch Doctors as they are, not ſo much as to hope to diſcouer, by ſuch a light, true Tranſlations from falſe ones; but to beſtow great paines in conferring the ſeuerall Copyes, of theyr ſeuerall tranſlations, with the beſt copyes of the originals which they can find; and by the agreeing, or not agreeing with theſe beſt copyes, to approue or reproue theſe Trāſlatiōs; wee are by this certifyed, that they truſt nothing to this clear light, which if it were a reallity, and not a reall phanſy, were the beſt guide of all, and would ſaue them infinite paines: Yea, whatſoeuer (to auoid our arguments) they boaſt of this light; yet euen in the approuing or reprouing the Copyes of the Original it ſelfe, they truſt nothing to it. If I thought, they did truſt to ſuch an vngrounded Imagination, neither I, nor any one of my opinion (nor of thine neither, as I think) would euer buy one Copye of theyr Tranſlations.

3. Now; if you cannot diſcouer any ſuch light aſſuring you of the truth of all things in S. Matthews Ghoſpel, I am ſure you cannot do ſo in S. Iohns or S. Lukes, or any other: And your own Conſciences cannot but tell you, that the light diſcouering its ſelfe in S. Matthew, is as great as in any other book of Scripture; But this light is now clearely ſhewed to be vnſufficient to proue S. Matthews Ghoſpel to be Diuine, it beeing only a Tranſlation, which your beſt Doctors confeſſe to be fallible: neither is there any meanes to know one part of it to be more infallible then an other, vpon the authority of the writer there-of; becauſe wee know not which part agreeth with the true Copie of the writer. You ſay you fix your faith vpon what is Tranſlated, and not vpon the Tranſlation: But I ſay, if you fix your faith vpon what is tranſlated by a falſe Tranſlatour, you may ſoone fix your faith vpon a ly; at leaſt you cannot tell when you do ſo, and when you do not; For you know not whether the thing deliuered be agreeable to Gods word, or only to the Interpreters fancy; eſpecially when you know not of what credit the Interpreter is. Do you know it becauſe your phanſy alſo tells you this is Gods word? then thus wee may haue a double phantaſticall aſſurance, and nothing elſe; one from the vnknowne interpreters phanſy, an other from thy own. I thought your fayth had relied on Gods written word. What written word is that which can neither be ſhewed aſſuredly written in any Originall, nor in any Copye, nor in any Tranſlation of the Original Copye? If you fly at laſt to that miſerable ſhift, as to ſay, that the Illumination of the Spirit can tell you Gods word, without the mediation of any certain vndoubted meanes, conueighing it vnto you: then you muſt needs be Prophets all, and euery one of you. Who euer heard of ſuch a Church in this world, in which there be as many Prophets as there be men and women? This is not the Church of S. Paul, in which he ſaid, 1. Cor: 12.19. Be all! Prophets? and in which he gaue only ſome Prophets. Eph: 4.11. But all of you who know, imediately from God, that which no mediat meanes conueigheth vnto you, muſt needs be true Prophets. If this be true, then alſo any Engliſh clown, by the like illumination, communicated to him in the reading of his Engliſh Tranſlation, may as well, and better, (becauſe by diuine illumination) be aſſured, that all is true which is in his Engliſh Tranſlated Bible; and ſo, by good conſequence, be aſſured that it is a very true Tranſlation; though he neither knew Greek, nor Hebrew. And indeed your Greek and Hebrew only helps you to conferre the Tranſlation with the Originalls; but S. Matthews Originall Copye not beeing for many ages viſible in the world, can be no more conferred with by your Hebritians, then by this Engliſh Clown: And if his illumination aſſures him of all that is written in S. Matthews Ghoſpell; wee will all, with one conſent, graunt that it may aſſure him as well that all other parts of the Scriptures bee Gods word: what then need you talke of conferring with the Originals, or knowing Greek or Hebrew?

4. Now at laſt, I hope, when you ſo vniuerſally allow to euery man and woeman who belieueth S. Matthews Ghoſpel, ſo large a meaſure of diuine Illumination, that it is ſufficient to ground an infallible beleefe; You will confeſſe your ſelues to ſpeake moſt inconſequently, if you offer to deny the like illumination to the whole Church repreſentatiue in a generall Councell: ſo now wee ſhall haue a Church infallible; which is all I am endeavouring here by degrees to proue. And tell mee not, that you are not aſſured, whether they in Councels haue vſed the due meanes to obteyne this illumination; for I ſhall as eaſily tell you, that neither I, nor my Bretheren, bee aſſured that you, and your Bretheren, haue vſed alſo the due meanes to obteyne this illumination concerning euery Book, Chapter and verſe of Scripture, aſſuring them all to be Gods word; eſpecially when they ſpeak contradictions ſo faſt as wee ſee they do.

SECTION THE VII. AN ELEVENTH ARGVMENT.

That the Scripture cannot decide the manifold Controuerſies about the true ſenſe of the Scripture: Therefore in theyr beliefe of the true ſenſe thereof, our aduerſaries haue no diuine faith; Nor no ſure ground of theyr Religion.

IN the former ſections I haue giuen you eighteene points, all neceſſarie to ſaluation, and yet not one of them plainly ſet down in Scripture: Now I adde a nineteenth point, which, though moſt neceſſary, yet, it is ſo farre from being cleared by only Scripture, that almoſt all our Controuerſies do ariſe from hence, without euer beeing ſilenced by the definitiue ſentence of God, deliuered in the Bible: An euident ſigne that God, in the Scripture only, hath not paſſed the clear deciſiue ſentence of all neceſſary Controuerſies: For all parties ſubmitt vnto that ſentence, and yet none of them is clearly caſt thereby. They do then the holy Scripture much wrong, who ſay that God did write it on ſet purpoſe to end all controuerſies: and yet they cannot poſſibly ſhew how God hath done this compleatly: And ſo, by conſequence, they are driuen (to the ſcandall of all Chriſtians) to make God fall ſhort of effecting that by Scripture, which they ſay he intended to effect; to witt, the ending of all Controuerſies; which with our eyes wee all ſee wax endles, euen among thoſe, who all ſubmitt to Scripture as Gods word. Wee Roman Catholiks are far from doing the Holy Ghoſt this wrong: wee ſay, Scripture was dictated by him, for many moſt high ends belonging to the knowledge and loue of God, and belonging to the encreaſe of all vertue and hatred of Sinne, arming vs with patience in Gods ſeruice, by propoſing moſt comfortable motiues to vs: ſo S. Paul teacheth vs, what things ſo euer haue been written, to our learning they are written, that by the patience and conſolation of the Scriptures wee may haue hope, and thus walking cheerfully by thoſe confortable examples, and theſe rate documents, and feruent exhortations giuen vs in Scripture to all vertue, wee may go in the end for which God made vs. Yea wee adde, that Scripture wanteth not this honor of prouiding ſufficiently for our vnity in faith, about all points which can euer fall in Controuerſy; not that it ends all theſe by it ſelfe alone: but that it bidds vs haue our recourſe, in theſe caſes, to his Church, and to heare her, and that vnder paine of beeing accounted is a publican or Heathen; and telling vs, that the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile againſt her, by any falſe doctrine; telling vs, that shee is the pillar and ground of truth; that he is with her all dayes euen to the conſummation of the world; and that He hath prayed his Father to giue her an other comforter, that he may abide with her for e • er, the ſpirit of Truth, who shall teach and ſuggeſt vnto her all things what ſo euer Chriſt hath taught his Apoſtles, guiding her into all truth. He tels vs alſo that he hath giuen vs ſuch Doctors, and ſuch Paſtors, as may ſecure her from circumuention of error; for his Couenant with her is this, My Spirit which is vpon thee and the words which I haue put in thy Mouth; shall not depart out of thy Mouth, nor out of the Mouth of thy ſeed, nor out of the Mouth of thy ſeeds ſeed, frō hence forth and for euer. And that her Sunn shall no more go down; For the Lord will be vnto her an euerlaſting light; shee ſhall be a Kingdome ſtanding for euer; that the Nation and Kingdome which shall not ſerue her, shall perish. No Nationall Synods ſhall iuſtify any nations diuiſion from her Communion. All theſe Texts I ſhall ſhew to be ſpoken of the Church; by which (I think) it is a apparent by Scripture, that God intended not in Controuerſies of faith, to inſtruct vs by Scripture only; the very Scripture ſending vs ſo often to the Church, as alſo to her Traditions; as 2. Thes. 2.15. Hould ye faſt, and (to doe this) hould the Traditions which ye haue learned, whether by word, or by Epiſtle: and again, 2. Tim. 2. The things which thou haſt heard of mee by many witneſſes (he ſayth not by his writing only) theſe commend to faith full men, which shall be fitt to teach others alſo: And again, Thoſe things which ye haue been taught, and heard, and ſeene in mee, theſe doe. Who ſeeth not that wee were to do, not only what wee had read, but what had been taught vs, and what wee had only heard or ſeen ſhining in publike practice. But of this here after ſee in the next Sect: n. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. God then teacheth vs all things neceſſary in Scripture; firſt, by deliuering many things clearly in it; ſecondly, by ſending vs for the reſt to the Church, and to her traditions: By the Churches Paſtors alone he inſtructed ſome ſufficiently in faith; as he did S. Paul, to whom it was ſayd Act: 9.6. Go into the Citty, and it shall be tould thee what thou muſt doe; and as he did Cornelius, to whom it was likwiſe ſaid; Call for one Simon, whoſe ſurname is Peter, and he will tell thee what thou oughſt to do. Act. 10. v. 5.6. What you object to the contrary I anwer Sect. 10. n. 6.

2. I return to you, who ſay, God intended by Scripture only to teach vs all neceſſary poincts; which if he hath not done, you make him deficient in an vnworthy manner: ād that he hath not done it I haue already ſhewed in eighteene neceſſary points: and now I adde, that by Scripture alone he doth not teach vs the true ſenſe of Scripture: And yet the true ſenſe thereof is that which muſt giue ſentence in the deciſion of all controuerſies; the ſenſe is the kernel, the life, the Soule of the text; miſſe that, miſſe all; A wrong and falſe ſenſe is no leſſe dangerous then a falſe text obtruded for a true one. Hence Tertull: de Praeſcrip: The ſenſe adultered is like perilous as the ſtile corrupted And S. Ierom Ep: ad Gal: ſayth. The Goſpel is not in the word but in the ſenſe; not in the barke, but in the ſappe. wherefore D. Reynolds in his Conference with Mr. Hart P. 58. confeſſeth, that it is not the shew but the ſenſe of the words, that muſt decide Controuerſies. So he. It is not then the Text as it ſounds, but the text thus expounded, which muſt end (as you ſay) all our debates: And yet this expounding thus or thus, is that very thing which firſt makes all our prime debates and Controuerſies; and it is alſo that very thing which maketh them to be endles. This I ſtill inculcate, becauſe.

3. This, and the true reaſon of this, is exceedingly to be noted: For it is not the Text, but the text thus or thus expounded, which is to decide controuerſies: not the dead letter, but the true ſenſe of it, deliuereth the ſentence of the Holy Ghoſt. The text, as expounded by priuate iudgments, is not to be held Gods vndoubted Word; vnles wee firſt know the interpretation thereof to be indeed true, and agreeing wholy to the mind of the Holy Ghoſt; which to know is a thing wholy impoſſible with out a revelation; and yet, vntill wee come to know this, wee ſhall neither have reaſon to agree in one inward faith interiourly, nor in one outward profeſſion exteriourly; But ſtill our harts and lips will be devided. This wee ſee, as clearly as noone-day-light, happen among thoſe who take Scripture only for theyr iudge; which all Heretikes did ever vſe, and will ever vſe to do ſo, to eſcape beeing condemned or caſt by any other iudgment-Seate. Hence they all ſtill appeale to Scripture; for then they know beforehand all that can be ſaid, and know alſo by what interpretatiōs to ſhew, all that cā be brought out of Scripture againſt them, not to be ſpoken by God in any ſenſe contrary to the opinion they hould. And thus contrary opinions, grounded in contrary interpretations, are held, and will be held vntill the worlds end; if there be no other Iudge to end them, but the ſentence given by God in the Text of Scripture; not as the text ſounds, but as the Interpreter expoundes. Here with all poſſible care I would have you note, that all the faith which our adverſaries have, relying on their interpretations, which • are fallible, can be but fallible and human: For they believe, all that they believe, becauſe they fully perſwade themſelves, that, God ſayth that thing in the Scripture taken not meerly as the words ſound, but taken as they verily apprehend and iudge the true interpretation to be ſo, or ſo. This is the ground of theyr beleefe in all points; and therefore this is fundamentall to their Religion; and that as properly as any thing can be called fundamentall to any Religion: for it is the foundation it ſelfe on which euery ſingle point of theyr beleefe, and theyr whole beleefe in generall is ſo wholy built, that they reſt vpon nothing but this. Where firſt I obſerue, that you and wee muſt needs differ in the moſt fundamemtall point which concerns Religion: for wee beleeue nothing at all becauſe, by our priuate iudgment only, wee iudge it to be the truly interpreted ſenſe of Scripture; but becauſe wee know it interpreted ſo by the Church, aſſiſted by the holy Ghoſt in all her publik interpretations. You will beleeue no one point (for example, that there is a Trinity,) for this reaſon only; becauſe for ſooth you hold the Church fallible in her publik interpretations of Gods word: ād wee will not beleeue any point of our faith (for example, the Trinity) vpon that ground; becauſe wee know aſſuredly that our own iudgments, in our priuate interpretations of Scripture, are moſt fallible. Whence it is euident, that in thoſe very points in which wee do agree, wee fundamētally diſagree: becauſe wee diſagree in the very foundation of our beleefe concerning thoſe poincts. Now, in point of beleefe, we muſt mainly attēd, not ōly to the truth of what wee beleeue; but to the ground vpon which wee build our beleef. For, if wee think our ſelues to build our beleefe ſecurely, vpon a foundation which is deceitfull, (as our own interpretation is, ād the Churches not:) wee ſhall be ſoon lead to beleeue things which are falſe; as wee ſee a world of People do, by relying on the ſcripture as interpreted by theyr priuate Iudgment. The Turk beleeueth that there is a God, becauſe his Alcoran (which is the Rule of his faith) teacheth him ſo: Now, becauſe he beleeueth the truth vpon a deceitfull foundation; he, vpon the ſame foundation, buildeth the beleefe of a thouſand falſities. Adde to this, that this Iudgment of the interpreter (who according to you is euery priuate man, yea euery priuate woeman, for his or her own ſelfe:) this iudgmēt, I ſay, is moſt weak, and many points of faith are matters very hard to conceiue, and vnfould; and controuerſies alſo are exceedingly intangled; and the conferring texts with texts, like and vnlike, rather increaſeth vncertainty of hitting right, then it helps to any full aſſured certainty: what then more ſure, then a moſt vnaſſured proceeding, in this interpreter? Again, priuate Iudgments beeing almoſt as various as priuate faces (yea often differing from them ſelues) infinite variety of interpretations muſt needs proceed from infinite priuate mens iudgments, ſo very various. You may ſee this in your Patriarch Luther; who, in matters of higheſt moment, is noted no leſſe then fourſcoore times to haue taught flatt contradictions: as you may ſee ſhewed in the end of the firſt tome of our learned Coccius. Not only your Martin Luther thus contradicted him ſelfe in words; but alſo your Martin Bucer contradicted him ſelfe in exterior change from Religion to Religion: At one time he fully iudged thoſe texts of the Scripture, which ſpeak of the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord, to be truely interpreted by the Roman Catholiks; and ſo he beleeued Chriſts Body to be really preſent, and to be adored in the Sacrament. After this he iudged moſt ſincerly, that the Lutherans did truely interpret thoſe texts; and ſo he became a Lutheran, holding the reall preſence, but denying Chriſts Body to be there adored. Thirdly after this he moſt ſincerly iudged the interpretation of thoſe texts giuen by Zuinglians, to be the only true ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt; and then he became a Zuinglian, denying Chriſts Body to be really preſent in the Sacrament; for which Luther tearmed him perfidious: Fourthly, he once more moſt ſincerly iudged Luthers interpretation of thoſe texts to be the truer ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt, and once more became a Lutheran: and therefore in his firſt Edition of his Commentaries vpon the ſixth of S. Iohn and 26. of S. Matthew, he asketh pardon of God and the Church for hauing bewitched many with the Hereſy of Zuinglius. Fiftly, yet after this he ſincerely iudged again Zuinglius his interpretation of thoſe Texts to be the only true one: And this interpretation he did publickly profeſſe and defend at Cambridge; to which Vniuerſity he was called out of Germany as a prime Doctor, to helpe vs here in England in our new begun Reformation. And it is to be noted, that, at euery one of theſe his changes, he ſtill vſed moſt earneſt proteſtations of vndoubted certainty, conceaued from the Scriptures: as you may ſee in the moſt learned Brierley in his treatiſe of S. Auſtens Religion in the Preface; where he cites his authors for all theſe changes. To which I adde that after all thoſe changes, he is at laſt affirmed to haue died a Iew, by Poſſevin in notis Verbi Dei and Vlenbergius Cauſa 12. And indeed for one, who hath firſt beleeued Scripture as interpreted by euery Mans priuate judgment, to be to euery man the only ground of all he is to beleiue concerning Chriſt, and his doctrine: and then hath conſidered after this, how groundles a ground this is; and how, if this be the only meanes left by Chriſt for vnity in his Church, his Church is moſt pittifully prouided: for in this moſt highly important point, it cannot but breed a ſtrong temptation, to fall quite out of loue with Chriſt and his Religion, in thoſe who will not admitt any thought of ſeeking for a better ground amongſt vs, where it might be ſo eaſily found.

4. Queſtionles if Chriſt be God as he is; and if he truly loveth theſe ſoules for which he dyed; he would not have failed, to provide them of ſome more aſſured, meanes; to know that true faith without which he will not ſave them; then this meanes is, of leaving them to the Bible as interpreted by each one as he thinks righteſt. What Law-maker in any Common-wealth was ever yet found any where ſo imprudent as only to leave the people of his Common-wealth ſo miſerably provided (for the finall ending all theyr Controverſyes) as they ſhould be, if he did only leave them a Law-book for their ſole and only Iudge in all theyr differences; without any living Iudge to expound it with vnappealeable authority. Well now the Church of Chriſt is a Community, which was to be ſpread over the whole face of the Earth; and intended to laſt vntill the conſumation of the world: and therefore this Community, above all others, had the greateſt need of a moſt ſuper-abundantly-ſufficient meanes to end all theyr Controverſyes; which do not concerne theyr temporall, but eternall welfare. A world of Controverſies muſt needs be ſtill riſing in a community concerning ſo many ſorts of people, and thoſe ſtill further and further removed from Chriſts time vntill the very end of the world. Wherefore this community had been moſt miſerably and pittifully provided for, in poinct of vnity in faith; and Chriſt ſhould have gathered together a moſt heart-diſvnited ſort of people, if in all theyr numberles differences, after all theyr reading of Scriptures, conferring of places and ſuch like Rules as you preſcribe; they ſhould have no other meanes left them to end thoſe Controverſies, but the written Text of the Bible, to be expounded according as they can gheſſe at the intent of the Holy Ghoſt. True faith conſiſteth in the interiour judgment; if then Chriſt deſired they ſhould be of one faith, he deſired alſo they ſhould be of one interiour judgment: But how could the wiſdom of God expect this vnity in the inward judgement, knowing ſo well that every one of theſe iudgemēts were ſo exceedingly different in framing ſeverall iudgments; and that even after they have vſed all the Rules which you give them.

5. By this diſcourſe, without going further, thou mayeſt once more ſee the vngroūdenes of all thy whole beleef, relying only vpon the word of God: as this word is expounded and vnderſtood by thy iudgmēt; which in farre eaſier matters hath deceived thee a thouſand times, and may do ſo in this hard matter, in which a world of better vnderſtandings then thyne do vaſtly differ from thee. If thou doe anſwer, that thou relyeſt not on thy iudgment, but on the word of God. I ask, whether, thou doeſt rely on the word of God iuſt as the le •• er ſounds? Thou muſt ſay, no. How thē? Thou muſt needs ſay, that thou doeſt rely vpon it, as it is expounded by thy own iudgment. This alſo appeares by the infinite contrariety of expoſitions and interpretations given by ſo many relying (iuſt as thou doeſt) vpon the word of god: in ſo much that there be no fewer then two hundred ſeverall interpretations of theſe fower words; This is my Body: which interpretations, although they be not all allowed of by thy Religion, yet they all of them, proceed from this very ground of thy Religion; of taking the word of God, not as it ſounds, nor as expounded by the Church, but as every one in his private judgment doth really think it ought to be expounded. Wherefore vpon the whole matter, it is all one to rely vpon a mans private judgmēt: and to rely vpon the Scripture, as interpreted by his own private judgment. See the vaſt variety of Religions lately ſprung vp by following this Principle, in my firſt Sect. n. 23. If thou replyeſt that thou doeſt not truſt to, and rely vpon thy judgement; but vpon the ſpirit of God, which thou knoweſt aſſuredly to rule this judgment, ſecuring it from all misvnderſtanding of Gods word: this thy anſwer will have many difficulties. Firſt, how canſt thou, without high preſumption aſſume, to thy private ſelfe ſo ſecure an aſſiſtance of the Spirit (aſſuredly preſerving thee from all errour in thy private judgment;) when thou doeſt ſo pertinaciouſly deny, that the Church repreſentative it ſelfe (when it judgeth in a generall Councel for the whole world of beleevers) is aſſured ſo well in theyr publick judgment as thou art in thy private? And yet, becauſe thou ſeeſt theyr Iudgmēt quite contrary to thee, thou muſt fall into this preſumptuous Paradox. Secondly how comes there to be ſo mighty contrariety in judgments, among men confeſſedly guided as ſurely by the Spirit, as thou art? Thirdly no one ſingle Doctor of the primative Church, did ever ſo much as pretend, to have this aſſurance of the truth of 〈◊〉 from the Spirit: Canſt thou prudently beleeve thy ſelfe to have a greater guift in this kind, then any one of the Holieſt Doctors of the Church ever yet had? Fourthly, if thou beeſt not a Prophet, and alſo if all thoſe of thy Religion be not Prophets (which was not in S. Pauls Church as I ſhewed in the laſt Sect. n. 3.) you cannot poſſibly know, with any full aſſurance, that the Holy Ghoſt doth aſſiſt you: becauſe nothing, but the word of God cā ſecure you of this; and it is no where written in the word of God, that you A. B. by your private judgment, can infallibly expound all texts in the Scripture concerning neceſſary points. And if you, by your private interpretation do expound any text or texts of Scripture ſo, as to ſecure you of this: yet you are aſſuredly to know, that you cannot aſſuredly knew this interpretation of thoſe texts to be moſt certainly true: For to know aſſuredly theſe texts to be rightly expounded by you, you muſt be aſſured from ſome other text; about the right vnderſtanding of which text there will be ſtill the ſame 〈◊〉 , and the ſame certaine vncertainty; vntill, 〈◊〉 bringing any text, you can 〈◊〉 your ſelfe certainly to 〈◊〉 … us infallibly aſſiſted 〈…〉 interpretation. And becauſe you prove this 〈…〉 text; wee are not to beleeve you, who teach vs, that nothing is to be beleeved, as infallibly true, which is not written in the Bible: in all which I am ſure, it is not written, that you A. B. are a true beleever: and therefore, though it were written there, That all true beleevers had this aſsiſtance of the Spirit; You were never the neerer. Fifthly how prepoſterouſly ridiculous is it, to hould your ſelfe infallible in declaring Gods word: and yet not to hould the whole Church infallible in declaring or interpreting the ſame?

6. Wherefore, your laſt refuge is to ſay, that all points neceſſary are clearly ſet down in Scripture; which I have ſhewed (and ſhall further ſhew) to be manifeſtly falſe: And you may even with your fingars touch the falſehood of it, in this moſt neceſſary point, of knowing which is the certain vndoubted true ſenſe of Scripture. For, in things, which are clearly to be ſeen, there vſeth not to be variety (and infinite variety) of judgments: as wee have ſeen there is, in interpreting the neceſſary texts of Scripture: in ſo much as no Deuine, by Scripture only, can conuince an Arian Cobler, as I ſhewed Sect. 1. N. 5. Although this Cobler houldeth alſo Scripture for his only iudge. This variety of interpretations (one flatly oppoſite to the other) ſheweth evidently the Scripture in theſe points not to be evidently cleer. Again, if wee mark it, this anſwer is very litle to the purpoſe, in our adverſaries principles: for firſt, they teach that our Catholike Roman Religion doth not differ from theyrs in any point fundamentall, or neceſſary to ſaluation: ſecondly, they teach that the Scripture cannot be ſhewed to be clear in points not ſo fully neceſſary for ſaluation. Hence I argue thus; in points wholy neceſſary to ſaluation you and wee all agree; as you ſay: ſo that by this you can inferr no more then, that the Scripture is clear in thoſe points in which wee both agree. What get you by this? Do you ſeperate from the whole Church for other points, which you cannot proue your ſelues, by this ground, to haue clear Scripture for? It is your common doctrine deliuered by D. Ferne in his Sect. 13. that againſt publick authority (eſpecially of all Churches, in the whole world, all which you oppoſed in very many importāt points) there muſt be brought euident demonſtration of clear Scripture. You do not proue that you bring this, vnleſſe you can proue the Scripture Vniuerſally to be clear in points not neceſſary to Saluation: for about theſe (as you ſay) wee only differ. If you pleaſe to ſay then, though Scripture be not clear in all points vnneceſſary, yet it is clear in thoſe in which wee now diſagree; euery child will ſee, that you begge that very thing which is in queſtion. And what argument will you bring, to make vs beleeue that the beſt, and the choiſeſt Doctors that were in any Church, for theſe laſt thouſand and two or three hundered yeares, could not ſee the true ſenſe of a clear plaine and euident text of Scripture which they read euery day? And yet you muſt encreaſe the miracle, and ſay; that all thoſe Doctors of that age in which firſt the true Religion decayed, muſt needs know, that the whole former Church, from Chriſts dayes to theyr dayes, had vnderſtood thoſe clear places iuſt as you vnderſtand them now; that is in theyr true ſenſe. Now, I pray, vpon what record haue you it related, that there did fall in the fourth, or fift, or ſixt age, ſuch a thick miſt vpon all the beſt ſeeing eyes of that vnhappy age, (about which age alſo none of you cā agree;) that no one Doctor could, or would ſee him ſelfe to proceed againſt the known ſenſe of all former Chriſtianity, in the interpretation thoſe texts, which ſo euidently ſtand for the doctrine of all former Chriſtianity againſt them? Will you haue vs to beleeue this ſtrangeſt wonder of all wonders, without any Record from Antiquity; only vpon your ſaying that it was ſo.

7. There is yet an other conuincing reaſon, why this clearnes you ſpeak of in Scriptures, to vnfould vnto vs the vndoubted ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt in all neceſſary Controuerſies, cometh to be of no ſeruice, for the infallible finding out the true ſenſe by euery priuat man and woeman: to all which you vſe ſtill to ſay: if you will be with vs, you shall ſee what you do; Wee require your obedience to what wee demonſtrate to be Gods will for you to beleeue and doe, as D. Ferne boaſts Sect: 14. Heere wee come to the point to ſee your demonſtration: if you gull vs here you vndo vs: Make vs then ſee, that by clear demonſtration of Scripture, wee may ſee what God in all neceſſary points requireth of vs to beleeue and to do: and make all of vs men, and woemen, do this. How vaſtly you deceiue vs, I haue ſhewed all ready, Sect. 2. n. 13. which place I muſt needs intreat the reader to turn to, and read attentiuely, before he goeth further. There wee haue ſhewed (and that by D. Ferns own confeſſion in his Sect: 26.) that all things neceſſary are not conteyned expreſly in Scripture: but ſome of them are only thence deducible. But tell mee (great Doctor) be they deducible by all of vs, whō you promiſe ſo gloriouſly to make eye-witneſſes of this demonſtration? They be (ſayth he) deducible not all by euery one that reades; but it is enough if done by the Paſtors and guides which God appointed in his Church to this purpoſe. What? did you call vs all to be blind folded by you, and not to ſee the demonſtration: but to hear only this newes of it; that it hath been ſeen to be a demonſtrable deduction by your Miniſters? wee do not ſee your demonſtration, but your groſſe cheat. Yet (my dear Brother) thou ſhalt ſee thy ſelfe gulled farre more. Euery Miniſter hath not eyes (how wilt thou know whether thy Miniſter hath or no?) to ſee this Demonſtratiue deduction: for Dr. Ferne addeth that they muſt be Miniſters vſeing the meanes that are needfull (mark the word needfull) for that purpoſe; ſuch as is, 1. Attention. 2. diligēce in the ſearch of the Scripture. 3. Collation of places. 4. obſeruing the connexions. 5. alſo ſincerity and impartiality in the collectiō or deduction they make. 6. alſo prayer and deuotion for asſiſtance in the work. Alſo, beſides theſe ſix Rules, there be fourteene more to be added; as I ſhewed in the place aboue cited: of which ſome be as impoſſible for the vulgar multitude to vſe (though this multitude make vp the number of the beleeuers) at it is for them to be cunning in Greek and Hebrew; for they (to know they haue interpreted the Scripture right) muſt of neceſſity be cunning in both theſe languages. Neither do I ſay any more in this, then your own moſt learned Doctors haue ſaid before mee; to which I adde your moſt learned whitaker Lib. de Sacra Script: P. 5. 23. where he ſayeth of thoſe who vnderſtand not the Hebrew and Greek; that they do often erre, and that vnauoidably: Saepe ac neceſſario hallucinantur. Now bidde vs poor people Come with you, and wee shall ſee what wee do. Now indeed wee ſee what wee doe; for wee clearly ſee wee do wee know not what; becauſe wee ſee wee leaue, by your inſtruction, the interpretations of all Councels, and Fathers, ſeconded by the perpetuall practice of all Churches, which God had vpon the face of the Earth, for twelue hundred yeares together, as is confeſſed: and this wee do, to follow, not this euidence which wee are tould wee ſhould ſee with our own eyes to be ſuch; but to follow what ſome Miniſters ſay they ſee to be euident, to witt, thoſe few Miniſters, who are perfectly, skilled in Greek and Hebrew; of whoſe perfect skill wee haue no knowledge of our own; and though wee had, wee do not perfectly know that they haue vſed, in all points they teach vs, theſe twenty Rules which they confeſſe to be Needfull: and wee alſo do know that all theſe twenty Rules are confeſſed to be fallible; and wee haue litle hope by twenty fallible meanes, to come to ſee an infallible truth eſtabliſhed; for when wee were boyes at ſchoole, learning a litle Arithmetike, wee were taught, that naught times naught did makes nothing but naught.

Mille licet Cyphris Cyphrarum millia jungas, Nil praeter Magnum conficies Nihilum. To Nothing ioyn tenne thouſand Nothings more: Thou shalt find nothing but of Nothings ſtore.

Adde not only twenty, but twenty thouſand fallible Rules: you ſhall be neuer the neerer that infallible truth, by beeing ſo well prouided of fallibilities.

8. I haue (I hope) ſhewed thee ſufficiently, that thou canſt not ſee aſſuredly, and vpon thy own knowledge know euidently, which is the true ſenſe of the Scripture. Now I will giue thee a further reaſon thereof, deliuered by one of thy own cheefe Doctors, Doctor Ieremy Taylor in his diſcourſe of the Liberty of Prophecying, Sect: 3. where he proueth the vncertainty of arguments deduced (as D. Ferne ſpeaks) from Scripture, by the many ſenſes of Scripture; when the Grammaticall ſenſe is found out. For there is in very many Scriptures a double ſenſe, a Litterall and a Spirituall; and both theſe ſenſes are ſubdiuided: for the Litterall ſenſe is either naturall, or figuratiue; and the Spirituall ſometimes allegoricall, ſometimes Tropologicall; ſometimes there are diuers literall ſenſes in the ſame places: ſo he. Now it depends vpon the ſecret intention of the Holy Ghoſt, to haue vſed theſe words in ſome one, or two or more of theſe ſenſes. How ſhall wee find out ſo great a ſecret, and that ſo infallibly, as to be vndoubtedly aſſured, of our own knowledge, that wee haue certainly diſcouered this ſecret? Twenty fallible Rules, though wee ſhould vſe them all, as well as a man could, would not bring vs to this infallible aſſurance. Euen your great Doctors (who haue vſed them better then thou canſt hope to doe) haue had two hundered ſeuerall opinions about the true ſenſe of theſe four words, This is my Body. Thou thinkeſt thy ſelfe to be aſſured infallibly, vpon thy own knowledge, that theſe words be to be interpreted figuratiuely; becauſe thou haſt conferred this text with ſome other texts, for example with thoſe texts which tell thee that Chriſts words be ſpirit and life, and that The flesh profiteth nothing. Alas thou haſt obſerued but one of theſe Twenty Rules, which is Conference of one text with another: This Rule is infinitely deceitfull, as the ſame Doctor Tayler teacheth thee, who in his next Section ſaith; Another great pretence (to iuſtify new Interpretations) is the conference of places; A thing of ſuch indefinite capacity, that, if there be ambiguity of words, variety of ſenſes, alteration of circumſtances, or difference of ſtile amongſt Diuine writers, there is nothing which may be more abuſed by wilfull people, or may more eaſily deceiue the vnwary, or that may amuſe the moſt intelligent obſeruers. What ſhall then become or thee and mee who are none of the moſt intelligent obſeruers? And ſo this Rule alone leaueth vs at a non plus, euen though wee had both Greek and Hebrew: For (as the ſame Doctor intimateth) it is a moſt pittifull argument to inferre; this muſt infallibly be the true ſenſe, becauſe I can ſhew that perhaps it may be the true ſenſe. Again, when your Doctors bidd mee conferre this text with other texts of the Bible: I aske, whether I muſt conferre it only with other places of the ſame Book in which it is written? They will ſay, no; but I muſt conferre it with all other texts of the word of God, written in any Book. Firſt this is a vaſt labour, and requireth a vaſt memory to do it, as it ſhould be done, with exquiſite attention. Secondly, I haue a queſtion to aske, which I am ſure will poſe you: how ſhall I, or any Doctor of them all, conferre this text with the texts of all other Book of Scripture, ſeeing that no fewer then ſome twenty Bookes of Scripture haue quite periſhed, and be no where to be found in the whole world? as I ſhewed Sect: 1. n. 7. Thirdly, you ſay that by this conferring of places, what was obſcure proueth clear: and you marke not, that by the very ſame meanes, what was clear groweth obſcure. What more clear then what S. Paul ſayd; If you be circumciſed, Chriſt will profitt you nothing. Gal: 5. Take this ſo cleare a text, and conferre it with that Act. 16:3. He tooke Timothie, and circumciſed him; and you will find difficulty how the former text can ſtand in full force. Doe you thinke S. Paul would make Chriſt profit Timothie nothing.

9. Hence I inferre, that if God had intended the Scripture for our ſole and only Rule of Faith, he would have ſet down in ſome one place all neceſſary points clearly, and diſtinctly; and he would not have left theſe points to be picked out, one out of one Book, an other out of an other, no man directly knoweth where: Yea no man knoweth by Scripture, which points are neceſſary even for himſelfe or for all. Had God intended to make a Booke our only Iudge or Rule, he would have given vs ſuch a book, as ſhould clearly and diſtinctly have ſaid; theſe points are neceſſary to be beleeved, theſe things are neceſſary to be done. But now, one man tells vs one thing is neceſſary, an other man ſayth no: The Scripture ſayth neither Yea nor No. Therefore, to thoſe who will follow Scripture only, no aſſurance at all can be had of the neceſſity of ſuch points as the Scripture doth not affirme to be neceſſary: For if you have only human reaſon for this neceſſity, this is but a human motive, which is deceitfull; and beeing thwarted with a contrary reaſon of as apparent probability, my faith now is turned into a doubt. The points which are neceſſary, you commonly ſay to be but few; and that the Scripture ſets them down clearly, as it doth alſo ſet down clearly many other points not neceſſary. Whence the vaſt number of thoſe not-neceſſary points clearly ſet down doth infinitly increaſe the difficulty of finding out theſe few which are neceſſary: ſeeing that they ly ſo ſcattered ād intermingled in the nū berles number of the not-neceſſary. For ſome of theſe neceſſary points are ſet down here, in the begining of the Bible; ſome one, ſome two or three books after; ſome other hard by that, ſome other a huge way of; and ſo from Gen. to the Apoc. Yea, why not further then the Apoc. for it is a meer gueſſe made at randome, to cōiecture that in thoſe twenty bookes of Scripture, which be quite loſt, no one neceſſary point ſhould be ſet down plainly, which is not ſett down plainly in theſe books which wee haue. At leaſt you ſay this without Scripture; and therefore, by your own principles, you ſhould not ſay it: for your part beeing affirmatiue, (affirming that no one neceſſary point was plainly ſet down in thoſe books which be loſt, which is not plainly ſet down in theſe which wee haue;) you muſt proue what you ſay, and that by Scripture: For I am ſure you cannot proue it by Tradition; and therefore neither in your, nor our principles, it can be proued. Again; the Bible, as it is now, maketh a Book ſo bigge, that the farre greater part of the world, taken vp with ſo many neceſſary affayers, cannot in a very long ſpace of time read ouer this book ſo often, and ſo exactly carry a-way all the clear texts thereof, as to be able to conferre one place with an other: For before they come to the other, which is perhaps in the Apocalyps, that text, which they did read in Geneſis, is out of theyr mind: or if that text be not, ſome other may be, euen at a time in which they ſhould haue moſt obſerued it. Beſides this, what am I the neerer if I ſpend all this labour in my Engliſh Tranſlated Bible; of the right Tranſlation of which I neither haue, nor can haue full aſſurance, if I be not a very great ſcholler; as hath been ſhewed Sect. 5. Yea, though I be ſo great that one among one hundred thouſand is not greater; (for I vnderſtand Greek and Hebrew moſt skilfully:) yet, for all this, I neither haue, nor can haue full aſſurance, that the Greek and Hebrew Copyes which I vſe, be the true Copyes of the true word of God; as hath been ſhewed Section 5. Gods wiſdome directs him to the beſt meanes, to compaſſe his intention: Wee euen in our ordinary wiſdome, if wee intend to ſet forth a Book, which ſhould end all neceſſary Controuerſies, would all do our beſt indeauour to compriſe in halfe a dozen Chapters at the moſt, all theſe few fundamentall points; for theſe points you teach to be but few: and wee would not make thoſe poor ſoules (which wee deerly loued) at the peril of theyr own damnation, to ſeek out, all the whole Bible ouer, theſe few points which are confeſſed not to be ſo eaſy to be found out, but by ſome choice Miniſters obſeruing all that long way, which is from the firſt of Geneſis to the very laſt verſe of the Apocalips, no fewer then twenty Rules, and many of them very hard ones to obſerue at all times, in all paſſages of ſo long a iourney. And yet there is, to the full, as great reaſon, why thoſe twenty bookes more, which are loſt; as all theſe which wee now haue, ſhould be conſulted: beeing God gaue vs all the whole written word for our guide. God did not proceed thus euen in the ould law in points of farre, and incomparable farre leſſe concernment; to witt in points of meer Ceremony: For euery litle particular ceremony which he exacted is, with moſt minute exactnes ſet down in the cōpaſſe of not many leafes: Yet farre fewer would conteyne all points neceſſary to Saluation, if they be ſo few as you hould.

10. Wee then, by our own judgment, are notable to deduce demonſtratively all thoſe truths and verities, which are wholy neceſſary to our Salvation: But inſteed of doing this by our own ſelues, and vpon our owne knowledge, with demonſtrative ſecurity; wee are in plain tearmes tould by the beſt Proteſtant Doctors, that this cannot be done by vs even in all theſe neceſſary points; no nor done by all our miniſters, without the vſe of many Rules, which the farre greater part of them cannot vſe. What then ſhall wee do? Which way ſhall wee turne ourſelves? Is there no better way, then to truſt thoſe choice, but ſtill fallible Miniſters; vſing ſtill only fallible Rules; and infallibly ſure to contradict one an other? I will tell thee firſt what thy own Proteſtant prime Maiſters in Scripture do plainly tell thee, I mean thoſe Renowned Doctors who now, at this very time, are ſetting forth that ſo famous Bible, of ſo many learned languages. Theſe Doctors, peruſing night and day the beſt Originall Copyes of the Bible that be to be had, may as ſafely be followed by thee, as any Miniſters thou knoweſt. Theſe men in the Preface to theyr great work, which I citted Sect. 4. n. 8. hauing firſt endeavoured to cleer that controverſy about the truth of the Copyes of Gods true word which they give vs; they then ſpeak thus: The whole Controverſy beeing about the true ſence of the Scripture, delivered by tranſlations every where received, wee have ready at hand the judgment almoſt of that whole Church which is Catholike (or vniverſall) as well in reſpect of its beeing in all places, as its beeing in all times; which Church vnfoldeth to vs the places in controverſy. To whoſe judgment (mark this) he who will not ſubmit himſelfe, truly he sheweth himſelfe to be a man of no judgment, and he is ſcarce worth the name of a man, much leſſe of a Chriſtian. So they fol. 4. This is a different leſſon from what D. Ferne taught thee. But it hath better authority, Catholique Antiquity beeing altogether of one mind in this point. I will tell thee this out of a moſt approved Doctor of the primitive Church, and no man doth ſo much as queſtion whether the words which I ſhall cite out of him be his or no; He hath but one litle book in all; It is Vincentius Lerinenſis, who lived in the fifth age, he writeth thus: Do Heretikes vſe the teſtimonies of Scripture? Yes indeed do they, and that moſt vehemently; you shall ſee them fly through all the ſacred Booke • , the Bookes of Moyſes, the Bookes of Kings, the Pſalmes, the Apoſtles, the Goſpels, the Prophets: And this whether they be among theyr own people, or others; both privately and publickly; both in theyr diſcourſes and in theyr bookes; both in banquets, and in the ſtreets: they ſcarce ever ſpeak one word of theyr own which they do not ſet forth with the words of the Scripture. Read but the works of Paulus Samozatenus, of Priſcillianus, Eunomius, Iovinianus, and ſuch like peſtiferous fellowes, you shall ſee infinite heapes of examples, and ſcarce one ſide of a leafe, which is not painted out with ſentences of the new and the ould Teſtament. And a litle after; when now they shall begin not only to bring forth, but alſo to expound, and not only to caſt out, but alſo to interpret thoſe words, then prophane Nouelties are layed open, then you may ſee the hedges cutt down, and thoſe limitts transferred which our fathers did put vs; then you may ſee the doctrine of the Church torne in peeces &c. And by and by But ſome one will ſay what shall Catholiks do, and the ſonnes of the Church? By what meanes shall they diſtinguish the truth conteyned in Scriptures from the falſity of theyr interpretations? They muſt exceedingly apply theyr care to interpret the diuine Canon of Scripture, according to the traditions of the Vniuerſall Church, and the Rules of the Catholik doctrine: which practice I ſaid in the beginning of this Book was deliuered down vnto vs by Holy and learned men. So he. And the place, which he cited out of the beginning of his Book, is admirable to our preſent diſcourſe: for hauing put the very obiection which our aduerſaries vſe to make; that ſeeing the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, ād ſuper abundantly ſufficient in all reſpects; what need is there that the authority of the Churches interpretation should be ioyned to it? then he anſwers; Becauſe forſooth all men do not in one and the ſelfe ſame ſenſe take the ſacred Scripture by reaſon of the great deapth thereof. One man expounds it one way, one man an other way; in ſo much that as many ſenſes may ſeeme to be deducible from it, as there be men. For Novatianus expounds it one way, Photinus an other, Donatus an other: Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius an other; Apollinaris ād Priſcillianus, Iovinianus ād Pelagius, an other: Laſtly Celeſtius ād Neſtorius an other. And therefore multum neceſſe eſt, It is very much neceſſary, to auoid ſo great ād ſo manifold Labyrinthes of error, that the Line, by which wee rule out the Interpretation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, be directed according to the Rules of the Church and the Catholick ſenſe. So he: ſo I; ſay thou alſo ſo; and all our diuiſions will be ended: for then wee ſhould not, vnder pretence or ſeeing with our own eyes what wee do, take the Scripture contrary to ſo many Councels, and all authority of Church-Tradition; becauſe wee Iudge it ought to be expounded ſo in our priuate Iudgement, though differing from all Churches upon the face of the Earth. But I muſt haue a Church, vpon whoſe authority wee all ſecurely may and alſo muſt rely, in interpreting the Scriptures, as S. Vincent ſpeaketh; and that Church, muſt of neceſſity be granted to be infallible: but no Church can be infallible which hath not this condition, that it houldeth ād teacheth it ſelfe to be infallible; as I ſhall demonſtrate Sect. 17. n. 2. which condition agreeing to no one Church but the Roman (as is manifeſt;) this holy Father, and all the reſt (who bidde vs ſtill to doubts and Controuerſies about the Scriptures, and theyr ſeuerall interpretations rely vpon the Church, and take her doctrine for our warrant) do bidde vs rely vpon that Church which was held, and truly held by all to be infallible. And ſo all very well know that they meant the Roman Church, and no Church differing in Communion from her; becauſe this condition agreed to none but Her. When this was ſo vndiſputably out of all queſtion, among all ſuch as were then counted Catholikes then they thought it enough to ſay; Rely on the Church: without ſaying, Rely on the Roman Church. So wee Catholicks, ſpeak to this very day, neuer adding the Roman, but for our aduerſaries ſake among whom wee liue: iuſt as Engliſh men ſay, The Parliament decided ſuch a thing; meaning the Parliament of England: which all Engliſh in England perfectly vnderſtand without adding any other wordes: But the Engliſh (who liue among French men) when in France they ſay, The Parliament decreet ſuch a thing; they muſt of neceſſity adde, the Parliament of England, to be rightly vnderſtood of the French men there; who otherwiſe might think they meant ſome French Parliaments. Thoſe who haue made themſelues of a different Communion from Rome, will now in theſe dayes vnderſtand that pure ould Catholike language ſtill common to all vs of the Roman Communion: The Church decreed this; Follow the interpretation of the Church; rely on the interpretation of the Church, &c. when wee expreſſe our ſelues thus by this word Church, without adding the word Roman; wee are known, by all who be of the true Church, only to mean the Roman Church, and thoſe of her Communion: Yet euen wee in theſe ſtrange new times to be vnderſtood by theſe outlandiſh (as I may ſay) and new-found people of our dayes, muſt needs adde the word Roman; or elſe they will not vnderſtand vs to ſpeak of that Church, of which wee are by all our own Church moſt perfectly vnderſtood to ſpeak. And Antiquity by the name of the Church ſtill meant the Roman Church; iuſt as wee do: and iuſt as wee ſpeak among our ſelues, ſo then ſpoake the holy graue Fathers, whoſe Catholik language was nothing vnderſtod by that forreignner, who, more bouldy then adviſedly, ſaid that, none of the ancient Chriſtians beleeued the church of Rome to be a Guide or Iudge of all Controuerſies in Chriſtianity, becauſe Tertullian, Vincentius Lerinenſis and others giuing Rules to know Heretikes, forgot this maine and cleareſt Rule: whereas you ſee by the woords I haue cited, that Vincentius Lerinenſis tells you as clearly as I do doe, that to auoid hereſy you muſt, in vnderſtanding the Scripture, follow the interpretation of the Church, as a ſecure guide and interpreter in all Controuerſies ariſing about the ſenſe of Scriptures; ſhewing it a note of hereſy to do the contrary. The very ſelfe ſame is tould you by all thoſe Fathers whom I ſhall cite Sect: 21. Numb. 2.3.4. There is then no more myſtery in ſaying that thoſe ancient Fathers, beeing members of the Roman Church, did by the name of the Church mean that Roman Church, of which they were members, though they added not the name of Roman: then there is in the ordinary ſpeech of euery man in England, when, by the name of the Parliament, he meanes only to ſignify the English Parliament; though he addeth not the word English: and yet that acute Vniuerſity Man will not vnderſtand this ſo vulgar language.

SECT: VIII. A TWELFTH ARGVMENT.

Divers other neceſſary points not conteyned in, or decided by Scripture.

1. TO the former nineteene points all neceſſary, and none of them all conteyned in Scripture; I will adde diverſe more. The Creed of S. Athanaſius hath ever ben admitted by all ſucceeding true beleeuers, and your Engliſh Church doth profeſſe to beleeve it, and vſed to read it in theyr Common Prayer. In this Creed you profeſſe your ſelves to beleeve ſeverall points no where conteyned in the Bible in plain termes: As that God the Father is not begotten; that God the Sonne is not made, but begotten by his Father only: that the Holy Ghoſt is neither made nor begotten; but doth proceed, and that from the Father and the Sonne. And that he who will be ſaved, muſt beleeve this. For this is an Article of that Catholike faith, which faith without a man houldeth entierly and inviolably, without all doubt he shall perish eternally. All this is in that Creed profeſſed by vs; and yet not one of thoſe ſeverall points conteyned in it, can be ſhewed to be conteyned in Scripture, no not for the Subſtance of them in any ſuch texts as clearly decide the matter. Note by the way, how you plainly contradict your ſelves, who ſubſcribe to the truth of all that hath been ſayd of the neceſſity that there is to ſalvation, to beleeve all the foreſaid particulars here expreſſed by S. Athanaſius: and yet you will needs hould the Greek Church for a true Church, which houldeth flatly againſt S. Athanaſius in this Article; though the houlding of it entierly be neceſſary to Salvation.

2. To this point (for I let all theſe ſeverall points paſſe for only one) I might adde, that in the ſame Book of Common Prayer you in an other Creed beleeve, that Chriſt is of one Subſtance with the Father; and that the Holy Ghoſt proceedeth from the Father and the Sonne: For which words the Grecian Church houlds vs all Heretikes; and yet your Doctors of the Engliſh Church will needs hould them a true Church. But that which I preſſe is, that wee are bound to give an infallible aſſent to this article of God the Sonnes beeing of one Subſtance with the Father: But you, who will give no infallible aſſent to any thing but Gods written word, cannot poſſibly give infallible aſſent to this Article; Which is no where clearly ſet down in Scripture, but an Arian Cobler will eaſely putt off all the texts you can bring; as I ſhewed S. 1. n. 5. But not to ſtand conteſting about the clearnes of theſe Tects, let this point paſſe joyned to the former.

3. For another point not conteyned in Scripture, I bring the Baptiſme of Children; which is wholy neceſſary to the Salvation of Children. The learned Layman ſayth L. 5. Tra. 2. C. 6. nu. 11. that it hath been by ſome obſerved that the third part of Mankind dyeth before the ſeventh year of theyr age be ended. The third part then of Mankind is concerned in this one point, of giving Lawfull baptiſme to them when they are Children: and yet, a point ſo neceſſary to the Salvation of many, is no where plainly ſet down in Scripture. To this D. Ferne anſwers, S. 24. Baptiſme of Children, as to the practiſe of it, is not conteyned expreſſely in Scripture; (id eſt) it is no where commanded to be done, or ſayd that they did doe it: But the ground and neceſsity of it are ſufficiently delivered in Scripture; and that is enough for the doing of it. And that the Arguments from Scripture, by Bellarmin and others alledged, do ſufficiently shew. Futhermore, cōcerning Bellarmin, the Doctor tells vs, that he (Lib. de Baptiſme c. 8.) ſayth that the Arguments for Childrens Baptiſme out of Scripture cannot be avoided; and that it is a thing evident in Scripture. But yet (ſayth D. Fern.) when he treateth of Traditions (L. 4. de Verbo Dei Cap. 4.) This thing of Childrens Baptiſme muſt be one of them, that it neceſſary and not conteyned in Scripture. This is not ingenuous, nor Conſcionable. So D. Fern; but farre leſſe conſcionably: For Bellarmin L. 7. de Bapt. in all that eight Chapter hath no word in favour of the evidence of Scripture for Baptiſme of Children; Yea, almoſt at every text that he citeth, he ſheweth, that text to have noe force out of our adverſaries Mouth. Of one argument out of Scripture he ſayth indeed; that, as it cometh from vs; (which words D. Ferne conceales) it is ſo manifeſt that it cannot be avoyded; and that is, that Circumciſion was ſo clear a figure of Baptiſme, that S. Paul called it Circumciſion; But Circumciſion was given to Infants, therefore Baptiſme may. But here Bellarmin may well mean that this argument, as it cometh from vs, cannot be eluded; to witt, by that vſual ſhift, by which the Anabaptiſts can eaſely elude it when it cometh from Lutherans and Calviniſts: whom Bellarmin had ſhewed to teach that the forme of Baptiſme was only a Sermon; which agreeth not to Infants: This evaſion cannot any way elude this Argument as it cometh from vs. This is all can be convinced out of this place of Bellarmin. But there be other ſolid wayes of avoyding all force of this argument, even as it cometh from vs. For firſt, every Sacrament muſt not be received by all thoſe, by whom the figure of that Sacrament might lawfully be taken; Sinners did lawfully eat Manna, but they cannot lawfully receave the Euchariſt; of which Manna was a figure: So alſo Circumciſion was neceſſary for the male-children of the Iewes only, and that not before the eight day; and Baptiſme is now neceſſary both for the male and female Children of all nations in the world, and that before either the eight, or ſecond day, if there be danger of death: The conſequence then houldeth not from the figure to the thing figured. Neither is that a neceſſary conſequence which is drawn from baptizing of whole families. For firſt, as wee read that whole families were baptized, ſo wee read that whole families beleeved. Himſelfe beleeved and his whole family. Io. 4. v. 53. Will you evidently inferre from hence, that the litle Children, not yet of yeares of diſcretion, did beleeve? They then only beleeved who were capable: So will Anabaptiſts ſay, they only were baptized in theſe families who were capable of firſt beleeving, and anſwering for themſelves. Secondly, in many families all the Children which are alive, are above ſeven yeares ould, and of age to beleeue: There be many families of new married people, who as yet haue no children; or thoſe they had be dead: Many are barren, and will neuer have any. Now Mr. Doctor as theſe two cheefe places (brought by Bellarmin, or others) do afford you noe clear principle, from which you can euidently deduce the neceſſity of Infants Baptiſme; or that it is good and valid, and not to be iterated; or that theyr parents are obliged to procure it for theyr litle children: ſo other leſſe ſtrong places will leſſe helpe you to the euident inference of any of theſe points, which you hould neceſſarily to be beleeued. I am not ſatisfied by beeing tould, other men cite texts which doe proue this euidently: You muſt cite them, and ſhew them to be evident. The beſt text, beſides theſe, is this, Except a man be borne of water and the ſpirit; he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen, Io: 3.5. but how many ſhifts the Anabaptiſts haue, to auoid the force of this text, Bellarmine tells you; and you ſhall ſee one preſently.

4. Much more ingenuous and Conſcionable is your D. Taylor in his Defenſe of Epiſcopacy, S. 9. P. 100. where he ſayth; Baptiſme of Infants is of ordinary necesſity to all that euer cryed; and yet the Church hath founded this Rite vpon the Tradition of the Apoſtles. And wiſe men do eaſily obſerue, that the Anabaptiſts can, by the ſame probability of Scripture enforce a necesſity of Comunnicating Infants, vpon vs; as wee do of baptizing, vpon them. For as wee preſſe them with that text; Except a man be borne of water and the Spirit; he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: ſo they preſſe vs for the neceſſity of Infants Cōmunion, by the text which followeth but three Chapters after the former: Verily Verily I ſay vnto you, except you eat of the flesh of the Sonne of Man, and drink his blood, you haue no life in you. D. Taylor addeth; And therefore a great Maſter of Geneva, in a book he writ againſt the Anabaptiſts, was forced to fly to Apoſtolicall traditive ordination. Here is the very thing ingenuouſly confeſſed which wee labour to prove; that wee muſt truſt the Churches Tradition for this point: the neceſſity of which is ſo great, that he addeth; They that deny this are, by the iuſt Anathema of the Catholike Church, confidently condemned for heretikes. The Pelagians were ever accounted Heretikes, even in this reſpect, that they (as S. Auſten witneſſeth Hereſi, 88.) taught; Although Infāts be not baptized, they shall poſſeſſe an eternall and bleſſed life; though it be but of the kingdome of God. Thoſe Proteſtants are farre boulder, who admitt them euen into the kingdome of heaven it ſelfe. The doctrine of the ancient Fathers is ſo manifeſtly againſt this doctrine, that Calvin himſelfe ſayth; (Inſtit. lib 4. C. 15. n. 20. It was vſuall many ages ſince, even almoſt from the begining of the Church, that in danger of death, Lay People might baptize. So he. And to ſay the contrary, were to croſſe all antiquity; as your Bilſon confeſſeth in his Conference at Hampton Court. Hooker ſayth no leſſe in his 5. Book of Eccl. Policy 62. For, as your Muſculus confeſſeth; The Fathers denyed Salvation to the Children who died without Baptiſme; though their parents were faithfull, So he in Locus tit. de Baptiſme.

5. To theſe, I might adde the Milevetan Councel; in which S. Auſten was preſent and ſubſcribed, and in which (Can: 2.) it is defined; That whoſoever denies Children newly borne to be baptized, or ſay they contract nothing of Sinne from Adam, which may be cleanſed by the Laver of Regeneration: Anathema. But that which I cheefly inſiſt on, is, that the Fathers profeſſe to beleeve the neceſſity of Baptiſme for Infants vpon Tradition. So that here D. Ferne will ſee a point neceſſary to Salvation to come down to vs by vnwritten Tradition: which he ſtifly denyes, Sect. 24. Origen who lived iuſt vpō the ſecond age (which age knew beſt the Tradition of the firſt Age) writeth thus Cap: 6. Epiſtola ad Romanos. The Church from the Apoſtles hath received the Tradition to give Baptiſme even to litle ones. And the great S. Auſten is witnes of the Continuance of this Tradition in his Age; as alſo that this point ought not to be beleeved at all, but vpon Tradition: (Note his words Mr. Doctor, they be theſe;) The cuſtome of our Mother the Church, in baptizing litle ones, is not to be contemned: Neither is it by any meanes to be reputed ſuperfluous: Neither ought it to be beleeued at all, without it were an Apoſtolicall Tradition. lib. 10. de Gen: ad lit. C. 22. Note that he eſteemeth the beleefe of this neceſſity, to be ſo weakely grounded in Scripture, that it ought not at all to be beleeved without it came down to vs by Tradition. And again (contra Greſcon: lib. 1. C. 33. ſpeaking of this point, he ſaith; That nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonicall Scriptures in this point; Yet in this point, the truth of Scriptures (and conſequently a ſufficient ground for faith) is kept by vs, when wee do that which ſeemed good to the Catholike Church; which Church the Authority of the ſame Scriptures doth commēd. Now ioyn this place to theſe places which I have alledged in the laſt Sect: n. 1. to ſhew that the Scripture did bidde vs ſtill follow the Church: and you will ſee manifeſtly that wee may, and, in this point, muſt, ground our faith vpon what wee have only from the Church; or elſe wee can have no faith at all of this neceſſity of Baptiſme, as our adverſaries have none at all of it: For Scripture they have not, and the Tradition of the Church they hould no ſufficient ground of faith; which S. Auſten in this neceſſary poinct taketh for the cheefe ground of his faith; and again (lib. 4. C. 24. adverſus Donat. de Baptiſm. Parvulorum) ſpeaking of this point; That which the Vniverſall Church houldeth, and was not inſtituted by Councels, but yet allwayes held, is moſt rightly beleeued to be delivered down to vs by no other then Apoſtolicall Authority. If Apoſtolicall Authority be not a ſure ground for beleefe; vpon what ground have wee receiued all our writings as divine? This Authority ſecured S. Auſten in the beleefe of a neceſſary point not conteyned in Scripture. The like authority may alſo as well ſecure vs all in thoſe other neceſſary points, which wee have ſhewed to be conteyned in no Scripture.

6. What I have ſaid will be much confirmed by an other neceſſary point, which alſo is not conteyned in any Scripture. It is a damnable herely to affirme that thoſe who were baptized by Heritikes, ought to be baptized again. This controverſy was moved in the dayes of S. Cyprian; and he was a man as able to ſee that which was clearly ſet down in Scripture, as any of you all: Yet, as appeares by his firſt Book of Epiſtles (Ep. 6.) and other places, he did really judge the Scripture to teach, that all thoſe were to be rebaptized, who had been baptized by heretikes. On this ground he held that opinion. And for the ſame opinion, ſaith Vincentius Lerinenſis, there ſtood ſo great force of witt, ſuch torrents of eloquence, ſo great a number af patrons, ſo great apparance of truth, ſo many Oracles of Scripture though misinterpreted. How come they to be overthrown? He tells you a litle before; Then Pope Stephen of bleſſed memory, the Bishop of the Apoſtolike Sea, together with his fellow Bishops, yet more then any other, did reſiſt them; eſteeming it, as I think, a worthy thing, if he did ſurpaſſe all the reſt in devotion of Faith, as he ſurpaſsed them in the Authority of his place. In fine in that Epiſtle of his, which was ſent into Africa, he decreed with theſe words: That nothing ought to be innovated; but that to be reteyned which was delivered down to vs. Hence, ſaith this holy Father, the end of the buſines was that; Antiquity kept poſſeſsion. And he addeth, ſtrange change of things. The Authors of this ſelfe ſame opinion are judged Catholikes, and theyr followers Heretikes. The Maiſters of it are abſolved, and the diſciples condemned. So he: For it was not a neceſſary point of beleefe, before the Church had declared this opinion to be contrary to true faith, becauſe it was contrary to Tradition; now in a Councel examined by the Church, ād foūd to be full and ſtrong enough to aſſure vs of the Apoſtles authority in this point. And ſo S. Cypriā and others did hould the contrary opiniō, and were not Heretiks: but all thoſe who, after this declaration, oppoſed this tradition thus examined, and proved for Apoſtolicall, were, for that very oppoſitiō of ſuch a Tradition adjudged heretikes. Neither were they before adjudged to be Heretikes for theyr oppoſing the Scripture as clear in that point. No ſuch thing was ever ſo much as objected againſt thē. Hence that great African Doctor S. Auſten, ſpeaking of this very point of Rebaptization, writeth thus, De vnitate Eccl. c. 22. This is neyther openly nor evidently read (in Scripture) either by you or by mee: Yet if there were any wiſe man, of whom our Saviour had given teſtimony, and that he should be conſulted in this queſtion; wee should make no doubt (Mark this all you who oppoſe the infallibility of the Church) to performe what he should ſay; leaſt wee should ſeeme not ſo much to gainſay him, as to gainſay Chriſt, by whoſe teſtimony he was recommended. Now Chriſt beareth witnes to his Church. Marke alſo this reaſon, and conferre it with all thoſe teſtimonies given by Scripture to the Church, which I cited the laſt Sect. n. 1. and then marke S. Auſtens conſequence, which is; Whoſoever refuſeth to follow the practiſe of the Church, doth reſiſt our Saviour himſelfe who by his teſtimony commends the Church. Go now, and tell S. Auſten that ſeeing neither he nor you could find this point in Scripture, therefore it is not neceſſary to hould with the Church in this point, for which ſhee hath only tradition: You ſhall ſee if he will not again tell you, as clearly as I doe, that as you ſhould oppoſe Chriſt him ſelfe, if you refuſed to obey ſome one man, whom Chriſt ſhould bidd you obey in points of beleefe; and you should not ſo much diſobey the man, as you should diſobey Chriſt authorizing this man; ſo being that Chriſt biddeth you obey the Church; you ſhould not ſo much diſobey the Church, in refuſing to obey her in points of faith, as you ſhould diſobey Chriſt who authorized the Church, and inveſted her with this power in the Texts cited Sect. 7. n. 1.

7. Heare again S. Auſten de Baptiſmo contra Donatiſtas, lib. 15: C. 23. The Apoſtles (in Scripture) have preſcribed nothing concerning this thing; (the point I ſpeake of) but this cuſtom, which was oppoſit to S. Cyprian, ought to be beleeved to have taken is origin from theyr tradition. As there are many things (note that he ſpeakes in a matter neceſſary to be beleeved) which the vniverſall Church obſerueth; and for that reaſon (O excellent reaſon) are rightly beleeved to have been commanded by the Apoſtles, although they are not found in theyr writings. Give me leave here to aske; whether it be not damnable, to refuſe the obſervation of that which, vpon ſo good a reaſon, (as is the teſtimony of the vniverſall Church,) is rightly beleeved to have been commanded by the Apoſtles? Sure I am that you cannot have the thouſand part of ſo good a teſtimony, that ſuch an one is your father; no, nor that ſuch an one is your mother: And yet it is damnable to refuſe to obey them. Tell mee then, tell mee; I ſay, tell mee, why ſhould it not be much more damnable, to refuſe obedience in a point (for example, the faſt of Lent) which the vniverſall Church teſtifieth, that it is rightly beleeved to have been commanded by the Apoſtles. Whence M. Cartwright in his ſecond Reply againſt Whitg: par. 1. ſayth. If S. Auſtens iudgement be a good Iudgement; then there be ſome things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures. Whitakers and Reynolds words ſpeake much to that effect. Se alſo S. Auſten lib. 2. contra Donat. C. 7. and my Sect: 21. n: 5.

8. Here I might ſhew, out of moſt evident texts of holy Fathers, that the Apoſtles did make the faſt of Lent a matter of precept; and conſequently the breach of it to be damnable, and the obſervance of it neceſſary to Salvation. Sec S. Leo Serm. 6. Serm. 9. S. Ambroſe Serm. 25. Serm: 34. Serm. 36. S. Hier: Epiſt. 54. S Auſten fully Serm. 62. And ſee him preſently againſt Aërius. Alſo that thoſe are judged heretikes by the Church, and called Quarta-decimani, who would needs obſerve Eaſter on the fourteenth of the Moone, though it were not Sunday: Yet no cleere Scripture was againſt them; but they were againſt the Church. So for the ſame reaſon Aërius is lifted for an Heretike; and one of his Hereſies is related by S. Auſten (in his Book of Hereſie, Hereſy 53.) to be this: He taught private opinions of his own, ſaying; That wee muſt not pray or offer for the dead; and that the ſolemly approued faſts were not to be kept; that every man was to faſt when he pleaſed; that he might not ſome to be vnder the Law. Were not theſe hereſies good proteſtant doctrine? So is that which followeth; If at all I will faſt, I will chooſe any day of my ſelfe; and I will faſt that day to shew my Liberty; Sayth the ſame Heretike in S. Epiphan: his Catalogue: Haer. 72. I might alſo adde that S. Auſten, in the ſame booke (Haer. 84.) putteth down for heretikes, the Heluidians; for affirming that the Virgin Mary had other Children after the birth of our Sauiour: and there is no clear text of Scripture againſt them. Yea S. Ierom ſwears hard to anſwer all the texts of Scripture which Helvidius brought: ſee his book againſt that Heretike: whoſe Heretical followers S. Epiphanius in his catalogue calleth Antidicomaritas. I might alſo adde ſeverall ſuch points; as to communicate faſting; and but once in the day: and ſuch like points wholy necceſſary for our obſervance; and whoſe tranſgreſſion is damnable: yet, to be liberall, I will take all theſe laſt points ſpecified in this Number, only for one. Now, for the peoples ſake, who are moſt capable of that point, I will adde one more in a ſection apart; and ſo will make the former nineteene points to be iuſt two dozen, by the addition of theſe four points explicated in this Section, and of that other point which followeth. I ſhall adde alſo an other Sect: 16.n 2. And yet an other Sect: 20. n. 4. And yet an other Sect: 21. n. 5.

SECT: IX. A THIRTEENTH ARGVMENT.

A four and twentith neceſſary point not conteyned in Scripture.

1. ALL things, ſay you, which are neceſſary either to be beleeved or done, for obteyning Salvatiō, are clearly put down in Scripture: I now, by a four and twentith inſtance, ſhew this to be falſe. That is neceſſarily to be done to Salvatiō, which left vndone cauſeth damnation; But the obſervation of the ſunday, (commanding the abſteyning from all ſervile workes) if neglected, or left vndone, bringeth damnation; therefore to obſerve in this manner the Sunday, is a thing neceſſary to ſalvation. And yet this point is ſo farre from beeing clearly put down in Scripture, that, ſtanding meerly to the ſole iudgment of Scripture, wee can ſhew farre clearer texts for ſtill obſerving the Satterday; then for the lawfulnes of working vpon that day, and the vnlawfulnes of working vpon the Sunday: for neyther of theſe have ſo much as one clear text; but the ſtill keeping of the Satterday (for all thoſe who hould Scripture the only Rule of faith and neceſſary practices) hath many texts, wholy Vnanſwerable; if this main Controverſy betwen vs and the Sabbatharians be to be tried by Scripture as the only Iudge. And it is impoſſible for you, by Scripture only, to convince the Aethiopians, who are ſayd to obſerve both the Satterday ād the Sunday; grounding them ſelves alſo in the Apocryphall Recognitions of S. Clement lib. 7. C. 24. where the Satterday is commanded to be kept, as well as the ſunday, ſee Bellar: lib: de Scrip: in Clem.

2. It is ſuperfluous to cite the many texts, by which God commanded reſt from all worke vpon the Satterday, which was the ſeventh day; becauſe it was the day ou which our Lord reſted. And it was not any one day in ſeven, but the ſeventh day of which (and not of any other among the ſeven dayes) it is ſayd; And God bleſſed the ſeventh day, and ſanctified it; becauſe in that (and not in any other) he had reſted from all his worke. Gen. 2. How comes this bleſſing given to noe other day among the ſevē, but given to the ſeventh day only, to be loſt? Who tooke a way the ſanctification of it, given by God himſelfe; and given for a reaſon, which is as obliging now as ever? Give me a text, which telleth vs (and that clearly) that this Sanctification was ever taken away. If you contend, that a new Sanctification was giuen to the Sunday, becauſe our Saviour did reſt that day; let it be ſo, to the honour of his holy name: but where do you read, that, at the giving of this new Sanctification (for which alſo you have no clear text) the former ſanctification given to the ſeventh day, on which God reſted, was taken away from that day? Again, the day of our Saviours Aſcenſion to heaven was vpon the thurſday, and that may, exceeding properly, be called the finall periode of all his actions: what clear text of Scripture tells you, that any particular ſanctification was given to the Sunday in honour of our Saviours Reſurrection, more then was given to the Thurſday in the honour of his Aſcenſion?

3. But ſtanding to the new Scripture only, I will ſhew that wee have ſtronger texts, reſting in the ſtrength of the text only, (as you will have vs,) for ſtill ſanctifying the ſeventh day or Satterday; then for Sunday. I will give you text for text; and let any reaſonable man judge whether the text be not more clear for Satterday, then for Sunday. I have in the Revelations, that S. Iohn was in Spirit vpon our Lords day; that is Sunday. What then? Is every day to be ſanctified, by abſteyning all the world over from all worke, becauſe S. Iohn had a Revelation on that day; as alſo he had on many other dayes? O but hence it is clear that there was ſuch a Day as our Lords day: ſo it is. But how do you prove from hence; that the Sanctification given to Satterday was taken from that day? Or that there was given a Command to all the world not to worke vpon that day which was called our Lords day? How prove you that by Scripture only; Or that it was not the day of the Reſurrection, or Aſcenſion, or Chriſt-maſſe day which S. Iohn called our Lords day? Now give vs as good an anſwer (if you can) to the text I ſhall bring for ſtill keeping the Satterday. Wee are ſtill obliged to keepe all thoſe Commandements which our Sauiour did bidde vs keep with his own mouth; But he did with his own mouth bidde vs keep the whole Decalogue, or thoſe ten Commandements given to Moſes, in the very ſenſe which the Iewes vnderſtood them; Who did vnderſtand, that by Remembring to ſanctify the Sabboth day, they were obliged to ſanctify the Satterday. I proue what I have ſaid out of the 10. of S. Matt: where wee read that one came to our Sauiour ſaying; what good shal I do, that I may have life euerlaſting? Our Sauiour anſwered; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandements. And when that man replyed to know what Commandements our Sauiour meant? out deer Lord did clearly explicate himſelfe to mean all the Commandements of the Decalogue given to Moſes, thoſe very Commandements which this man knew very well, as appeares alſo by Mark 10. Luke 18. You ſee here the very Author of our new Law, with his owne mouth, requiring no leſſe the keeping of this Commandement, as neceſſary for our entrance into life everlaſting, then the keeping of any other Commandement.

4. Give mee your ſecond text for the Sunday, and I will returne a more clear one for the Satterday. Your beſt text is Act: 20 v. 7. And vpon the firſt day of the weeke when the diſciples came together to break bread, Paul preached vnto them, ready to depart on the morrow. Hence (will you ſay) it appeares, that the firſt Chriſtians were accuſtomed to Communicate vpon the firſt day of the week; which was Sunday. I anſwer firſt, that it is not clear out of the text that they vſed to do ſo; but that they did ſo that particular Sunday: of which a very good reaſon may be givē out of the words following, telling vs that, S Paul was ready to depart on the morrow. Wherefore thoſe firſt fervent Chriſtians might all aſſemble themſelues to communicate at the hāds of ſo great an Apoſtle before his departure; and they beeing aſſembled, the Zelous S. Paul made them a Sermon: but you have no where that he preached every Sunday. But I have a clear text for his preaching every Satterday. For he diſputed in the Synagogue every Sabboth and he exhorted the Iewes and the Greeks. Act. 18. Again no wonder they aſſembled to communicate that day before S. Pauls departure, becauſe they were vſed then to Communicate every day, as many Doctors ſay, or wonderfull frequently, as is ſtrongly gathered by that text, Act. 2.46. and they continuing dayly (mark the word dayly) with one accord in the Temple, breaking bread from houſe to houſe. Thirdly how doth theyr commnicating vpon Sunday take away the Sanctification which God himſelfe gave to the ſeuenth day; ſetting that day a part from all ſervile work? Again do you think they never worked on that day of theyr Communion, who communicated dayly or exceeding frequently? Is theyr communicating once vpon a Sunday enough to prove, that all the world muſt never more worke on the Sunday? And that, from that day, it ſhall be ever lawfull to work on the Satterday? Is ſuch a text clear enough to aboliſh a precept clearly confirmed by the mouth of the Author of the new Law? My ſecond text for ſtill keeping Satterday, is farre clearer, out of 1. Cor: 7:19. Circumciſion is nothing, and prepuce is nothing, but the Obſervation of the Commandments of God; that is the thing wee muſt now looke after, if wee will have life everlaſting. Behould here that great Apoſtle of the new Law doth tell vs, that even then when Circumciſion was quite aboliſhed and made nothing, yet the obſervation of the Commandements (of which the ſanctifying the ſeuenth day, or Satterday, was one) did ſtill ſtand good, and in its full obſervance: ſo that wee have now our Saviour him ſelfe, and three of the fower Evangeliſts, and S. Paul, for the obſervation of the ſeuenth day, as much as for the keeping of the other Commandements.

5. Let vs hear your laſt text; for you have but three. It is 1. cor. 16. Now concerning the collections for the Saincts, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even ſo do yee vpon the firſt day of the week; (that is Sunday) let every one of you lay by him in ſtore as God hath proſpered him, that there be no gathering when I come. A very weake place to aboliſh an ould known and ſtill obſerved Commandement, confirmed by Chriſts mouth; and to bring in a new obligation vpon all the world forever. I pray marke, that it is not ſo much as ſaid, that theſe monyes were to be gathered when the people did meete at the Church vpon Sundayes: but, Let every one lay vp by himſelfe in ſtore; for which work ſome one day of the week was to be appointed; S. Paul thought fitt to appoint the firſt day for a pious beginning. But how will you deduce from hence by evident conſequence (as you muſt) that he gave them leave to worke the day before, and obliged them, and all others not to worke that day, vntill the worlds end? Neither this, nor any other place can be brought out of the whole Bible, from which this conſequence can be evidently inferred. And now comes my turne, to give you a third and farre more evident text, for the ſtill ſanctifying the Sabboth or ſeventh day: For my text ſhall ſhew, that ſtanding to Scripture only, the ſeventh day was of command to be obſerved long after S. Paul did ſay thoſe words; and long after the practice of Communicating vpon Sundayes was in the Church. My Text is Mat. 24. v. 20. But pray you that your flight be not in the Winter, neither on the ſabboth day. Hence our Sauiour foretels clearly the deſtruction of Ieruſalem (which was to happen in the year of our Lord 73:) that is forty yeares after the Reſurrection of Chriſt. Then, if ever, a nun would thinke the command for the obſervation of the Sabbath, or ſeuenth day, to have been aboliſhed; ſo that it could not be prophaned: and yet our Sauour did bidde his Apoſtles, (for to them he ſpoke theſe words;) pray that this flight might not he vpon the Sabbaoth or ſeuenth day, to auoid the prophanation of that day; on which indeed Ieruſalem was taken, and pillaged. And there was, beſides a perpetuall maſſacring, a perpetuall pillaging, and carrying theyr goods to places of ſecurity; as alſo a perpetuall flight of thoſe Iewes which could fly, and carry away theyr goods if they could, or endeauoring to carry them or ſweating with inceſſant labour to hide them, by which actions the prophanation might ſeem to be committed. Therefore all the places alledged before hand do not convince, that the obligation of not prophaning the ſabbaoth day was taken away: as alſo they convince no new obligation of not working vpon the Sunday to be brought in. For both theſe things I ask for Scripture, and nothing but Scripture: for it is nothing to our purpoſe to bring reaſons, why the ſabbaoth might be taken away; and this obligation of not working vpon the Sunday might be introduced: But you, who affirme not the poſſibility only of the fact, but the reall fact of aboliſhing Satterday, and of inſtituting Sunday; you, I ſay, muſt prove both theſe things with clear texts, Or elſe your meere diſcourſes and reaſonings will not be halfe ſo good arguments, as our conſtant Tradition of the Church, which you abſolutely deny to deliver down to vs any neceſſary obligation, not clearly expreſſed in Scripture. Your own Doctor Taylor in his Defenſe of Epiſcopacy, p. 100: confeſſeth the plaine truth. For that (ſayth he, ſpeaking of the keeping of the Sunday) in the new Teſtament wee have no precept; and nothing but the Example of the primitive diſciples: at Geneva they were once about changing Sundayes feaſt into a Thursday, to shew theyr Chriſtian Liberty. So he. Had the contrary been plainly ſet down, your ſo illuminated Bretheren of Geneva ſhould have ſeen it. Give mee then infallible texts, and not fallible diſcourſes concerning the abrogating of the ſatterday, and inſtitution of the Sunday feaſt in place of it.

6. But I have a new difficulty in this matter, which is objected by no body that I know of, becauſe it is not very obuious. My difficulty is this; that wee are bound vnder pain of damnation, to keep our Sunday in a manner, not only not expreſſed in any clear Scripture, but alſo againſt the vſuall manner of keeping the Sabbaoth, and all feſtivall dayes, expreſſed in clear Scripture. For, according to clear Scripture we are to beginne the Sabbaoth or feaſt on the Euening before, and to end it the next euening: as is clear out of the twentith three Chapter of Leviticus, where all the ould ſabbaoths and feaſts, and the manner of keeping of them are put down; From Euening to Euening shall you celebrate your ſabbaoths. It was then forbidden, vnder pain of damnation, to work on fryday after the evening: in ſo much that a taylor, ſhoe maker, weaver &c. who ſhould have continued working for any long time betweene ſunſett and twelue a-clock at night, ſhould have been damned for his labour: and yet at the next Euening he might lawfully have worked vntill mid night: But I hope there is no ſuch thing held lawfull on Sunday after the euening; neither is it vnlawfull to do any, though never ſo laborious worke, vpon ſatterday evening vntil mid night. Here then you have an other obligation vnder pain of damnation, which is not plainly put downe in Scripture; but delivered vnto vs by the tradition of the ſame Church, which deliuereth the obligation of faſting in Lent vnto vs. Wherefore none of you all can ſhew any ground, vpon which any obligation of keeping the Sunday, and keeping of it in this manner (which I now ſpecified) can be grounded ſolidly; but vpon the very ſelfe ſame ground wee will as ſolidly ground the obligation of keeping Lent with a faſt of precept (as I ſhewed Sect: 8. n. 8. as much as Sunday is a feaſt of precept. This argument will trouble D. Ferne who §. 13. moſt inconſequently to his other principles, houldeth the obligation of keeping the Lords day, made plainly known vnto vs by Tradition only: And yet houldeth that in the Scripture only all neceſſary obligations are ſett down plainly: plain contradiction.

SECT: X, A FOVRTEENTH ARGVMENT.

By the Texts which our adverſaries bring to prove that Scripture contaynes, and decides all neceſſary Controverſies, wee proue the contrary.

1. All of you ſay, that all things which are neceſſary to be beleeved or done for obteyning ſalvation are clearly put down in Scripture: therefore if it be neceſſary to our ſalvation to beleeve Scripture to be by it ſelfe alone our only rule of faith, or to hould that by it ſelfe alone it decides all neceſſary cōtroverſyes; the Scripture muſt alſo be ſhewed by you clearly to conteyne ād determine all this: For els you preſſe vs to hould that which no clear Scripture bids vs to hould; which thing you all account vnreaſonable in vs. Your part is heere affirmative; and in this prime point you contradict the practice of all the Church; againſt ſo great and ſo publik Authority, you muſt bring the evidence of clear Scripture, according to your own principles: If wee then can but ſhew that al the texts you bring do not ſuffice to this evidence, you are condemned, even by your own principles. Let vs then hear you Texts: and that out of D. Ferne: for he hath the chiefe of them.

2. The firſt text which is brought by D. Ferne labouring in his Sect. 23. to ſatisfy my doubt, is this; For in them (the Scriptures) Ye think ye have Salvation. Ioan. 5. v. 39. I pray marke what I ſay; and you ſhall ſee how weake this ād other ſuch like arguments are. In the ſeventeenth verſe of this Chapter begins a diſcourſe of our Saviours to the Iewes; and when he comes to the 34. verſe, he ſayth; Theſe things I ſay vnto you, that you may be ſaved. Now my anſwer is this: That which our Saviour ſaid vnto them, that they might be ſaued, is a ſtronger proofe that that alone by it ſelfe was ſufficiēt to ſalvation, without any thing elſe: then to ſay, The Iewes did think by ſuch a thing to have ſalvation; Therefore that thing by it ſelfe alone doth (without doing any more) ſuffice to Salvation: For vndoubtedly our Sauiours ſaying ſuch a thing, is better then the Iewes thinking ſuch a thing. This ſuppoſed, would you not count him madde who ſhould ſay that thoſe precedent verſes, which our Sauiour had then ſaid when he ſpooke theſe words, Theſe things I ſay vnto you that you may be ſaved, did conteyne alon a clear expreſſion of all particular neceſſary points diſtinctly putting them all down? How then doth it follow, that becauſe the Iewes did think (and perhaps truly think) to find that which might ſave them in the Scripture, therefore the Scripture did conteyne alone a clear expreſſion of all particular neceſſary points, diſtinctly putting them all down? Wherefore, as you muſt not vnderſtand that ſhort ſpeech made by our Sauiour to have ſufficed to Salvation, by expreſſing diſtinctly all particular points neceſſary: but becauſe it did ſuffice to bring them to the knowledge of the true Meſſias, whom they acknowledging might, by his particular inſtruction, know diſtinctly all particular neceſſary points: ſo the Scripture did ſuffice to Salvation, by expreſſing clearly enough that Ieſus Chriſt was the true Sauiour of the world; whom they could not but beleeve if they would beleeve Moſes: For had ye beleeved Moſes, ye would have beleeved mee, for he wrote of mee; ſayth our Lord in the ſame Chapter v. 46. beleeving then our Sauiour they ſhould from him (and his Church after him) receive full inſtruction in every particular neceſſary point. But D. Fern vrgeth this place wonderfull weakely; becauſe (ſaith he) they might know all things neceſſary to ſalvation (by Scripture only,) therefore he bids them ſearch the Scripture, and they ſhould find they teſtified of him. A weak conſequence to prove that they might know all neceſſary points out of Scripture, becauſe they might know this one point or our Sauiours beeing the true Meſſias. For it is no Conſequence, This one point is clear in Scripture; therefore all other neceſſary points are clear in Scripture. My ſecond anſwer is, Go and ſearch the Scriptures now and you ſhall finds Salvation in them; for they will clearly Send you to the Church for your particular inſtruction in all points neceſſary; as I ſhewed Sect. 7. n. 1. Thirdly ſearch the Scriptures and you shall find Salvation in them; but not in them as expovnded by every man for him ſelfe (for theſe very men found not Salvation by them as they vnderſtood them;) but you ſhall find Salvation by them as expovnded by the publike interpretation of the Church. And as it is no conſequence, Chriſt did bid the Iewes Search thoſe Scriptures which they had then, becauſe in them, they ſhould find clearly putt downe, that one point of his beeing the Meſſias; therefore thoſe Scriptures and all the new Teſtament (of which no one word was then written) are affirmed by Chriſt to conteyne all points now neceſſary, and to put all down clearly: ſo alſo it is no conſequence, Chriſt bidde vs ſearch the Scriptures; Therefore wee are to attend to them alone, and not to attend alſo to the voice of his heavenly Father, bidding vs hear him; nor to the voice of Chriſt him ſelfe teſtifying of himſelfe; nor to the voice of his Miracles, which he calleth a teſtimony greater then Iohn. Nor are wee to attend to the voice of Iohn, although he was ſent on ſet purpoſe to bear wittnes of the light. Io. 1.7.8. And yet all theſe conſequences be as Good as this your conſequence: Chriſt biddeth vs ſearch the Scriptures, therefore wee muſt attend to them alone, and take them alone to be of ſufficient authority to ground faith in all points neceſsary; and not attend to the Church. I will give you a conſequence, though moſt bad, yet to the full as good as this: S. Paul ſayth, If women will learn any thing let them as •… e theyr husbands at home. (1. Cor. 14:35 Therefore women are to attend only to what theyr husbands teach them at home; and not to go to the Church to be inſtructed in points neceſſary by the Miniſter. But after all this I muſt tell you (M. Doctor) for a fourth anſwer, that you aſſume that which it is impoſſible for any of vs all to prove; that is, that our Saviour did bidde them ſearch the Scriptures. S. Iohn did write in Greek, and the Greek word (Ereunate) as alſo the Latin Scrutamini, doth as commonly, and as properly ſignify You do ſearch (in the indicative mode,) as, Do ſearch (in the Imperative): and therefore the Tranſlator of your Bible might, according to the Originall, as well have putt it, not as he did, but thus; you do ſearch the Scriptures, becauſe ye think ye have Salvation in them; of which notwithſtanding they did miſſe with all theyr ſearch. If wee read (as wee may) you do ſearch; then this place evidently proueth, that the ſearch of the Scriptures only doth not ſuffice to Salvation: and therefore it is as probable (to the very full) that this text maketh againſt you, as that it maketh for you. And this interpretation of mine is not only the interpretation of S. Cyrill lib. 3. in Io: c. 4. but alſo your learned Beza ſayth; I do aſſent to Cyrill expreſſely admonishing that theſe words (Ereunate) &c. ought rather to be taken in the Indicative mode, You do ſearch the Scriptures. How often have Proteſtants heard vs give this vnavoideable anſwer; and yet they, beeing never able to anſwer it, will never give over the citeing of it, as if it were a maine proofe of this fundamental point of theyr Religion? an euident ſigne of theyr want of evident texts. Again, the knowledge of the only Rule of faith is neceſſary for all: but Chriſt did not bidd all common people ſearch the Scriptures; for at that time the Scriptures were not in the Syriake Language at all; which only Language the people of the Iewes could vnderſtand. See this proved Sect. 2. n. 11.

3. D. Ferns ſecond Text is; They (the Scriptures) are able to make wiſe vnto Salvation. He preſſeth it thus; Can that be ſaid to be able to make a man wiſe to ſuch a purpoſe and only do in part, and imperfectly, teaching him only ſome knowledges to that purpoſe? Alſo he ſaith after, v. 17. The man of God is throughly furnished, or perfected to every good work. I anſwer, that the ſhort ſpeech which our Sauiour made, intending it (as I ſhewed in the former Objection) to make thoſe wiſe to Salvation, was truly able to do what he intēded, ād the perfectly; or els he had miſſed in the choice of a meanes ſufficient to that end, which he clearly ſayd he intended; to witt, that they might be ſaved: Yet you cannot ſay, that ſpeech, by it ſelfe alone, ſufficed to make them wiſe to Salvation; but it did inable them with ſufficient principles, by following of which Salvation might be effectually obteyned; and ſo that ſpeech was able, not in part and imperfectly only, to work the effect, by giving ſome knowledge to that purpoſe; but that very knowledge which that ſhort ſpeech gave; was a knowledge effectuall for the direction of all thoſe Iewes; not by directing them in euery particular, but by telling them clearly whence all particular directions were to be had, which any one following will ſoone prove a man of God perfect, throughly furnished to all good workes. Is not all this true even of that ſhort ſpeech? Much more is it true of ſo many ſpeeches made to vs in Scripture for our Salvation, and able to bring vs effectually to it, if wee follow them, eſpecially ſuch ſpeeches as bidde vs ſo often to follow the Church. See the many places I cited S. 7. n. 1. Theſe Scriptures then ſo full of theſe ſpeeches, and theſe divine writings then ſo full of theſe ſpeeches, and theſe divine writings expounded, not by private, but by publike expoſition of the Church, do not in part only and imperfectly, work this effect, by teaching vs ſome knowledges to that effect; but they teach vs a great ſumme of ſuch knowledges, as are able to effect the worke, though not by giuing vs every particular point to be done, but by telling vs whence every particular point might ſecurely be had. Yet to give you fuller ſatisfaction; I ſay, it was farre from S. Pauls mind to ſay the Scriptures are able to make vs wiſe to Salvation, as they are vſed by thoſe, who take them as interpreted according to that ſenſe, that every man ſhall in his Conſcience iudge to be true. The Scripture thus taken, breedeth infinite inconveniences, as I ſhewed at large Sect. 7. whence appeares that the Scriptures vſed ſo, are the cauſe of many mens damnation. S. Paul then did not ſpeak of the Scriptures taken ſo (as you do;) but he ſaid, they were able to make Timothie wiſe to Salvation; becauſe he was indeed a man of God who did continue in the things which he learned and had been aſſured of; to witt, by the orall tradition of the Doctors of the Church, and by S. Paul himſelfe: for ſo S. Paul teacheth mee in the beginning of his former Chapter ſaying to Timothie; Thou therefore (my Sonne) be ſtrong in the grace, that is in Chriſt Ieſus, and in the things which thou haſt heard of mee among many witneſses. And in the Chapter before that v. 13. Hould faſt the forme of ſound words which thou haſt heard of mee. Yea and in this third Chapter, But thou haſt fully known my doctrine, Manner of life &c. All this doctrine he could, not have known by any Scripture, of which a ſmal part was then written. Give mee then a Timothy, a man ſo well preinſtructed by Tradition, ſo faſt a houlder of Traditions, ād a man ſo knowing from whome he had learned theſe things; and I will freely allow you, that the Scriptures will make ſuch a man wiſe to Salvation: For he will be ſure to take them, not vpon any priuate mans iudgment, or vpon his own; but to take them as interpreted by the Church, whom he will be ſure never to contradict; ſhee beeing the pillar and Ground of Truth, as that his great Maiſter ſaith, all whoſe Doctrine he fully knew. But thoſe Scriptures which are able to make ſuch a man of God, ſuch a Timothie, wiſe to Salvation, and throughly furnished or perfected to every good work, are not able to do this effect, if vſed in a manner contrary to that which I have ſhewed they were vſed by him, and ſhould be vſed by vs. Wee do abuſe them if wee take them and diſcanon them (as I may ſay) by our private interpretations, contrary to the Tradition, and vnanimous expoſition of the Church. Theſe men vſe Scriptures to theyr perdition as S. Peter ſaid ſome did the hard places of S. Pauls Epiſtles: Whence you ſee that misinterpretations of hard places were made to the perdition of the Interpreters. Wonder not then to hear vs ſay that the obſcurity of ſome places of Scripture have occaſioned the perdition of the falſe interpreters of thoſe places, out of which ſtate of perdition ſome guide there muſt be who can leade them ſecurely: Can you find mee a ſurer then the Church? There is no want of Infallibility in Scripture but there is great abundance of fallibility in our private iudgment of diſcretion, which maketh vs need a ſure guide in the interpretation thereof.

4. Having now ſhewed in what ſenſe the text alledged did ſay, The Scripture was able to make a man wiſe to ſalvation; I ſhall eaſily ſhew how weakely from theſe words S. Paul is ſayd to have meant, That the Scripture by it ſelfe alone was ſufficient for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſnes; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good workes. I then freely graunt the Scripture ſufficient for all this, but ſtill in the ſame ſenſe that I have explicated the Scripture to be able to make a man wiſe to ſalvation; to witt, as interpreted by the Church, or as vnderſtood by men well preinſtructed by Tradition, who will be ſure in all doubts to have recourſe to the Church; and eſteeme as much what tradition teacheth the Apoſtles to have ſayd, as what theyr bookes tea • h them to have written: theyr words beeing of the ſame authority vnwritten as written; and tradition beeing a more vncorrupt deliverer of theyr doctrine, then writing; which is ſubject to be ſo many wayes corrupted, and altered, and of which wee are only certifyed that it is Apoſtolicall by the Tradition of the ſelfe ſame Church, which doth as well certifye vs that other doctrines be Apoſtolicall, beſides thoſe written in this booke. Here alſo I muſt tell you how M. Fisher did excellently ſilence D. White, when in theyr publike conferēce he vrged, this text, The Scripture is profitable: &c. For, ſayd he, Although wood be profitable to make the ſubſtance of a houſe, to make waineſcot, ſtooles, tables, and other furniture; yet hence doth not follow wood alone is ſufficient to build and furnish a houſe: So Scripture is profitable for all theſe ends, but alone it is not ſufficient. Whence all the weight of your argument comes to this; that if it be ſo profitable as to make a man wiſe to Salvation, it muſt be ſufficient by it ſelfe alone to do ſo: which I have already ſhewed to be falſe; without you take the whole Canon of Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Church, or as vnderſtood by thoſe who are preinſtructed by Traditions, as Timothie was.

5. Indeed you ſay, this ſufficiency belongs to the whole Scripture, though in proportion only to every book; and therefore the Apoſtle ſayd, That Scriptures are able to make a man wiſe to Salvation. How they are able to do this, I have ſhewed; But M. Doctor of what Scriptures did S. Paul ſay theſe words? If he did not ſay theſe words of the whole Canon of the Scriptures which wee now have, and to which you ſtreach theſe words; this place cannot poſſibly prove that this ſufficiency belongs to the whole Scriptures wee now have: But it is evident he did not ſpeake theſe words of the whole Canon of the Scripture which wee now have; for almoſt all the new Scripture was as then not written. How could that, which was not at all, haue a beeing then able to make Timothie wiſe to Salvation? S. Paul ſpoke of the ſufficiency (if you pleaſe) of all Scriptures which were then extant. You deny this ſufficiency to them, and you ſay: It belongs to the whole Scripture, though in proportion to every booke: therefore it belonged in proportion only to thoſe bookes which were written then. Why did S. Paul then ſay of thoſe bookes then extant, that they were able to make a man wiſe to Salvation? Now anſwer your own argument. Again; if every Book of Scripture contributeth its proportionable part, to make vp a whole body of Bookes compleatly ſufficient to this purpoſe; how will you do now, when no fewer then twenty Bookes of the Scripture are quite loſt, as I have ſhewed Sect. 1. n. 7. Wee have not any thing like a Text, by which wee can prove that theſe 20. Bookes were not as requiſite to make vp this full ſufficiency of the whole Canon, to decide all Controverſies, as any other twenty which wee have; eſpecially if you except the four Ghoſpels. And yet the Originall of one of theſe Ghoſpels is alſo quite loſt; and wee have no ſurer ground for that beleefe, by which wee beleeve our ſelves to have the true Coppy of it, then the Tradition of the Church: if ſhee be fallible in her Traditions, wee cannot beleeve any thing in S. Matthews Ghoſpel: as I ſhewed ſect. 6.

6. Whereas you object that, though the Scripture did conteyne more things plainly in it ſelfe, and shew vs from whence wee may have the reſt, that is from the Church: Yet thus the Scripture could not be ſayd to make vs perfect, for ſo the Law might be ſaid to make vs perfect, becauſe it sheweth vs Chriſt, and was a Schoolmaſter to him. Gal: 3. And Iohn Baptiſt might have been ſaid to have perfected his Diſciples by shewing them Chriſt. So you. I anſwer, that you all fight againſt this objection with every text you bring in this controverſy againſt vs: For as the two former, So all the following texts objected againſt vs, ſpeake of the ould Teſtament, or Law; for In that (Chriſt ſaid) the Iewes thought to find Salvation; of that he ſaid, Search the Scriptures; of that S. Paul ſaid, It was able to make a man wiſe to Salvation, it was profitable, ſo that by it the man of God is throughly furnished or perfected (mark that word) to every good work. And now behould you your ſelfe come and inferre for an abſurdity, that the ould Scripture ſhould be able to do this. Wee freely acknowledge that the Law of it ſelfe could perfect no man, no nor juſtify any man, as S. Paul clearly ſayth in the place cited: but they were all to be juſtified by faith in Chriſt. The Law, as introducing to this, did ſufficiently perfect all thoſe, who were perfect vnder the Law: independently of this, it did not do ſo. As for S. Iohn; you are clearly tould by S. Luke C. 1. v. 13. that he was ſent Parare Domino plebem perfectam, to prepare to our Lord a perfect people: and towards the end of that Chapter, Thou Child shalt be called the Prophet of the higheſt: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare for his wayes, to give knowledge of Salvation vnto his people by the remiſsion of theyr Sinnes. Can you ſhew the Scripture doth more in this point then it ſayth S. Iohn did?

7. Your third text is, You shall not adde to the word which I ſpeak vnto you, nor take from it. Deut: 4.2. Therefore the Scripture is ſo perfect, and ſo ſufficient, that it alone conteynes all neceſſaries; and therefore condemns the ſuperadded Traditions. You have forgot M. Doctor your very laſt words; That the Law (cheifly conteyned in Deutronomy) could not make vs perfect: ād now you bring theſe words as words implying the perfection and ſufficiency of it; For of it alone theſe words are ſpoken. Secondly you have forgot your very firſt words of this your 23. Sect. where you putt three ſorts of Tradition that you allow there, and §. 13. Bee not theſe additions to the written word? Thirdly you have forgot that the Iewes had at leaſt two vndenyable Traditions, beſides thoſe which delivered the Scriptures and the true ſenſe of the Scriptures vnto them: For they knew only by tradition what remedy was to be vſed to free theyr female-Children from originall Sinne; as alſo to free theyr male-Children in danger of death before the eight day. This remedy they knew and obſerved, and were bound to know and obſerve. And yet they infallibly knew it without haueing any Scripture expreſſing to them the knowledge of this remedy, or of theyr obligation to vſe it, Or that it was ſo neceſſary for the Salvation of theyr Children, whom they did beleeve to be in Originall Sinne, and by that debarred from Salvation, vnles ſome remedy were applied. Some remedy ſurely was as neceſſary for the female, as Circumciſion for the male: Shew mee this Remedy in Scripture. Secondly they truly beleeved ſome of thoſe bloudy Sacrifices to have been appointed vnto them by God, for the expiation of theyr Sinnes; but they could not truly beleeve that any of thoſe Sacrifices could expiate theyr Sinnes by its own vertue: They beleeved then that thoſe Sacrifices had this expiative vertue from the merits of Chriſt: ſhew mee any text in which this was then written. It is ridiculous to ſay that this faith was not neceſſary to that Church, at leaſt ſo as to be beleeved by ſome among them. Fourthly, M. Doctor, you forget againſt whom you bring this teſtimony: If it belongs only to the Iewes; why do you bring it againſt Chriſtians? If it belongs alſo to Chriſtians; why do you not circumciſe your ſelves? You vrge againſt vs, Ye shall not adde: Wee vrge againſt you, ye shall not diminish. Fiftly M. Doctor you forget that you are to conclude thus; The whole Canon of Scripture is a ſufficient direction for vs: and you conclude, that the Law of Moſes is a ſufficient direction for vs; which you and yours confeſſe to be falſe. Sixtly you forget that a whole ſcore of bookes are diminiſhed frō the Canon by beeing quite loſt; halfe a ſcore more you will take from vs, and caſt amōgſt the Apocrypha. Do you think that no part of this ſufficiency is wanting to ſuch a Canon as you now have! Give mee your text for that. Seventhly, you forget that it is impoſſible for you to prove, that the Scriptures muſt be taken either as they ſound, or taken by every man in that ſenſe that he in his own Conſcience iudgeth. Give vs the Scriptures taken in the ſenſe which the viſible Church iudgeth (for the Iudge of the ſenſe muſt be viſible;) and wee will graunt all. For then without any addition, and by only true interpretation, wee will prove that wee muſt take the Church for our infallible guide: and ſhee will ſhew vs Scripture rightly by her interpreted, for the admitting of vnwritten Tradition. In the midle of this your ſeavenfold forgetfulnes I pray remember what pittifull texts you have putt in the forefront to prove that, which, if not proved better, your Religion will prove moſt pittifully grounded. The ſenſe of the words which you vrge is litterally this; Let no man preſume by his private interpretations to deprave any Law either by reſtreyning, or ſtreaching the natural ſignificatiō of the words in which it is delivered. For example; God in the 17. of Deutronomy v. 11.12. ſayth; Thou shalt not decline from the Sentence which they (that is the High Prieſts) shall shew thee, to the right hand nor to the left. And the man that will do preſumptuouſly, and will not harken vnto the Prieſt, even that man shall dye. God would not have this Law depraved by ſuch an interpretation as you vſe to give; that the Sentence is to be followed of thoſe Iudges which God appointed to tell you what was Gods Law rightly vnderſtood, if they give ſentence according to Scripture; as you would have it expounded.

8. Your fourth text out of the end of the Revelations is incomparably weaker, and it evidently damneth your Father Luther and Lutheran Bretheren vnto Hell; for S. Iohn teſtifyeth to every man that heareth the words of the propheſie of this Booke (he ſpeakes of the Revelations only:) If any man shall adde vnto theſe things, God shall adde vnto him the plagues which are written in this Book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this propheſie, God shall take his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy Citie. But Luther took away all the words of the Book of this propheſie, when he ſaid in his firſt Preface to the new Teſtament, that he received this book neither for Propheticall nor Apoſtolicall: Therefore God shall take his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy Citie. The ſame ſhall be done to his Lutheran diſciples. Thus you ſee I have concluded evidently what I ſaid, let vs hear you conclude; Nothing muſt be added to this book; therefore all the Scripture is ſufficient to decide all controverſies; though twenty whole bookes of it be loſt, and though you take all the texts of the whole Canon in that ſenſe which every man in his conſcience thinketh beſt: Thus in effect you conclude. Note alſo that there is no kind of certaintie that the Apocalyps was the laſt book of Scripture; for your own Kemnitius houlds S. Iohn his Goſpel written after that; and moſt hould his Epiſtles the very laſt part of Scripture. Now marke, that the very laſt verſes, which were written in his laſt Epiſtle are. I had many things to write (now when all the Scripture was written:) But I will not with inke and pen write vnto thee. But I truſt I shall shortly ſee thee and wee shall ſpeak face to face. Peace be to thee. Now for Gods ſake, what text aſſures you (for all other aſſurances wee by your own principles reject;) what text (I ſay) aſſures you, that thoſe things which S. Iohn had yet to write, but did expreſſe them by Mouth only, were all of them things vnneceſſary.

9. Your fift text Gal. 1.8. Though wee or an Angell from Heaven preach an other Goſpel vnto you then that which wee have preached vnto you; lett him be accurſed. As I ſaid before, ſo I ſay now again, if any man preach an other Ghoſpel vnto you then that yee have received, let him be accurſed. Firſt M. Doctor you forget that, in the beginning and in other parts of your booke, you will have our Church to be one and the ſame with yours in ſuch fundamentals as conſtitute a Church: ād will you now prove this Church, by the ſentence of the Apoſtle to have been accurſed, anathematized, and excommunicated, or cut off from the true Church? You muſt ſweat to find God a true Church vpon Earth, if ours ſtood excommunicated by S. Paul ever ſince it held Traditions. Secondly you forget that you bring this Curſe vpon your own head, for it is you who preach an other Goſpel from that which S. Paul preached, and that which wee received from him, To ſtand faſt and hould the Traditions which wee have learned whether by word or Epiſtle. 2. Theſ. 2.15. And ſure wee are that the Epiſtles to the Theſſallonians did not conteyne the whole Goſpel: If they did, then find in thoſe Epiſtles, that you muſt take the Scripture only for your Rule in all points of faith, and all other neceſſary points. It is alſo the doctrine of S. Paul; The things which thou haſt heard of mee before many witneſses, the ſame commend thou vnto faithfull men, which shall be fitt to teach others alſo. 2. Tim: 2.2. You will have vs commend to other men, not thoſe things which were only heard before many Witneſſes by publicke Tradition, but only ſuch as are written: You therefore gainſay S. Paul, and on you the Curſe of his Excommunication falleth. Where you ſee, by the way, a good reaſon, why wee could not hould you in our Communion, you beeing anathematized by S. Paul himſelfe. Wee then, conformably to the doctrine of S. Paul, ſay that the Ghoſpel which he preached vnto them, and the Ghoſpel which they had received (ſee his firſt Epiſtle to them Cap. 1. & 2.) was a Ghoſpel, which is moſt truely expounded by vs to conteyne both his vnwritten and written doctrine: Yet in all probability very litle of the Ghoſpel had been, as then, delivered in writing vnto the Galatians; or tell mee how much, if you can? Sure I am that, beſides what was written, they were yet to receive much more in writing: Yea the ſureſt opinion is, that the firſt thing that ever S. Paul did write was the very Epiſtle to the Galatians, as is well proved by the Remiſh Teſtament in the Preface of the Epiſtle to the Romans. And you can bring nothings but coniectures to affirme that he had delivered at this time any written Ghoſpel at all vnto them. Again you moſt vnskilfully ſay, that this text muſt be meant of the writtē Ghoſpel only, for that which is written beareth (you meane, only) the name of Ghoſpel. for firſt this very place proueth the contrary: Secondly many other places ſhew the contrary, for in S. Mathew c. 4. v. 23. Ieſus went about all Gallilee preaching the Ghoſpel: what Ghoſpel was then written? And c. 9. v. 35. Ieſus went about all the Cittes ād Villages preaching the Ghoſpel: what Ghoſpel was then written? or written when our Saviour ſayd; whereſoever this Ghoſpel shall be preached. c. 26. v. 13. S. Mar: c. 1. v. 14. Ieſus came into Galilee preaching the Ghoſpel of the kingdome, ſaying repent and beleeve the Ghoſpel. What written Ghoſpel did they know? or S. Peter, to whom in the 10. Chapter Chriſt ſpeaketh about leaving goods for the Ghoſpel. And thus, I might runne over the new Teſtament, where the word Ghoſpel is ſo often taken for the doctrine delivered by word of mouth; and perhaps not thrice in all Scripture it is clearly taken for the written Ghoſpel. And alſo To Evangelize is far more frequently taken for preaching the vnwritten word, then the written. This text then moſt convincingly proveth that S. Paul commands them by no meanes to go againſt the doctrine rceeived by Tradition. As for S. Auſtens authority, with which you back your interpretation, Bellarmin tould you truely, that he did not expound this text, but did only cite it to proue that nothing was to be beleeved againſt Scripture: No nor beſides Scripture interpreted truely by the publick authority of the Church; as I ſaid before: And this anſwer ſatisfieth what you bring out of S. Ierom; although indeed he ſpeaketh of thoſe who bring not known and publik tradition of the Churh; but of thoſe who deviſe new things and give them out for ould Traditions: which not beeing true Traditions delivered by the Church, muſt needs be of no authority; without they can prove theyr truth by Scripture, which they cannot prove by true Tradition.

10. It is therefore falſe which you ſay, that in the Iudgment of S. Aug: and S. Ierom it is enough to incurre the Anathema, if they teach any thing of faith beſides that which is receiued from Scripture, in the ſenſe you take this word Beſides. It is alſo impoſſible to ſhew that S. Paul there ſpoke of Scripture. Yea he ſpeakes of that which they had received from him, who neuer writt any thing before that Epiſtle, as I ſaid: neither do wee teach any thing of faith beſides that which hath authority from the Scripture, though not from the Scripture expounded as priuate men think fitteſt, but from Scripture rightly expounded by the Church, to which wee adde nothing but what Scripture bids vs adde. Wherefore the authorities you cite are ill applyed to vs, for wee ſpeake nothing without authority and teſtimony of the Scripture taken in this manner, as it ſhould euer be; neither adde wee any thing what, is not written; For it is written, Hould ye the Traditions. If you ſay, this is no true Tradition. I am by Scripture bidden to hear the Church before you. Note that it is a very good argument to ſay, it is nowhere written, therefore it is not to be admitted; if this argument be only vſed as the Fathers vſe it, that is, when it was notorius that ſuch a thing was not delivered by tradition: For what is not delivered by Church Tradition, muſt be proued by Scripture. See S. 12. n. 6. You ſee what litle need wee haue to interpret the woords, beſides what I haue preached, to be the ſame, as if he had ſaid, Contrary to what I preached. Yet becauſe this is very true, it is iuſtified by Bellarmiue: and you, not going about to anſwer ſo much as one of the proofes, deſerve no anſwer. Yet marke what what S. Paul ſayth Rom: 16. I deſire you Bretheren to mark them who Make diſſentions and ſcandals (note the next word) contrary to the doctrine which you haue learned, and auoid them. Who are contrary to what was deliuered to the Roman Church, to which S. Paul did write theſe words? who be they? mark them: auoid them.

11. Your ſixt obiection is no text, but an argument drawen from this text, To mans Teſtament noe one adds. Gal: 3.15. Much leſſe is it lawfull to adde to Gods teſtamēt; ſay you. Wee anſwer, that wee adde nothing to Gods teſtament: But with all reaſon wee ſtill ſtand to have it interpreted, not by any mans priuate authority. For what Common-wealth permitts The Teſtaments and Laſt wills of man to be ſo interpreted? Let vs have Gods teſtament both new and ould, interpreted by that Publik Authority impowered by Gods commiſſion to this end, and wee require no more. Leſſe then this cannot in reaſon be required: ſo that your ieſt of a will partly written parly nuncupatory is loſt. No wills worſe made then thoſe which concern many intricate matters belonging to very ſeverall perſons, and yet prohibiting any Court in the world to interpret them, but do let the ſenſe be iudged by every one concerned in it. In ſo much that though Chriſts, in four ſeverall places of his will, clearly tells vs that, he leaueth vs the vneſtimable legacy of his pretious Body and bloud; and that his fleſh is truely meat &c: Yet by priuate interpretations it ſhall be lawfull to tell vs, that wee muſt have only a figure and ſigne of his Body. Would any man admitt of the figure or picture of a Horſe or Houſe, in place of a Horſe or houſe given him by Legacy? Shall there be no Court in the world to prevent theſe inconveniencies? Thus you would have Chriſt make his Teſtament. Who hath ſo litle diſcourſe as to think a Teſtament; left to noe Courts interpretation in the world, to be a fitt iudge, by its own evidence, when twenty, or thirty leaves can be proued to be miſſing vnto it? And yet to the whole teſtament, new and ould, twenty whole bookes be miſſing, as I have proued Sect: 1. n. 7. and halfe a ſcore more be moſt vniuſtly pulled out of the Canon by you, and caſt among the Apocrypha. And yet you would have all vs ſtake our ſoules vpon the full aſſurance wee have that this broken teſtament taken thus, and alſo taken as it is expounded by you, againſt Fathers, Councels, and the conſtant iudgment of the greater ſort of the preſent Chriſtian world, and the known iudgment of all the Chriſtian world for a thouſand yeares together? what more vnreaſonable. With mans teſtament none deales thus, much leſſe with Gods.

12. I muſt needs alſo put you in mind, that you are much miſtaken when you ſay that the word Teſtament ſignifieth only a written teſtament: For our Saviour in his laſt ſupper ſaid, This the blood of the new Teſtament. Mat. 26.28. mark 14.24. and again, this cup is the new Teſtament in my blood which (cup) is shed for you. Here wee have the new teſtament made by vnwritten words eight yeares before one word of it wsa written, and well towards eighty yeares before all of it was written to the end. Hauing thē ſhewed that the words Ghoſpel and new Teſtament according to Scripture, do moſt properly ſignify the vnwritten word of Chriſt: wee may confidētly ſay, that wee adde nothing to the Ghoſpel of Chriſt, or new Teſtament: If you ask, how I know what was deliuered by Chriſts vnwritten Ghoſpel and new Teſtament? I eaſily anſwer; I know this by the teſtimony of the ſelfe ſame alwayes viſible Church, by whoſe teſtimony you know that ſuch bookes conteyne Chriſts written Ghoſpel, and written new Teſtament. I know this by the Tradition of the ſame Church, by which only all Chriſtians did know it, for thoſe ſeventy or eighty yeares, which paſſed between the paſſion of Chriſt and the finiſhing his written Ghoſpel or new Teſtament. I know this by a better Teſtimony then all the world knew the Articles neceſſary to ſalvation before any one word of Scripture was written, which time conteyneth aboue two thouſand yeares: for if the Tradition of that Church, in the Law of Nature, were ſufficient to ground the infallible aſſurance of all the articles beleeued by that Church, for two thouſand years; I hope the Tradition of the Church, which is now in the Law of Grace, is yet a more ſtrong ground to aſſure mee of that vnwritten doctrine of Chriſt delivered farre more publikely by him and his Apoſtles, then that vnwritten word of God was delivered in the Law of nature to ſome few Patriarchs, in a manner very priuate in compariſon of Chriſts vnwritten doctrine; as ſhall be ſaid Sect: 16. n. 2.

13. Your Sixth and laſt text here obiected is our Sauiours ſpeach Matt. 15. taken from Iſa. 29.13. Their fear towards mee is taught by the precepts of men. Whence you inferre that all things of worship or faith neceſſary to ſalvation which are not commanded or written, are to be condemned. Before I returne anſwer, give mee leave to tell you whoſe language you ſpeak when you deliver this your own doctrines. S. Auſten (contra Maximum l. 1.) Bringeth in this Arian Heretike ſpeaking thus to the Catholikes. If you bring any thing from the Scripture, it is neceſſary that wee hear it: But theſe words which be beſides Scripture, are in no caſe received of vs, ſeeing our Lord doth admonish vs ſaying, in vain they worship mee teaching the Commandements of men. So that Heretike. Iuſt ſo you and yours. I anſwer firſt that many things may be commanded by God and yet not written, and ſo be precepts not of men, but of God, though wee be aſſured of them by men. For all precepts which were for thoſe two thouſand yeares and more, concerning worſhip or faith, neceſſary in thoſe Ages to Salvation, before the firſt Scriptures were written, were truly the precepts and doctrine of God, and as ſuch to be obſerved; though this obligation was notified only by the man of that Church. For example, the fall of Adam, and the promiſe made our future Redemption, was notified by Adams Children, who delivered the ſame to theyr Children, and ſo downwards. So wee read Gen: 9. That God ſaid to Noe and his Sonnes, that it was not permitted to them to eat blood v. 4. This precept was obliging all the world vpon the credit of the Tradition of ſo few. So likewiſe wee read in the 17. of Geneſis, that when Abraham was ninetie yeares ould and nine, the Lord appeared vnto him ād made a Couenant with him and his ſeed, to make him the Father of the faithfull, to bleſſe all in his ſeed: And then him, and all his poſterity, a moſt ſtrickt precept of Circumciſion. All this Abraham only notified to his poſterity: They all beleeved this promiſe and Covenant of God, and they all ſtrictly obſerved this precept of Circumciſion: And yet neither this precept, nor this Covenant, were written for thoſe four hundred years ād more which paſſed between the time of Abraham and Moſes, the firſt Scripture writer. Was that vnwritten Covenant the doctrine of man? Was Circūciſiō the precept of man? No. Was the precept of not eating blood the precept of man? and yet by Tradition it had all its force, even from Noë to Chriſts time, amōg the Gētiles, ād vntill the times of Moſes among the Iewes. Well thē, why ſhould the vnwrittē doctrine and precepts of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, be called the doctrine and precepts of men? You can ſay nothing, but that the teſtimony of men is not ſufficient ground for vs to hould this doctrine, and theſe precepts to be divine or Apoſtolicall; whigh is apparently falſe: For the men of the Church of Chriſt, and the ſupreme Paſtors and gouernours thereof, cannot be of leſſe credit and authority, then were the men of the Law of Nature, or of the ſeed of Abraham, or the teſtimony of Noë and his ſons. Their teſtimony could, and did ſuffice to make their doctrine, and precepts, delivered by God in a farre more private manner, to be notwithſtanding prudently beleeved, and imbraced for divine. Why then ſhould not the teſtimony of the Church ſuffice to make the vnwritten doctrine, of Chriſt and his Apoſtles to be held for divine? It is therefore no kind of proofe to ſay; Chriſt reprehends human doctrines and precepts, therefore wee muſt not imbrace divine doctrines and precepts meerly becauſe they are not written. You imbrace the doctrine of men, who tell vs this doctrine of yours; which is neyther written nor delivered by vniverſall tradition. Again, were not all the precepts and doctrines of Chriſt beleeved as divine for thoſe, fourſcore yeares or there abouts, before the whole Canon of Scripture was finiſhed? of all theſe Traditions ſee my Sect: 16. n. 1. 2. and the whole 19. Sect. Secondly, I pray how do you auoide the imbracing doctrine of mē, who hould the Churches authority to be meer human: and yet meerly vpon her authority you receive ſuch, and ſuch Copyes to be the true Copyes of the true Originall word of God: ſee Sect. 4. n. 3. 4. &c Yea, vpon the meer weak teſtimony of your owne private Tranſlatours, all you (who are not exceeding skilfull in Greek) take your Engliſh Bible for the word of God; and againe, vpon the meer weak authority of your Miniſters, you take that interpretation for true which they tell you to be ſo; though you cannot know it to be ſo, for want of skill in Languages, and for want of skill in conferring places, and for want of ability to vſe thoſe twenty Rules which your own Doctors hould neceſſary for the knowing aſſuredly the true ſenſe of God. Thus I might ſhew you how in all thoſe twenty four neceſſary points (which I have hitherto ſhewed not conteyned in any part of the written word of God) you hould truly and properly the doctrine and precepts of men, whom you believe to have meerly human authority. Thus you proceed as the Iewes and Phariſees did, not relying only vpon the traditions they had from Moſes; (for example, concerning the remedy againſt originall Sinne appliable to female Children:) but relying vpon traditions deviſed by ſome ill interpreters of theyr Law; by Sammai, by killel, by Achiba and ſuch other Rabbins: as S. Ierom teacheth in Severall places.

14. Whereas you adde, that our Traditions are to be chalenged of contrariety to the Scripture for the moſt part, you proceed in your vſuall manner to ſay bouldy what is for your turne, but never turne your hand or finger to prove it. M. Doctor, I will vndertake to make good at any time, that there is incomparable more difficultie to ſhew that one part of the written word is not contrary to ſome other, then to ſhew that any one of our Traditions be farre from the leaſt contrariety to the word of God: ſee Sect. 23 n: 6. All Schollers know I ſpeak in this point that which is evident. Thus I have anſwered your whole 23. Section.

15. I have now a word of great importance to ſay to you and yours. You affirme the Scripture alone to be neceſſarily admitted by vs, as our ſole and only iudge. In this, your part is affirmative, and ſo you muſt prove what you ſay. In this you contradict all viſible Catholik Churches which were in the world at your Reformation: Againſt ſo publik authority evidence of Scripture muſt be brought; or elſe you do moſt iniuriouſly oppoſe ſo publik an Authority, according to your own principles. Thirdly in this you deliver a point which (is true) is no leſſe neceſſary then the true choice of the only Rule directing to true faith; Therefore, according to your own principles this point muſt be clearly conteyned to Sripture, in which you ſay all neceſſary points are clearly contayned. But wee have now at large heard every next you thought fitt to bring for a thing of ſo great concernment; The anſwers given to every one ſhew clearly, not any one of them to conteyne that point clearly: Whence I conclude, that what in ſuch kind of matters, cannot be proved by clear texts, muſt not be beleeved, according to your own principles; therefore, even according to them, wee are no • to beleve that Scripture is by it ſelfe alone our ſole and only Rule of faith, or that it clearly conteynes the plain deciſion of all neceſſary controverſies; which it muſt do to be our Iudge in them all. Remember M. Doctor how you §. 13. tell the Antiprelaticall Party that they are bound to bring plain and expreſſe Scripture to demonſtrate that Epiſcopacy is vnlawfull. It were well, more Authority were yielded to Tradition of the Churches of God. And §. 14 wee thence received Bishops, whence wee received the Chriſtian faith. So you. Say ſo of all you received, and I need ſay no more.

SECT: XI. A FIFTEENT ARGVMENT.

Although Scripture only ſhould be our Iudge, yet this Iudge would decide many points clearly againſt you.

YOV cannot but give mee leave to call that clearly decided againſt you by Scripture, for which I can bring, at the leaſt, as clear texts, as you bring for the deciſion of many neceſſary points, which you hould (by reaſon of ſuch texts) to be clearly decided by Scripture, as you ſay all points are, which be neceſſary to Salvation. Therefore, if I can bring as clear texts for ſome points of our faith, oppoſit to yours, as you can bring for thoſe fourteen neceſſary points of which I treated in my ſecond Section; and as clear as you can bring for your beleefe of thoſe divers points ſpecified in my eight Sect: in which I have particularly examined all your cheefe texts for baptizing children: if I alſo can bring as clear texts as you could bring in my nineth Section, for the lawfulnes of working on Satterdayes, and vnlawfulnes of working on Sundayes; or as you could bring in the precedent Section to prove that the Scripture conteynes, and clearly decides all neceſſary Controverſies: if I can do all this, then theſe texts of mine cannot but be allowed by you to be indeed clear; becauſe you ſay, you can bring clear texts for all points neceſſary (as all the above mentioned points be;) but I will ſhew that the texts that I ſhall here bring, for ſome prime points in which wee beleeve contrary to you, be at the leaſt as clear as any of thoſe Texts brought by you ād affirmed by you to be very ſufficiētly clear wherefore my texts, beeing as clear as thoſe which are acknowledged to be Sufficiently clear, muſt alſo be acknowledged to be ſufficiently clear. Now then to my Texts.

2. What importeth more a dying Chriſtian, then to have his Sinne, forgiven him; and that vpon the word of God? and yet you cry Superſtition, Superſtition, if a Prieſt be called to fray over him, and to anoint bim with oyle, to procure forgivenes of his Sinnes. But what faith your own Bible? Is any Man ſicke among you, let him call for the Elders (the Prieſts) of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oyle in the name of the Lord, and the payer of the faithfull shall ſave the ſick. And the Lord shall rayſe him vp, and if he hath committed Sinnes they shall be forgiven him. Iames 5.14. Have you among all the texts which you cited, and I examined in the laſt Section, any one text but halfe ſo clear format you intended. to prove, as this text is to prove extreme-ynction to forgive Sinnes; and conſequently to be a Sacrament, or viſible ſigne (ſuch an one as the act of anointing is) of inviſible grace conferred thereby to forgive his Sinnes, for (ſayth the text) if he be in Sinnes, they shall be forgiven him. If your haue but any one text halfe ſo clear for that prime fundamentall point of yours, I pray bring if forth now whileſt that and the anſwer to that is in freſh memory, That anſwer will tell you what I have to ſay againſt any ſuch text: Let vs ſee what you can ſay againſt this text? ſome anſwer, that it relateth to the guift of healing in thoſe dayes; which ſhift it directly againſt the words of the text ſaying, if he hath committed Sins, they shall be forgiven. Againe what Scripture have; you to prove that the elders in the days of S. Iames cured all infirm men with anointing them with oyle? Laſtly I am moſt earneſt to know by what clearer text then this, you were forced to forſake the practice of this Sacrament vſed by all Catholike Churches vpon earth, when you caſt it off as Superſtitious; Where is, I pray, your ſo much boaſted-of evidence of Scripture againſt ſo publik Authority? M. Doctor remember your own words cited in the end of my laſt Section. Remember that you §. 43. ſay that the vniverſall practice of the Church is the beſt Interpreter of Scripture, if here there is no plain Text (as here there is not) to take away all gainſaying.

3. When a litle after your firſt Reformation you (contrary to all the Churches both of Eaſt and weſt) denyed the Real Preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament; by what clearer text could you evidently demonſtrate that thoſe following texts could not be truely interpreted of a reall preſence? This is my Body: The bread which I will give is my flesh; my flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink indeed: in ſo much as he who eateth or drinketh vnworthily is guilty of the Body and blood of our Lord. This is the cup of the new teſtament which Cup (as is evident by the Greek text where the gender agreeth only with the cup) shall be shedd for jou: that then in the Cup was the very ſame blood which was ſhed. Give mee as clear texts as theſe are, to prove, that one mā may not at the ſame time have two wives, or that he may Labour on the Satterday, but not on the Sunday &c?

4. Again, when you denied the prieſts of the Church to have power to forgive Sinnes, contradicting alſo herein all the Catholike Churches vpon the earth; what clearer text did you bring againſt them all, to prove that they falſely interpreted to theyr purpoſe this text: He breathed vpon them, and ſaid, whoſe Sinnes ſo ever yee shall remitt, they are remitted: and whoſe Sinnes ſo ever yee shall retayne they are reteyned Io. 20.22. Againſt publik authority you ſhould bring evident demonſtration of Scripture, according to your own principles: wee now moſt earneſtly call for this evidence in the three Sacraments here mentioned by mee. Wee call at leaſt, for clearer places then theſe be, in caſe you ſay theſe be not clear enough to decide the controverſy for vs. And wee call for ſuch places to decide all thoſe four and twenty neceſſary points which I have mentioned: which beeing neceſſary, muſt be ſhewed to be decided rightly by clear Scripture; ād conſequently by clearer texts then any of theſe are; in caſe you deny theſe to be ſufficiently clear: Give vs thoſe clearer texts, and wee will confeſſe our ſelves Silenced. If you cannot do this; this litle will ſerve to ſilence you.

SECT: XII. A SIXTEENTH ARGVMENT.

That the Holy Fathers never allowed the Scripture for the only Rule of faith.

1. IT is moſt vnreaſonable to ſay, that the greateſt Doctors of the primitive Church did not know the only Rule of faith: For this point importing above all point, the Apoſtles muſt needs (had it been ſo) have imprinted it deepely in the minds of all they inſtructed; and all theyr Diſciples would have done the like to theyr Diſciples: ſo that many of the Church, eſpecially the moſt learned of the whole Church, would not be ignorant of this point; at leaſt I am ſure, that you may ſooner now be preſumed ignorant of the only true Rule of faith; then they then.

2. Firſt then, had the Holy Fathers ever allowed of the Scripture for the only Rule of faith, they neither would, nor could have held any men Heretikes for houlding that which was contrary to no clear Scripture: but they did hould many ſuch to be Heretikes, as I have ſhewed Sect: 8. where I ſhewed that S. Auſten did hould on the one ſide, that Baptiſme of Children could not be proved by cleare, Scripture; and yet he, in and with the Milevetan Councel condemned thoſe for heretikes who did deny the neceſſity of Baptiſme for Children. See Sect: 8. n: 3. 4. 5. There alſo n: 6. He and Vicentius Lerinenſis accovnteth them heretikes who held rebaptization neceſſary to all baptized by heretikes: ād yet he held on the other ſide, that this point could not be cleared out of only Scripture; ſee them n: 7. In the next number I did ſhew how Antiquity hold alſo the Quarta-decimani for heretikes, though the beleeving Eaſter ought to be alwayes kept on the fourteenth day of the Moone be not againſt clear Scripture. There alſo I ſhewed out of S. Epiphanius and alſo S. Auſten (who expreſly in the beginning of his Catalogue profeſſeth to put down none but ſuch as are true heretiks) that Aërius was held by antiquity for an Heretike, becauſe he denyed prayer for the dead, and held that there was no faſting dayes of precept: in which points I am ſure you will ſay that this Aërius held nothing contrary to Scripture. There alſo I ſhewed out of S. Epiphanius and S. Auſten, that the Antidicomarites or Helvidians were held heretikes by Antiquity, for denying that our Lady after the birth of our Saviour did ever live a Virgin: which point is not clear in Scripture. Therefore all thoſe were heretikes, not for cōtradicting Scripture; yet they were heretikes for contradicting ſome Rule of faith: therefore there is ſome other Rule of faith beſides Scripture; and conſequently Scripture alone is not the only Rule of faith.

3. Secondly it was by holy Fathers noted to be peculiar to heretikes to ſtand to Scripture only, and to refuſe all other Rules: So the Macedonians and Eunomians, hauing no regard of what was taught to the contrary by the multitude and antiquity of Chriſtians, denyed the Holy Ghoſt to be glorified with the Father and the Sonne; becauſe the Scripture did no where expreſſely ſay this. S. Baſil de Sp: Sanc: c. 25. and l. 1. contra Eunom: So the Pelagians (in S. Auſten de Natura & gratia c. 39.) were vſed to ſay; Let vs beleeve that which wee read, but let vs beleeve it to be a wickednes to beleeve that which wee do not read. So S. Auſten L. 1. againſt Maximinus the Arian Biſhop, bringeth him in ſaying: If thou bring forth any thing from thoſe divine Scriptures which are common to vs both, wee muſt needs heare thee. But thoſe ſpeeches which are not in Scripture, be, by no meanes, receaved by vs, ſeeing that our Lord admonisheth vs and ſayth, without cauſe they worshippe mee teaching the Commandements and precepts of men. So he. And juſt ſo you, as is clear by your objection in the laſt Section but one before this, Num. 13. and again I wish to be the Diſciple of divine Scriptvres. Wherefore the Councel of Sens in the ſeventh age decreed (Decreto 5.) That it was a dangerous thing to be in that error, that nothing is to be admitted which is not drawn from Scripture. For many things are derived by Chriſt from the hands of the Apoſtles from mouth to mouth &c. which are to be houlden without all doubt. See Sect: 20.

4. Thirdly the Holy Fathers expreſly refuſe to diſpute out of Scriptures only, vpon this very cauſe, that they do not ſuffice to end and decide all controverſies. So the moſt ancient Tertullian ſpeaketh firſt in generall of never diſputing with heretikes. C. 17. Out of Scriptures only, Becauſe this Scripture-combat availeth to nothing; but to the makeing either ones ſtomake, or ones brains to turne. lib. de Praeſ. C. 17. And by and by he in particular ſayth of the Gnoſtikes, that which wee may ſay of our adverſaries. This hereſy doth not receive ſome Scriptures; (you put ten bookes among the Apocripha) ſome Scriptures they receive with additions ād detractions ordered to theyr turne: (ſee what I ſaid of your tranſlations Sect. 5. and thoſe Scriptures they receive in any manner intierly, they turne to theyr turne by new deviſed expoſitions (ſee how you do this Sect. 7. Then he concludes generally: wee muſt not therefore appeal to ſcriptures, nor in our combat rely vpon them, in which either no victory is to be obteyned, or a very Vncertain one. Which how true it is, you may ſee in my Scripture-diſputation about the keeping of Sunday, Sect: 9. where I gave you text for text, as good as you brought or could bring. Thus the Anabaptiſts do not only weary you out, and ſhew you to the very eye; that, ſtāding to Scripture alone, they are invincible by you: but alſo they ſome times force your prime Doctors to leave theyr ſtanding on Scripture only, and force them to fly to Tradition. See D. Taylors plain confeſſion hereof Sect. 1. n. 4. And your great Beza found this inſiſting vpon Scripture only to breed ſuch endles iarring that in his laſt book but one, he profeſseth himſelfe to be weary of ſuch combates and encounters, becauſe he findeth controverſies thereby made brawles; and therefore wishes that in ſome Common aſſembly of Churches all theſe ſtriffes at once were decided. The evidence of this point made your learned Sutcliffe in his review P. 42. to ſay, it is falſe that wee will admitt of no Iudge but Scripture; for wee appeal ſtill to a lawfull generall Councel. But there I would ask, how wee can reſt vpon the ſentēce giuen by a generall Councell, if that be not infallible; for ſtill every man muſt be calling this Sentence to review made by his own weak iudgement: as hath been fully declared Sect. i. n: 1. 2 3. 4.

5. Some of our adverſaries think to ſhift off the authority of Tertullian, as if it were delivered againſt thoſe only who reiected great part of the Scriptures, and corrupted other parts; which, ſay they, wee do not. I anſwer, that of your like proceedings I have ſpoken enough in the places I cited ioyntly with Tertullians words: But this your ſhift is clearly vndone by Tertullians own words following, C. 45. Wee now hitherto have in generall (mark this word) treated againſt all hereſies, repelling them (all) vpon certain iuſt and neceſſary exceptions from Conferring out of Scriptures. So he. Yea the very drift of a great part of this his litle book is, independently of all Scripture, to confute all heretikes, by proving that true beleevers muſt be able to ſhew by tradition the deſcent of theyr doctrine from the Apoſtles. But if indeed truth ſtands for vs (ſayth he, C. 37.) who ſoever wee be who walk in that Rule which the Church hath received from Chriſt, Chriſt from God, wee proceed manifeſtly in our intent, defining that heretikes ought not to be admitted to make theyr appeale to Scriptures whom we do prove without the Scriptures, not to have any right to the Scriptures. Note heere firſt, that he ſpeakes of ſuch as would appeal to Scriptures; therefore they did receive them, Note Secondly, that without Scriptures Tertullian promiſſeth himſelfe the ſureſt Victory, by forceing them to ſhew theyr viſible ſucceſſion, and to ſhew theyr doctrine delivered from hand to hand by Tradition or word of Mouth; as that word was which the Apoſtles received from Chriſt, and Chriſt from God. By this Rule he would have, vs all walke.

6. Our adverſaries vſe to alledge ſome paſſages of Fathers appealing in theyr diſputes againſt heretikes vnto the Scriptures, cheefly S. Auſten who diſputing againſt the Donatiſts conceived himſelfe to have moſt manifeſt texts to prove againſt them that Chriſt true Church could never grow ſo low, as to be viſible only in part of Africa; the viſibility of Chriſt Church through the world beeing manifeſt in Scripture, as he ſaith de vnitate Eccleſiae, C. 7. 11. 15. & 17. But it is no good argument to ſay, The Fathers appealed to the Scriptures in ſome few points, in which they knew they had manifeſt advātages; therefore they approved appealing to Scripture only in any kind of controverſy: So it is no argument to ſay; the Fathers did exact written texts of Scripture in proofe of ſome hereticall Novelties; and profeſſed they would not give eare to ſuch Novelties without written texts: therefore wee muſt not admitte of any, though never ſo ancient, beleefe of the whole Church, delivered by Tradition from the Apoſtles, without ſome clear written text can be alledged for it. This is no conſequence; for in points which are knowne not to be delivered by Tradition, yea not ſo much as pretending to it, is a good argument to ſay; Give mee a clear text for this, or elſe with the ſame facility that you affirme it, I will deny it: as I ſayd S. 10. n: 9. 10. Do but note what I ſaid there, and then ioyn it to theſe places; and all places alleageable out of the Fathers will eaſely be ſolved.

7. All thoſe Fathers which might he alledged (and part of them is alledged Sec: 8.) for houlding Traditions in points neceſſary to Salvation, no where expreſſed in Scripture; as alſo all thoſe who hould the Authority of the Church by it ſelfe to ſuffice to ground our faith, and to determin all our Controverſies (whom wee ſhall cite Sect: 21.) all theſe I ſay, clearly hould that Scripture is not the only Rule, guide and direction of all that is neceſſary to be beleeved, or done by vs for obteyning Salvation.

SECT: XVII.

Whether the Roman Church be that Church which is our infallible Iudge?

1. BY the Roman Church, wee do not vnderſtand the particular dioces of Rome: but wee vndeſtand, that vaſtly extended Community of Chriſtians which houldeth Comunion with the Church of Rome, ſubmitting them ſelves to the Biſhop of Rome as to theyr head; ſo that whatſoeuer he decreeth with a generall Councel, they imbrace as the definition of the true Church, which they hould infallible. This is the flock of Chriſt adhering to the true sheepeheard appointed by him; as I ſhall ſhew Sect: 20. n. 6. Wherefore when you come now in particular to ſee into what wee reſolve our faith, when wee ſay that wee rely vpon the Church as infallible; you ſhall finde that it is reſolved finally into the Authority of God propoſing ſuch and ſuch things to vs to be beleeved by this his Church: whoſe minde is made known vnto vs, partly by ſuch traditiōs as vniverſally go currant in her, and are moſt notoriouſly known, not only to be permitted, but alſo to be on all occaſions vnanimouſly taught by her Prelates; and partly by ſuch definitions, and Decrees, as the Prelates of the Church, lawfully aſſembled by order of, and togeather with theyr head, do ſet forth; of which māner of government wee ſhall ſpeak in the next Sectiōs. 2. Wee then cōſtantly affirme, the Romā Church thus vnderſtood is our infallible Iudge in all our controverſies of faith, and appointed by God to be ſo. The proofe of this is eaſily and demonſtratively performed, ſuppoſing the truth of all that hath been ſaid and proved in the laſt Queſtion; in which, both out of the ould and new teſtament, I have brought moſt convincing teſtimonies, to prove that God hath appointed ſome Church vpon Earth to be our infallible Iudge. The ſame I proved by Severall reaſons in the laſt Section. So that wee doe not, without full proofe, ſuppoſe that God hath appointed ſome Church vpon Earth to be our infallible Iudge. This then (vpon good proofe) ſuppoſed; wee eaſily demonſtrate this Church appointed by God for our Iudge, to be the Roman, and only the Roman Church: wee do it thus. The Proteſtant Church, and all other Churches different from the Roman, do iudge, do declare, and profeſſe them ſelves to be fallible, even according to the infallible word of God: If then the Proteſtant Church, or any other Churches different from the Roman, be infallible in all that they iudge, and in that they declare and profeſſe to be true even according to the word of God, they doubtles are then infallible, and ſpeak then the infallible truth, when they iudge and declare and profeſſe, that even according to the word of God, they are fallible: Therefore infallibly they are fallible. Hence again, it beeing thus proved that no Church different from the Roman is infallible: and it beeing formerly proved that God hath appointed ſome Church vpon Earth to be our infallible Iudge: it demonſtratively followeth, that the Roman Church muſt needs be this infallible Iudge; becauſe no Church different from the Roman (that is, none but the Roman) can be this infallible Church; as my former argument proved. Some of our adverſaries are pleaſed fondly to miſtake this argument, as if wee argued thus; The Roman Church claymeth infallibility: Therefore ſhee muſt needs have right to it. This argument wee give our adverſaries free leave to ſcoff at, as much as they pleaſe; it is nothing like ours: wee put all the force of our argument in this; that the Church, truly appointed by God for infallible Iudge of Controverſies, cannot poſſibly be any of thoſe Churches which teach them ſelves not to be this infallible iudge; becauſe they teach them ſelves to be fallible. If then they be infallible in the doctrine they teach, they are infallible when they teach them ſelves to be fallible: Whence it followeth that infallibly they are fallible. The Church which is truly appointed by God to be infallible Iudge, muſt needs have this condition; that ſhee doth own her infallibility: but this is farre from ſaying; that meerly the ownning of infallibility doth make infallibility her own. It is a very different thing to ſay, he that muſt be a Miniſter, muſt needs be a man, and not a Woman: and to ſay, that ſuch an one muſt needs be a Miniſter becauſe he is a Man, and not a Woman: ſo it is one thing to ſay, the Church which is the infallible Iudge, muſt be a Church iudging, ād houlding, and profeſſing her ſelfe to be infallible; and cannot be a Church which iudgeth and profeſſeth her ſelfe to be falible: And another quite different thing to ſay; that ſuch a Church is the infallible Iudge, becauſe ſhee tea • heth and profeſſeth her ſelfe to be ſo.

3. Others have in exceeding plenty alledged other arguments which may be ſeen in them: this one beeing a Demonſtration ſerueth my turne; and this one beeing put alone, I hope my Reader will more marke the force of it.

SECT: XVIII.

In what Court this infallible Iudge decideth our Controverſies in faith.

1. OVR adverſaries would make the world beleeve (as may be ſeen in D. Ferns Sect: 17) that they have a great advantage againſt vs, when they put this queſtion to vs; for by putting it they conceive they put vs at Variance with one another: becauſe ſome will ſay, firſt, the Pope can infallibly by him ſelfe, out of a Councell, decide all Controverſies; others will ſay Secondly, that a Councell can do this without a Pope. But I muſt tel them that thirdly, all and every one of vs (without the leaſt diſagreement) do and will vnanimouſly ſay, that all thoſe definitions declare an infallible truth, which are ſet forth by the Pope defining togeather with a generall Councel. Any one way of defining infallibly is enough, and is ſufficient to end any Controverſies Yield but to this one way, and wee will preſſe you no further. If you will not yield to the Pope defining ioyntly with a Councel, wee are ſure enough that you will neither yield to Pope alone, nor Councel alone. If God hath provided vs of one way, which is a ſure and infallible way to know any neceſſary point of faith, and to keep vs all in ſetled vnity, concerning all matters declared by this infallible authority (ſuch as wee all hould this Authority to be:) it is impoſſible that wee ſhould want neceſſary direction, or a ſufficient meanes to maintaine that vnity which is neceſſary for the Church, or that guidance which is neceſſary for our Salvation. If theyr opinion be true who ſay, the definition of the Pope alone is ſufficiently infallible to do this without a Councel; theſe men furniſh vs with two meanes of neceſſary directiō: for they do not diſtroy, but maynteyn the former; Becauſe no man is ſo ſenſeles as to hould the definitions of the Pope to be infallible without a Councel, and to be fallible with one. So alſo noe mā is ſo ſenſeles as to ſay, that Coūcels definitiōs are infallible without a Pope; and that they are not infallible when Councels define togeather with the Pope. But theſe mē who ſay, coūcels defining evē without a Pope, are infallible, do alſo adde a third meanes of infallible directiō. The one meanes I ſpeak of is allowed by every one: ād this one meanes is ſufficiēt for every one. You ſee then, this diſagreemēt guieth you not the leaſt advantage to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church, as long as by this name wee vnderſtand continually either this Church ſpeaking by vniverſall Tradition, or the Church repreſentative, by which wee vnderſtand the Biſhop of Rome our Supreme Paſtour defining with a Lawfull generall Councell. The infallibility of the Church, thus vnderſtood, is a point of Catholik faith: the other be opinions of Catholik Devines, all who agree in the exacting the beleefe of the infallibility of the Church taken in this ſenſe as wee ſtill take it.

2. If you aske vs then, not our opinions, but our beleefe: (I pray mark this diſtinction:) Wee all vnanimouſly agree, that the Supreme Biſhop of the Church, or Pope, defining with a generall Councel, is the infallible Iudge of Controverſies. And it cannot ſeeme ſtrange to any Chriſtian that the ſame God, who gave an infallible aſſiſtance to Salomon (who proved an Idolater) that the Church might enjoy the benefitt of his Bookes, ſhould give either the ſupreme Paſtour of the Church, or the Church Repreſentative, for that particular time, his infallible aſſiſtance, that all the Church might enjoy ſo great a benefitt as is the ſecure direction in all points of faith, and the perpetuall preſervation in vnity of faith, not to be had ſufficiently by any other meanes that is given vnto vs. Yea, who can chooſe but think it ſtrange, that Chriſt, for the ſecure direction of all the firſt Chriſtians converted only in the Apoſtles dayes, ſhould give this infallibility to all, and every one of the Apoſtles; and that he ſhould regard ſo litle the ſecure directiō of all that infinite number of Chriſtians, who were to be converted after the Apoſtles times to the very end of the world, that for theyr ſakes, and for the ſecure direction of theyr Soules, and theyr preſervation in vnity of faith, he would not give this infallibility ſo much as to one only man? No nor to the Church repreſentative in a full Councel, even for that ſhort time in which they are to paſſe theyr decrees concerning the moſt important affaires in Chriſtendome? Eſpecially ſeeing that on the one ſide, this guift of infallibility is given, not for theyr private ſakes to whom it is given; but it is given for the vniverſall good, and neceſſary direction, concord, and perpetuall vnity of the whole Church: And on the other ſide, that, even now after wee have Scripture, the neceſſity of this infallibility is ſo great, that our adverſaries with D. Ferne Sect. 17. do confeſſe, That ſuch a Iudge or vmpire of Chriſtendome (as a Councel indued with infallibility) would (if to be had) be a ready meanes to compoſe all difference, and reſtore Truth ad Peace. Is it then ſtrange that God ſhould give ſo neceſſary a guift, or a guift ſo beneficiall to his Church?

3. Having now, by all ſaid in the former diſcourſes, proued that the Church diffuſed, or vniverſall, was furniſhed by God with ſome infallible meanes, beſides Scripture, to direct all ſecurely in faith, and to preſerue them in vnity, by the true deciſion of all theyr Controverſies: wee haue found already enough to perſwade any prudent Man, to ſeek after the particular manner by which this meanes is to be appliable, and ſerviceable vnto him. Now this is eaſily vnderſtood by that manner of government which wee had here in England, from the Conqueſt to our dayes; according to which, all the decrees, and ordinances, by which wee were governed, or directed, were to be made by a Lawfull King joyntly with a Lawfull Parliament. This Repreſentative, and theyr Decrees, be called the Decrees of the Kingdome. Iuſt ſo, the particular manner by which the Church diffuſed or vniverſall is directed, and gouerned, is by a Lawfull Pope, as ſupreme Paſtour, joyntly with a Lawfull Councel: and this aſſembly is called the Church repreſentatiue, and theyr Decrees be called the Decrees of the Church. This way you ſhall find to haue been very connaturall to the Church: For it was impoſſible, that the Church vniverſall, or diffuſed, ſhould be aſſembled for the making the Decrees. And though Children and woemen belong to the Church; yet all eaſily ſee, that the Church government belongs not to them: neither is theyr Vote (in any mans opinion) required for the deciſion of Controverſies in Faith: Wee ſay alſo, that the Laity hath no deciſive voice in this point: they be ſheepe, and not Paſtours. Euery inferiour Clergyman, is not a conſiderable Governour in the Church: This government then belongs to ſuch as are Prelates Overſeers, and Governours over the reſt, Bishops placed by the Holy Ghoſt over all the flocke, to feed (or govern) the Church of God. Act: 20. v. 28. For not Lay-Magiſtrates, but only eccleſiaſticall, are ſaid (Eph: 4.) To be giuen vs by Chriſt for the work of the Miniſtery, for the edifying the Body of Chriſt, that henceforth wee may not be carried about with every winde of Doctrine &c. It was not to a Lay Magiſtrate, but to a Biſhop, to whom Chriſt ſayd: Feed my sheep. Io. 21. v. 15. It is worth the Readers knowledge to relate here (out of Rufinus. l. 10. and Caranza his Summe, juſt before the Councel of Nice) how the firſt generall Councel was aſſembled in the dayes of the firſt Chriſtian Emperour Conſtantine the Great. Rufinus then, having related how the hereſy of Arius growing vp to the ruine of Chriſtendome, Conſtantine the Great, ex ſententia Sacerdotum, by the advice or Iudgement of the Prieſts, did call togeather Epiſcopale Concilium a Councel of Biſhops, to Iudge of the Propoſitions, and Queſtions of Arius. Behould theyr power of Iudicature acknowledged by theyr calling, and coming and ſitting: for thy were called, did come and fitt, for no other end, but to end Controverſies by theyr Iudgement. And then he telleth, how theſe Bishops beginning to giue vp in Writing complaints againſt one an other to the Emperour; he, putting all thoſe papers in his boſome, without ever opening or looking vpon them, ſaid to the Biſhops; God hath appointed you Prieſts, and given you power even to Iudge of vs alſo; and therefore wee are rightly iudged by you: but you (ſpeaking of them as a whole Councel) cannot be iudged by men: wherefore expect only the iudgement of God vpon you; and that your complaints, whatſoever they be, may be reſerved to the Examin of God. For you are given vnto vs by God, as Gods (that is Iudges in his place;) It is not convenient that men should iudge the Gods: but he alone of whom it is written; (Pſal: 82.) God ſtandeth in the Congregation of the Gods. He iudgeth among the Gods. Conſtantin having ſaid this; he commanded all thoſe papers to be burnt: And, when now the ſentence of the Councel, defining that the Sonne of God was Conſubſtantiall to his Father, was brought to him, Ille tanquam a Deo prolatam veneratur &c, that is; He did reverence this ſentence as pronounced by God himſelfe; and if any one should offer to go againſt it, he proteſts he will banish him as a man going againſt the divine Statutes?

4. Behould here how the decrees of Councels ought to be reverenced as divine. Hence S. Athanaſius In Epiſt: ad Epiſcop: Affricanos, after this ſelfe ſame definition, ſaid; The word of God by the Nicaean Councel doth remain for ever and ever. Hence S. Horſmida C: Sic ille Diſt: 58. ſayth Wee believe that in them (the Fathers of this Councel) the holy Ghoſt did ſpeake. Hence S. Cyrill (in the Councel of Epheſus to: 1. Ep: 1.) ſpeaketh thus of theſe Fathers of the Councel of Nice; They; leaſt they should swarue from truth, being inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt (becauſe it was not they which did ſpeak but the Spirit of God and the Father who did ſpeak in them, as Chriſt our Saviour proteſteth) have ſet forth the Rule of pure and vnblamble faith. So he; and Parentheſis alſo is his. His alſo be theſe words; How can it be doubted but that Chriſt did preſide inviſibly in that holy and great Council? Epiſt: ad Anaſtas: Alexandrinum. S. Leo (whom I ſhall cite by and by) ſaith, that what this Councel defineth it did ſeale by the holy Ghoſt. S. Iſidore, in the Preface to his collection of Canons, not only recommends what the firſt four Councels have defined, but ſayth alſo of the decrees of other Councels; that they ſtand firmly ſetled in all vigour, which the holy Fathers, full of the Holy Ghoſt, have eſtablished. Marke how common it is to aſſcribe the Decrees of the Councels to the aſsiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, to whom to aſcribe any thing that might be an errour, is a great Sacriledge. Alſo S. Leo Ep: 84. ad Anaſt: calleth the Canons of the holy Fathers made by the Spirit of God, conſecrated by the reverence given to them by the whole world. And Ep: 73. he ſayth, the Councel of Chalcedon was aſſembled by the holy Ghoſt, that theyr definitions were a Rule proceeding from divine inſpiration. Hence S. Ambroſe ſpeaking of the Heretikes condemned by a Councel, Lib: defide ad Gratianum C. 9. They were not condemned by human induſtry, but by the authority (more then human) of thoſe Fathers. For as S. Greg: Nazian: ſayth in his Oration to S. Athanaſius; The Fathers of this Councell were gathered by the holy Ghoſt. He had the ſame Spirit that the other S. Gregory the great had, who ſaid; I do profeſſe my ſelfe to reverence the firſt four Councels as I reverence the four Bookes of the Ghoſpel: And in the ſame manner I reverence the fifth Councel. Whoſoever is of an other mind let him be an Anathema. Li. Epiſt: Ep: 24. propefinem. And the very ſelfe ſame he ſayth again. Lib. 2. Indict: 11. Ep. 10. ad Sabinum. And Iuſtin the Emperour, before him, made this ſaying famous by inſerting it into the Law Authenticarum Collat: 9. de Eccl. tit: c. 1. Wee receive the doctrine of the ſaid (four firſt) Councels as wee receive the Holy Scriptures. Vnleſſe perhaps Iohn the ſecond (Biſhops of Rome) who lived and died in the dayes of this Emperour (A. 532.) Epiſt. ad Liberium Severinum &c, gave occaſion to this ſaying, by theſe following words ſpoaken of the firſt four Councels; this is the groūd of our faith; this is the moſt firme Rocke of our beleefe. Behould how he relieth on the Coūcels, as S. Paul ſeemeth to teach, whē he calleth the church, the pillar ād groūd of the Truth. Frō this the Councels are called by antiquity rules of faith, as you have heard already out of S. Cyril, and S. Leo. So Vincentius Lerinenſis Adverſus Hereſes, ſpeaking of the Councel of Epheſus, ſayth; Where queſtion was made de Sanciendis fidei Regulis, of eſtablishing the Rules of faith: So Caſſiador: Inſtitut: Divin: L. 1. C. 11. And that no miſtake in the Rules of faith may hurt you, read over the Councels of Epheſus and Chalcedon. Yet more fully ſpoak Pope Gelaſius A. 490. Epiſt: 11. ad Epiſcopos Dardaniae, where giving a reaſon why, after the definitiō of a generall Coū cel in any point of faith, that point ought never again to be queſtioned, no not ſo much as in an other Councel; for, ſaith he, otherwiſe noe conſtitution of the Church should be ſtable, if men ceaſe not to riſe vp againſt the foundation of truth, Contra fundamentum veritatis ſe attollere: Calling thus the definitions of Councels the very foundations of truth.

5. When thou ſhalt have read but this ſmall part of authorities for the infallibility of the Church repreſentative, or aſſembled in a genetall Councel, thou wilt ſtand aſtoniſhed to read in ſome of our adverſaries, that there is no mention at all in antiquity of the infallibility of the Church; For thou ſeeſt here firſt how Councels are called purpoſely to end all controverſies in faith, by defining what is to be beleeved by all; that is, what is to be vndoubtedly held as a divine truth revealed by God. All the Fathers, who aſſembled to define this, did aſſume an vnqueſtionable authority to theyr aſſembly to do this: vpon this authority they paſſed theyr votes, in order to make a definition of what was to be propoſed to all men living then, and ever to live in the Church hereafter; even curſing and excommunicating all who ſhould at any time beleeve contrary to what they defined: which had been a moſt Sacrilegious, and impious, and a moſt vniuſt and tyranicall act, and the moſt deſtructive to the Church that could be invented, if, by ſo great an authority, a precedent were given, and a wide gappe opened to preſſe errours, vpon all the world preſent and to come, to be beleeved as divine verities revealed by God. The moſt bloody perſecutiō of tyrants could never have been halfe ſo pernicious to the Church, as would have been to be compelled by generall Councels (that is by the Vnanimous conſent of Chriſtendome) to imbrace that as a Divine Verity, which is, in reall truth, a lye fathered vpon God. Surely a practice ſo vniverſall, ſo frequent, ſo pernicious, ſo notoriouſly publike, would have been cryed out vpon over and over again by the moſt Zealous, and moſt learned ancient Fathers; who notwithſtanding never opened theyr mouthes againſt this proceeding of Councels: For thoſe proceedings could not be iuſtifiable, though thoſe Councels had defined nothing but truth at the preſent: but ſo, that they had beene lyable to define falſity; Becauſe thus they did ſetle for ever a Court, which by way of courſe ſhould perpetually be called and aſſembled, for the definition of matters of greateſt moment, which definitions, vnder paine of excommunication were to be ſubmitted vnto by all the world: Now if theſe definitons could be errours, this was nothing els but to take the ſureſt courſe they could invent, to circumvent all ages into incurable errours. And yet this was the proceeding of the pureſt antiquity; And this courſe they held the beſt to preſerve purity of faith. And, as you have ſeen, the moſt holy Fathers reverenced with higheſt reſpect all the General Councels, which had paſſed before, or in theyr dayes; leaving vs example to ſhew the like reſpect to all which have paſſed, or may paſſe in our dayes. For the authority given by God is equally given to other as lawfull Councels: to witt, the infallible authority of iudging right by the aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt, ſo often inſiſted vpon by the Fathers now cited. Whēce it is that, if you read hiſtories of all ages, you ſhall never meet with any mā (held for Catholike) who ever opened his mouth, I do not ſay to cry down, but even in the leaſt degree to call in queſtion the truth of any thing which he knew to be defined by a lawfull generall Councel. What bouldnes thē is it, after the authority of ſo great a Councel, that they make new diſputations ād queſtions? ſayth S. Atha: Epiſt: ad Epict: And yet this bouldnes your Doctors allow, when they permitt any one to review Councels, to ſee whether they be conformable to Gods word, as I ſhewed Sect. 1. n. 4. But, as it is ſayd in the Epiſtle of Iulius ad Diaconum Flaccillum &c. regiſtred in S. Athanaſius his Apologia 2; Every Synod hath an vnuiolable authority, and that Iudge is contumeliouſly dealt withall, whoſe Iudgment by others is again examined. There is extant in the Councel of Chalcedon Act: 3. that excellent edict in which are theſe words expreſſely declaring that Councels are to end Controverſies: Let all prophane Contention ceaſe, for he is truly impious and ſacrilegious who, after the Iudgment paſſed by ſo many Prieſts, reſerueth any thing to be handled further by his own private Iudgement. And yet you will preſume to reſerve the finall Review, and the approving or reproving all the Definitions of the Councel, by your private Iudgment of diſcretion, if that lead you to conceave that you have clear Scripture on your ſide. He was the cheefe Biſhop of the Church, and preſided by his Legates in the Councel of Chalcedon, who writt theſe following Words to the Emperour; (Leo Magnus Ep: 78. ad Leonem Auguſtum, C. 3.) Concerning the affayers which have been defined at Nice, and at Chalcedon, wee dare not vndertake a new treaty, queſtioning again thoſe things, as if they were either doubtfull or of weak ſtrength: which ſo great an authority by the holy Ghoſt hath ſetled. What he dared not do, any Cobler amongſt you dares venture on. But very truly ſaid Gelaſius (whom I cited in the end of the laſt number) the doing of this is the vndoing of all Councels; for No Conſtitution of the Church should be ſtable, if men ceaſe not to riſe vp againſt the Foundation of Truth; for ſo he called the definition of a generall Councel almoſt twelue hundred yeares ago. You, who make theſe definitions fallible, make them no definitions; for they never put a finall end to the Controverſy, they never do terminate any point: for after theyr determinations, as if they were no determinations, you call all to your private Reuiew; and there, what you really thinke fitt, your iudgmēt of diſcretion (with out any iudgement and diſcretion) freely rejecteth and disbeleeueth.

6. I ſay not this raſhly, for, as S. Bernard ſayth in a Sermon vpon the Reſurrection; What greater pride can there be, then that one man should preferre his judgment before a whole Congregation. It is fine doctrine, that you and I ſhould ſitt down, and call to our examin the definitions and determinations of a generall Councell. Have wee ſuch aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt as Councels have? Have wee halfe the authority, or any thing like to the one quarter of the witt, or learning, or knowledge, or judiciouſnes which they haue? Lett, I pray, vs two rather ſitt down, and examin how true this is which I ſhall now ſay; Either the determinations of Councels in points of Faith (for of theſe I alwayes ſpeake) be ſuch as are evidently againſt clear Scripture; or els the texts, to which wee think the Councel to be contrary, be not cleare and evident to the contrary; which, if they be not, it would be a ſhameles imprudence in you and mee, to think wee ſhould ſurer hitt right vpon the meaning of obſcure texts in Scripture, then a whole generall Councel (the greateſt Authority in Chriſtendome) hath done. But now if the places alleadgeable againſt the Councels be evidently cleare, do you think to perſwade any prudent and pious man, that this evident cleernes could not be ſeen by ſo very many, and thoſe ſo very eminent for piety, and for prudence, as are known to have ſubſcribed to ſo many generall Councels; who could vſe, and are to be judged to have vſed all the beſt Rules to vnderſtand Scripture as well as wee two. God give vs Humility, God give vs Charity, God have Mercy on vs in the bitter day of his Iudgement, if wee paſſe ſo bitter a iudgemēt againſt the whole Church repreſentatiue: And yet if you paſſe not this judgment, you will never paſſe this objection without beeing poſed.

SECT: XIX.

This Court in deciding Controverſies ruleth her ſelfe by the word of God written and vnwritten: and why shee ruleth her ſelfe by tradition.

1. IT was a very groſſe proceeding in Calvin L. 4. Inſt. C. 1. Sect. 7. & C. 3. Sect. 2. So to propoſe our doctrine as if wee taught, that our Church might define and determin what ſhee thinks fitt, without any relation to the word of God. No leſſe groſly did your Zanchius tom: 8. tract: de Scrip: Q. 3. Go about to perſwade his reader, that wee hould the authority of the Roman Church greater then that of Chriſt, and the Ghoſpel: whereas wee all hould, that every generall Councel is to examin cōtroverſies belonging to faith, according to the word of God. But, becauſe all human learning, witt, and Iudgment would ſtill be lyable to errour, wee ſay; that Chriſt, of his goodnes, hath obteyned for his Church (thus lawfully aſſembled,) ſuch an aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt, as ſhall ever preſerue it from errour. True it is, that in witt, and judgment, and learning, ſo great an aſſembly farre excells your private Miniſters: But this aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt is an advantage ſurpaſſing all that is human: This aſſiſtance wee have proved all the laſt queſtion, and in the laſt Sectiō wee ſhewed this aſſiſtance given to generall Coūcels.

2. Now to ſee what the Councels on theyr part are to do; I muſt tell you, that theyr cheefe buſines is to examin the points in controverſy; hearing all that occurreth for the one ſide and the other, and permitting ſeverall replies, if any remaine, in due time to be made. After this diligence is vſed, they conſider what ſeemeth moſt conformable to the word of God, and every ones vote is to paſſe vpon this particular. But here I muſt tell you that by the word of God, all Councels, and Orthodox beleevers, have ever vnderſtood, not only Gods written word conteyned in Scripture, but alſo his vnwrittē word made known to the Church by only Tradition; which Tradition alſo is, and was ever, accounted by the Church the very beſt and ſureſt interpreter of the Scripture. The votes therefore of the fathers aſſembled in Councel are demanded, not only of what they think to be conformable to Gods word written in Scripture, but alſo how conformable ſuch a point is, or is not, to that traditiō, which they have all received from the Fathers of theyr Church, as delivered to them from theyr Fathers for Gods word, by Tradition committed to theyr Fore-fathers as ſuch, from the Apoſtles themſelves. So for example, if in a Councel there doth ariſe a queſtion, whether wee are to pray for the dead, or to adore the Sacrament, or to confeſſe our ſins to a Prieſt; the Councel aſketh the Prelates of Italy, Britany, Spain, Polonia, Greece, &c, What in each one of theyr reſpectiue Nations, ſo vaſtly different from one an other, hath been the ancient practice and beliefe amongſt them? And whether at any time ſuch a point was ever ſaid to have been introduced among them as a novelty? Or contrary wiſe that no other beginning of that practice could be ever heard of then the firſt beginning of Chriſtian Religion? Now when by the vnanimous anſwer of all the Prelates of Italy, Spain, Britany, Polonia, Greece, &c, It is conſtantly avered that in all theſe ſo vaſtly diſtant Nations, Prayer for the dead, Adoration of the Sacrament, Auricular Confeſſion, were ever, time out of minde, practiſed, and beleeued, and noe time in any one of thoſe Nations can be found, in which this practice and beliefe was held to be introduced as a novelty; but contrary wiſe they are, and ever were (as farre as they can hear of) eſteemed to have been delivered to them, together with all the other points of Chriſtian Faith, when this Faith was firſt planted in each one of thoſe Nations. It cannot but then appeare evidently credible vnto the Councel, that theſe doctrines and practices are Apoſtolicall; whence accordingly they paſſe theyr votes to define them. So that when theyr votes are paſt and gathered, This only, and nothing but this, the Catholike Church doth do by the decrees of her Councels; that what before they had received by only Tradition from theyr Anceſtours, that no they leaue conſigned in authenticall writing to all poſterity. Theſe be the very words of Vincentius Lerinenſis advers: Hereſes: neither could I deviſe any fitter for our doctrine.

3. If you aske, why the Church or Councels eſteeme ſo much tradition? I anſwer firſt, Becauſe in prudence, and piety, they cannot but eſteeme as much Gods vnwritten word, as his written; ſeeing that the word of a true honeſt Man, is as much to be eſteemed true, when it is only delivered by word of Mouth, as when it is delivered by writing. Your Miniſters vſually ſo confound the buſines, that they make theyr Auditors even to ſtartle, when they tell them, that wee hould Tradition equall to Scripture; becauſe firſt, they have deeply imprinted in theyr minds, that Tradition is nothing but an ould tale ſet on foote by I know not whom: But if they meant to deale really, they ſhould ſay what the Truth is; that wee do indeed equalize Tradition to Scripture, and that wee haue all reaſon to do ſo. Why? What is Scripture? Gods word written. What is Tradition? The ſame Gods word notified, not by writing, but by the full report of the Catholik Church, I pray now, how do wee wrong God, when wee ſay of his word, what wee ſay of the word of one, whom wee moſt commend for Truth, that his word only ſpoaken, and not written, is as ſure, or true (and conſequently as much to be eſteemed, and credited) as any word of his that is written even with his own hand. Nay, I pray mark how you wrong God, who ſlight Tradition, which is nothing but the word of God vnwritten. What wrong is it to an honeſt man, to ſlight all he ſayth vnleſſe he confirmes it by writing? I know the beſt anſwer you have to juſtify your ſelves is, That Scripture is aſſueredly known to vs to be Gods owne word: But as for our Traditions, you do not know, nor cannot beleeue that God doth owne them for his own word. But giue me leaue to aske, whence are you aſſured that the Scripture is Gods own word? Your beſt, and indeed your only, aſſurance is, that all the Chriſtian world ſayth ſo: See Sect: 20. n. 5. That then which makes you, with ſo great aſſurāce, know Gods written word, is Tradition: But the ſame Tradition, which tells vs that the Apoſtles delivered theſe points to vs as divine verities in writing; tels vs alſo, that the ſame Apoſtles delivered theſe and theſe points to vs as divine verities by word of Mouth only. If the Tradition of the Church be a Lyar in this laſt part, ſhee may as well be a lyar in the firſt part. When you beleeve Scripture, you truſt to tradition, teſtifying that the Apoſtles gave ſuch and ſuch bookes to the Church of the firſt age to be beleeved as Gods word: ſee two admirable places of S. Auſten preſſing this hard, which I cite preſently n: 7. Again, when you beleeve that the Copies, which wee have now of thoſe bookes, be neyther forged, nor corrupted Copies, but do truly agree with the Originalls given out by the Apoſtles; you again wholy truſt to the traditions of all the after Churches that have been in every age from the Apoſtles to this very presēt Church. For it was as much in the power of the Church, in any one of theſe ages, to have thruſt a falſe Copie into your hand, in place of a true one; as to thruſt a falſe tradition into the Mouth of every Catholik every where, in place of a true one. Admirably Tertullian (de Preſcript: C. 28.) How is it likely that ſo many and ſo great Churches should erre in one faith? Among many events there is not every where one iſſue. The errours of the Churches (had there been any in the delivering of theſe Traditions) muſt needs have varied; (for though every man ſhould agre to tell his child a lye, yet every one would not agree in telling iuſt the very ſelfe ſame lyes:) But that which amongſt many is found one, is not miſtaken, but (as a ſure Tradition) delivered: Audeat ergo aliquis dicere eos erraſſe qui tradiderunt? Dare then any man ſay that they all erred who delivered (with ſuch vniformity) This tradition? ſo he; houlding it, as you ſee, impudence to ſay this tradition could be fallible. Is not this clearly to hould the Tradition of ſo many and ſo great Churches infallible? Behould here then plain Popery in the higheſt point proved and approved with in two hundred yeares after Chriſt. But more of Tertulliās opiniō concerning traditioſ hereafter, S. 20. n: 4. ād much hath beē ſaid, S. 12. n. 4. 5

4. My task now is, to ſhew tradition doth conuey and bring down Gods word to vs as ſure, yea rather ſurer, by perpetuall practice, and vniforme doctrine, then by any writing. To ſhew this, I brought many ſtrong arguments Sect: 10. n. 13. and Sect: 16. n. 1. 2. In both which Sections I have ſaid many things of traditions: and in the firſt place I ſolved the cheefe objections againſt them. But yet I will clear this, and one or two other doubts which trouble many. For clearing then of this doubt, let vs take two traditions, one confeſſed by you to be a true one, the other to be proved by mee to be no leſſe true then the former, becauſe it is teſtified by as good a tradition as the former; and therefore either the former is not proved Sufficiently by this teſtimony, or elſe the latter is. Yet the truth is (and my argument ſhall make it good) that both of them be made as credible to be Gods word by Tradition only, as any writing by its ſole force could make them. The firſt tradition which I will, for example ſake, take, is the Baptizing of children (of which I ſpok Sect. 8. n: 3.) The Second is of praying for the dead. Of theſe two I diſcourſe to my purpoſe thus. Both theſe points (ſay I) were for divine verities and practiſes recommended by the Apoſtles to the primitive Church, and ſo from hand to hand came moſt vndoubtedly delivered down to vs. Hence, conformably to this tradition, every where the Chriſtians baptized theyr litle Children; every where they prayed for the faithfull departed. Nothing more common to all men then to be borne, nothing more common then to dye, for every one who is borne: hence, as the dayly cuſtome is of beeing borne, ſo the dayly cuſtome in all the Church, is to baptize thoſe who are newly borne: and as it is the dayly cuſtome for all that are born to dy; ſo the dayly cuſtome was to pray for the dead. But yet prayer for the dead was, by more frequent practice, teſtified in this reſpect; becauſe thoſe who are borne, are baptized but once in theyr Lives: but thoſe who are dead are many times, and that for many yeares after theyr death, prayed for by name; beſides the dayly prayers for all the faithfull departed in general. Well now, let vs ſuppoſe that both theſe traditions be called in queſtion, whether they be faithfull deliverers of the true word of God; or rather, in place of it, deliver ſome human invention; as you will ſay, Praying for the dead is; and the Anabaptiſts will ſay, that baptizing of children is. Let vs now further ſee, which of theſe two traditions cannot defend it ſelfe from forgery, as well as any Scripture queſtioned of beeing true Scripture: for example, the Apocalyps, or Revelation, which your Lutheran Bretheren hould not to be true Scripture. How will you defend the Apocalyps? you can ſay no more then I have ſaid Sect. 3. n. 12. for all our Canon in generall; And the tradition vpon which thoſe Councels received the Apocalyps had more contradiction, then ever prayer for the dead had. For the Apocalyps was not only rejected by the moſt ancient Heretikes, the Marcioniſts, the Alogians, The Theodotians; but alſo by divers ancient Catholiks (eſpecially the Grecians; as S. Ierome teſtifieth Epiſt: ad Dardanum:) But Prayer for the dead was contradicted by no Catholike at all: amongſt ancient Heretikes, Aërius indeed did contradict it; but this is noted in him as a peculiar Hereſy of his own invention, both by S. Auſten (whoſe words I gave you Sect: 8. fine:) and S. Epiphanius Hereſy 75. ſayeth, this Aërius had an aërian wicked Spirit againſt the Church; and then he denovnceth againſt him, that prayers doe profit the dead. And the ſame Saint there ſayth, the Church doth this neceſſarily (this is his word) by The Tradition received from her Anceſtours. And he not long after (Hereſy 77.) doth profeſſe, that every man falleth into ſtrange inconveniencies, if he will but once paſse the bounds ſet him by the Holy Church, and leap over the hedges of traditions. He held therefore prayer for the dead ſutable to the doctrine of the Church, and Tradition. And as for S. Auſten (Chap: 1. de Cura pro Mortuis agenda) He ſayth, that the vniverſall Church did shine with this cuſtome of praying for the dead at the Altar. The greateſt Doctors of the Church could not be ignorant of a Cuſtome shining in the Church, not particular, but vniverſal. And it is this shining of this Cuſtome which I preſſe, and not S. Auſtens authority, otherwiſe then as a witnes of this shining Tradition. He alſo Serm: 32. de Verbis Apoſtoli (which place Bede. 1. Thes: 4. almoſt a thouſand yeares agoe cited out of S. Auſten) ſayth thus; By the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the wholeſome ſacrifice, and by the Almes which are given for theyr Soules, it is not to be doubted but the dead are helped: ſo that our Lord deales more mercifully with them, then theyr Sinnes have deſerved. Why is not this to be doubted of? It followeth, Becauſe this, delivered down from our Fathers, the whole Church doth obſerve. See S Chryſ: teſtimony of this tradition in the next Sect. n. 4 And this tradition is that which I now ſtād vpon, which indeed did ſhine in the practice of the primitive Church. You ſhall not find one Liturgy, or Service book, vſed in the ancient Church, which is not witnes of this tradition; though theſe bookes were found in every Pariſh of Chriſtendom in which divine Service was almoſt dayly Said. Tertullian (who lived within leſſe then a hundred and fifty yeares after the Canon of Scripture was finiſhed) doth number vp this cuſtome of prayer for the dead among the ancient traditions; De corona milit. C. 3. It is ordinary in Law (for proofe of long poſſeſſion) to find witneſſes teſtifying what was done not only fifty, but alſo three or four ſcore yeares agoe: Wherefore even two or three handings of this tradition by ſuch aged hands, would reach down this practice from S. Iohn the Evangeliſts time to Tertullian. And it is but a ſmall allowance to a thing teſtified to be a tradition, to allow it three or four deſcents (can the authenticalnes of the Apocalips be better proved, going vpwards to the Apoſtles, then this? I am ſure Baptiſme for Children cannot. Again, in both theſe points it is a moſt ſtrong argument (and as ſtrong for Prayer for the dead, as for the other) that no time can be named in which theſe cuſtomes began; No Man can be thought of, who could by human meanes (and ſuch meanes as ſhould not make a mighty Noiſe amongſt thoſe great reverencers of tradition) draw all the world, in ſo ſhort a time after the Apoſtles, to follow cuſtomes as Apoſtolicall which then, that is, in that age in which they were firſt vented, Were evidently, by every man, not only known, but clearly ſeen to be new hatched Novelties; and not ancient and Apoſtolicall traditions. This man who broached this falſe doctrine ſhould have been putt in the Catalogues of heretikes by S. Epiphanius and S. Auſten: whereas they did not only not put him down for an heretikes, but they both did put down Aërius for one, becauſe he taught the contrary. Now if you ſpeake of theſe Cuſtomes, going downward, vntill the Age in which they began to bee denyed by Anabaptiſts, or Proteſtants; Prayer for the dead hath come downe with ſuch a full ſtreame, that it drew all Countries in all ages with it; in ſo much that every where (but among a few late borne Arminians and Albigenſes) the publick ſervice bookes in all Pariſhes of all Countries can be as ſure witneſſes of this cuſtome, as the Copies of Age after age can teſtify wee have the true Copie of the Apocalips. And ſo ould Rituals will teſtify (though not ſo fully) Baptiſme of Children, by witneſſing the Cerimonies obſerved in ſuch Baptiſmes. And, as for prayer for the dead, the very ſtones cry out in all ould monuments, for our prayers for thoſe who ly interred vnder them. The ouldeſt foundations be thoſe, which our greateſt grand fathers made (as appeareth by the moſt ancient Records) for the obteyning prayers for theyr Soules: And this not in one Country, but there is not one Country which aboundeth not with ſuch Monuments, and ſuch Records; the very ſtrongeſt proofes of aſſured antiquity and vnqueſtionable tradition.

5. Thus, I hope, I have made good that, tradition ſhining in perpetuall practice in all times, and all ages, is a ſurer relator and reporter, then a teſtimony in writing; which, if ancient, muſt alſo have the prime teſtimony (witneſſing it to be vncorrupt) from tradition. And hence alſo you clearly ſee, that Scripture, true or falſe, can be no better known to be ſo then true traditiō from falſe: for if Tradition could be falſe in any point ſo vniverſally current; it might beare witnes to a falſe Scripture, and deny due approbation to many true ones.

6. When then wee are demanded, how wee can know a true Tradition from a falſe one? Wee anſwer, firſt; that wee can do this better then you can know true bookes, and true Copies of the true bookes of Scripture, from falſe: for, before you can do either of theſe, you muſt firſt know true Tradition from falſe; that hēce you may, not coniecturally, but aſſuredly ſay. Theſe be the true bookes of Scripture; theſe be the true Copies of theſe true Bookes; becauſe true Tradition recommendeth them for ſuch: Theſe be falſe bookes, or falſe Copies of true bookes; becauſe the Tradition which recommendeth theſe, is falſe. Tell mee the meanes by which infallibly the true tradition in this point may be known from the falſe; and that very meanes I will aſſigne to know, in other points, true Tradition from falſe. Secondly, I ſhall ſhew, that wee have better meanes to do this, then all the world had to know theyr true traditions from falſe, for the firſt two thowſand yeares, before the time of Moyſes. Thirdly, I anſwer directly, by aſſigning this meanes; which is, when a doubt begins to be farre ſpread in the Church concerning any tradition, to call a generall Councell, and there, by the examination inſtituted by men moſt knowing of antiquity in generall, and particularly well verſed in the received, and approved ould cuſtomes of theyr countries. For the countries of thoſe in the Councel beeing ſo farre diſtant, and ſo wholy independent one of an other, cannot poſſibly have all of them received, and that without any known oppoſition in any one of them, one and the very ſelfe ſame tradition, from any other hands but from thoſe, from whom they received theyr whole faith, and this particular tradition for part of it. For, had the beginers and ſowers of this tradition now queſtioned, been after the firſt Planters of our faith, there would in ſome countrye or other, be found out ſome author of this firſt tradition; there would bee ſome fame good, or badde, of that man who was able to perſwade a phanſy of his own, to be Apoſtolicall doctrine; and to be firmely held ſo by all the world, without oppoſition in any part thereof, even though this tradition (as you ſay of moſt of our traditions) had a direct oppoſition to the ancient doctrine of the Apoſtles. Which doctrine, when our traditions were held for Apoſtolicall, was too too freſh to be ſo ſoon forſaken, and that ſo eaſily, and ſo generally, with out any oppoſition. Now when thē the graveſt Prelates frō all parts of the world aſſembled, having inſtituted an exact proceſſe of the true antiquity and vniverſality of the tradition queſtioned; and in this proceſſe found an vnanimous conſent of all kind of teſtimonies from all corners of the world; it is now iuridically and notoriouſly made evident, that ſuch a point hath come down to vs by a true tradition; and for that very reaſon is a true object of faith, beeing the word of God delivered by as faithfull a meſſenger, as the very Copies of Scripture are. And thus, when it was grown doubtfull in the Church, whether ſuch and ſuch bookes were part of the true Canō of Scripture; the traditiō which recommended theſe bookes was examined in the third Councel of Carthage, in which S. Auſten was preſent, and there (as I ſhewed Sect. 3. n. 12.) all the bookes of our Canon (ſo different from yours) were found to be recommended to the Church by a true and authenticall tradition: and therefore wee imbrace them as the word of God; Tradition beeing as credible a relatour of Gods word delivered by the Apoſtles to the Church, as any writing.

7. Whence againe you need not wonder to ſee that by vs and by the Fathers cited in the next Section numb: 4. Tradition is equalized to Scripture, for this is nothing elſe but to hould that the word of God delivered by traditiō is as ſure a meſſēger as any writing cā be, ād is to be beleeved, as much as the word of God delivered by writing and ſuch a writing as hath no ſurer witnes of beeing Authenticall then tradition. Hence S. Auſten (de vtilit. Credendi C. 14.) diſputing with an Heretike, who would firſt have him to beleeve Scripture before Catholike Tradition, maketh the heretike ſpeak thus: Beleeeve this writing. Then he replies; But every writing if it be new and vnheard of, recommnded by a few, no other reaſon cofirmlng it; wee do not beleeve the writing, but wee beleeve thoſe who bring forth this writing: wherefore if you (Lutherans, Calviniſts, &c.) bring forth this writing, you beeing ſo few and ſo vnknown (for where were you theſe laſt thouſand yeares before Luther?) I have no mind to beleeve you. Now becauſe the heretike knew not how to preſſe S. Auſten to give firſt credit to this writing or Scripture, by ſaying that all of his religiō ſaid it was the word of God; without preſſing him with the teſtimony of all the Chriſtian world by vniverſall tradition: S. Auſten prevents him, by telling him; well you will ſend me to the multitude and fame (of Church tradition;) but I pray rather admonish mee to seeke out the cheefe leaders of this Multitude, and to ſeeke them out moſt diligently and moſt laboriouſly, that frō theſe, (governers of the churches) rather thē frō you, I may learne ſome thing of theſe writings: for if theſe mē had not been, I should never have known that there had been at all any thing to be learnt (concerning theſe Scriptures truly in my mind this, not only authority, but this moſt preſſing reaſon of S. Auſten, conuinceth that the Governours of this multitude of all true beleevers (eſpecially aſſembled in one Councel togeather) be the beſt guides God hath given vs vpon earth, both to know which is Scripture, of the true word of God written; and which Tradition, or the true word of God vnwritten: and alſo to know moſt aſſuredly, how this word of God is rightly vnderſtood. Wherefore preſently the ſame S. Auſten (Cap: 15.) doth admoniſh, vs for the avoiding of all errours, as the eaſieſt meanes there-vnto, willingly to obey the precepts of that Catholik Church, precepts made by her with ſo great an authority. And then in his Sixteenth Chapter he clearly tells vs that, God having given vs this Authority, wee ought not to deſpaire of an infallible meanes to know the truth; becauſe this Authority is that very infallible meanes confirmed by miracles, and by the miraculous multitude following it ſo extreamly againſt all human intereſt. Thus then he diſcourſeth; For if the divine providence of God doth nor preſide in human affaires, in vain would ſollicitude be about Religion: But if both the very outward beauty of all things, and our inward Conſcience doth both publikely and priuately exhort vs to ſeeke out and ſerve God, wee are not to deſpaire that there is ſome authority appointed by the ſame God, on which Authority wee relying, as on an aſſured ſteppe, may be lifted vp to God. This Authority moveth vs by two wayes, partly by Miracles, partly by the multitude of its followers. Behould here an authority appointed by God, an authority, on which wee may moſt ſecurely rely, and not only not get a fall (ſlipping into errours) by leaning vpon it confidently; but an authority, on which wee relying, as on an aſsured ſteppe, may be lifted vp to God, who with miracles hath confirmed this authority to be moſt ſecure. Whence preſently S. Aug: tels vs how thoſe miracles have drawn ſo great a multitude. But whether this multitude were Catholiks, or Proteſtāts, you ſhall know them by theyr fruits, for they had a Temperance extended to faſting with bread and water, and not only dayly faſts, but faſts continued for many dayes. A Chaſtity diſdaining the having wife or children; a patience ſleyghting croſſes and ſlames; a Liberality reaching forth to the diſtributing out to the poore theyr whole patrimonies. Theſe things wee ſee ſtill dayly among Catholiks; and though, (as S. Auſten addeth) but few do theſe things, yet all people praiſe thē, approve thē, loue thē: none accounted thē ſuperſtitious in thoſe dayes. Whē we ſee then ſo great hope from God, ſo great profit, and fruit, shall wee doubt to betake our ſelves to the lappe of that Church which even by the confeſsion of mankind from the Apoſtolique ſeat (ſo antiquity vſeth to call the ſeat of the Biſhop of Rome) by ſucceſsion of Bishops hath obteyned the toppe of authority; heretikes in vain barking round about it, but condemned partly by the iudgemēt of the people (vpō traditō,) partly by the gravity of Councels, partly by the maieſty of Miracles; to which church not to give the firſt place is truly a thing either of greateſt Impiety, or of headlong Arrogancy. So he. So I. So wee all.

8. I have putt down the place more fully becauſe D. Ferne Sect. 30. would diſprove our Tenets by the deepe Silence of them in Antiquity, and particularly in S. Auſten, Whom I ſhall ſhew alſo preſently (Sect. 21. n. 5.6.) in a dozē places of his works to hould dictinctly this infallibility of the Church in her traditions and doctrine. Well then, ſhee beeing as infallible in delivering the vnwritten word of God, as in delivering the written word; the Prelates aſſembled in her Councels have as much reaſon to rule themſelves, ād theyr ſubjects by the one, as by the other. By a writing only wee never knew any Common wealth governed. By Tradition only the whole Engliſh Nation hath kept our Common Law; which was never written by the Law Makers themſelves; Yet is made no leſſe known by only Traditiō then our ſtatute Lawes which were delivered in writing by the Law makers. But what ſpeak I of one Nation? The whole Church through the whole world was governed by Tradition only. For the firſt two thouſand yeares; and then partly by Tradition, partly by writing, it was governed for above two thowſand Yeares more; to witt, for the ſecond two thowſand yeares from Moſes vntill Chriſts time. See Sect: 16. n. 1. Now from the preaching of Chriſt vnto the finiſhing of the Canon, and the diuulging of the ſame in ſuch languages as all Nations vnderſtood, very many yeares paſſed, and all the true beleevers in Chriſts Church were governed by Tradition only; See Sect: 16. n. 2. And whereas ſome of our adverſaries obſcurely anſwer; That the word of God was in ſubſtance before Chriſts Church, which (ſay they) was begotten by it. Wee reply clearly to them thus: When (ſay wee) You ſpeake of the word of God, which was before Scripture, and which begot the Church, you ſpeake of the vnwritten word of God; This vnwritten word is that very thing which wee call Tradition. And indeed when you ſpeake of ſuch a word, as muſt be ſufficient for an exterior and infallible direction for ſo many Millions (as were to be directed by it in the way of Salvation before the Scripture was all written, and divulged in ſuch languages that might make it fitt to direct all Nations) you muſt of neceſſity put this word of God outwardly expreſſed by ſome meanes or other, expreſſing it in ſuch a manner, as might be able to produce this effect of guiding whole Millions in the way of Salvation, by an infallible beleefe of all that God hath ſaid by that word. Now (I pray) find mee out any word of God, any where exiſtent before Scripture, in a manner fitt for the end I now ſpeake of, except this word be graunted to have wholy exiſted in the Orall Tradition of the Church of thoſe times. You all ſay, Gods word revealed is the groūd of all faith. All theſe milliōs of the true beleevers in thoſe ages bad true faith; therefore they had Gods word revealed, ād revealed in a ſufficiēt māner to groūd divine faith. But they had Gods word revealed by Orall Tradition only; Therefore Gods word, revealed by orall Tradition only, is a ſufficient ground to ground divine faith; which it could not be, were it not infallible, in what it delivereth for Gods word; and what is thus delivered (by beeing ſo delivered) is a fitt Object of divine faith, ſuch as they all had in thoſe ages.

9. This then is the firſt Reaſon why the Church in her Councels directs her ſelfe as well by the vnwritten, as by the written word of God, becauſe the one is as truly in it ſelfe the word of God, and as ſufficiently notified to vs to be ſo by Tradition, as the Scripture is notifyed to be ſo by writing: for which cauſe holy Fathers ſtill taught thoſe things which wee know by Tradition only, to be beleeved and held equally to thoſe things which wee know by Scripture. See Sect: 20. n. 4. A ſecond reaſon why this Church not only doth, but of neceſſity muſt direct and governe her ſelfe not by Scripture only, but alſo by vnwritten Traditions, is becauſe Scripture only doth not deliver down vnto vs all points neceſſary for the whole Church, and all the members thereof: as I have at large ſhewed Queſt: 2. naming no fewer then four and twenty of thoſe neceſſary points. All theſe points beeing wholy neceſſary, and errours beeing no where more dangerours then in points wholy neceſſary, there doth ariſe an vnavoidable neceſſity to graunt, that the firſt Church planted by the Apoſtles, received her neceſſary direction and infallible inſtruction in theſe points by Tradition only; for manifeſt it is, that they at the firſt received from the Apoſtles all compleat inſtruction in neceſſary points: And Again it is no leſſe manifeſt, that they received no ſuch compleat inſtruction in Scripture concerning thoſe twenty four points, for then wee ſhould be able to finde this inſtruction in Scriptures, which wee not beeing able to do, wee muſt perforce graunt that they received this inſtruction by tradition expreſſed in no kinde of Scripture, but ſuch as commanded in generall all men to hould the Traditions delivered to them. 2. Theſſ: 2. And that though an angell frō heaven should teach the contrary or beſides what they received, they should account him Anathema, Gal: 8. And again Have thou the forme of ſoūd words which thou haſt heard of mee 2. Ti: 1.13. And yet again c. 2. The things which thou haſt heard (he ſayth not read) of mee by many wittneſſes, theſe commend to faithfull men which shall be fitt to teach others alſo. Now as the firſt Age received theyr neceſſary inſtruction by beeing ſēt to no other rule of faith in theſe neceſſary points then the Tradition of the Church, and by this only were moſt compleatly inſtructed in divine faith; ſo now this preſent Church in all points not clearely expreſſed in Scripture, and alſo in that prime point of rightly interpreting the Scripture it ſelfe, hath recourſe to Tradition as to an infallible Rule, able to make all that it teacheth a fitt Object of divine and infallible faith.

10. A third Reaſon why Councels may and ought to propoſe Tradition to themſelves for an infallible Rule of faith, is this; Becauſe that Rule muſt needs be infallible by which only wee can be aſſured what the Apoſtles both by writing, and out of writing did teach to the Church: For in theyr doctrine written and vnwritten, all things belonging to faith are cōteyned; that therefore which infallibly teacheth vs this, and is alſo the only thing which teacheth vs this, muſt needs be the infallible Rule of faith: But Tradition is the only thing which teacheth vs this; to witt, what the Apoſtles did teach vs both by writing and by word of mouth without writing; which this Tradition performeth by millions of true beleevers of the firſt age, all takē a part (as witneſſes vſe to be to finde out how well they all agree in theyr teſtimony) and placed in ſeverall parts in the world; Many vaſtly diſtant from one an other, and yet all delivering the ſame things to thoſe other millions, who in greater number ſucceeded them in life, and in delivering the ſame things, in the ſame manner to new millions of theyr poſterity, all conſtantly agreeing in the teſtification of the very ſelfe ſame points, all affirming them to have beē delivered publickly in Churches, and greateſt aſſemblies every where all theyr country over; and that ſo very exceeding often, and by ſo very many and by ſo very divers perſons of all kind of conditions, that it is more poſſible for all men in the world to fall into a fitt of dancing iuſt for a quarter of an hower at one and the ſelfe ſame time, without ever agreeing to do ſo before hand; then it is poſſible for all theſe millions of men in ſo different places, and of ſo different iudgmēts by nature, and ſo contrary in theyr humors, inclinations and proceedings, to conſpire thus in one and the ſame ſtory conteyning ſo many particulars, without that thing had been really and notoriouſly true, which ſo many millions, taken in ſo different circumſtances, all teſtified vnanimouſly to be true. If this doth not make it evidētly credible that the Apoſtles taught this, I dare ſay that no miracle which God can do, without forcing our wills, can make this point evidently credible vnto vs. Neither have wee any thing elſe but this Tradition which maketh it evidētly credible to vs what the Apoſtles did teach the firſt Church by writing, and by ſuch writings, and by ſuch and ſuch things delivered only by word of Mouth. Wherefore either by ſuch a teſtimony as this, or by no teſtimony at all, wee may be induced to beleeve infallibly that the Apoſtles did teach ſuch and ſuch things by word of mouth, and alſo did write ſuch and ſuch bookes. And it is moſt prepoſterous to beleeve for this teſtimony this laſt part, and not to beleeve the firſt part; yea this is plain contradiction in him who vnderſtands what he doth: for on the one ſide he ſaith, The teſtimony of Tradition ſufficeth to make a thing a fitt Object of divine faith, ſo that vpon this teſtimony only I may build that infallible aſſent, by which I beleeve theſe and theſe bookes to have been delivered by the Apoſtles; and yct I will not beleeve that the Apoſtles delivered by word of Mouth the doctrine of praying for the dead, of baptizing infants &c, becauſe this ſelfe ſame teſtimony of traditiō ſufficeth not to make a thing a fitt object of faith, to which before I ſaid it did ſuffice. How then come I now to ſay it doth not ſuffice, and to contradict my ſelfe with the ſame breath? I end with Doctor Ferns own words §. 2. It is impoſsible that all the Chriſtiā Churches which began in and about the Apoſtolicall times, ād ſo ſucceded through all Nations and ages, should be either deceaved in what they vnanimouſly witneſſed, or agree all of them to deceave thoſe who followed them.

SECT: XX.

That the Fathers teacheth theſe Traditions, and the definitions of the Councels or Church to be infallible.

1. WEE muſt firſt correct the error of ſome apprehenſions, who do not conceive ſuck Authorities of Fathers to ſpeake home to our purpoſe, vnles they ſay plainly the Church is infallible. The Fathers did conceive themſelves in theyr writings to ſpeake to men capable ſo farre of reaſon as to be able to deduce a clear evident conſequence, when they are comepleatly furniſhed with the principles, from which it muſt needs follow. You ſhall not perhaps find a cleare place that ſaith the Apoſtles were infallible; Yet wee have evident principles from whence wee deduce that verity. Note that wee now vulgarly vſe this word infallible, becauſe no word more fully, and breefly expreſſeth our mind. The thing meant by this word, was, by moſt equivalent expreſſions, ſet down to the very full by Antiquity.

2. I will ſhew this clearly by what I have already ſhewed Antiquity to affirme concerning the infallibility of Councels, in the laſt Section but one. There you ſhall ſee Conſtantine prayſed by Antiquity for reverenting the ſentence of the firſt Councel as if it had been ſpoaken by Gods own mouth, and puniſhing the gainſayers of it as Violatours of a divine Law. Is not this a full acknowledgment of infallibility? As alſo when S. Athanaſius calleth this definition the word of God. Is not the like fully acknowledgment which was ſhewed there to be made by S. Hormisda beleeving the Hoy Ghoſt to have ſpoken in the Fathers of that Councel, and by S. Cyrill affirming them to have been inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt that they should not ſwarue from truth having the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaking in them; and calling theyr definitions, The Rule of pure faith, which nothing can be but what is infallible. The ſame is ſpoken equivalently when he ſayth again, that Chriſt did preſide inviſibly in that Councel in which the Embaſſadors of the Biſhop of Rome preſided viſibly. The ſame is done by S. Leo affirming that to be ſetled by the holy Ghoſt which was defined by the Councell, and calling the Canons thereof, made by the Holy Ghoſt or Spirit of God vſing alſo the like ſpeaches of the definitiōs of the Councel of Chalcedon, tearming them a Rule proceeding from divine inſpiration. Is not this to acknowledge ſuch a Rule infallible? What more hath been written of the Apoſtles doctrine? Divers other ſuch like ſayings I have there given you, out of the Holy Fathers, affirming Lawfull Councels to be gathered by the Holy Ghoſt, and what was done in them not to be done by Human induſtry, becauſe the Fathers ſo aſſembled were full of the Holy Ghoſt. Hence alſo there was ſuch reverence profeſſed to theyr definitions as to the very Ghoſpels them ſelves, which is to expreſſe infallibility in a ſuperlative degree: In which degree alſo I may place the ſayings of thoſe Fathers, who called the Definitions of Councels, The ground of our faith, The Rock of our beleefe, Rules of faith, the very Foundations of truth. All ſuperlative expreſſions of Infallibility, And yet men will pleaſe to wonder at the deep ſilence of Fathers, concerning this point in which they could never content themſelves to ſpeake in a vulgar manner, but alwaies in ſuch a high ſtrein of veneration, that the true beleevers might be not only inſtructed to beleeve, but alſo taught to reverence this infallibility, as the communication of the Spirit of divine truth, as indeed it is; Concerning Councels then what wee ſaid in that Section cōteyning all this here recapitulated ſhall ſuffice. Remember alſo what Vincentius Lerinenſis C. 4. ſaith All thoſe who will not be accovnted Heeetikes muſt conforme themſelves to the decrees of general Councels. Let vs now ſee what they ſay of the infallibility of Tradition, taking Tradition as it conteynes what is not written in Scripture, and yet is neceſſary to be beleeved or practiſed.

3. This Tradition the Fathers acknowledge infallible and ſeverall wayes; ſome of them I have ſufficiently inſinuated Sect: 12. where I ſhewed that the Fathers refuſed to ſtand to Scripture only, as to the only, Rule of faith, becauſe all neceſſary Principles for convincing of Heretikes could not be deduced ſufficiently from thence: And conſequently they did hould that there was ſome other Rule of faith, conteyning thoſe principles, to witt Tradition, which could not be this other Rule of faith, nor furniſh them ſufficiently with ſuch principles, except ſhee, in delivering of them, were infallible. There alſo I ſhewed that the Fathers held divers points neceſſarily to be beleeved or practiſed, for which they profeſſed, themſelves to have no Scripture, but only Tradition: Therefore they held this to be a ſufficient ground of faith. There alſo I ſhewed that they held divers points to be damnable errors, which they know to be cōtrary to no written Rule, therefore they thought is was ſufficient to hould them for damnable Hereſies, only becauſe they were contrary to the vnwritten Rule of faith, which wee call Tradition, which if it were a fallible Rule, it might be gainſaid without falling into the damnable Sinne of Hereſy, of which Sinne the gainſayers of it are, for this only reaſon accuſed by the Fathers. I have alſo Sect: 16. n. 3. ſhewed, how manifeſtly S. Ireneus teacheth the vnwritten Rule of Tradition (and ſuch Tradition as was really in the Church then exiſtent) to be a ſufficient Rule, and ground for divine faith and conſequently to be infallible. In the very laſt Sect: n. 3. I gave you Tertullians plain words condemning them who ſay the Church can erre in her Traditions. But of Tertullian. See Sect: 12. n: 4. 5. In the next number following I gave you two clear places out of S. Epiphanius for our obligation to follow theſe Traditions. Going on to the ſeventh Numb. I gave you not only a convincing Authority, but an vnanſwerable argument of S. Auſtens for the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions; whoſe authority he teacheth to be appointed by God that there may be ſome ſufficient authority vpon which, men relying, as vpon a well aſſured ſteppe, may be lifted vp to God; and he houldeth it a headlong arrogancy not to rely vpon it: which had been moſt inconſideratly ſpoken, had it been only fallible, All this is already diſpached;let vs now proceed to the full confuſion of theſe who complaine of ſo deepe ſilence in this point of Infallibility, And becauſe D. Ferne Sect: 24. ſayth, the authorities cited by Bellarmin come not home, I will begin with ſome authorities takē out of him, which I ſhall ſhew to reach abundantly home to our purpoſe.

4. S. Denis Diſciple to S. Paul C. 1. Eccl: Herarch: ſaith; Thoſe our firſt Captaines of Preeſtly function (to witt the Apoſtles) did deliver to vs the cheefeſt and ſuperſubſtantiall points partly in written, partly in vnwritten inſtitutions. So that, part of the cheefeſt, and cōſequently part of the neceſſary and fundamentall points, were delivered to vs in vnwritten Traditions only. If therefore this Tradition be only a fallible Rule, wee have no infallible Rule to rely vpon in all points neceſſary; becauſe part of them muſt rely vpon vnwritten Traditions only. S. Iuſtin in the end of his ſecond Apology for the Chriſtians, among theſe vnwritten Traditions placeth ſome things made neceſſary by Apoſtolicall precepts; As the conſecrating of Wine mingled with water; and that is is lawfull to no body (though never ſo contrite for his Sinns) to receave the Euchariſt before baptiſme. Is not this neceſſary? and yet what Scripture have you for it and where find you in clear Scripture that the Apoſtles were baptized before they communicated in the laſt ſupper of our Lord? There followeth the Authority of S. Ireneus, which I have ſhewed to reach ſo home, that the whole faith of whole Nations may be divine, and infallible by relying only vpon traditions, even long after the finiſhing of the Canon of Scripture S. Chr: vpon 2. Th: 2. It is manifeſt that the Apoſtles did not deliver vs all things in writing but many things without any writing: and theſe be Worthy of the very ſelfe ſame faith. Good M. Doctor is that, which is fallible, worthy of the ſame faith which that which is infallible is worthy of? He held then Tradition as infallible as Scripture; of which I have given you a clear reaſon Sect: 9. num: 3. Theophilact and Oecumenius vpon the ſame place of S. Paul deliver iuſt the ſame doctrine. Of S. Epiphanius I have ſpoaken already. And Bellarmin recounts how angry Brentius is whith him for ſaying; that it is by Apoſtolicall tradition known to be vnlawfull to marry after a vow of Virginity. It is neceſſary to avoid, that which is damnable. Wherefore to all who have made ſuch vowes, the knowledge of this point is neceſſary Tradition therefore delivereth ſome neceſſary points: Heare S. Epiphanius his words (Hereſy. 61.) It behoueth vs alſo to vſe tradition becauſe all things cannot be had out of Scripture. The Apoſtles delivered ſome things in writings, ſome things by Tradition; As S. Paul ſayth, according as I have delivered vnto you. And in an other place. So I teach, ſo I have delivered to the Churches. The Holy Apoſtles of God then have delivered that it is a Sinne to marry after Virginity decreed; to witt, by vow. Beſides what I have cited out of Turtullian already, he is much to be inſiſted vpon in his Book de Preſcrip: where C. 19. he very diſtinctly notes; that firſt of all, before ever you enter into diſpute with Heretikes out of the Scripture, you muſt diſpute theſe following points: From whom, by whom, when and to whom that diſcipline was delivered by which wee were made Chriſtians? and there aſſuredly will be found the truth of Scriptures the truth of theyr interpretation, and the truth of all Chriſtian Traditions. Marke here how the firſt ground, vpon which wee are to ſtand, as vpon a ground moſt advantagious for gaining the victory againſt error, and purchaſing triumph to truth, is Tradition; For by that alone, and no poſſible way but by that, wee aſſuredly know from whom (to witt from Chriſt ſending his Apoſtles) by whom (to witt by the Apoſtles) When (in the time of theyr preaching) to whom (to witt to the Churches founded by them) this diſcipline by which wee were made Chriſtians was delivered. From the Tradition then of theſe Churches as yov take the letter of Scripture, wee take alſo the Soule and interpretation of it conſerved in the dayly anſwerable practice firſt inſtituted by thoſe Apoſtles, and thence by Tradition (as ſurely as by any writing) delivered down by ſucceſſive practice of all ſuch Churches; to which Churches Tertullian, in his next words, diſtinctly expreſſeth him ſelfe to ſend vs, for the foreſaid end. And thus all things beeing driven to theyr firſt Source and Origin) will be diſcovered that only Traditiō, is in which all theſe Myſteries of our faith are conteyned; vpon this ground, ſaith he, I will preſcribe, That what the Apoſtles have preached ought nor to be proved any other way but by thoſe Churches, which the Apoſtles them ſelves have founded either by preaching to them by word of mouth, or by Epiſtle. And if this be ſo, it is evident that all doctrine, agreeing with the doctrine of theſe Apoſtolicall and Mother Churches, is ſutable to truth, and to be imbraced without all doubt (ſo infallible doth this Tradition make it.) And thus Tertullian goeth on ſtill preſſing his adverſary, independently of all Scripture, meerly by the tradition of this preſent Church, ſhewing her pedegree from the primitive Church: And this way, and only this way, he preſcribeth that wee ought to ſhew what Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught. And in the beginning of his Book de Corona Militis, his doctrine comes very home in many things to our purpoſe; As firſt, when a queſtion is asked, why wee in this Church (whoſe pedegree wee can draw from the Apoſtles) do pray for the dead? pray to Saincts? worſhip the Euchariſt &c, the very asking of this Queſtion, why do you do it? proueth that wee do it. And becauſe wee every where do it in the Church, the obſervation of theſe practiſes is to ſtand good, becauſe, wee are Habentes obſervationem inveteratam quae praeveniendo, ſtatum fecit. Hanc ſi nulla Scriptura determinavit, certe conſuetudo roboravit; quae ſine dubio &c. wee have an obſervation which by prevention, having got along ſtanding preſcription, hath ſetled it ſelfe. And though no Scripture hath determinately appointed this obſervance, yet cuſtome hath given it ſtrength: which cuſtome without all doubt came from Tradition; For how can a thing be in practice (ſo vniverſally) if it were not at firſt delivered by Tradition? Now if you ſay, that even for ſuch practiſes, delivered by Tradition, the Sripture muſt be alledged, all his whole following diſcourſe is framed againſt this objection, and he muſtereth vp a number of things, then obſerved by the Church (that is in the firſt two hundered yeares) without any proofe of Scripture, by the meer and ſole title of Tradition. Thus much is very home M. Doctor; as alſo that among thoſe moſt primitive obſeuances he placeth, Offering for the dead, and the even wearing out our forehead with making the Signe of the Croſſe at all kind of works wee begin: And though a man may be ſaved who doth not practice theſe things, yet they beeing Apoſtolicall inſtitutions, how can a man be ſaved who contemnes them? It was not in vain ſayth S. Chriſoſtome hom: in Ep: ad Philip: and again hom: 69. ad populum. It was not in vaine decreed by the Apoſtles, That in the celebration of thoſe moſt dreadfull Myſteries, memory should be made of thoſe who are dead: They knew well that much benefitt and profitt did hence redound vnto them. See if you be ſafe who condemne that for ſuperſtitious, which the Apoſtles decreed as moſt beneficiall to the Soules; of which I have ſpoaken more Se: 19. n: 4. And of S. Auſtens authority Sect: 12. n: 3. 4. 5. (and you muſt obſerve how he ſpeakes of that which on the one ſide he held wholy neceſſary, as Infants baptiſme, not Rebaptizing Heretikes, and yet no where ſet down in ſcripture:) which is to come further home then D. Ferne could wiſh. To theſe I adde Origen: Prefat: in Lib: Periarch: That only is to be beleeved for truth which in nothing diſagrees from the Tradition of the Church: And in our vnderſtanding Scripture, wee muſt not beleeve otherwiſe thē the Church of God hath by ſucceſsion delivered vnto vs. Wherefore if all the world vnderſtood thoſe words, This is my Body, concerning a moſt reall corporall preſence, wee muſt not beleeve otherwiſe, again becauſe, the publike practice of the Church doth vnderſtand S. Iames (when he bids the Prieſts to be called for to anoynte the ſick with oyle, to obteine forgiveneſſe of theyr Sinnes) to ſpeak of a true Sacrament hee clearly teacheth by this her practice, that the Scripture ſhould not be vnderſtood otherwiſe. The authorities therefore of the Fathers, com homo to our purpoſe when ſo often they inculcate this verity.

5. So alſo do thoſe Fathers who profeſſe them ſelves to receive ſuch and ſuch Bookes for Canonicall vpon Tradition. The very ſame Rufinus (who alone is found to deliver the whole Canon iuſt as you do) in the words immediatly going before the naming thoſe Canonicall Bookes, ſpeaketh thus in Enarratione Symboli: It ſeemeth good diſtinctly to ſett down in this place which be the volumes of the new and old Teſtament, which are beleeved to have been inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt (mark the ground why) according to the Tradition of our Anceſtours, as wee have received them out of the Monuments of our fore fathers. Note that he here doth not only take the Canonicall bookes for Tradition which moſt Proteſtants will ſay they themſelves do, but he taketh then to be Canonicall for tradition; and vpon this ground he ſaith, They were beleeved to have been inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt. See alſo what I ſaid of the Councel of Carthage and others Sect: 3. vpon this ground S. Athanaſius (in fine Synopſis) receiveth the Ghoſpel of S. Matthew, and reiecteth the Ghoſpel of S. Thomas. Vpō this ground Tertullian S. Heirome, S. Aug: S. Leo, do admitt ſuch bookes to be, and to deny others to be Canonicall. Vpon this ground S. Auſten receiveth the Acts of the Apoſtles. See his words Sect: 22. fine Hence alſo Euſebius ſayth in Hiſtor: Eccl: Lib. 3. Such Scriptures by Tradition are held for true, genvine and manifeſtly allowed by the opinion of all, and that hence, as by an evident note or marke they be diſtinguished from others. Behould the moſt perſpicuous note or marke by which Scriptures could infallibly be known. If this Rule be fallible, wee have no infallibility of the Scriptures beeing or not beeing canonicall Writings. None of the Holy Fathers can be ſhewed to have let fall one word inſinuating, that by the light diſcovered in ſuch or ſuch bookes, they were aſſured, and that infallibly, of theyr beeing Canonicall; of which I ſpoak Sect: 3.

SECT: XXI.

That the Fathers teach in generall the Church to be infallible.

1. BESIDES thoſe manifold authorities which I have cited out of the Fathers, clearly teaching the church infallible in her Traditions (by which and by her anſwerable practice, ſhee makes known to her Children her beleefe) and beſides thoſe other Authorities teaching that this Church, in her Repreſentative or Generall Councels, doth with the infallible aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, ſet forth her Canons, or Rules for beleefe and practice; there be ſeverall other authorities in which the Fathers, in very full expreſſions, declare theyr beleefe of the Churches infallibility: for when ſoever the Fathers ſpeak of the Churches beeing to be followed by vs in all things moſt ſecurely, as beeing a certain guide or Rule; or when they vſe any ſuch kind of ſpeach they either meane the Church repreſentative in a Lawfull Councel, or the Church Vniverſall, delivering ſuch or ſuch a point by tradition ſhining with conformable practice. Whence my Reader will obſerve how the Fathers (whoſe ſpeaches of the Church in generall I am going to cite) when they vſe ſuch generall ſpeaches, do confirme, by theyr authority, what I have ſaid of the infallibility of the Church Repreſentative in Councels, or of the like infallibility of the Church Vniverſall in her Traditiōs. And on the other ſide all thoſe manifold authorities, by which infallibility of Councels and Traditions have been already confirmed by mee, do alſo confirme this generall propoſition. That the Church is infallible: that is, the Church as well vniverſall, ſpeaking by Tradition; as Repreſentative, ſpeaking by a Generall Councel.

2. Of this infallibility in generall thus S. Cyprian de vnitate Eccl: The Church is the ſponſe of Chriſt which cannot play the Adultereſſe. And Again Epiſt: 55. The Church never departeth from what shee once hath known. And S. Hierome thus, Lib. 3. in Ruffinum. C. 8. fine In Her is the Rule or Square of Truth. And thus alſo Rufinus (in Enarrat: Symbol:) explicating thoſe words; I beleeve the Holy Catholike Church: shee therefore is the Holy Church not having ſpott or wrinckle, words ſpoaken of Chriſts viſible Church on Earth as appears as well by the words going before, which are; In this Church there is one faith, one Baptiſme; as by the words following, Many others have gathered Churches togeather as Marcion, Valentinus, Arius But thoſe Churches be not without ſpott and wrinkle. Had Chriſts only Church vpon Earth been ſo foule, (as you muſt of neceſſity ſay it was for a full thouſand yeares, before your Reformation) ſhee had notoriouſly played the adultreſſe and bene indeed the whore of Babylon, as you at every occaſion call the only Church Chriſt then had, or as pure as any he then had. This Church alſo had interiourly departed from what ſhee received, ſhe had played the Miſtriſſe of miſrule and not been the Rule and ſquare of Truth, laſtly ſhee had not been without moſt hideous ſpotts, and farre greater deformities then wrinckles. See how you have painted her out above in my Sect: 15. n. 8. How differently S. Ireueus, Lib. 3. C. 40. where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God: But the Spirit is truth: And Lactantius, Lib. 13. cap: vlt: calleth the Church The well-ſpring of Truth, The dwelling place of faith. You, who make the Church dwelling in Errour ſo many ages ioyne errour, and moſt intolerable errour, to geather with the Spirit of truth. How was this Spirit of truth in a Church impoſing lyes (as you ſay) for divine verities and exacting of all, vnder paine of excommunication, to ſubmit to her proceedings here in? And yet you can finde Chriſt no better Church for the laſt thouſand yeares. There be four Fathers for whoſe teſtimonies divers of our adverſaries vſe to call, in ſo much that they account theyr deepe ſilence our cōdemnation, becauſe thoſe Fathers have treated expreſly againſt Heretikes, and vndertaken how to direct others in the true faith; and therefore doubtles, had they eſteemed the Church to have been infallible they would have made her direction the firſt Rule of all. The firſt of theſe Fathers is Vicentius Lerinenſis, whom I have already ſheved at large to ſtand mainly vpon this direction. See his words cited Sect. 7. As for the ſecond, who is Tertullian he lived before the Church had or could have any generall Councell, by reaſon of the vniverſall perſecution vnder thoſe Heatheniſh Emperours: and ſo Tertullian doth not indeed ſpeak of the Church repreſentative in Councels; Yet he ſpeakes home of the infallibility of the Church vniuerſall, declaring her doctrine by her Tradition, and her practice conformable to her Tradition and in all thus declared Tertullian houlds her infallible; as I have already ſhewed the laſt Sect: n: 4.

3. The third Father is S. Epiphanius, who how clearly he ſpeaketh of the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions, wee have ſeen in the ſame number: I add here further an admirable ſaying of this father of the Churches infallibility: for having ſhewed Hereſy. 49. how all Hereſies ſeek to go by new found by waies, he calleth the following of the Church that kings high way of which Moſes ſpoake (Myſtically by the King of Edom) ſaying; that he would paſſe by that right on to the Land of Promiſe, neither declining at the right hand nor the left, neither on this ſide not on that, but wee will go on ſtreight in the Kings high way. For the Kings high way is the Holy Church of God, the Roade of Truth. But every one of theſe Hereſies leaving this Kings high way decline either on the right hand or on the left to errour. But you O ſervants of God, you Sonnes of the Church of God, who have known the ſure Rule, and do go on in the way of truth, goe on clearfully, and be not called back by theyr words and clamours, for theyr wayes be erroneous. So he Here you have, that all Hereſies agree in this, that they leave the infallible direction of the Church, ād become Heretikes by chooſing out wayes on theyr own head, erroneous waies, which in the Church never could have been mett with all, shee beeing the Kings high way, the beaten Roade of Truth, the ſure Rule, the way of truth. What more clear? To take the Churches direction as infallible, is the very bane of Chriſtendome with Doctor Ferne; with others it is the moſt intolerable errour in Popery, making all the errours incurable: and yet this ancient holy Father who (as S. Auſten in his Book of Hereſies ſaith) is the moſt learned man that had written of Hereſies reprehendeth all and every one of theſe Hereſies, for erring, by refuſing to follow the Church, as a ſure Rule, and as the Kings high-way, and as a known Road of truth. Now if your cenſuring the Church for teaching her ſelfe to be this ſure Rule and plaine high way of Truth, were iuſt, S. Epiphanius did him ſelfe erre moſt miſſerably, in imputing the deniall of this to them all as an errour, of which every one of thoſe Hereſies ſtood guilty. It is therefore moſt falſe which a certain vniverſity man (of whom I ſhall ſpeak more in the next Chapter) over raſhly affirmeth, that neither S. Epiphanius, nor S. Auſten in theyr Catalogues of Heretikes, branded any one as guilty for gainſaying this infallible guidance of the Church. For you ſee S. Epiphanius brands all Hereſies with this foule marke, ſaying; That every of theſe Hereſies leaving this Kings high way (of the Church the ſure Rule, and plain Roade of Truth) declines eyther on the right hand, or on the left. And the ſame Father ending his Bookes of Hereſies ſayth, theſe be the young wenches) ſo he readeth that place of the Canticles Cap: 6. v. 8.) which are ſaid to be without number: and then to the Church he applieth the next verſe, My Dove, my vndefiled is but one, One is this Virgin, this chaſte one, this ſpouſe, the holy citty of God, the faith, the foundation of truth the firme Rock againſt which the gates of Hell shall not prevaile. And then going to give an abridgement of the faith of the Catholike Church, he exults in the beginning, that he is now to have nothing to do with filthy Hereſies, but hath made his approach to the Calme Coaſts of Truth, to witt, the doctrine of the Church And mark how ſecure from errours he thinks him ſelfe here; for now (ſayth he) beeing free of all feare and trouble and tediouſnes, and beeing in an excellent poſture by reaſon of the firme tranquillity and ſecurity here breathing, how did wee reioyſe in ſpirit beeing receaved in a Serene Haven? Wee have paſſed many evels in our navigation, through the foreſaid Seas (of Hereſies) but now having in ſight the Citty (of the Church) let vs make haſt to this Holy Ieruſalem, and Virgin of Chriſt, and Spouſe and ſecure foundation and Rock, our Reverend Mother, moſt ſeaſonably ſaying; Let vs aſcend vnto the mountain of our Lord, and into the Houſe of the God of Iacob, and shee will teach vs our wayes (and not errours for how free ſhee is from them he farther expreſſeth.) Let vs ſpeak to her theſe words which her ſpouſe did; Come my ſpouſe from Libanus, becauſe thou art all faire, and there is not any ſpott in thee: (this he ſaith of the viſible Church on earth teaching vs on earth her wayes, for preſently he flyeth to her thus;) to the end that beeing placed in thee, wee may reſt from thoſe troubleſome buſineſſes of the foregoing Hereſies, in the our Holy Mother the Church and ī thy Holy Doctrine, and that wee may be refre • hed in the truth with the Holy and only faith of God. And having ſpoken ſo full of this perfect ſecurity from errour in the Church. he tels vs whence it proceeds; to witt, from the ſpeciall aſſiſtance of God, and that ſhee is not like thy Concubin Queens, but that ſhee is Queen, as the true Spouſe having for her dowry from Chriſt the receiving the Holy Ghoſt. And thē having ſpent good part of this Abridgment in ſhewing, by the groſſe errours among Gentiles and Heretikes, that theyr faith was like the Concubines, which have no ſuch dowry from Chriſt, he returneth to declare in divers particular points the faith of this Chaſte Virgin the Church, in which nevertheles he ſpendeth but a leafe and a halfe according to my Booke. This I note becauſe D. Ferne Sect: 30. wonders that in a Book of this ſubject there ſhould be no more mention of Popiſh doctrines, had they been the doctrines of Antiquity. I think this Doctor never ſo much as reade that book, for if he had, he ſhould have found that he ſpeaketh of no one point of any true Chriſtian faith at all, vntill, he cometh to theſe three laſt leaues except it be of the admirable prayſes of the Church and of her infallibility, or moſt ſafe certain, and ſecure direction: which is the prime point of Popiſh doctrine. But who ſoever ſhall come to anſwer that place of D. Ferne, will tell him how many other Popiſh points make vp the other leafe and leafe following: all which points are put down by S. Epiphanius as Traditions neceſſary to be delivered here by him.

4. S. Epiphanius was moſt wrongfully accuſed by that vniverſity man of ſilence, concerning this point of infallibility (which he ſo much extolleth, where as he ſhould have putt it for one of the Hereſies if he had been one of your Religion:) ſo alſo is S. Auſten no leſſe wronged, who is the fourth Father whoſe ſilence of this infallibility they object; And firſt ſay they, he calleth no man Heretike for denying of it, whereas all Heretikes mentioned by him in his bookes of Hereſy, could not but deny it according to vs, or els they had not been Heretikes. A ſtrange argument you ſay, becauſe, all Heretickes denyed this; therefore he ſhould have at leaſt noted this in ſome one of them. I contrariwiſe ſay, becauſe every one of theſe Heretickes denyed this therefore it had been ridiculous to expreſſe it concerning any one of them as if he had been ſingular in that one which is comon to all, and every one (for example Were it not ridiculous in the Catalogue of Canonicall Bookes, put down in the front of the Bible, to ſay of ſome particular Bookes, for example, of the book Liviticus or the book of Iudges) this book is the true word of God. And would not ſuch an addition, make men think, that the beeing the true word of God, was leſſe common to other bookes, or that there were ſome ſpeciall doubt of theſe two bookes. Iuſt ſo it would be ridiculous to ſay ſuch Heretikes held the Church fallible, a thing common to all Heretikes. Therefore you ſee S. Epiphanius, when he was ſpeaking of any particular Hereſy, did not ſay, what he ſaid of that particular Hereſy, but he ſayd Every one of theſe Hereſies do this; there never beeing any ſpeciall doubt concerning any one ſingle Hereſy, whether it did doe that or no, which all Hereſies, muſt needs do; In ſo much that to giue you a Catalogue of Hertickes, is the ſelfe ſame thing that it is to give vp a Liſt of ſuch men, who, teaching a doctrin, differing from the Church to be true; muſt needs teach her doctrine to be falſe: and conſequently that ſhee did erre, and is fallible; and therefore a Iudge not to be ſubmitted vnto in thoſe her errours. Neither did S. Auſten omitt to note this, if you omitt not to note well what he ſayth. Firſt in the beginning, He puts down the Epiſtle of Quod vult Deus intreating him to write this booke that he might know what Hereſies there have been? what they did hould contrary to the Catholike Church? And alſo what on the contrary the Catholike Church hath declared againſt them? Theſe two queſtions S. Auſten taketh ſpeciall notice of in his Preface to his book, repeating them in the words in which they were propoſed by Quod vult Deur. And then he begins to ſatisfy his firſt queſtion by telling him what every Hereſy hath held contrary to the Catholick Church. Do you not here ſee how, on all ſides, it is ſuppoſed that every hereſy held ſome thing to be true which the Church held to be falſe, and that therefore every Hereſy muſt needs teach that the Church is guilty of errours, and beeing miſtris of errours cannot be infallible in deciding all points truly. A litle skill in Aequipollentibus (to which thoſe arrive who have paſſed the bridge) would have made an vniverſity man ſee a thing ſo clear. Eſpecially beeing the ſecond Queſtion maketh the firſt yet more clear, by acknowledging that it is the part of the Church to declare her meaning againſt heretickes, which is to acknowledge her the Iudge in theſe matters: for this queſtion was to know quid contra teneat Eccleſia quantum inſtructioni ſatis eſt ſubdi, that as much as was neceſsary for inſtruction might be tould him concerning the contrary, Iudgement of the Church. S. Auſten cometh not to touch in the leaſt word this ſecond demaund, vntill the end of his Book, and then he cuts him of thus; It is ſuperuouſly demaunded (what you expected to be tould by mee) what the Catholick Church iudgeth againſt all theſe ſeeing that for this end (of having as much inſtruction as it is neceſſary) it is ſufficient to know that the Catholick Church is of a contrary iudgement to all theſe. Therefore every Chriſtian Catholick ought not to beleeve theſe things. Behould here the Iudgement of the Church, ſo much eſteemed, that wee have as much as is ſufficient for our inſtruction to auoid any opinion, when wee do but know that the Church iudgeth the cōtrary: and to deſire to know more, is ſuperfluous; for this alone is enough to make any Chriſtian Catholick not to be of a iudgement cō trary to the iudgement of the Church. Could any Pope in thoſe our dayes have ſpoaken more Papiſtically? If you were to make a Catalogue of groſſe errours, and errours incurable, you would put this down in capitall letters.

5. Let this then be the firſt authority of S. Auſten for the infallibility of the Church; that wee have enough to disbeleeve any opinion, when ſhee bids vs disbeleeve it: whence it evidently followeth, that wee have ſufficient to beleeve any thing, becauſe ſhee bids vs beleeve it; her authority being as well aſſured for the one, as for the other. A Second very full place I gave you Sect: 19. n. 7. Thirdly it is notorious that S. Auſten often profeſſeth (ſee his words which I cite preſently) that Baptiſme given by Heretikes is to be held of infallible validity: and this, not becauſe it is ſett down in any Scripture (for he confeſſeth it is clearly ſett down in noe Scripture;) but becauſe the Church in a Plenary Councel hath declared it to bee ſo; as he often vrgeth in the beginning of his fourth Book de Baptiſm • and there, Chap. 4. he houldeth the validity of the baptiſme given by Heretickes to be a point revealed by the Holy Ghoſt; to witt, when the Apoſtles delivered this Tradition firſt to the Church; as he intimateth there Chap. 6. This Revelation, made by the Holy Ghoſt of this point, did then grow to oblige all to aſſent vnto it, when it was notifyed to the Church by a Plenary Councel after S. Cyprians dayes; as the ſame S. alſo teaches. Fourthly he accounteth it alſo to have proceeded from the Holy Ghoſt, that wee are obliged to communicate before wee eat any thing which will of the holy Ghoſt is not notifyed to vs by any Scripture; but the Church is of ſufficient authority to notify this will of the Holy Ghoſt, and to make it obligatory. His words are; It is manifeſt that when the Diſciples received the Body and bloud of our Lord, they did not receive faſting: Muſt wee therefore calumniate the vniverſall Church for all waies receiving faſting? For hence it is that it hath pleaſed the Holy Ghoſt that, in the honor of ſo great a Sacrament; the Body of our Lord should enter into the Mouth of a Chriſtian before externall meats. For this cauſe this cuſtome is kept through the whole world. Epiſt: 118. ad Ianuarium. Fiftly S. Auſten Lib. 7. de Baptiſmo C. 53. treating of a queſtion in which nothing was yet defined by the Church, ſayth: It is not ſafe for vs rashly to deliver our opinion in this matter, which is not determined by any Councel; but let our care be (ſayth be) to affirme that to be (ſecurae vocis) a thing to be ſpoaken ſecurely which in the government of our Lord and Saviour Ieſus Chriſt is confirmed by the confeſsion of the Vniverſall Church. No danger of errour in this ſpeach; For I ask you, were you not (without fear of beeing led into errour) ſecurely to rely vpon the teſtimony of that party whom Chriſt ſhould bidde you believe? you dare not but ſay, Yes. Read then Sixtly S. Auſten, and mark how fully he tells you that; what the Church tells you, is tould by one, vpon whoſe teſtimony Chriſt did bidde you rely: and mark how he inferreth from hence that; as not to heare ſuch a perſon, whom Chriſt did bidde you hear in ſuch a controverſy, were rather to reject Chriſt, then to reject ſuch a perſon; ſo not to hear the Church, whom he did bidde you hear in all Controverſies, is not ſo much to reject her, as to reject Chriſt. See if he ſpeaketh not to this effect as fully as I have done. Thus then he writeth de Vnitate fidei C. 19. Let now an Hereticke ſay vnto mee, how do you admitt of mee into your Communion? (he ſpeaketh of ſuch an one as was baptized by Hereticks) then he replieth: I readily anſwer you. I admit of you as that Church admits of you, to which Church our Saviour giveth teſtimony. Do you know better, how you ought to be admitted of, than our Saviour? Here perhaps you will ſay) read vnto mee then (out of Scripture) in what manner Chriſt hath commanded thoſe to be admitted of, who deſire to paſſe from Hereticks to the Church? This clearly and manifeſtly (ſet down in Scripture) neither I do read nor you. Now then, ſeeing that in the Scripture wee find not that any who paſſed from the Hereticks to the Church, were admitted of, either as I ſay (without beeing rebaptized) or as you ſay (by firſt rebaptizing of them) I am of opinion, that if there should have been ſome wiſe man, to whome our Lord Ieſus Chriſt giveth teſtimony and this (wiſe) man were conſulted by vs, wee ought by no meanes to doubt of doing that, which he should ſay, leaſt that wee should be iudged not ſo much to be refractory to this (wiſe) man as to be refractory to Chriſt our Lord, by whoſe teſtimony he was commended (to be heard.) But Chriſt doth give teſtimony to his Church. If then thou wilt not (be admitted of as ſhee admiteth of thee) thou doeſt moſt perniciouſly reſiſt not mee, or any man, who will this admitt of thee, but thou doeſt moſt perniciouſly reſiſt our Saviour himſelfe, contrary to thy Salvation (that is damnably) beeing that thou wilt not beleeve that thou oughteſt to be admitted of in ſuch a manner, as that Church doth admitt of thee, which Church he, by his teſtimony, doth commend, he (I ſay) whom you your ſelves confeſſe that it is a wicked thing not to beleeve. So he; and no Papiſt could ſpeak more clearly, to declare the damnable Sinne of beeing refractory to the Church, even when ſhee hath no other Scripture for what ſhee bidds, then that Scripture which bids vs heare and obey her. To which purpoſe Seventhly lib. 6. 1. contra Gr • ſcon. cap. 33. ſpeaking of the very ſelfe ſame point in which the Churches infallible authority without other Scripture is to be wholy relyed vpon, to witt, that Baptiſme given by Heretickes is true Baptiſme. Therefore although truly concerning this thing no exāple can be brought out of the canonicall Scriptures, yet even in this very thing the truth of the ſame Scriptures is held by vs, whē wee do that which hath pleaſed the Church. which Church the authority of the ſame Scriptures doth commend, that becauſe the holy Scripture cannot deceive, who ſoever feareth to be deceaved by the obſcurity of this Queſtion, let him go and counſult the Church concerning the ſame (obſcure queſtion) which Church the Holy Scripture without all doubtfulnes doth demonſtrate to vs. Behould here S. Auſten, in a neceſſary point of fayth (which after the Scriptures pervſed is ſtill obſcure) freeth vs from all fear of erring; if, even in ſuch a point, wee rely on the Church as infallible. Hence Eightly on the pſal: 57. he writheth thus: It may be that a man may lye, but it cannot be that Truth can lye. From the Month of Truth I acknowledged Chriſt Truth it ſeife. From the mouth of Truth I acknowledged the Church partaker of truth. Behould that to a mā ſubject to lye, he oppoſeth firſt Chriſt Truth it ſelfe by eſſence; ſecondly he oppoſeth the Church Truth by Participation of his truth; both of them infallible or not ſubject to lye, as man is. Ninethly having delivered the doctrine of the Church concerning baptizing Children (which point as I ſhewed Sect: 8. n. 5. he held not to be clearly ſet down in Scripture) he accounteth him ſelfe by the Churches authority alone ſo infallibly grounded in this point, that he breaketh forth into theſe words, Serm: 14. de verbis Apoſtol: cap. 18. The Authority of our Mother the Church hath this. This is made good by the grounded Rule of truth. Againſt this ſtrength, againſt this inſuperable wall whoſoever rusheth shall be crushed. A place ſo convincing, that thoſe great defenders of your cauſe in the famous Conference of Ratisbon, were forced to anſwer to it thus; In this point wee freely diſſent from Auſten. In Protocall: Monach: edit: 2. Pag. 367. But lett them take what the ſame S. Auſten tenthly ſaith Ep: ad Ianuar: 118. cap. 5. If the whole Church through the world practice any thing, it is moſt inſolent madnes to diſpute whether that ought to be practized or no. So he. Now this by no meanes could be true without the Church were infallible. For a wiſe man may with modeſty diſpute againſt that, which may well be an errour. Eleventhly becauſe the enimies of the infallibility of the Church vſe to fright the defenders thereof with a fond feare of beeing miſled blindly by her Prelats, who may (ſay they even in Councel erre; S. Auſtin anſwereth for vs thus, Epiſt: 166. in fine. In ſo much as he maketh, his people ſecure from ill Governours, beaſt for them the Chayre of wholeſome doctrine should be forſaken, in which even the evill are conſtreyned to deliver true things. For they are not theyr own things which they ſay; but Gods, who hath placed the doctrine of verity in the Chayre of vnitie whence he ſayth, Do what they ſay, but according to theyr works doe you not Mat: 23. So he.

6. Twelfly, this Prince of Doctors, hath a place which I will ponder apart, not only becauſe he ſayeth clearly as much as wee could wiſh, but cheefly becauſe he proveth vnanſwerably what he ſayth. And therefore this authotity is not anſwered with out anſwering the arguments which he preſſeth like a Maſter Diſputant, demonſtrating cleerly why at the very writing of this, he refuſed to be a Manichaean, and why every one, both infidels and Chriſtians, ought to refuſe the ſame. I will putt his goulden diſcourſe at large, adding a ſhort paraphraſis, to putt my reader it mind of ſuch reflections as deſerve to be made of ſo admirable words. This place is lib. contra Epiſt: Fundamenti cap. 4. The Epiſtle of M … (which the Manicheans would have paſſe for Ghoſpel) beginneth thus. Manichaeus the Apoſtle of Ieſus Chriſt by the providence of God the Father. I ask therefore (layth 8. Aug.) who this Manicheus is? you will anſwer the Apoſtle of Chriſt: I do not beleve it. Perhaps you will read the Ghoſpel vnto mee endeavoring thence to prove it. And what if you did light vpon one who did not beleve the Ghoſpel? what would you do then, if ſuch an one should ſay vnto you, I do not beleeve you. (this is his argumēt to prove why an Infidel hath no reaſon to be a Manichean, becauſe you manicheans (you Lutherans and Calviniſts) who deny the authority of the Church, by taking away her infallibility, leave no infallible authority vpon which, any man can ſafely rely in admitting the Ghoſpel for the vndoubted word of God. Wherefore S. Auſten tells them, that they deſtroying this ground, leave him no infallible ground to beleeve the Ghoſpel more then infidels do beleeve it. Wherefore he addeth; But I would not (becauſe now you have left mee no ſufficient, that is, no infallible, ground for it) But I would not beleeve the Ghoſpel vnleſſe the Authority of the Church did move mee there vnto. Here is the firſt place, where he tells you the Church is eſteemed by him ſo ſure a ground, (which it could not be were it a fallible ground) that vpon it alone he buildeth the beleefe of this article; The Scripture is the word of God: I ſay, he buildeth the beleefe of this vpō this ground alone, becauſe he tells vs, if it were not for this ground, he would not beleeve this fundamentall point whence appeareth the weakenes of our adverſaries beſt anſwer; which as that S. Auſten only telleth vs here; what occaſionally moved him, when he was a Manichean, firſt to beleeve the Ghoſpel; ſo that the ſenſe (ſay they) is this; I, when I was a Manichean, would not have beleeved the Ghoſpel, had it not been that the Churches authority had firſt occaſionally moved mee therevnto. But I pray reflect how clear it is by S. Auſtens words that he gives an abſolute vniverſall reaſon, why, at the very writing of this diſcourſe, he received the Ghoſpel for Gods true word, ſo moved therevnto by the authority of the Church that were it not for her authority, he would not beleeve the Ghoſpel to be the word of God. If he ſhould only have tould the Manicheans, what he had done at his firſt converſion occaſionally vpon a ground; which ground now he himſelfe thought vnſufficient, for ſuch an infallible aſſent, he had given them no kind of ſatisfaction; Neither could he have vrged them ſtill (as he doth) that he, in reiecting Manicheans muſt needs rely (as vpon ſure ground) on the ſame authority vpon which he firſt relying was moſt groundedly induced to give credit to the Scripture. The truth then is, that S. Auſten tould them; that neither infidels could beleeve them (they only citing Ghoſpel;) nor Catholickes could beleeve them, becauſe they only cited that Ghoſpel againſt the Church, which he himſelfe with all Catholickes beleeved only to be true Ghoſpel for the authority of the Church. Whence it followeth in him; Why should not I (now at the writing of theſe) obey them (the Prelates of the Church) ſaying vnto mee, Do not obey Manicheus to whom I obeyed, ſaying beleeve the Ghoſpel. (Note here that he tells you he had ſo good a ground for what he did, that even now this motive, as an invincible motive, prevaileth with him: for he ſtill makes it good thus; Chooſe which you pleaſe. If you ſay, beleeve the Catholickes; they admonish mee to give no credit to you. Wherefore beleeving them I cannot but disbeleeve you. But if you ſay do not beleeve the Catholickes; then you do not take a right courſe to force mee, by the Ghoſpel, to beleeve Manicheus; (I pray mark his reaſon) Becauſe I beleeved the Ghoſpel it ſelfe, the Catholickes preaching it vnto mee. But if you ſay (to mee) you have rightly beleeved the Catholickes prayſing the Ghoſpel, but you have not rightly beleeved them diſprayſing Manicheus; do you think mee ſo very a foole that, no reaſon beeing rendered for it, I will beleeve what you liſt, and diſbeleeve what you liſt; except you do not only bidde mee beleeve what you will, but you alſo, moſt manifeſtly and evidently, make mee know itt. If you be (as you will ſay) going to give mee ſuch a reaſon as ſhall make it manifeſtly and evidently known to mee that the Catholickes erred, in the bidding mee not beleeve Manicheus, but that they erred not in the bidding mee receive the Ghoſpel, what then? Dimitte Evangelium. Bidd Farewell to the Ghoſpel. (why?) Becauſe if you hould your ſelfe to the Ghoſpel (vpon a ground that cannot deceive you) I (for my part) will hould my ſelfe to thoſe, through whoſe teaching I have beleeved the Ghoſpel, and at theyr command I will not beleeve thee. Behould S. Auſten te l them, that even now, he will not beleeve them, becauſe even now he beleeveth the Ghoſpell at theyr teaching by whoſe command he is not to beleeve you. I pray what had this anſwer been to the purpoſe if S. Auſten had thought the Catholickes now to be beleeved witht aſſent leſſe then infallible? For if he had thought they could have miſled him in bidding him beleeue the Ghoſpel, he might have thought they could alſo miſlead him in bidding him not beleeve Manicheus. But you will ſay he thought they might bring manifeſt and evident demonſtrations for this aſt, becauſe he inſinuateth that if they did ſo, he would beleeve them, even when they ſaid he had reaſon to beleeve the Church prayſing the Ghoſpel, but not to beleeve it diſprayſing Manicheus. Whereas from that which wee hould infallible, no reaſon ſhall remove vs. I anſwer, that he who ſayth to a man of an other Religion, I do not mean to paſſe to your Religion except you can ſhew mee, by manifeſt and evident demonſtration that my Religion is falſe; doth he, by this ſaying intimate that he doth not give infallible aſſent to the Religion he is now of? For one may ſay to an Athieſt. I will dye for my beleefe in the Scripture, except you evidently can demonſtrate that the Scripture is falſe, and cannot be Gods worde. In theſe ſpeaches a mans meaning is, that vntill you can ſhew mee that you have done this (which I am ſure you cannot ſhew mee) you have no reaſon to find fault with mee for not paſſing over vnto you. I prove this to be ſo here if I may but ſuppoſe (a thing moſt true) that S. Auſten did, with an infallible aſſent beleeve the Ghoſpel. For I pray obſerve if he ſpeaketh not of his intending to forſake his beleefe in the very Ghoſpel it ſelfe, if the Manicheans can ſhew by Scripture that any doctrine contrary to the beleefe of the Church can be true. So impoſſible did he hould it to ſhew the Church fallible in any one point. For even thus he ſayth; If perhaps in the Ghoſpel thou shalt be able to find any place that is manifeſt to prove Manicheus a true Apoſtle, then indeed you shall weakē vnto mee the authority of the Catholickes bidding mee not beleeve thee (by ſhewing theyr authority is fallible.) Be pleaſed to reflect attentively on what followeth; This Authority (of the Catholickes) beeing weakened, now I cannot ſo much as beleeve the Ghoſpel. The word (now) ſheweth that at the very writing of this, he profeſſeth that if the Catholickes authority could, but in any one ſingle point, be ſhewed fallible, he cannot now beleeve the Ghoſpel; becauſe ſayth he, by thoſe Catholickes, I had beleeved the Ghoſpel, whom you now have in one point ſhewed fallible. Here ſome of our adverſaries catch hould on thoſe words becauſe by thoſe Catholickes, I had beleeved; whereas, ſay they, If he had meant theyr authority had been the Cauſe of his beleefe, he ſhould not have vſed the particles, Per, by, or throuh, but the particle Propter for. A weak objection; for how often in Scripture doth this particle, By, expreſſe the true Cauſe vpon which, and only which men beleeved infallibly, as all did firſt by or through the preaching of Chriſt. So. Io. 17. v. 20. Chriſt prayeth, not only for his Apoſtles, but alſo for them which should beleeve in him by or through theyr words. And S. Paul 2. Thes: 2.15. would have vs ſtand faſt and hould The Traditions which have been taught vs by word, or by his Epiſtle. What was held by thoſe authorities was held by them with infallibility. That by two immurable things, in which it was impoſsible for God to lye, wee might have ſtrong conſolation. Hebr: 6.18. Weaker then this is an other cavel that; S. Auſten could not eſteem the Church infallible, becauſe for a cleare place in Scripture he would have denied her infallibility: For according to this fond cavelling reaſon he ſhould have alſo eſteemed the Scripture fallible, becauſe he likewiſe ſayth; the Catholiques authority beeing weakened, now I cannot ſo much as beleeve the Ghoſpel. The truth then is that he ſpeaketh with an Heretike denying the Churches infallibility, and diſputing againſt it out of Scripture; Wherefore he ſpeaketh iuſt with him, as wee vſe to ſpeake with you, doing the like; that is, he telleth him only what ſhould happē if his impoſſibilities were ſhewed to be realities. And firſt he ſayth, that vnleſſe his open falſities can be demonſtrated out of the true word of God, (which is one impoſſibility) he would not beleeve them. Secondly he, even after the performance of this impoſſibility tells him, he hath yet an other anſwer, to witt, that he will neither beleeve him ſpeaking that, which he could ſhew to be clear Ghoſpel, neither would he beleeve the Church any more, becauſe ſhee had taught him to beleeve that to be Gods true word, which notwithſtanding did beare clear witnes to that, which ſhee taught to be a Lye: whence he, ſeeing her in one point fallible, would never rely on her ſo as to beleeve the Scripture vpon her authority, as then he did. You ſhall ſee how clearly he ſayth this; Wherefore (ſayth he) if in the Goſpel no manifeſt place be found concerning the Apoſtleship af Manicheus, I will rather beleeve the Catholiques then thee: but if thou shalt read mee out of the Ghoſpel any place manifeſtly for Manicheus, I will neither beleeve them, nor thee. I will not beleeve them, becauſe they have lyed vnto mee concerning thee (this one Lye ſhewing theyr Church to be fallible;) Neither will I beleeve thee (even citing clear Scripture, as thou calleſt it) becauſe thou citeſt to mee that Scripture to which I gave credit by thoſe who have lyed vnto mee. Which words be perfect non-ſenſe without you ſay the Scripture in S. Auſtens opinion loſeth (in order to vs) her infallibility, if the Catholique Church can tell one lie: For in that caſe S. Auſten ſayth, he would forſake both Church and Scripture alſo, if any clear place in Scripture ſhould ſay Manicheus was a true Apoſtle. And he ſayth that for that cauſe, and vpon that ground be would forſake Scripture, becauſe it was that Scripture, which he only held to be ſo, by the authority of the Catholique Church, which now he had taken in one lye. But for all this, ſayth he, God for bidd I should not beleeve the Ghoſpel for thou canſt not bring any thing to make mee beleeve either the Church, or that which is commended for Gods word by the Church to be contrary to truth. For even beleeving the Ghoſpel I do not find how I can beleeve thee, there beeing in the Ghoſpel nothing for thee. And then he ſheweth, how clearly he findes the Acts of the Apoſtles to be againſt them: Which book (ſayth he) it is neceſſary for mee to beleeve if I do beleeve the Ghoſpel. Note firſt how he ſpeaketh of the beliefe he had now at the very writing of theſe ſaying, that he muſt beleeve this Book which is a Book rejected by the Manicheans. Whence it is manifeſt that he ſpeaketh of himſelfe as now a Catholique and ſuch a Catholique as received only ſuch bookes for Gods true word, as the Church recommended to him for ſuch; houlding alſo her recommendation ſo ſure, that ſhee could not faile in recommending any one booke for Gods word, which was not of neceſſity to be held ſo, meerly vpon her recommendation; For thus he proveth that it was then neceſſary for him to beleeve this Book (of the Acts of the Apoſtles which the Manicheans held to be no Scripture) if he beleeveth the Ghoſpel, Becauſe the Catholique Authority (of the Church) doth in like manner commend both Scriptures vnto mee, to witt as well the Acts, as the four Ghoſpels; for indeed it is proper to thoſe who beleeve the Church fallible to beleeve her only when they think fitting: whereas thoſe who with S. Auſten beleeve her infallible, muſt needs ſpeake as he doth, that beeing the Church propoſeth this to be beleeved, as well as that, it is neceſſary for mee to beleeve this on her Authority as well as that.

SECT: XXII.

That all which the Fathers ſay of the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions or Councels, or in generall tearmes, is meant by them particularly of the Roman Church, as wee vnderſtand the Roman Church.

1. I Muſt now take away from our adverſaries theyr laſt ſhift, which is that although S. Auſten and ſo many other Fathers ſpeak ſo often of the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church, and of the Councels, of the Church, and of the Churches authority in generall; yet, ſay they, what is this to the Roman Church, more then to the Engliſh which is a part of the Catholique as well as the Roman; ſhee only beeing a part and not the whole Catholique Church? I anſwer, that when wee ſay the Church is infallible, wee ſpeake, as Antiquity vſeth to ſpeak of the Church: that is, wee ſpeak of it, as of a flock adhering to theyr true Head-Paſtour; and conſequently wee ſpeake of the Church of Rome in this ſenſe, as ſhee is a Church Catholique, that is vniverſally comprehending all the ſheep of Chriſt, living in any nation though never ſo farre from Rome, yet joyned in communion to the Biſhop of Rome, as to her Head-Paſtour: For thus the Roman Church, as comprehending all Churches vnited to her Communion, cannot be ſhewed in any time ſince Chriſt, to have differed in doctrine from what the vniverſall Church ever taught, or practiced: If therefore the vniverſall Church, following Tradition be, by the guidance of the ſame Tradition infallibly conducted, according to the opinion of the Fathers; the Roman Church, ever, treading the very ſelfe ſame ſtepps, muſt needs have proceeded as infallibly. Again, if the Church repreſentative be infallibly guided by the Holy Ghoſt, as I have proved, the ſelfe ſame muſt needs be true of the Roman Church, who ever was joyned in Communion and vnity of Doctrine with every lawfull generall Councel which hath been from Chriſts time to this. For it is ſo notorious, that our adverſaries cannot deny it, that the Biſhop of Rome either by him ſelfe, or by his Legates in his name, hath preſided in euery ſuch Councel, and ſubſcribed vnto it in the very firſt and cheefe place, or at leaſt he did ſend his confirmation and ratification of all the acts thereof. Her doctrine hath then alwaies agreed with all Lawfull Councels: If theyr decrees be infallible Rules, as I have proued, then the Roman Churches doctrine, euer ruled by them, is infallible. And the ſame Fathers who ſay the doctrine agreeing with Councels is infallible, alſo by manifeſt conſequence ſay, that the doctrine of the Roman Church is infallible. This beeing ſo notorious, no wonder if the Fathers many times promiſcuouſly ſpeake in the ſame māner of the Roman Church, and of the Church in generall, and take the one for the other, making no diſtinction at all. And this they doe both for the reaſons before ſayd, as alſo becauſe by the very name of the Church they vnderſtood the flock of Chriſt governed by S. Peter, and his Succeſſors as theyr Lawfull Paſtour appointed by Chriſt. And, juſt as the Apoſtle tells vs, that Chriſt did purchas a Church vnto himſelf by his blood; So S. Chryſoſtom: Lib. 2. de Sacerd: asking, why Chriſt did shed his blood? anſwers, That he might purchaſe vnto himſelfe his sheepe, the charge of which he committed both to Peter and his ſucceſſors. Hence you ſee that with him the Church vniverſall, is one, and the ſelfe ſame thing, that the flock of Chriſts ſheep, governed by S. Peters ſucceſſour the Biſhop of Rome ſo S. Ciprian tells vs Epiſt: 69. that the Church is a people vnited to theyr Prieſt, and a flock adhering to theyr sheepheard. Hence Venerable Bede lib. 2. Hiſt. Eccl. cap. 2. ſayth Pope Greg: governed the Church in the dayes of Mauritius the Emperour. And S. Gregory lib. 4. Dial. c. 40. ſayth the Church, refuſed Lau • ence to be her governour when Symmachus was choſen Pope. He vſed the ſtyle of S. Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who ſayth that to Linus (the ſucceſſor of S. Peter) the Apoſtles gave the charge of governing the Church; taking the Roman Biſhops charge promiscuouſly for the charge of the vniverſall Church: And S. Hierome Epiſt: 58. ad Damaſum. If any one be ioyned to the Chayre of S. Peter Meus eſt, he is of my Religion. And Again Ep: 57. to the ſame Pope he ſpeaketh thus; To thy Holynes, that is, to the Chayre of S. Peter I am ioyned in Communion; vpon this Rock (ſo he calleth S. Peters Chayre) I know the Church is built. He is profane, whoſoever he is, who eateth the Lambe out of this houſe. He who is not in the Arke of Noë shall perish in the deluge. And S Leo Ep: 84. ad Anaſtic. 11. ſheweth diſtinctly, how in the church there is ſuch ſubordinatiō of the people to theyr Biſhops, ād of theſe to theyr higher Biſhops: ād of all higher Biſhops to the Biſhop of Rome; that by thē the charge of the vniverſall church might be referred to that one chayre of Peter, ſo nothing any where should diſagree from theyr head. S. Hierome again 1. ad Tim 13. ſayth, that Pope Damaſus was Rector of that Houſe of God which S. Paul called the Pillar and foundation of Truth. And S. Ambroſe in Oratione funeb: de obitu fratris ſui Satyri, prayſeth his Brother Satyrus for his care in chooſing a Catholike Biſhop by this Rule, that he inquired whether they agreed with the Catholick Bishops, that is, with the Roman Church: So he, taking the Catholick and the Roman for all one. Hence S. Cyprian calleth the Biſhop of Rome, the Biſhop of the Catholicke Church. Wee know Cornelius to have been elected by Almighty God and Chriſt our Lord, the Bishop of the moſt holy Catholick Church: Neither are wee ignorant that there ought to be one God, one Chriſt our Lord, one Holy Ghoſt, one Bishop in the Catholik Church. So he lib. 3. Ep: 11. And Again de Vnitate Eccleſiae: Doth he confide him ſelfe to be in the Church, who forſaketh the Chayre of Peter; vpon which the Church is founded? Whence it is evident that by the Church he ment the multitude of beleevers adhering to the Chayre of the Biſhop of Rome. So alſo the moſt ancient Pope Anacletus, not fourscoare yeares after our Saviours death, ſpoake thus, in the end of his firſt Epiſtle regiſtred among the Decretals and Councels, The Apoſtles by the commaund of our Saviour have appointed that the greater and harder queſtions should alwaies be referred to the Apoſtolicall ſeat, vpon which Chriſt hath built the vniverſall Church, he himſelfe ſaying, Thou art Peter (that is a Rock) and vpon this Rock I will build my Church. So hee Hence I have the very ground why the Fathers promiſcuouſly by the name of the Church, vniverſally vnderſtood the Roman Church, vpon whoſe ſeat the vniverſall was built. And this ground is made good by a world of Fathers in Coccius where he treates of the Primacy of the Biſhop of Rome.

2. That which is for my preſent intent, is to ſhew that the Fathers, and why the Fathers, do take the name of the Church promiscuouſly for the Roman Church, though they do not name her by that name; becauſe it was ſo notorious that by the name of the Church they ment no other thing then Chriſts flock vnder theyr true Sheepheard the Biſhop of Rome: And when it is once notoriouſly known to the hearers what is ment by ſuch a word, the vſe of it is ſufficiently determinate. So here in England when with one an other wee ſay the Parliament did decree or examin ſuch a thing, wee are known notoriouſly to ſpeak of the Engliſh Parliament; Though the word Parliament be as indifferent to ſignify the French Parliament, eſpecially if ſpoaken by French to French in the midle of France, as I have further declared Sect: 7. towards the end. I note alſo that all that I here in the laſt Sections cited out of the Fathers for the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions and Councels, muſt needs be ſpoaken of no other Church then of ſuch an one as did not diſclaime from infallibility; But all Churches, but the Roman, diſclaimed from infallibility; Therefore they taught no other church but the Roman to be infallible. If you ask why they muſt needs teach no Church to be infallible which diſclaimed from beeing ſo, I have given you a moſt evident reaſon thereof Sect: 17.

3. This note ſheweth that the Fathers muſt needs have, in thoſe ſayings of theyrs concerning infallibility, vnderſtood the Roman Church and could vnderſtand no other differing from her. But indeed (as I have ſaid) theyr very vulgar phraſe of Catholique Church, was known then to be applied to the Roman, taken in the ſenſe wee ſpoak of. Hence that ould Arian Iocundus ſayd to King Theodorick; If you putt Armogaſtes (a Catholique) to death, the Romans (that is the Catholickes) will proclaime him a Martyr, as witneſſeth Victor Vti: de Perſec: V and: lib. 1. Hence alſo Ricemer, an other Arian, did write vnto the Gennenſes. If he be a Catholique, he is a Roman And S. Greg: of Tours lib. 1. de gloria Martyr: cap. 25. telling how Theodegeſilus an Arian King of Portugall ſaide ſuch a Miracle was a trick of the Romans; he adde this Parentheſis, For they call the men of our Religion Romans. So he This then was the vulgar old ſtile, Thus ſpoak Antiquity, If he be one of Chriſts sheepe he is one of S. Peters Succeſſors flock, as I ſhewed out of S. Chryſoſtome; If he be of the Catholike Church, he is one of the people vnited to this cheefe Prieſt as I ſhewed out of S. Cyprian. If mention be made of one to whom the Charge of Governing the Church is given, the Biſhop of Rome is vnderſtood in the vulgar language of the primitiue Church, as I ſhewed out of Bede, S. Gregor, S. Irineus. If a S. Hierome would tell you, who were of his Church or Communion, he vnderſtands every one joyned to the Chayre of S. Peter; For vpon this Rock he knoweth the Church is built. If a S. Leo ſpeaketh of one who hath the charge of the vniverſall Church, he meaneth the Biſhop who fitteth in the Chayre of S. Peter. If a S. Hierom will ſignify a Damaſus Biſhop of Rome, he will do it by calling him, The Rector of the Houſe of God, which is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of truth. If a S. Ambroſe or his Brother, be to picke out among Schiſmatikes a Biſhop who is a true member of the Catholick Church, he will do it by asking, whether he agrees with the Catholick Bishop: And he will tell you that in plain tearmes by that name he meanes the Roman Church. And if a S. Cyprian be to ſpeak of a Cornelius Biſhop of the Roman Church, he will explicate him ſelfe in current language, by calling him Bishop of the Catholique Church, he beeing notoriouſly known to be that one Bishop which muſt be at all times in the Church, and no man can confide that he is in the Catholique Church who forſaketh the Chayre of S. Peter. You need not then wonder to heare mee ſay that by thoſe who are in the Catholique Church, wee mean thoſe who have not forſaken, but cleaue faſt to the Chayre of S. Peter, for on this Apoſtolicall ſeat Chriſt hath built the vniverſall Church as the moſt ancient Anacletus hath tould you. Hence a S. Auſten (Epiſt: 162.) will tell Cecilian, that he needs not fear the conſpiring multitude of African Biſhops as long as he communicated with Melchiades the Pope. Hence Optatus l. 2. contra Permenian: will thruſt the Donatiſts out of the number of Catholiques, becauſe they communicated not with the Roman Church: and he himſelfe will adhere to Sericius the Pope to whom all the world was vnited. All the world then were Papiſts; and thoſe counted Heretikes who refuſed to be ſo. And in this ſenſe not to be a Papiſt, that is not to be one vnited in Communion to the Pope, was the ſelfe ſame as not to be Catholick; for all the Catholique world was vnited to the Pope or Head-paſtour of Chriſts flock.

4. Beſides all this, you muſt know, that the Fathers did not alwayes forget to expreſſe themſelves concerning the infallibility of the Church of Rome by name, or as ſignificantly as if they had put that name. In my 19. Sect. n, 7. I cited S. Auſtens words at large to prove that God hath left ſome ſuch authority vnto vs; that by it, as by a well aſſured ſteppe wee may be lifted vp to God: and hence he cōcludeth that no mā ſhould doubt to betake himſelfe to the lappe of the Romā church for this church you will find his words evidently to deſcribe. Read thē and you cannot deny it. Again Pſal. in Partem Donati he ſpeaketh thus of S. Peters Chayre. Shee is that Rock which the proude gates of Hell cannot vanquish. And S. Cyprian Ep: 55. n. 6. They are ſo bould as to carry letters from prophane Schiſmatikes to the Chayre of Peter and the principall Church whence Prieſtly vnity roſe, not conſidering the Romans to be them, whoſe faith (the Apoſtle beeing the Commender thereof) was prayſed, to whom misbeleefe cannot have acceſſe. And S. Hierom Apologia adver: Ruff. L. 3. cap. 4. Know you that the Roman faith commended by the Apoſtles mouth, will receive no ſuch deceits, nor can poſsibly be changed though an Angel taught otherwiſe. Our adverſaries commonly receive the Sixt generall Synod celebrated A. 680. in which, after the Epiſtle of Agatho the Pope had been read. (Act: 4.) it was confirmed by theſe words (Act: 8.) This is the true Rule of faith which the Apoſtolicall Church of Chriſt hath vigorouſly held and ſtill! defendeth; which Church shall never be proved to have erred from the Path of Apoſtolicall Tradition: (And that you may know this was to hould true for ever, the Councel addeth) according to the divine promis of our Lord and Saviour, I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not faile, Here you have the very phraſe wee now vſe of impoſſibility of erring grounded in the divine promiſe. What is this called but Infallibility? The ſame divine promiſe is iuſt ſo applied to S. Peters Succeſſors by S. Leo. Serm: 3. in Anniver: ſuae Aſſum: If wee will ſpeake with Antiquity, here is Aperta promiſsio a manifeſt promiſe that the Paſtour of the Church S. Peters Succeſſor proceeding as Vniverſal Paſtor, or defining in a Councel neither ſhall nor can fail, for which promiſſe D. Fern Sect: 27. calleth ſo earneſtly.

5. By this time my Reader will ſee how exceeding litle reaſon our adverſaries have to take for a ſtrong argument againſt infallibility the deep ſilence of Antiquity (as they ſpeake) in this point; whereas I in a very ſhort time, with my ſmale reading, have been able ſo to weary out my Reader with the plentifull Authorities of Antiquity, that he will eaſily remember hereafter what juſt indignatiō ought to be conceived againſt this groſſe falſity.

SECT: XXIII.

Some things very neceſſary for the eaſier anſwering our adverſaries objections.

I. BEfore I begin any one of our adverſaries Objections I muſt (to take away all prejudice) intreat my Reader in the whole reading of this next Section to note, Firſt how infallibly all the Chriſtian world, except ſome few Socinians) affirme them ſelves to beleeve all things conteyned in thoſe Bookes which they hould canonicall Scripture. and yet I will vndertake that any judicious man in the world, who with a calme ſober, and disinterreſſed mind ſhall attentively ponder on the one ſide what they obiect againſt the infallibility of the Church and then on the other ſide, all thoſe exceeding many places of Scripture which ſeeme ſo manifeſtly contrary to one an other, that the greateſt witts that ever yet were could never clear them ſo, but ſtill the difficulty which remaines is ſo very great that no full ſatisfaction would ever be received if mens wills were bent as reſolutely to receive no anſwer but a manifeſt one againſt the infallibility of ſcripture as the wills of Proteſtants are bent to reject all wee can ſay in anſwer to their obiections againſt infallibility of the Church, vnles our anſwers be more manifeſtly evident then the Noone-ſunn-ſhine: Wherefore in this matter due reſpect to divine authority maketh vs always ſo farre ſubmitt our vnderſtandings, by force of our will, that, if the contrary be not (as I may ſay) more then evident, wee are reſolved to yeild no aſſent vnto it. Any man who ſhould ponder this on the one ſide, and then with due attention conſider on the other ſide how very few the obiections againſt the infallibility of the Church be, in compariſon of the obiections againſt the infallibility of Scripture, and with how much ſweat and labour theſe be ſcarce ſolved at laſt? where as the others be anſwered ſo that nothing like evidence can be brought againſt them, eſpecially if men would come to look vpon theſe obiections, as vpon ſo many weak difficulties of human reaſon againſt an Authority, which ſo ſtrongly can prove her participation of divine verity, having for the evidence thereof twelfue ſtrong texts of Scripture related Sect: 14. 15. So many invincible reaſons related S: 16. So many vnanſwerable teſtimonies of Holy Fathers as have been related theſe four laſt Sections, He (I ſay) who would thus on both ſides conſider the matter, would find it even impoſſible for him in his conſcience to deny that the obiections againſt the infallibility of the Church be anywiſe either ſo many in Number or ſoinſuperable to human capacity as the obiections be which may be made againſt the infallibility of Scripture.

2. And becauſe this obſervatiō ād note is of great moment to make the Proteſtant reader ſee, that it is more his own prejudice againſt the Churchs infallibility, which ſtands in his light, then any ſolid reaſon; I will alledge an objection or two, which poor weake human reaſon, moueth againſt the divine infallibility of all that is cōteyned in vndoubted Scripture. Wee need not go farre to find theſe objections. Even in the firſt Chapter of the firſt Ghoſpel I find a difficulty ſo great, that though I haue (as I fully thinke) moſt carefully ſought ſatisfaction concerning it, in thirty or more of the beſt interpreters, yet I could find no anſwer halfe ſo ſatisfactory, as I, with my poore ability, hope to give to the very ſtrongeſt objection that I could ever yet ſee made againſt the infallibility of the Church, taking the Church in the ſence which I explicated Sect. 18. The objection is this, which you may touch with your fingers. It is ſaid Mat: 1. v. 17. All the generations from Abraham to David are fourteene generations, and from David vntill the carrying a way into Babilon are fourteene generations: and from the carrying a way into Babilon vnto Chriſt are fourteene generations. This is the infallible Text. Now take your fingers, and count with as great infallibility, as you can count, fourteene names ſet down in fayre print before your eyes. In the firſt fourteene you will find Abraham to be the firſt and David to be the laſt. Theſe you muſt not count over again in the ſecond fourteene. So that Salomon is the firſt of the ſecond fourteene, and Iechonias is the laſt; and as David was not to be counted in the ſecond fourteene, becauſe he was already once counted in the firſt, ſo alſo Iechonias muſt not be counted once more in the third fourteen, becauſe he hath been once before counted in the ſecond fourteene; whence it followeth that the firſt in the third fourteene is Salathiel the Sonne of Iechonias, and the laſt muſt needs be Chriſt himſelfe, ſo that you muſt find twelve more generations between Salathiel the firſt and Chriſt the laſt, or elſe (ſayth human reaſon) infallibly you have not fourteen generations as S. Matthew ſayth, you have. It is a ſmal labour for you to ſee whether you have twelue more, or no? Lay every ſeverall finger vpon every ſeverall name, and if you have tenne fingers two names muſt remaine vntouched, or elſe you will not have twelue. I touched my thumbe vpon the name of Salathiel, whom I have proved to be the firſt of the laſt fourteen, then I touched the name of Zorobabel with my fore-finger, and thus having touched all my tenne fingers at the tēne follawing names, I could not poſſibly ſee any more names to touch but the name of Ioſeph. When reaſon tould mee that ſeemed to the very eye to be a demonſtration that Salathiel, who was the firſt of this laſt fourteene having but eleven more following him to Chriſt, could not (with Chriſt) make vp the laſt fourteen. How then, if this be infallibly true, cometh that alſo to be infallibly true which S. Matthew ſayth contrary to this, calling theſe laſt thirteen generations as clearly fourteene as he called the former.

3. Again S. Luke ſetting down the genealogy of Chriſt ſayth cap. 3. v. 35: 36. Salah which was the ſone of Cainan which (Cainan) was the Sonne of Arphaxad. And all the Greek Copies of the new teſtament read thus, conformable to all the Greek Copies of the ould teſtament Gen: 11. v. 12. Yet if you turne to this place in Geneſis, tranſlated faithfully by our vulgar, and your owne Bible, you ſhall not finde that Cainan was the Sonne of Arphaxad, as S Luke ſayth, but you ſhall finde theſe words; And Arphaxad lived five and thirty yeares and begot Salah where as this Salah, was the Sonne of Cainan according to S. Luke and not the Sonne of Arphaxad. If you ſay this Salah was Arphaxads Sonne becauſe Arphaxad was his grand-father I pray note that Arphaxad is ſayd to have begot him, when he was five and thirty years ould, whereas if you mark, even that Chapter of Geneſis, you ſhall ſee no one there mentioned who had a Sonne before thirty years ould; for as in thoſe dayes they lived very long, ſo it was long before they vſed then to marry. Again there is yet a farre greater difficulty that the Greek Copie of the ould teſtament, which S. Luke followed, readeth thus; And Arphaxad lived five and thirty yeares and begat Cainan, ſo that, if Arphaxad were Grand father to Salah becauſe he begot his, father Cainan, whē he himſelfe was five and thirty yeares ould (in which year of his age your Bible and ours ſay he begat Salah) thus Salah his grād child ād Cainā his Father muſt be born the ſame year, which, ſayth reaſō, is infallibly falſe. Now if you ſay Cainā is to be omitted according to ſome greek Copies in the ould teſtamēt yet what will you ſay to all the Copies of the new teſtament which moſt vnanimouſly put him down. Heere venerable Bede profeſſeth himſelfe to admire that which his dulnes cannot vnderſtand. And indeed I think no man vnderſtands it. And Reaſon is more gravelled and quite non-pluſſed at an other contradiction, which ſeemeth to her vnavoidable. Turne in your Bible to the 2. Kings cap. 8. v. 26. There you read Two and twenty yeers ould was Ahazia when he began to reigne and he reigned one year in Ieruſalem, and his Mothers name was Athaliath. Now turne to Chron: 2. cap. 22. v. 2. And ſee if a very different ſtory be not alſo true Scripture. For thus you ſhall read, Forty and two yeares ould was Ahazia when he began to reigne and he reigned one year in Ieruſalē his Mothers name was Athaliath. Againſt the infallibility then of Scripture reaſon cō ceiveth her ſelfe to have this infallible demonſtration: No one is infallible in ſpeach who ſpeaketh two things quite contrary one to an other; but theſe two ſpeaches be quite contrary, when of the ſame man one affirmeth. He began to reigne when he was two and twenty year ould and an other affi • mes that he was fourty two yeers ould; Therefore the Scripture is not infallible in ſpeech.

4. Here by the way reflect (deer reader) how demonſtratively falſe it is which our adverſaries ſay, that by the only knowledge of Scripture a man may clearly be inſtructed in all fundamentall or neceſſary points: now I aske, whether any point be with you more fundamentall or more neceſſary then this; The Scripture is infallible? But this point is ſo farre from beeing clearly deduced out of the reading of the Scripture, that he, who ſhall read theſe three places, ſhall ſee with his eyes that theſe places alone make this verity more obſcure then any place of Scripture makes the contrary evident; For reaſon, left to her ſelfe, will ſooner ſhift off any place you can cite for the evidence of the Scriptures infallibility, then you ſhall be able to ſhif off the places cited. I do not put the anſwer to thoſe three places, that the reader may, by his own experience, ſee how true it is that all that concerns neceſſary points is not clear in Scripture; for what point more neceſſary then that the Scripture is infallible, and what point hath ſuch vnanſwerable difficulty as theſe be? If you could but bring halfe ſo clear a demonſtration againſt the infallibility of the Church, how would you triumph? All that could be ſaid by vs would never ſatisfy you. And yet here you muſt be ſatisfied, or grant Scripture in it ſelfe not to be infallible. What fondnes then, for incomparable weaker objections, to ſtād out ſo perniciouſly againſt the infallibility of the Church. Note this and you will ſoone note your own prepoſterous dealing.

5. Secondly I muſt ſet down here a note which, according to good method, ſome might have expected in the beginning of this queſtion of infallibility; But had it been put down there, it might have been ſubject to have been forgotten before wee ſhould have come to make cheife vſe of it, which is to be done in this next Section. This ſecond note then is this, that my Reader muſt be made capable of what kind of infallibility wee ſpeak, when wee ſay; the Church, in her traditions, and definitions, is infallible; or that theſe traditions and definitions deliver infallible verities vnto vs. This point is learnedly declared by our learned Country man Bacon in analyſi fidei Diſp: 3. cap. 7. citing divers ſolid Devines for this doctrine. Wee ſay then, that our act of faith, by which wee beleeve the Church, propoſing any thing to vs by her Traditions or definitions, is infallible in this ſenſe; that this Act of faith is begot by ſuch cauſes as do ſecure it from all kind of errour: ſo that the vnderſtanding, which is informed, or made knowing by this act, ought to adhere ſo ſtrongly to what ſuch an Act affirmeth to be true, that though an Angel from heaven ſhould ſay the contrary, this vnderſtanding would never be brought to aſſent to him. So firme adheſion floweth from an act ſecured ſo well from errour by the cauſes which did produce it, I ſay with great reflection that this vnderſtanding by this act is ſo affected that the party would not be brought by the preaching of an Angel to beleeve the contrary, and I did not ſay that it could not be brought. For though the nature of evident knowledge ſhewing that a thing is ſo maketh that the party cannot aſſent to the contrary; yet this infallible act of faith, only maketh a man ſo affected that he will not ceaſe from adhering ſo ſtrongly to what he beleeveth, as long as this act remayneth vnretracted. This firmenes of adheſion ſpringeth from the great value and eſteeme which wee put (deſervedly) vpon the cauſes moving him to this aſſent. And this is the true reaſon why you will by no meanes be brought to doubt of the infallibility of the Scripture by any ſtrong objection that your naturall reaſon maketh, when ſhee ſuggeſteth ſuch objections as I iuſt now framed Meere pertinaciouſnes alſo and a falſe fanſy of the value of the cauſes by which even Heretikes pretend to be moved to theyr errours, maketh many rather looſe theyr lives, then forſake to ſtick cloſe to what they imagin to be Gods word: ſhall not then a prudent eſteeme, ſolidly grounded concerning the devine authority moving to the beleefe of theſe and theſe points, be able to make a man adhere ſo cloſely to them as I ſaid? when then my vnderſtanding hath Motives, though not wholy infallible, yet ſuch as cauſe a moſt prudent aſſent that God hath ſaid ſuch a thing; and this is made ſo evidently credible vnto mee, that in prudence I cannot think it to be otherwiſe, and Heaven, is alſo by moſt highly valuable promiſes, offered mee, if I will aſſent to this with that reſpect which is due to Gods word, and Hell on the contrary is threatned vnto mee by moſt truly formidable menaces, if I will not aſſent to this verity as to a Verity affirmed by God; am I not rather ſtark mad, then imprudent only if I will not bend my vnderſtanding by force of my will to adhere with all its power, to this verity, as to a Verity affirmed by God, and eſteeme it as ſuch a Verity ought to be eſteemed. Wherefore, as it is a blaſphemous inpiety to ſuſpect that the very leaſt danger of falſity can be in a thing affirmed by God; ſo, becauſe the reaſons I alledged make mee carry my ſelfe ſo towards that (which is thus propoſed to mee to beleeve) as towards a Verity teveled by God, the ſelfe ſame reaſons do make mee conſequently more willing to deny any naturall evidence, that I can have, thē to give way to the entertaynment of any ſuſpicion of fallibility in this which I have received as Gods own word, as indeed it is See Sect: 16. num: 6.

6. Now that which I mainly inſiſt vpon is this, ſuch an infallibility of adheſion as this act is, cannot be lyable, or any way ſubject to vncertainty, no more then the infallibility of that man whome God had fully reſolved ſo to guide, and direct, in all that he ſhould ſay or write, that he would never permitt him to ſay or write, the leaſt falſity, although this Man never knew nor ſuſpected himſelfe to have this priviledge. Iuſt ſo, though, wee neither feel, nor by evidence know the infallibility of our aſſent, our act of aſſent will be infallible, if God really concurre vnto it by ſuch principles as are no way lyable to errour. All the difficulty then in proving this our aſſent to be infallible, conſiſteth in this, whether or no wee can prove that God concurreth to this aſſent by ſuch principles as are no way lyable to errour? To prove this wee muſt prove that our aſſent hath for its object not only an apparent Revelation, but alſo a revelation certainly true, and not only true caſually (by our hitting by chaunce vpon ſuch an object as is truly revealed by God) but it muſt be of ſuch a nature that it cannot, in theſe circumſtances guide mee to aſſent to any thing but that which cannot but be truely revealed. This then I prove thus. Although there might be imagined ſuch circumſtances in which God could let mee have all the motives which ſo powerfully move to beleeve that ſuch and ſuch a point is revealed by God, although this were not ſo; yet ſuppoſing that the divine Providence hath reſolved never to permitt (in the circumſtances in which men now live) any falſity to be commended to our beleefe by ſo powerfull motives as theſe be to witt miracles, full report of milliōs and millions teaching vniformely the ſame points to have been delivered down to them, by millions atteſting that they received them as delivered from the Apoſtles, and thus going vp vntill wee come to them who teſtify that with theyr own eares they heard all theſe points delivered by them and did ſee thē work worlds of miracles in confirmation of them, that they did hear thoſe ſimple men reſute all Philoſophers, ſpeake all languages, tell the very ſecretes of the heart, foretell things to come without ever miſſing &c. ſuppoſing I ſay that the divine Providence is reſolved never to lett any falſity cloake herſelfe with theſe powerfull motives, theſe motives muſt needs be the certain Liveries of truth, and that which cometh veſted in them, cannot be any thing but truth. And this houldeth good whether I be or be not aſſured, that the divine Providence is reſolved never to permitt any falſity to be thus recommended to vs. For it is not our knowing that no falſity will ever be permitted by God to be thus recommended to vs, which is the cauſe why no falſity can be thus recommended: but it is meerly the extrinſecall will of God, determining to provide ſo for our ſure guidance to that end, for which he created vs, that hence he comes to reſolve not to permitt at any time, any falſity to be ſo powerfully recommended vnto vs as it ſhould be by theſe Motives of Credibility which he ſetteth a part for his peculiar vſe of delivering the Verities of our faith vnto vs as wee ſet the vſe of our Scales a part for ratifying only ſuch things as wee intend to acknowledg for our owne true deeds.

7. If you ask of mee, how I can prove that God hath reſolved never to permitt any falſity to be recommended by thoſe motives, by which the Verities of our faith are recommended? I anſwer that firſt, the motives, which rēcommended the verities of our faith, do convince that which is ſo recommended, to be morally certain: as the full report of all men from all parts of England make it morally certain that there is ſuch a Citty as London to thoſe who never came neer London by a hundred miles. How much then would it misbeſeeme the divine verity ād Goodnes to cōcurre to the making of a falſity ſo credible as it is credible to all men that there is ſuch a Cittie as Lōdon? But Secondly it would farre more misbeſeeme him to make no leſſe aſſured offers of Heaven to thoſe who would beleeve a Lie thus recommended, and threaten Hell vnto them without they would imbrace ſuch a Lie, even for a verity revealed by God, which threats were as certaintly to be feared as London is certaintly to be beleeved to be in England by thoſe who have not ſeen London. Thirdly it is evident that God can impoſe an obligation vpon man to follow the true Religion as a meanes neceſſary to obteyn his Salvation, which … gion may propoſe ſome Verities to be beleeved as devine and as things revealed by God: Now ſuppoſing our nature and preſent condition, (I may bouldly ſay) either that beleefe which is recommended by ſuch motives as ours are, muſt be this true Religion, or you cannot aſſigne vnto mee any other kind of beleefe, recommēded by any other kind of motives, which can make it ſeeme ſo credible to mee as our Religion, It is impoſſible that a meer lie ſhould be ſo much more credible then Gods true word, as our religion is abſolutely more credible thē any falſe beleefe; for this would breed a notable diſparagement and diſeſteeme of the devine Authority, making it of leſſe credit then a Lie. How can that God, who hath a ſerious will to oblige vs to imbrace that beleefe as deuine, which is the only true way appointed by him to lead vs to heaven, have a will alſo directly deſtructive of this will? that is, how can he have a will to permitt the Lyes, oppoſit to what he would have vs beleeve, to be in all reaſon made more credible by the motives which recommend them, then thoſe Verities are which according to reaſon he would have vs embrace, not only for Verities, but for Verities affirmed by him; that is, for infallible Verities? So that you ſee at laſt wee have brought it to a plain contradiction to ſay, that (ſuppoſing our nature and the preſent circumſtances appointed de facto, by the divine providence) our Religion recommended by the foreſaid motives ſhould be falſe in this preſent ſtate, whatſoever it might have been in ſome other ſtate, which God could have choſen if he would have had no providence concerning vs: to which providence I confeſſe nothing could oblige him.

8. Supooſing then no more then what is evident both by Scripture and reaſon, that God is reſolved to have a providence over vs, and to bring vs to the end for which he made vs by the beleefe of ſeverall Verities which he hath revealed; it is impoſſible that as long as he hath this will, he ſhould not alſo have a will to recommend to our beleefe theſe verities (which he would have vs beleeve) by ſuch motives, as no lye can come recommended by him as long as he ſtill intends to vſe this providence towards vs. The acts then of our faith are infallible, becauſe really (whether the party who beleeveth knoweth it or no) theſe acts proceed from ſuch cauſes as are vncapable (in theſe preſent circumſtances) of recommending any thing that is falſe: But they ſtill recommend that which is atteſted not by any apparent, but by a moſt true revelation made by Chriſts Apoſtles to the Church; which Church alſo is, by the like motives, recommended, as infallible, and wee evidently, by our very ſenſes, know what this Church certainly teacheth: whereas, though all which the Scripture ſaith bee infallible, yet wee have not only no infallibility, but even no very probable certainty of our vnderſtanding the Scripture in the true ſenſe in many neceſſary points, except it be by the inſtruction of the Church; as hath fully been ſhewed Sect: 7.

9. Now beſides theſe exterior principles of our aſſent, by which I ſay wee beleeve with an infallible beleefe the articles of our faith, wee muſt here note that the aſſent it ſelfe is never produced (even by thoſe who have the Habit of true faith) vnles it be by the ſupernaturall illumination of God, elevating vs to all that hath immediate relation to the Supernaturall ſtate of Heavenly glory, whence S. Paul teacheth vs that in order to atteyne this high ſtate wee are not ſufficient of our ſelves to think any thing as of our ſelves but our ſufficiency is from God 2. Cor: 3.5. Every time that a true beleever exerciſeth an act of true faith, God, of his infinite goodnes, affordeth this ſupernaturall light infuſing it vnto the vnderſtanding to elevate it, and inable it, to produce the ſupernaturall act of faith. Yet when man hath not this ſupernaturall aſſiſtance in his act, he cannot tell, be he never ſo learned. This all may know, that God doth never give this ſupernaturall help to beleeve any thing, which is not really delivered by a true revelation made to the Apoſtles, otherwiſe he might be ſaid to give ſupernaturall aid to beleeve a Lie.

10. Out of all this diſcourſe, that appeareth to be true, which wee moſt deſire to be noted, that our acts of faith may be moſt truely infallible and are proved to be ſo, becauſe they proceed from Cauſes ſo determining to that only which is true, that they cannot determin our aſſent to any falſity and that all this happeneth thus although wee cannot evidently know when wee beleeve infallibly.

SECT: XXIIII.

Twenty Objections of an Vniverſity man againſt the infallibility of the Church, and alſo ſome others are ſolved

1. AFTER I had reſolved on this treatiſe I did read in the preface of an Vniverſity man to a work of Iohn Daille, ſet forth to excuſe the reformed Churches from Schiſmes, twenty objections vrged with ſo great confidence againſt the infallibility of the Church that at the end of his Preface he promiſeth to turne Papiſt if ſuch objections be punctually anſwered; but with all he would have yet one argument more ſolved. I ſhall indeavour to give him a litle more large ſatisfaction then he requireth, For I will alſo returne him anſwer to all that concerns this point either in this or any other part of his Preface.

2. Firſt then P. 22. he would overthrow all wee have ſaid of the Churches beeing our Iudge in Controverſies becauſe ſo litle is ſaid againſt Heretikes, for denying this, by S. Epiphanius and S. Auſten, to which I have abundantly anſwered Sect: 2. As alſo he would have vs condemned by the ſilence of Tertullian, which I have anſwered Sect: 20. n. 9. fine and by the like ſilence of Vincent Lerinen which I have anſwered Sect: 7. What you adde of Optatus and S. Auſten, who found againſt theyr adverſaries no Iudge vpon earth (as yon ſay) but Scripture, you muſt note that they ſpoak as they did, not becauſe the faithfull people were not provided of an other infallible Iudge but becauſe thoſe contentious fellowes againſt whom they ſpoak did (as Optatus intimateth) make no account of the Churches contrary Iudgment as the Iewes make noe account of our new teſtament: Wherefore as, when Doctors or Fathers diſpute againſt Iewes, they do not ſtand preſſing them with the authority of the new teſtament, though they themſelves hould it of infallible authority (becauſe the know the Iewes ſcoff at ſuch authorities) ſo S. Auſten here, and formerly cited by you, as alſo Optatus, did not ſtand preſſing theyr adverſaries with the Authority of the Church, which they them ſelves held infallible becauſe they knew thoſe Heretikes would as much ſcoff at them as the Iewes would ſcoff at thoſe who ſhould preſſe the Authority of the new teſtament, and as you vſe to ſcoff at vs if wee only cite the Councel of Trent againſt you. Wherefore you ſee that I, who ſo clearly hould the Church our infallible Iudge, do not take any text of the Councel of Trent for my argument to prove this, though I hould that Councel infallible.

3. Again you object S. Pauls making no mention of this Iudge in his Epiſtle to the Romans: in which I am ſure he doth not alſo tell them that the Scripture only muſt be taken for Iudge; nor doth he warne them to take great heed of the Biſhops af that cittie who in time would vſurp a Iudicative authority which ſhould be the bane of Chriſtendome, as D. Ferne ſpeakes, and make all theyr errours incurable, as you both ſpeake, which newes would have been worth all the reſt of his Epiſtle, in the Iudgment of thoſe who paſſe theyr iudgment with that prophane Liberty that you do here. The truth is that this Iudgment ſeat concerned no more the Romans, then all the world. S. Paul twice taught the infallibility of the Chrch to all the world in the texts I cited Sect: 15. n: 14. n: 18. That then, which no more concerned the Romans then all the world was not in reaſon to be intimated to them in particular. What you adde next of the deepe ſilence of the Fathers and Hiſtorians about this point, muſt needs turn to confound your ignorance when you ſhall have read all I ſaid Sect: 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Your enſving diſcourſe (for as much as concerns our doctrine of infallibility) hath had its full anſwer in my laſt Section, by which you will ſee that when any thing is beleeved, which is not truely revealed, the Act of faith can never be infallible, and ſo no act of faith concerning Proteſtantiſme can be infallible. Neither are wee infallible becauſe the Acts of our faith are infallible, no more then all thoſe who beleeved Chriſt himſelfe or his Apoſtles were infallible. They are indeed infallibly guided but if they leave off beeing thus guided, and will be come guides, they will ſoone bewray theyr own fallibility. What next concerns infallibility, be your twenty Objections put by way of queſtions, as ſome of them indeed are.

4. OBjection 1. You ask whether there be any infallible Iudge vpon Earth! I have given you a full anſwer Queſt: 1.

5. OB: 2. whether the Church be that iudge? and why not rather ſome of thoſe tenne things named by Chilling: I have Queſt. 3. initio, given reaſons ſufficient for any reaſonable Man, who muſt not think that in this our laſt age he is borne ſoon enough, by a thouſand and ſix hundred yeares to teach the Church that which no one pariſh of the Church can ever be proved to have held. The very citing Scripture for tenne ſeverall Iudges (as you ſay Chilling: doth) ſheweth clearly how infinitly ſhort of ſolid proofe all other Iudges Cōmiſſions fall in compariſon of what wee have alledged for the Churches Authority in this point through the whole third Queſtion.

6. OB: 3. whether the Roman Church be this Iudge? Yes. See all my proofes from Sect: 17. to my laſt Section.

7. OB: 4. Whether the infallibility of this Church, be in the head (the Pope) or in the body; and whether in the body diffuſive or collective All this I have anſwered Sect: 18. n. 1. 2. 3. for as much as concerns the practicall dutie of any Catholike. Schoole ſpeculations (or Devines private opinions) have nothing to doe with neceſſary faith.

8. OB: 5. Here your queſtions turne to objections, which conteyne in generall the difficulties concerning thoſe perſons who ought to have theyr free votes in a Councel. Concerning this point I have ſaid ſomething. Sect: 18. n. 3. by which the Laicks and inferiour Clergy are ſufficiently excluded, though theſe Clergy mens votes as Conſultive, or for adviſe ſake be moſt laudably demanded. when they be eminent devines; And, for the comfort of the weaker, theyr ſubſcriptions may be of very good vſe ād ſervice to overwhelme Heretikes by ſuch authority as they vſe to fear moſt, who ſlight any mention of more then human authority in Councels. And becauſe amongſt all theſe inferior Clergy men you think the Chor-epiſcopi to be moſt regarded, I will eaſely ſatisfy you concerning theyr ſmale right to paſſe a deciſive voice in generall Councels, If you have either the Councels or the Summe of thē by Carranza you ſhall find in the decrees of Pope Damaſus, as ancient as he his, how beeing asked (Epiſt: 4.) Whether the Chor-epiſcopi were any thing in the Church of God or nothing? and what authority they had in the Church? and he anſwereth That they were nothing in the Church of God, in which they had no authority, and that theyr inſtitution was wicked, and too too badde, and contrary to the Sacred Canons and the Peace of the whole Church. And therefore he defined that all was vain and void that they had done in the Epiſcopall function. And that, for thoſe cauſes, they were forbidden both by the Sacred Seat (of Rome) and by all the Bishops of the world. It followeth How that in the Primitive Church theſe Chor-epiſcopi did ſeeme neceſſary for the peculiar care thy had over the poor, and though by Ordination they were only Prieſts they preſumed at laſt to exerciſe many things belonging to Bishops to conſecrate ſubdeacons, and deacons &c. But theyr ambition was ſoone curbed by the Church; And Biſhops were ſeverely forbidden to lay any part of theyr Epiſcopall functiō vpon them. I ſay then that only Biſhops have right in a generall Councel. For of thee Prelates only it was ſaid; He that will not heare the Church let him be vnto thee as a publican or Heathen. To them only it was ſaid Go and teach all Nations, and Loe I am with you vntill the end of the world. To them all thoſe ſpeciall promiſes of devine aſſiſtance were made which I vrged Sect: 15. n: 17. None of theſe are directed to Laikes or inferior Clergy men, who ſucceded the diſciples and not the Apoſtles.

9. OB: 6. Whether theſe Biſhops aſſembled (with theyr Head and cheefe Paſtour) be ſo abſolutely infallible that they cannot determin falſely in point of faith let them do what they will? I anſwer, that, as I ſhewed Sect: 19. n. 1. 2. they are to regulate themſelves according to Scripture ād traditiō, diſcuſſing carefully what hath been revealed to the Church by theſe meanes, concerning the points which they treat of. See the place I cited and you will ſee how notoriouſly manifeſt theyr proceedings muſt needs be; but they muſt be the iudges, and not wee, that they have done theyr duty in regulating themſelves according to thoſe two infallible rules yet wee are ſecured that they have done theyr dutie both by the notorious publicity of the fact and by theyr ſubſcriptions to the legall carriage of all that eſſentially concernes the Beeing of a true Councel; and alſo by ſeeing no conſiderable part of the Church diffuſed, refuſe theyr decrees. Fear not you to do, what you ſee all the Church do, with ſo vniverſall a conſent: neither will I preſſe you to conſent, vntill you firſt ſee this generall conſent go before you. Were there any notorious neglect of legall proceeding to the introducing of errour, the whole Church repreſentative and diffuſive, would never be permitted by God, to ſubmitt cheerfully therevnto. I might ask how ſhall I know the Scripture writers did theyr dutie in obeying devine inſpiration? If they did not: a dieu all faith.

10. OB: 7. How ſhall I know when they determin aright? what is required to a Synodicall Conſtitution? Muſt all concurre in the vote, or will the maior part ſerve the turne? I anſwer you ſhall know all theſe things to have been done as they ſhould be, by ſeeing that all have ſubſcribed to the Councel as proceeding legally in her Conſtitutions, which alſo you may ſtay to ſee accepted by the Church for lawfull decrees. When you ſee this done, without any conſiderable contradiction, I hope you will think you may prudently ſubmitt, and cannot but imprudently ſtand out any longer. And for your particular wee will cōdeſcend to you to ſtand out ſo long. When you are to bee ſo leading a man of whole Provinces, that your ſubmiſſion would be required before any of theyrs, it will be a longer work to tell you all belonging to your duty. What belongs to you at preſent I have tould you in order to practice. The conſtant practice of the Church hath ſufficiently informed the leading men Governours of the Church how they are to procceed in doing that which ſo many ages have practiced before them.

11. OB: 8. What makes a generall Councel; muſt all the Biſhops of the world be called? I anſwer that makes a generall Councel which hath, ever ſince the primitive Church, ſerved to make all the generall Councels which have been made. Looke on the firſt Councel in the Apoſtles time and you will find not all the Apoſtles but only Peter, Iames, Iohn, Paul, and Barnaby preſent. See Baron: An: 51. And yet theyr Decrees ſent to all Churches did beare this preface. It hath ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt and vs. In the fower firſt Councels (which your Engliſh Church admitteth) the fourth part of the Biſhops was never preſent, and in the Councels kept in the Eaſt few Biſhops appeared from the weſt, and to the Councels kept in the weſt few Biſhops came commonly from the Eaſt. The practice of the Church (the beſt interpreter of divine Lawes) teaceth that it ſufficeth that all who can conveniently he called and ſummoned doe appear, and that ſuch a competent number appear and ſet in Councel as thoſe (who are aſſembled togeather with theyr head) judge ſufficient on the one ſide; and on the other ſide that thoſe who be not preſent, knowing well enough (as wee ſee by experience of the appearance made in Parliament how all men know how great or litle it is) thoſe I ſay knowing how great or litle the appearance of Biſhops is in the Councel, ſay nothing againſt it, but ſilently conſent to permitt them to proceed as a ſufficient Repreſentative of the Church and accordingly admitt of theyr Decrees when they are made.

12. OB: 9. Whether it be a Lawfull Councel if all come not who are called. I have made my anſwer already that it is ſufficient that a ſufficiēt number cometh; that is a number approved for ſufficient by the Church in the manner I now expreſſed.

13. OB: 10. Who muſt call the generall Councel? The Pope, or Chriſtian Kings and Emperours? And how ſhall I be aſſured which of them muſt? I anſwer that it is evident out of Scripture that there is no divine Inſtitution by which either Emperous Or Kings be aſſured to be ſtill found in the world; or that (when they have that dignity) they be, by divine inſtitution, inveſted with a power to call Councels. Wee ſeek for this divine inſtitution. This wee will not admitt vntill it can be ſhewed in Scripture or tradition. The fact of calling ſheweth not divine inſtitution. Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church wee can ſhew divine inſtitution. Act. 20.28. Bishops placed by the Holy Ghoſt over all the flock to feed or governe the Church of God. And 4. Ephe: Not Lay magiſtates but only eccleſiaſticall are ſaid to be given vs by Chriſt for the work of the miniſtery, for the edifying the Body of Chriſt, that hence forth wee may not be carried about with every wind of doctrin: &c. Thirdly the Emperour is not by divine inſtitution Lord of the Chriſtian world no nor of any conſiderable part of it, wherefore ſeeing that a motive power is no motive power any further then it can or ought to be able to Move; the Emperiall power which neither can nor ought to move further then it reigneth, cannot conſequently command any further then his territory at the vttermoſt. The Power of the cheefe Paſtor of the vniverſall Church is coextended to the vniverſall Church. All Biſhops of the vniverſall Church beeing to be moved muſt be moved by ſuch a power as this is. If Emperours called councels; it was not by any Eccleſiaſticall calling (ſuch an one as the Pope called them by at the very ſelfe ſame time) but the Emperors calling, was only politicall, proceeding from a temporall power, ſubſerving to the Eccleſiaſticall, and not able to force them by cenſure in caſe of refuſing to come, as the Eccleſiaſticall power could, which power inplored the Emperiall aſſiſtance to concurre with her, only for the more effectuall executiō. Perhaps ſometimes Emperors might venture to call dependently of the ratification of the ſupreme Paſtor, which they preſumed would be eaſely obteyned in ſo iuſt neceſſities as then ſeemed to preſſe for a ſpeedy remedy. If Emperors or Kings were preſent in Councel, it was only by theyr preſence and good Countenance to honor, encourage and further the proceedings of the Councel, and not to paſſe theyr vote in points of beleefe.

14. OB: 11. How farre be the Councells determinatiōs infallible? Whether in matters of fact as well as faith? I anſwer that they be infallible only in matters of faith. Matters of fact have no ground for theyr having been done ſo, or not done ſo, either in Scripture of Tradition; Wherefore concerning matters of fact the Church rules her ſelfe by no former revelation, and ſhee pretends to no new Revelations, but only to declare clearly what ſhee finds to have before been revealed. The infallibility was thus promiſed to the Church He shall teach you all things and ſuggeſt all things whatſoever I ſhall ſay vnto you. Things of fact are ſaid and teſtified only by men therefore not obiects of faith.

15. OB: 12. Whether in theſe matters of faith the Church be infallible in fundamentalls only? I anſwer that in all the Authorities which I cited for the infallibility of the Church out of Scripture Sect: 14. n. 3. &c. and 15. I ſhewed that they are groundleſly reſtreyned to only fundamentalls in the ſenſe you mean. The ſame was proved by my Reaſons Sect: 16.

16. OB: 13. How ſhall I infallibly know what points are fundamentall what not? I anſwer This queſtion may poſe thoſe who will be reſtrayning the generall promiſes of infallible aſſiſtance made to the Church to fundamentall points only; that is vnto they themſelves know not what. But to vs Catholikes all is fundamentall which is made appeare to be propoſed to vs by the Church as a Veritie revealed by God, whether it be in a matter more or leſſe importing of its own nature.

17. OB: 14. How ſhall I know in time of Schiſme, when there be two Popes or more, which of theſe is S. Peters true Succeſſour? I anſwer that this queſtion, as explicated by you, is put very vnskilfully. For you paſſe from arguing againſt the infallibility of a Pope, as defining with a Councel, to argue againſt thoſe Devines who deliver not the Churches beleefe, but theyr private opinion to be that the Pope ſhould beheld infallible out of a Councel; concerning which opinion, I have ſhewed it all ready to be impertinent to our purpoſe. Your Obiection againſt vs, ſhould be put thus. The Church (with vs) is held to be the Pope defining with a Councel, But in time of ſchiſmes, where there be more pretended Popes, wee do not aſſuredly know that he who defines with the Councel is the true Pope, or Succeſſor of S. Peter. And then I anſwer thus, If before the calling and meeting of the Councel there be more then one pretending to be Popes, that he ſhall ever be eſteemed the right Pope, to whom the Prelates of the Church ſhall vnanimouſly obey when he calleth them to meete in a generall Coūcel, and in this Councel to preſide over them. To have two ſuch Popes (as theſe are) at one time, is impoſſible. And this is the only time in which a Pope defineth with a Lawfull Councel. What you ſay of Popes not defining in ſuch a Councel, is not our Caſe. Putt mee a Pope defining with a Lawfull Councel, and then prove him fallible if you can. Whether the Popes definitions out of a Councel be fallible or infallible, maketh nothing to this purpoſe. Only this is evident, if they be infallible out of a Councel, they be infallible in a Councel in all opinions. I adde with Bellarm: lib. 2. de Concilijs cap. 19. that Although a Councel with out a Pope cannot define any article of faith, yet in time of Schiſme, it can iudge which is true Pope, and provide the Church of a true Paſtor, if ſhee had none; who thus provided by the Councels authority; may diſſolve the Councel if he pleaſeth, or if he pleaſe to have them remeyn aſſembled, they remeyn ſo, now by his authority, and can define as well as other Councels called by the Pope. In that meeting in which the Pope was to be choſen, or declared the vndoubted Pope, the Prelates of the Church might, and ought to meete vpon theyr own authority and aſſemble them ſelves.

18. OB: 15. Suppoſe all agree on the Pope and a generall Councel meet, how ſhall I be ſure that he, who is accounted Pope, is ſo indeed? for Simonie makes him none; and that he was not Simonicall is impoſſible for mee to know? and then you labour to prove that Sixtus Quintus was notoriouſly Simoniacall which maketh nothing to our purpoſe: Neither followeth it from hence that thoſe, who, beeing made Cardinalls by him, came afterwards to be Popes, were no true Popes. For you are too ignorant to treat of theſe matters, if you know not that a man may be a true Pope, who never was a Cardinall To that which is pertinent, I anſwer, that though he, whoſe election to the Popedome is Simonicall, may be depoſed, as having obteyned that dignity vnlawfully yet, as all Iuriſts ſay The Crown once obteyned ſupplieth all defects, So I may farre better ſay, that this defect beeing only againſt Eccleſiaſticall Lawes, may be ſupplied ſo, that of an illegall Pope, he may be after ward made a Lawfull one. For in the Church diffuſive there is power to have this man Pope if they will; and that they will they teſtify when they obey his Summons calling all Biſhops to a Councel, and permitting him, as theyr head, to preſide, and as ſupreme Paſtour to define in the Councel. Laſtly by the Churches, admiſſion of the Councel I know the Councel, and conſequently the Pope was as legall as is neceſſary.

19. OB: 16. How ſhall I know that thoſe Biſhops who with the Pope make vp the Councel be Biſhops indeed. For no Biſhops, no Councel. Now if he, who ordeyned them, when he gave orders did not intend to give them thoſe orders (and whether he did or no God only knowes) then they be no Biſhops. I anſwer that If they be Biſhops I am bound to admitt theyr decrees, and as he ſhould ſinne damnably, who would not honor ſuch a man held by all men to be his true Father, becauſe it is impoſſible for him to know that his Mother did not ly when ſhee ſaid ſo, or to know whether it be not the divel in his Fathers ſhape, ſo I ſhould ſinne damnably in not acknowledging, by due Obedience theſe to be true Fathers of Gods people who are eſteemed ſo by all the world vpon farre better ground then ſuch a man is eſteemed your Father For firſt thoſe who ordeyne Biſhops or Prieſts be for the moſt part men moſt eminent in the Church. How is it then morally poſſible, that many ſuch men ſhould iuſt bappen, in ſo many ſeverall places of the world, iuſt to be the Ordeyners of iuſt ſuch Biſhhops, as ſhould be in the Church iuſt at that time, (which commonly is not above once in a hundred yeares) when a Councel is called. Again there be more then three thouſand Biſhops at a time in the Church (as witneſſeth Alb: Ros: Rubric: ff. de ſtatu omnium) out of which number wee ſee that it is very rare for more then three hundred to be aſſembled at a Councel, which is but every tenth Biſhop, now morally impoſſible is it that iuſt every tenth Biſhop ſhould happen iuſt to be that Biſhop who goeth to the Councel from this part of the world (where in an age no one Biſhop was ever heard of to be thus invalidly ordeyned) and that iuſt at the ſame time there ſhould come from an other part of the world (where ſuch an abominable ordination is as vnheard of as in this part) an other Biſhop, whoſe ill happe it was to be thus ordeyned And thus from a third, fourth fifth ſixt part of the worlde, iuſt ſuch Biſhops ſhould come in a number ſufficient to make the number of other true Biſhops vnſufficient for a true Councel. Surely this is a thing farre more morally impoſſible then that the Common wealth of England ſhould ever happen to have a full Parliament of Knights and Burgheſſes freely choſen, to the number of three hundred who ſhould not only be all of them Baſtards; but alſo all of them called Iohn. This I prove evidently: becauſe to conferre holy orders or baptize without a due intention, is not only a Sinne moſt abominable and damnable, but it is ſuch a Sinne as bringeth with it neither pleaſure nor proffitt nor any thing which may the leaſt intice any ordinary man (much) leſſe Biſhops and Prieſts to committ a ſinne ſo hideous: ād ſo vnprofitable wherefore frō Chriſts time to this I do not think that the moſt knowing man vpon earth doth know to produce ſix examples of the committing of this ſinne. But on the other ſide no man knoweth ſo litle, but he hath knowledge enough to tell him, with out any raſh iudgement, that it is an ordinary thing in every County and Citty of England to find divers known Baſtards, and that the number of the vnkown is tenne times as great. And again the name of Iohn is the moſt common of all names; wherefore conſidering the nature of things, it is farre frō all impoſſibility that many of theſe Baſtards ſhould be called by this name And theyr Baſtardiſme not beeing known, the election may fall vpon them in this County; and what happeneth in this County may happē in an other, and ſo in all at once. Weaker farre then this is your argument And yet how ſecure would all men think England from all miſery, if wee were all fully aſſured that no miſery ſhould fall vpon this Nation vntill wee did chaunce to have a free Parliament, conſiſting of three hundred men, of which every one ſhould be a Baſtard and every one called Iohn? It is great want of ſolidity in iudgement in ſo many ſharpe witted men▪ to eſteeme ſo much ſuch a weak argument. And this is true preſcinding from all ſpeciall providence of allmighty God over his Church; but the leaſt thought of that providence maketh this light obiection vaniſh into ſmoake, and togeather with it the next Obiection. For how eaſily could God putt itt efficaciouſly in the minds of true Biſhops to meete in a ſufficiēt number and when I ſee the Church Vniverſall admit ſuch a Councel to be a true one I Hence know that it had a ſufficient number of true Biſhops.

30. OB: 17. How ſhall I know that the Pope and Biſhops aſſembled are Chriſtians &c. Here you diſcourſe iuſt as before and the ſame anſwer anſwereth you to the full. Yet for a further anſwer to both I will ſhew how wiſe your argument is by framing iuſt an other like to it thus. O Chriſtiās how doe you infallibly know that in theſe Sixtēne ages ſince the Age of writing of the Bible the Divel in ſome one Age did not intice as many men as were ſufficient to corrupt the Bible for I cannot ſee but that the Divel might eaſely make ſo many promiſes farre more inticing then any ordinary motive which ſhould moue men to baptize a child in a falſe forme or with wāt of due intention with ſuch promiſes then the diuel might intice thoſe who did write out the Bible, to write falſe, iuſt in ſuch and ſuch places as he ſhould ſuggeſte to them ſo that in the ſpace of a few ages, the multitude of the falſe Copies made them paſſe for the only true ones; And how know wee infallibly that this might not have ben done much after that age in which the divel incited the Tyrants to force all Chriſtians to give vp theyr Bibles to be burnt, by which meanes the true Copies growing ſcarce, falſe ones might poſſibly be brought into common vſe by the malice of the divel as hath been ſaid. And this exemple defeateth alſo your next obiection. Doth the divine Providence Sleepe in this maner?

21. OB: 18. How ſhall wee know certainly that theſe are the determinations of the Councel? falſe Canons may be foiſted in and falſe Copies may be vented. I anſwer that what hath, or hath not been decreed by a Councel, may as well, and farre better be known certeynly, then what hath been decreed by one of our Parliaments, For Councels be ſo much more notifyed to all, becauſe they be the Parliaments not of one, but of all Catholike natiōs and ſo theyr deeds are more publike. Now how intolerable a caveller were he in a Commonwealth, who ſhould plead the not obliging of Parliamentary decrees, by reaſon of the impoſſibility to know for certeyn what was decreed? and which were the true Copies of the true decrees? You would petſwade vs that wee cannot be ſure of that of which wee ſee by dayly experience wee may be made as ſure as wee would wiſh. The decrees of Councels are publikely read, in the Councel publikely ſubſcribed, and ſealed by the Councel The Originall of theſe ſubſcriptions carefully preſerved, the Copies firſt ſet forth before diverſe witneſſes are conferred with the Originall with a publike teſtimony (as you may ſee at the end of any Bull) that it Agreeth with the Originall. Thoſe, who in great Number were preſent, at the making of the decrees do own them; no one in the Church diſclaimes from them and in caſe any ſhould ſatisfaction would preſently be given. Our very adverſaryes write againſt vs for decreeing ſuch and ſuch things, The fact is never denyed, but ever defended. If in any preſſe, a falſe Copie ſhould be ſet forth you will have prohibition after prohibition, and penalty added to penalty, vntill thoſe Copies be ſuppreſſed; and all bookes would be noting, and notifying this forgery: As wee ſee in our Church by dayly experience in matters of leſſe conſequence, as in ſetting forth the decrees of Cardinals, the Deciſions of that Roman Court called the Rota, or any other thing of this nature. Theſe evidences make every one know theſe decrees with an vnqueſtionable credibility, which, when wee have, wee are ſufficiently furniſhed (for as much as concerns the propoſing of the object to embrace with our will theſe decrees as proceeding from the Holy Ghoſt, and teaching Verities revealed by God, vpon which wee immoveably fix our vnderſtanding, and wee are reſolved by our will to fix it ſo firmely, becauſe (by Gods Grace) wee have a will to proceed prudently in ſo important an affaire as the ſalvation of our Soul to which Heaven is offered if ſhee will ſubmitt to beleeve what God thus reveeleth; And Hell is threatned if ſhee will not thus ſubmitt. And this offer ād threats be as prudently to be regarded as certain, as Engliſh men prudētly belive that there is ſuch a cytty as Lō don. Nothing then which is not moſt rationall is required of vs it beeing moſt manifeſtly made credible, that this is the true command of God Madde therefore is that Soul, which will not ſubmitt. See what I ſaid in the former Section from the fifth number to the end. And alſo what I fully expreſſed Sect: 16. n: 6. For that which you adde of forging a Canon of the Councel of Nice I doubt not but you may twenty times have met with a ſatisfactory anſwere there vnto. See Baronius or Spondan: An: 419. n. 13. Tell mee do forged Scriptures make the true Bookes of Scripture to Become fallible?

22. OB: 19. How ſhall I be aſſured of the meaning of the true decrees when I now know them? For learned men have been of contrary opinions about the meaning of them. I anſwer, that to eaſe your tender Conſciēce, wee will permitt you not to give your aſſent to any thing, of which you are not in Conſcience manifeſtly perſwaded that this, and only this, is the true meaning of ſuch a Councel: ſo that you be ready prepared in mind and heart to ſubmitt to the true meaning, when you ſhall come manifeſtly to know it. To more then this wee preſſe no body: only let not people faine that they doe not know what they know, or eaſily may know if they will: you muſt obſerve that Councels vſe to be aſſēbled againſt ſuch and ſuch known opinions of Sectaries: againſt theſe they frame theyr decrees ſo clearly, that the Sectaries themſelves cannot find impudency enough to deny theyr opinions to be clearly condemned, and the contrary clearly defined: Wherefore wee ſee by experience they never ſo much as offer to do this; But all theyr forces are bent to cry down and vilify the authority, by which they were condemned. Some other paſſages in Councels may be found to be of an ambiguous ſenſe, and vntill thoſe paſſages be by publick authority, further declared, wee hould no man an Heretike for not taking them in the ſenſe which ſome men are moſt inclined to conceive them to be ſpoaken. Hence appeareth the great benefitt it is to have a living Iudge, to whom all that is doubtfull may be referred and a cleare declaration procured, as it is expreſly noted in the very end of the Councel of Trent.

23. OB: 20. What neceſſity of an infallible Iudge at all? I anſwer firſt, who aſſured you that God would give no prerogatiue to his Church which is not preciſely neceſſary for her very preſeruation? D. Fern profeſſeth ſuch a Iudge would be of ſingular benefitt for the keeping of vnity in the Church, and the ending all Controverſies. See what I ſayd Sect: 18. n. 2. I have alſo ſhewed the great neceſſity of this Iudge Sect: 1. n. 4. &c. True it is during the moſt bloody perſecution of the firſt 300. yeares the Chriſtian world could not enioy this benefitt: But I pray note what S. Iſidor ſayth Praefat: in ſuam Canonum collectionem; where having obſerved what I now ſayd of the perſecutions hindering the keeping of Councels, he addeth that hence Chriſtianity was torne in to diverſe Hereſies, becauſe licenſe was not given to the Bishops to meet in Councels vntill the time of the foreſayd Emperour (Conſtantine:) And yet for the firſt three hundred yeares Tradition of all points neceſſary could not but bee ſo freſh as to make a farre leſſe neceſſity of Councels then afterward when Hereſies had ſo oppoſed the firſt Traditions. But an infinite number ſticking cloſe to thoſe traditions were not only ſaved, but were glorious Martyrs in thoſe firſt three Ages.

24. Thus having anſwered your twenty Queſtions pertinent to the point of Infallibility I come to give you ſatisfaction in an objection wholy impertinent to this purpoſe. For it concernes not any article defined by our Church, but private opinions of ſome private divines in our Church, whoſe opinions (though never ſo erroneous) ought not to hinder your converſion if you were in earneſt. Yet even in this I hope to give you ſatisfaction. Your objection then is P. 16. out of D. Taylor, endeavoring to prove our inconſiſtency with civil government, becauſe ſome of our Divines teach, that that which one or two or ſome few of our Doctours ſay is lawfull, may, in our judgements, be done without mortall ſinne: But not only one, but many of our Doctours ſay tis lawfull to murder or depoſe a ſupreme Magiſtrate that is guilty of Hereſy, or ſuſpected of it: therefore Cavete Principes Concluſionem, ſay you; but according to truer Logike you ſhould ſay Cavete Principes Hereſim. I anſwer firſt, this obiection maketh nothing againſt our faith, but againſt private opinions of private Divines, which opinions he who will practice muſt expect publike execution, which is ſo terrible, that it ſecures Princes more then any preachers frighting them with feare of Sinne. Secondly I do nothing doubt but even thoſe Divines would ſo limitt, and reſtraine theyr looſe opinion to ſuch peculiar circumſtances, as would preſently clear, even theyr opinion from beeing the leaſt inconſiſtent with the preſent government, beſides our cheerfull willingnes to take any oath, and enter into any Bond, obliging vs to the loſſe of all that in this world can be loſt, if ever wee ſo much as attempt the putting this opinion in practice, which cheerfull willingnes I am ſure you will find in any Roman Catholike frend you have or can have in England. But I dare bouldly ſay, that thoſe very Doctors never intended to ſpeak of the lawfulnes of murdering an Hereticall King, or Governor in a Country where that which they call Hereſy, did already over whelme the whole Nation. I ſay nothing of theyr other many Reſtrictiōs. As that the Hereſy of ſuch a Prince if he lives will certainly ruin his country. That his country will certainly be preſerved by his death and no other way. And that for certain by killing him no very great inconveniences will follow. All theſe and other Reſtrictions even thoſe Authors will require.

25. Again Proteſtants, and thoſe whom they own for theyr Bretheren, have farre more looſe principles then theſe are, vttered even by theyr prime Apoſtles of theyr Reformation. You own the Wiccleffians for Bretheren: they all beleeve that every Magiſtrate doth truly for feitt his authority by ſinning. You own Luther for your prime Patriarch, and Calvin for his ſecond: the firſt is notoriouſly known to have preached rebellion, and to have ſaid that the Ghoſpel is not Ghoſpel except it he divulged with timults: and Calvin ſpeakes thus cap. 6. in Daniel. v. 22.25. Earthly Princes doe bereave themſelves of authority, when they erect themſelves againſt God, and, wee muſt rather ſpitt in theyr faces then obey them. See Beza de Iure Magiſtratuum in ſubditos; to ſay nothing of a world of others which might be cited whom you hould not to have erred fundamentally in true Religion, and conſequently theſe theyr errours not to be damnable. And The author of the end to Controverſies hath lately in his Preface ſhewed in particular how in every place but England your new Reforme was brought in by rebellion. And D. Ferne. §. 16. ſayth Thoſe Churches had but tumultuary Reformations.

26. Having now complied with your deſire I might claime the performance of your promiſe, but I know Gods grace muſt rather be earneſtly begged, then you earneſtly preſſed. Lay prejudice a ſide, with other human reſpects, and pray humbly to know the truth: and then by Gods grace, that may be done without which you will be eternally vndone.

THE LAST SECTION.

The Roman Church having been proved to be our infallible Iudge, all vnder paine of damnation are bound to ſubmitt to her Iudgement.

I. IN my firſt Queſtion I proved (n. 1.) that there muſt be ſome certain and aſſured meanes to end all cōtroverſies or doubts which either be or can be in Religion. And (n. 3.) I proved that all muſt needs agree in this, that our vnderſtanding muſt be bound, vnder pain of damnation, to ſubmitt it ſelfe to that infallible Iudge or Rule appointed by God to decide all neceſſary controverſies. Now, becauſe all faith eſſentially conſiſteth in the inward vnderſtanding (which is the very ſeat of true or falſe faith) God, who looketh in to our interior Soule, exacteth to ſee in that a ready imbracing of that faith without which no Salvation is to be had: And therefore, as I ſaid, he ſhould not ſeriouſly deſire our Salvatiō vnleſſe hee deſired that wee interiorly ſhould yield, full aſſent to this one, and only ſaving faith, of which faith the Apoſtle ſaid that with out it it was impoſsible to pleaſe God, and S. Mark, He who doth not beleeve shall be damned. A falſe faith, taking the beleefe of a lye for a divine verity can help to ſave no body. All then, to pleaſe God, and to be ſaved muſt have true faith which eſſentially conſiſting in the interior Iudgement, God would have this Iudgement readily to ſubmitt to the direction, or determination of that infallible Iudge which was appointed by him as the only meanes to bring vs aſſuredly to this one true faith. I earneſtly in treat the Reader to reade the proofe of all this in the place above cited And Sect. 16. n. 10.

2. All this interior ſubmiſſion of vnderſtanding, to-be due even to all that is ſaid in the Bible, and that even vnder pain of damnation, will eaſily be granted by any Sectary, houlding the Bible to be that only Rule and direction which God hath given every one, as the only meanes to bring him aſſuredly to the true faith: Wee Catholikes do no leſſe readily then they, ſubmitt to the Bible as to Gods word: but from the beginning to the ending of the ſecond Queſtion, wee have brought a world of evident and moſt convincing reaſons; proving that the Scripture, by it ſelfe alone, cannot be the only meanes appointed vs by God to bring vs to the aſſured knowledge of the true Faith neceſſary to Salvation; neither can it by it ſelfe alone, end and decide all controverſies about ſuch matters of beleefe and practice as are wholy neceſſary to Salvation; This I have ſhewed in above four and twenty particular points: Whence it followeth that God hath apointed ſome other meanes for our certain and aſſured guidance in all theſe things. This other meanes I have proved, through all my third queſtion, to be the infallible direction of the Church, and then I paſſed to ſhew at large (through all my fourth Queſtion) that this Church, whoſe direction is infallible is the Roman Church, taking the Roman Church as conteyning all that whole flock of Chriſts ſheepe adhering to the Biſhop of Rome, as to theyr head Paſtour, in what place of the world ſo ever they live. I have ſhewed the Traditions of this Church to be infallible. I have ſhewed the decrees or definitions ſet forth in any lawfull Generall Councell of this Church to be infallible. Nothing of this I have ſuppoſed, but every particular, here ſpecified, I largely proved: ſo that I do not here, without having firſt given full proof, Suppoſe this Roman Church to be infallible.

3. This then ſuppoſed; I do not ſee how our very adverſaries (convinced of the former points) can deny that all ſubmiſſion, interior, and exterior, muſt of neceſſity be yielded to this Church, whoſe directions be infallible, and ſecured by the aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt from all kind of errour: for, on the one ſide, there cannot be imagined the leaſt fear of falling into any errour, by following our guide, who is proved to be ſecured from leading into errour, and on the other ſide, this ſecurity from errour, proceeding from the promiſed aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, given to the Church purpoſely to direct all her children, in all points of that faith which God exacteth of all to pleaſe him, and to work theyr Salvation by it; and this direction beeing alſo the only ſafe and ſecure meanes which he hath given vs to this end; it is manifeſt that wee ſinne damnably if wee refuſe to follow it. Firſt becauſe it is a damnable Sinne not to ſubmitt to that order of government which the devine providence hath by his wiſdome and alſo his Sovereigne Authority appointed vnto all for theyr direction: For (as wee at large ſhewed out of S. Auſten Sect: 21. n. 5.) if God ſhould give a man Commiſſion to direct vs in ſuch points, vnto which he would have all to conforme, he who ſhould refuſe to ſubmitt to the direction of this man, ſhould be guilty of damnable diſobedience, not ſo much towards this man, as towards God who gave that Commiſſion to this man: ſo God (according to what hath been proued) having given Commiſſion to the Church to decide and determine all our Controverſies in faith, and to direct vs in all things neceſſary to Salvation, as well in beleefe, as practice; to ſtand out againſt the Church, and not to ſubmitt to this order appointed by God, is a moſt damnable ſinne of refractary diſobedience.

4. Secondly wee have no ſtricter obligation impoſed by the Law of Charity towards our own ſelves, then to procure that laſt end for which wee were cracted, to wit the eternall Salvation of our own Soules: Wee are ſure this cannot be done, but by pleaſing God, who is not pleaſed but by our profeſſion of that only one true faith, of which it is ſaid without faith it is impoſsible to pleaſe God Hebr: 11.6. And he (who with this true faith) beleeveth not, shall be damned. Mark. 16. v. 16. He then, who will not take paines and care to ſee himſelfe ſecurely ſetled in this true faith (ſo wholy neceſſary to Salvation) is damnably guilty of vncharitablenes towards his own Soul; whoſe greateſt ād eternall good he neglecteth to procure, by neglecting to procure the ōly meanes of true faith, by which it cā only be atteyned. And let no body ſay this Meanes is too hard to be procured by mee; for I am no ſcholler but a poor ignorāt creature. This will not excuſe you for God knew well enough, that the farr greater part of thoſe, whō he created for eternall Salvation and obliged to work the ſame with feare and trembling, and for whom he did, ſhedding the Laſt droppe of his blood ſo to purchaſe a greater plenty of graces for them; this God, I ſay, knew well enought that the greater part of thoſe, for which he did and ſuffered ſo much, were poore ignorant people: and therefore he had been no earneſt Louer of Soules, if he had not ordeyned ſome meanes ſo eaſy, even to the ignorant, that they thereby, might effectually be brought to that true faith, which he ſo rigorouſly exacteth of all vnder pain of damnation. This meanes, and this only meanes, I have proved at large to be the infallible guidance and direction of the Church, whoſe traditions and decrees in all points neceſſary are ſo inculcated by every preacher and Catechiſt of this Church, that it is impoſſible for any one, deſirous of inſtruction, to live in ignorance of them; impoſſible to live according to them and not to be ſaved. For this Commandement which I command thee this day, is not hidden from thee, neither is it farro of: It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldeſt ſay who shall go vp for vs to heavē, and bring it down vnto vs, that wee may hear it, and do it. Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldeſt ſay who shall go over the ſea for vs and bring it vnto vs, that wee may hear it, and do it. But the word is very nigh vnto thee. Deutr: 30.11. Wee exact not the knowledge of Greek, and Hebrew, ād the vſe of neere twenty Rules more as I have ſhewed our adverſaries to do Sect: 7. n. 6. But wee exact only the following this ſo know direction of the Church A way ſo direct that no foole can erre in it. And wee having ſo groundedly ſeen that this is the direction given vs by God to follow, wee do not proceed blindly by following it with all ſubmiſſion, but no blindnes is greater then in an vnkown way, through which of nececeſſity wee muſt paſſe at our eternall perill if wee miſſe to refuſe the following of an infallible guide provided for vs and offered to vs in this paſſage and rather to yeeld our ſelves over to a confeſſed fallible direction. What greater blindnes?

5. D. Ferne indeed and Proteſtants diſcourſe otherwiſe of the ſubmiſſion due to the Church; but it is vpon the falſe ſuppoſition that Shee is fallible, without they mean to diſcours only of theyr own Church, and then they may truely ſuppoſe her as fallible as they pleaſe: and ſhee beeing ſo fallible they moſt vnreaſonably are ſtill exacting of vs even by moſt rigorous ſequeſtration of all our eſtates, ad by what other penalties they think fitt, to leave that Church which wee ſo groundedly hould to be the only infallible guide appointed vs by God himſelfe, as the only meanes to direct vs ſecurely to our eternall Salvation ād to yeeld exteriour conformity to theyr own new moulded Church, which they all confeſſe and profeſſe to be fallible: which is to ſay, you muſt be vndone in your eſtate, without you conforme your ſelves to that new reformation of ours, which perhaps is true. For wee do not challenge infallible truth to what wee teach, wee beeing fallible men, and our interpretations of Gods word beeing only fallible; Yet infallibly wee will vndo you, if you will not follow vs: and yet if you doe follow vs perhaps you may be vndone eternally; for wee cannot ſay that our Church is infallible in what ſhee teacheth contrary to yours. Shee may therefore deceave you to imbrace a ly for a devine Verity: For you muſt be forced to imbrace a doctrine deduced by fallible interpretations out of Scripture which Interpretations the far greater and the far learnedner part of this preſent age rejects as Hereticall and which as ſuch were rejected by almoſt all viſible Chriſtianity for this laſt thouſand years, and which will perhaps ſhortly be rejected by vs. For it is ordinary with vs (I ſpeak what truly Proteſtants may ſpeak) to reject that to day which yeſterday wee cryed vp for a devine Verity.

6. Now all this beeing ſo truly ſpoaken I do not ſee what needs more to be ſpoaken to vindicate and iuſtify our moſt juſt Recuſancy in refuſing to ſubmitt to ſo prepoſterous proceedings of men when they, providing vs no better ſecurity enforce vs to refuſe due ſubmiſſion to that infallible direction of the Holy Catholik Church moſt orderly appointed by God to bring vs ſecurely to that end for which he made vs, to which God of his infinite mercy vouch ſafe to bring vs all.

7. And thus having ended what I had to ſay of this moſt important matter I muſt crave my Readers pardon for enlarging my ſelfe ſo fuſely For I am wholy of the mind of that dear freind of S. Auſten called Nebridius, who was vſed to ſay: That in a great Queſtion, he hated a short Anſwer Aug: to: 1. Epiſt: 23. ad Bonif: Wherefore in this Queſtion of Queſtions brevity might well be accounted hatefull.