The question of questions vvhich rightly resolved resolveth all our questions in religion this question is : vvho ought to be our iudge in all these our differences? : this book answereth this question, and hence sheweth a most easy, and yet a most safe way, how among so many religions the most vnlearned, and learned may find the true religion / by Optatus Ductor.

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 ne∣cessaryly 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 plain∣ly 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 sin∣gle text of Scripture, you can prove to be so. Tell mee then, I pray, tell mee, as you tender your own and my sal∣vation, 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 be∣liefe? 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 Scrip∣ture 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 di∣vine 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 eat∣ing an Apple. Is not that authority, which is able to sup∣port the infallible beleefe of Books, which contain things so hard to beleeve, able also to support the infallible be∣leefe of things farre lesse incredible, as Purgatory, Pray∣er 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 im∣portant matter, (to witt in this matter that such and such Bookes be infallibly Gods word) and that I must not be∣leeve her in lesser matters? Give me this Text, or con∣fesse 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 ma∣teriall 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 Scri∣pture 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 S^r. 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) Scrip∣ture 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 some∣thing which wee should not have been bound to be∣lieve, 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, there∣fore the only Rule guiding vs to true faith, must of neces∣sity be known assuredly by vs: Because, without the guid∣ance 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 assecur∣ed 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 sup∣port 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 de∣vine 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 Tra∣dition, 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 S^r. it is most false that vniuersall Tradition hath delivered iust that num∣ber 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 Ruf∣finus, 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 sub∣scribed in person. An evident Proof of this is, that the Sixth Generall Councel doth confirme both this Coun∣cel 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 Tradi∣tion, 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 indu∣cement, it helpeth you nothing. If you fly to the tradition of the Church only of the first four hundered yeares, re∣member that the Councel of Carthage, iust after the end of those yeares, alledged the ancient Tradition of theyr Fa∣thers, which they iudged sufficient for defining our Ca∣non. 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 Me∣lito 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. Cy∣prian 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 vni∣versall Tradition from Christs time to this? Now then all of you, by refusing the Canon commended by the Tradi∣tion of our Church; are left to the sagacity of your own noses, to hunt out that most important and infallible cer∣tain 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: Be∣cause 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 re∣nowned Chillingworth; I say, your own, for the most lear∣ned of both your vniversities have owned, and higly ma∣gnified his booke, notwithstanding his scornfull language concerning this ground of your whole Religion. Chil∣lingworth 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. Hoo∣ker (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 defen∣ce, Art. 4 P. 31. It is not the word of God which doth or can as∣sure 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 impossi∣ble that any thing should be so, and not be so, iust in the same circumstances &c. Do you think any rationall man will be∣lieve 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 de∣vines call Scripture the first Principle, an vndoubted princi∣ple, 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 Scrip∣ture, as of vnquestionable and infallible truth. Vpon this Supposition (evidently graunted by vs all) wee all, in ar∣guing with one an other, still suppose, and take for an vn∣doubted 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 Apoca∣lyps,

the Epistle to the Hebrewes &c) to come to an infal∣lible assurance that they be Gods word, to which assuran∣ce, even your admirable Luther, and his most learned dis∣ciples, never came: For they all reiect these, and other Bookes admitted for Gods infallible word by you. Now good S^r. tell mee what meanes hath God provided to bring vs (who have not these new eyes, requisite to see the Sun∣shine you speake of) or to bring your Lutheran Bre∣theren 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 assur∣ance, 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 ve∣ry Heathens, that millions of them have been thus con∣verted: 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 dispos∣ed as the hearer) no lesse evident then the broad Sunne∣shine? Doth not this shew that it is true which wee teach, that these internall Arguments are only dis∣covered 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 Scrip∣ture) is the only ground, vpon which you believe Scrip∣ture;

and consequently all other things which you be∣lieve. This ground then is the ground of all true faith, ac∣cording 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 sin∣gle 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 inter∣nall 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 Secta∣ries 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 Protes∣tants 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 ite∣rated argument) your part beeing the affirmative, affir∣ming

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 assur∣edly which were the true Coppies of the true Originals, which not; whearas those short sighted Doctors do open∣ly professe them selves to sweat at this by indefatigable la∣bour 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 themsel∣ves 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 inter∣nall 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 a∣gaine,

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 ne∣vertheles 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 con∣spicuous 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-sight∣ed as to see this small omission, and that by a light suffice∣ing 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 di∣rectly to the true text; which hath, They were not disobedi∣ēt, or rebelled not against his words, as now you read it. These, and two hundered more Corruptions in the true Psal∣mes, 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 Scrip∣ture 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 in∣fallible 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 dis∣cover 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 o∣ther 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 vniver∣sally 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 En∣glish 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 Sunne¦shine, 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 ei∣ther these men were pittifully blind, or that you mise∣rably 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 care∣fully 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. Be∣hould 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 argu∣ments 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 Ca∣non, 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 Apo∣cryphall, as well as in the other, which you hould Cano∣nicall: 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 vnsuffi∣cient 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 evi∣dent 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 con∣cerning 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 be∣leefe. For all those holy Fathers agreed ever in this, that such bookes were evidently Gods word which had evi∣dently 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 suffi∣cient, or vnsufficient the Tradition of the Church was, which recommended those Bookes for Scripture, about which there was so much doubt and contrariety of opi∣nions. They found all the Bookes conteyned in our Ca∣non (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 Canoni∣call. 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 hau∣ing examined what sufficient Tradition did demon∣strate, 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 He∣retikes; 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 exami∣ned; 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 (ac∣cording to the Greek Coppy translated by Gentianus) de∣siring 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 disco∣vered to be Gods word, which your own sharpe eyes cā∣not see to be so? especially that second book of Macha∣bees 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 re∣member 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 there∣fore it is vnderstood by these Fathers to be admitted to¦gether

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 vn∣groundedly layeth claime for him selfe, and for all the litle flock of his bretheren, to have in private this as∣sistance of the spirit assisting them, even as farre as in∣fallibility, to the hardest of all points: and yet, most vn∣groundedly 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 ad∣mitting 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 on∣ly 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.