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.

THE QVESTION OF QVESTIONS VVho ought to be our Iudge in all Controversies?

THE PREFACE.

The importance of this Question: and how easily, even ignorant men, may come to be fully resolved in it, all beeing reduced to foure only points.

I. SAint Anselm hath a very fitt Similitude to expresse, how much a contentious spirit in disputing doth blind the vn∣derstanding from seeing that truth, which a peaceable se∣arch, free from all prejudice, doth easely dis∣cover. He tells vs, that a litle before Sunne-rising, two men in the open fields, did fall into a hot de∣bate cōcerning that part of the heavens, in which the Sunne was that day to rise. They passed so far in theyr contention, that, falling first together by the eares, they at last pulled out one an others ey∣es, Whence it happened that, when by and by after the Sunne did rise, neither of them both could see a thingh so cleere as was that part of the heaven, in which the Sunne did shine so conspi∣cuously to all men who had eyes. To our purpose. Many thousands there be who knowing Zeal in

Religion to be laudable, and having a most preju∣dicate opinion of the truth of that Religion, in which they were from the first vse of reason bred vp, and which bringeth many temporall commo∣dities vnto them; they stand so hotly to the main∣teyning thereof that theyr passionate affection quite putteth out that clear eye sight of reason: Whence it cometh to passe that, when the Truth, is no lesse clearly set before the eyes of theyr vn∣derstanding, then the brightest Sunne-shine is set before our corporall eyes, they are not in case to behould it, though mē of mean capacity would most evidently see it, when they have layd a side all passion, and prejudice, and with a calme and humble mind begged of Allmighty God grace to imbrace that sincerly, which vpon diligent search, they should vnderstand to be truth. He who thus seeketh, shall not faile to find.

II. I know the multitude of Controversies which have been raysed this last age, and the ma∣nifold difficulties with which they are now grown to be intangled, do make the Search of Truth see∣me an impossibility to the ignorant, and overwe∣arisome to the most strong and strugling Witts: Therefore no Bookes seeme now more necessary then such Treatises which handle the maine que∣stion of Questions, vpon which all other particu∣lar questions so wholy depend, that the true solu∣tion of it doth necessarily draw with it the soluti∣on

of all other controversies which are or can be. This Question of Questions is, whether God, out of his most sincere desire to bring all Soules to that happy eternity for which only he created thē hath not left vs some Iudge vpon earth to end all our, otherwise endles, controversies? And who this Iudge is For the incomparably greater part of those Soules, for which Christ hath shedde his most pretious bloud, beeing vnlearned, his pro∣vidence had been defective, if the meanes of end∣ing controversies in points necessary to salvation, had been so hard to be applyed that it had been out of the vulgar reach. It beseemed therefore the Divine Providence to leave vs such meanes as should be both easy for all men to vse (that so all men might, by the vse of them, come to the end which God so earnestly desireth) and should also be most sufficient for our safe direction. For, to provide vs of easy meanes, which had been vnsuf∣ficient to direct vs securely, had not been to his, or our purpose.

III. Wee must say then, that God hath pro∣vided vs both of meanes sufficient to bring vs se∣curely to the knowledge of that Truth, which is necessary for the Salvation of our soules, and wee must say also, that this meanes is sufficiently easy to be duely vsed, and applied by the farre greater part of the world, consisting of vnlearned people. For if it were not sufficiently easy to them to apply

it duly, so as by it to atteyne to that true belief, Without which it is impossible to please God (11. Hebr: 6.) It would also be vnprofitable vnto that end for which God did give it them. This is most agrea∣ble to reason and also to those most comfortable words of Scripture (Esay. 35.) Say to the faint har∣ted take courage and fear not. Behould God himselfe will come and will save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the eares of the deaf. And there shall be a path and a way, and it shall be called the Holy Way. And this shall be vnto you a direct way, so that fooles cannot erre by it. These words must be made good, and therefore such a way must be given vnto vs. And it must not only be a Way direct in it selfe, but also it must be vnto vs a direct Way, and that so direct that even fooles cannot (except Wilfully) erre by it. This way was promised to be given vs, as it is there sayd when God himselfe should come and save vs; and provide better for our Salvation then he had done for those of either the Law of Nature, or Iewish Law. Our labour must be to find out this Way. And this must not be hard even to the igno∣rant. For it had been to small purpose to provide some where, in this vast world, a Way, so direct for the guidance of the ignorant, without the me∣anes, to be put in this way, were also sufficiently easy, even vnto them as ignorant as they are. See my second Section, also the 3. 4. 5. 6.

IV. I intend then (by the grace of God) in

this Treatise to shew that this Way may be easily found out, by only satisfying ourselves in the true Resolution of this Question of Questions, leading vs to know assuredly Who is to be our Iudge in all our Controversies appointed to be so by God Himself? For when wee have once found him, all Controversies cease of what questions so ever; for without all Controversy wee must follow this Iudge appoint∣ed by God to no other end, then to make an end of all our Controversies by his cleere sentence; Whence D. Ferne in his 27. Section: Indeed such a Iudge or Vmpire of Christendome would (if to be had) be a ready meanes to compose all differences and restore truth and peace. Wee will then indeavour to shew that such a Iudge is to be had: And our prime care shall be to proceed so clearly, that a man, of or∣dinary capacity, may carry away the substance of our whole discourse, which for this effect, wee draw to only four pomits. First I shall shew that wee must have some infallible Iudge, or Rule de∣ciding all our necessary Controversies, to which Rule wee will shew all men bound vnder paine of damnation to submit even with interior sub∣mission of Iudgment. Secondly I will shew att large that the Scripture is not this Iudge or Rule, which point will require a very full examination, becau∣se our adversaries ground them selves mainly in the contrary opinion, and all our new Sects have no other ground at all. I will shew Thirdly that this

infallible Iudge can be no other (as things stand) then the true Catholike Church; And this must be also fully handled because it is the ground of our Religion; And the true Resolution of the Que∣stiō of Questiōs depends wholy on itt. Lastly I will shew that all the arguments, which convince the true Catholike Church to be this Iudge, do con∣vince the Roman, and no Church but the Roman. To be this infallible Iudge to whom all conse∣quently must be bound vnder paine of damnation to submitt theyr Iudgments, and accordingly live vnited to her Communion; this blessed vnion will end our Controversies.

V. Indeed this Question of Questions truely resolved quite vndermineth the foundation of all Sects opposit to the Roman Church, shewing vs a most easy, and yet a most safe way, how in these times the most learned and vnlearned may find the true Religion, to witt, by following the Iudgment of that Iudge, whom God hath ap∣pointed them in all doubts of Religion to fol∣llow. And therefore, in this infinite confusion of new fangled Sects, this Question (though never so often handled heretofore,) seemeth now more necessary then ever, even although I should do nothing, else but publish new Cop∣pies of ould arguments; such Coppies beeing now so very necessary to be thrust into every mans hands. My best indeavours shall aime at making

these arguments truly publick: that is to set them downe so plainly, and in so vulgar and cleer lan∣guage, devoide of Schoole Tearmes, that ordi∣nary people may fully conceave and perfectly vn∣derstand the force of them. If my endeavours in this can be successefull, I hope this work, after so many other mens writings will, not be vnseaso∣nable at least for the vulgar. But they must have patience with a long answer to a most important and ample Question.

[illustration] printer's device of Maximilian Graet

M.G.

THE FIRST QVESTION.

VVhether there must be some Infallible Iudge, or Rule to deduce all necessary Controversies to whom all are bound vnder paine of damnation to submit their vnderstandings. AND How orderly wee proceed to the finding out of this Iudge.

1. THis Question is put in the first place, rather for order sake, then for any de∣batable difficulty which it contaynes. For all Christians, of what Religion so euer they be, do agree in this, that there must be some certain and assured mea∣nes to end all Controversies or doubts, which either be, or can be in Religion. The reason is apparent, because otherwise euery man might be left free to belieue what he iudged best, and so wee should soon haue as many Religions as there be priuate and different iudgments. Truth is but one: wherefore though all these different opinions may be false, yet it is manifest that, (though they be thousands,) but only one of them can be true. For whosoeuer differeth from this one opinion which is true, differeth from the truth. S. Paul tels vs (11. Hebr: 6.) Without Faith it is impossible to please God. That is, it is impossible to please him without true Faith: for he is not pleased with false Faith. Without wee please God

it is impossible to be saved, and you see it is impossible to please him with out true Faith. And againe you see that true Faith cannot be found in quite contrary per∣swasions, of which one only can be true, there must there¦fore be some meanes to know this one true Faith from so infinite a multitude of false opinions. What meanes is this?

2. It must be a meanes infallible, as all Christians agree, but Socinians. For if it be fallible, all Religion may be a phansy. Christian Faith is an infallible assent, to which no fallible meanes can bring vs. This meanes therefore must be infallible. Hitherto wee all agree. See whitaker Cont. 1. Q. 1. Cap. 8.

3. All also can not but agree in this, that our inward vnderstanding must be bound, vnder paine of damna∣tion, to submit it selfe vnto that infallible Iudge, or Rule appointed by God to decide all necessary Controversies. For if you in your private judgment, without any fault at all, may follow what you really thinke fittest to be followed, why may not I, as well as you; And an other as well as you or I, follow what really seemeth fit∣test to be followed? Wherefore, it were to no pur∣pose at all (in order to the preservation of vnity in faith) to have an infallible Iudge, vnlesse every man in parti∣cular were bound, by a most strict precept, to submit to that Iudge. Again he who should not submit to an authority acknowledged to be appointed by God to such an end, should manifestly resist to be governed by that meanes by which the Divine Providence had de∣creed to govern him, which is a damnable rebellion against God; and an act of high treason it is against the Divine Majesty, to refuse to stand to the judgement of

that Iudge, or determination of that Rule which God hath placed, for no other end but for all to stand and sub∣mitt vnto it, that by this submission, they may be guided infallibly to that one true Faith, without which it is im∣possible to please God, or be saved. Now because all Faith essentially consisteth in the inward vnderstanding (which is the very seat of true or false Faith) God, who looketh vpon our interior Soule, exacteth to see in that a ready imbracing of that Faith, without which no Sal∣vation is to be had, and therefore he should not seriou∣sly desire our Salvation, vnlesse he desired that wee in∣teriorly yealded full assent to this one, and only Saving Faith, which Faith consisting essentially (as I sayd) in the interior judgment, God would haue this judgmēt readely to submitt to that infallible Iudges determinatiō, appoin∣ted by him, as the only meanes to bring vs assuredly to this one true Faith. Things which are necessary to please God. must of necessity be things of precept and strict cōmand, even vnder paine of dānation, because our very greatest obligatiō, of all obligatiōs, is to obey his will, and pleasure. And his Sacred pleasure is to exact that most at our hands, which is most for our good, and which ma∣keth most for our Salvation. True Faith therefore bee∣ing a necessary meanes to bring vs to our eternall good, he, with all reason, exacteth of vs all, to submit our interior vnderstanding (the very seat of true or false Faith) to the full assent of that, which shall be prescribed vs to believe, by that meanes, which his holy providence shall assigne vs, for our guidance in Faith: that so all may be vnited in Faith interiorly: for in deede otherwise they be not of one Faith at all. And hence again appea∣reth that this meanes must be infallible, for it is not pos∣sible

that God should put a Command vpon all to follow that which might lead to any errour great, or litle.

4. Out of this generall doctrine, received vniversally without any considerable contradiction, there followeth manifestly this consequence, that two men, of two diffe∣rent Religions, cannot be saved, if both of them know what doctrine is taught them, by that infallible Iudge or Rule, appointed them by God to be followed, as theyr guide, in matters of Faith. For both these men, knowing on the one side that God hath put an obliga∣tion vpon them, to submitt to the believing of that, which is proposed by his infallible Iudge or Rule; and yet, on the other side, one of them flatly refusing to believe what is thus proposed vnto him; this one who proceedeth thus must needs be guilty of the damnable sinne of refractary disobedience against the express command of God, obli∣ging strictly all to submitt to the Iudge appointed by him, to guide all to the necessary true Faith, and knowne to be so appointed: Hence it is Scripture: He who doth not believe shall be damned. Mark. 16. v. 16. And of those who follow sects, S. Paul sayth: Gal. 5.20.21. They who do these things shall not obteyn the Kingdome of Heaven.

5. These principles I lay down so distinctly in the be∣gining, and will again inculcate at the ending, that all may see of how high concernment it is to make vse of this meanes, wholy necessary to that only true Faith, without which it is impossible to please God and to be saved. They therefore are in a damnable case, who beeing strictly obliged to vse that meanes, which is wholy necessary to come to the knowledge of this only true Faith, do not informe them selves carefully to find out this meanes ap∣pointed by God to guide and direct all to this only true

Faith, either fondly believing that men of contrary Re∣ligions may be saved (which wee have just now proved to be false, except in case of invincible ignorance) or else by damnable negligence, omiting to vse that serious care in seeking out, and solicitously searching, the know∣ledg of this meanes, which they are obliged to do in a matter concerning a no lesse busines, then an eternity of everlasting blisse; or never ending misery. Now least any one should secretly dispaier of finding out this meanes, ād so grow slack in the search of it (which is the lamenta∣ble case of many thousands) I (in my preface at the begin∣ning) tooke care to shew, that, even ignorāt people, might, by a very tolerable care, come to the knowledge of this meanes, or else God had not sufficiently, according to his most sweet Providence, provided for the farre greater part of those Soules, for whose Salvation he died, inten∣ding to save them all, by first bringing them to the pro∣fession of this only true Faith; and consequently, inten∣ding to leave them some certain meanes, to come to the knowledge of it, by such diligence as is very tolerable to human frailety, and very possible to vs, as ignorant as wee are.

6. What then is this meanes? It is (as I said in the be∣ginning of this Question) to follow some infallible Iudge or Rule, directing vs plainly and clearly to the knowledge of what God would have vs believe, to whom wee are all bound vnder paine of damnation to submit our vn∣derstandings. But who is this Iudge or Rule? This is the Question of Questions. Here wee and all Protestants, and all other Sectaries notably disagree. They all say that wee are obliged to follow, and admitt no other infallible Ru∣le then the Scripture, which Scripture they all affirme to

be a Rule sufficient, by it selfe a lone, to tell vs so plainly, and so cleerly, all that is necessary to Salvation in matters of Faith, that wee need no other meanes to direct vs in this point. Wee, who are Roman Catholikes hold the Scripture to be indeed a Rule infallible, and to which all are bound, vnder pain of dānatiō, to submit theyr vnder∣standings; but wee have very many, and very convincing reasons, which move vs to believe that God did not in∣tend the Holy Scripture to be, by it selfe alone, our only guide in matters of faith necessary to Salvation, as I shew by fiue proofes in the first Section. Moreover wee say that wee stand in need of some other infallible guide to know many things necessary to Salvation, which be not clearly set down in Scripture, and I shall shew no fewer then 24. all not to be knowne by Scripture, wich doth not tell vs wich Books be the true word of God, which be not, wich be true vncorrupted coppies of these Bookes, which Coppies be false and corrupted, and in what places they be corrupted. Here comes in an vnanswerable difficulty about S. Matthews Gospel. Again wee stand in need of an other infallible guide to tell vs which is the true, certain and vndoubted sense of these true Coppies, and which is not. For, from hence arrise almost all our gratest Contro∣versies. Again, because our adversaries without such an in∣fallible guide, different from Scriptures, can neither in∣fallibly know which books be the true word of God, which be not; nor which be the true Originall Coppies of these true books, which not; nor which the true Transla∣tions of the true originals; nor which is the vndoubted sense of these true Originals or Coppies, and which is not. Hence wee conceive it impossible for them truly to be∣leeve Scripture with that divine Faith, which is grounded

allwayes vpō divine revelation, and is wholy necessary to salvatio. Whence wee hould our selves only to be the true believers of Scripture; for we beleeue it with that Faith which resteth vpon divine revelation. Moreover by our adversaries arguments alleadged out of Scripture, to proue it to be the only Rule of Faith, sufficient by it selfe to decide all necessary Controversies, wee proue that it is not such a Rule. Yea though Scripture were granted to be this Rule, wee from hence can prove, that it cleerly de∣cideth many necessary Controversies for vs against our adversaries. But wee hould that, for our Rule cleerly deci∣ding all necessary Controversies, wee must have a Living Iudge which the Scripture is not, and therefore the Holy Fathers, in theyr disputations against Heretikes, often re∣fused to stand to Scripture only. This infallible Living Iudge wee say is the Church, regulating her selfe in her determinations according to the infallible Rule of Gods word, out of which word shee judgeth her selfe to be ob∣liged also to Rule her selfe according to those Traditions which the Apostles did deliver by word of mouth only, and not by writing. For the Scripture not conteyning all matters necessary to Salvation; but the Apostoles of Christ delivering some of these matters only by word of mouth, shee ruleth also her selfe in her definitions accor∣ding to these traditions knowing that those things which the Apostoles taught by word of mouth, are no lesse worthy all credit, then what they taught by pen and pa∣per. And by the same Traditions she is as sufficiently assu∣red of what was delivered only by word of mouth, as of what was delivered by pen and paper. Now least that in taking true Sripture for false, true Traditiōs for false, or in delivering the true Sense of the one, or the other, this

Church should be subject to error, wee say, shee is in these matters, alwayes assisted in her publike determinations, by the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, promised to her for this ēd to lead her in to all truth. That cheife Court, in which shee delivereth to the people her infallible Defi∣nitions, wee all hold to be lawfull generall Councels, which the supreme Pastor of the Church presideth. Neither doth this Church want meanes to make all her decrees evidently knowne to the people, to be her true Decrees. And all this, which hath hitherto been sayd of the Church in generall, wee shew to be verified only of the Roman Church; of whom also all these prime things which the Scriptures say of the true Church, are verified, and vnited in her alone: The Roman Church therefore beenig this our infallible Iudge appointed by God to end, and determin all our Controversies, all vnder pain of damnation are to submit theyr inward Iudgements and vnderstandings to her decrees, Neither are they in state of Salvation who refuse to do it.

7. Here you have a briefe Summe of all our doctrine in generall, and just almost in that very order that I have deliuered here so many important points, without brin∣ging here any full proofe of them. I shall now proceed to the full proofe of all, and every one of these points here set downe, so breifly, to the end that thou mayest see how cleerly wee proceed, resolving first this Question Who is to be our Iudge, by shewing in diverse Sections that the Scri∣pture is not Iudge. And then shewing that this infalli∣ble Iudge can be no other then the Church. And thirdly, that this Church can be no other then the Roman. And consequētly all that hath hitherto been said, or hereafter shal be said, to agree to the infallible Iudge (whom wee

are now seeking out) is verified of the Roman Church and of no other.

THE SECOND QVESTION.

VVhether the Scripture be this infallible Iudge or Rule appointed us by God to decide all neces∣sary Controversies.

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 Scrip∣ture by it selfe alone, is that infallible Ru∣le, 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 cer∣taine and vndoubted true sense of the same, they make no other vse of the authority of any Church, or any ge∣nerall 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 dis∣cretion, 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 jud∣gement of discretion be convinced that, what they say, is

not agreable to Scripture, they freely reject it, and disbe∣lieue it. And this hath ever been the proceeding of all an∣cient 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 dis∣cretiō, 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 thou∣sand 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 deli∣beration considered all the texts of Scriptures coneer∣ning 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 diffu∣sed, 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 af∣ter his serious perusal of the matter his rude vnderstan∣ding, according to his privat judgement of discretion, doth in good earnest think this Decree (or all these De∣crees) to be contrary to the word of God (rightly inter∣preted 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 prodi∣gious 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 con∣sequences 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 soo∣ner. For althouh theyr Bishops held the doctrine of giu∣ing all liberty to follow in Conscience what they in theyr private judgements of discretion held to be conforma∣ble 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, ta∣ken by it selfe, doth suffice to decide, and end all our cō∣troversies. This I prove first; by an argument so mani∣fest, 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 mo∣re

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 broa∣ched 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 be∣gan 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 Span∣themius. In fine Luther himselfe ād his disciples did so tum∣ble 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 Lu∣therum. Praefat. Theyr cheife permanent Sects were, the An∣tinomians, Osiandrians, Majorists, Synergists, Stancarians, Ams∣dorfians, Flavians, Substantiatians, Accidentarians, Adiapho∣rists, Musculans, Pseffringians, Vbiquists. So much for Lu∣therans.

3. Now in the year 1538. Iohn Calvin a disciple of Zwinglius, despising his master did set vp of him selfe, ad∣ding many opiniōs to that of the Sacramentarians. This mans Religion, and his disciples began so quikly to be di∣vided, and subdivided in to so many sects, that Luther did

live to write thus of them: I scarce ever read of a more de∣formed 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 opi∣nions. 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 be∣ginnings. 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 Babilo∣nian confusion proceeds from this one principle, of thru∣sting 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 cau∣se why wee shall see no controversies ever ended by stan∣ding only to the Sentence given by God in the Bible) is this, that whilst wee take thus the Scripture for our on∣ly Rule, and God, as he speaketh by the Scriptures alone, for our only Iudge, wee needs must fall into a vast con∣fusion. For every one of vs having our private Iudge∣ments

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 de∣clared 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, peru∣sing 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 requi∣re) 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 evi∣dent Scripture and demonstration against publick authority of the Church And that vpon dissent and gainsaying they must vn∣dergo 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 pro∣per to the Church. But questionles this meanes is most vnef∣fectuall, 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 ap∣plyed by men, that is, by those to whome Nature hath gi∣ven as different judgements in theyr vnderstandings, as affections in their love and wills. Well now, when this weake, this most fallible and most various vnderstan∣ding, 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 au∣thority 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 doctri∣ne 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 sepera∣te 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 indepen∣dents ād cast of this remnāt of depēdency not only of hi∣gher 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 sa∣me 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 Scrip∣ture, 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 Scri∣ture. 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 perso∣nality, 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 Do∣ctors. This I can easely vnderstand: I will see a litle fur∣ther 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 ci∣ted 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 de∣monstratiō

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 foun∣dations of true Religion, as you confesse this Arrian belie∣fe doth. And just as this Cobler proceeds in denying this Consubstantiation, so you proceed in denying Transub∣stantiation. Only he who denyes Confustantiatiō hath in∣comparably 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 Ru∣le, by which wee are to be wholy directed. Now if this be so, that you will have vs judged by all Canonicall Boo∣kes, then you must agree to tell vs, which Bookes for cer∣tain be those which belong to the making vp the whole number of Canonicall Bookes. For it is a most just re∣quest 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 a∣mong the apocrypha, some halfe a score Bookes which wee hould for Canonicall. Again, your English Bible ta∣keth 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 num∣ber 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 Que∣stions to his Commentaries vpon the 4. Ghosples Q. 4. §. 8. doth not only affirme, but most solidly prove, that no fe∣wer 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 Epi∣stle 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 pla∣ce 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 ne∣ver called a Nazaren in all the Prophets Bookes which wee have. Whence S. Chrysostom writing on this place Ho∣mil. 9. in Mat. sayth, Many of the Propheticall monuments have perished; for the Iewes beeing careles, and not only careles, but al∣so 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 mali∣ce 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, be∣sides those many which you your selves thurst vniustly out of your Bible. Will you have us now, in all our Con∣troversies 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 belee∣ved, 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 can∣not assigne any particular Bookes, or particular num∣ber 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 sel∣fe 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 mat∣ters necessary for beliefe ād practice, was wholy necessa∣ry to the Salvation of every one; and knew also on the otherside (as you must say) that the only meanes, appoin∣ted by God for theyr necessary direction in this necessa∣ry Faith, was the Scripture, and nothing but the Scriptu∣re, by which every man was to Iudge for him selfe; it can∣not, 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 impos∣sible 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 do∣ctrine

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 gree∣ke was vnderstood either by all, or by the greater part of the world, they prove this most pittifully, by only ci∣ting Tully pro Archia Poëta saying. Graeca omnibus fere genti∣bus 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, becau∣se he added the word Almost even then, when he delive∣red this his saying in an encomiasticall Oration, in which Orators make freest vse of amplifications, and hyperbo∣licall 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 chee∣fly to be regarded. And either, in this vsuall sense, Tul∣ly must be vnderstood; or else flat Scripture must be de∣nied. 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) Phry∣gia, Pamphilia, all which places are situated between that Citty, which now wee call Constantinople, and the cit∣ty 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 pu∣blik prayer in latin, though this language, be so common among all wel bred people; and yet, this our Common pu∣blik 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 offe∣reth vp these publike Prayers: But the Scripture, especi∣ally 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 mea∣nes are accounted by you fallible, and consequently vn∣sufficient to bring forth an infallible assent, such an one as true saving faith must be. But the truth is, that the Apo∣stles knew well enough, that orall tradition, joy∣ned to the dayly profession of the faith so delivered, and to the dayly practise, answerable to what they so profes∣sed, would abundantly suffice for the sufficient commu∣nicating 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 af∣ter 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 neces∣sary to be believed or done to Salvation: not ex∣presly 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 obser∣ving the connections, also sincerity and impartiallity in the col∣lection 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 vnle∣arned) are most preposterously by Protestant Doctors invited, yea declared to be commanded, to read the Scriptures, to the end they may plainly know by them∣selves 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, plain∣ly set down, and though they be deducible from Scrip∣ture, 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 condi∣tions, 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 with∣out 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 in∣comparable 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 Schol∣lers that can be got by them in the world: all chiefly hau∣ing 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 vnrea∣sonable 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 vnder∣stand: 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 vnreason∣able, 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 clear∣ly 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 Prote∣stants teach: Wherefore an vnavoidable necessity doth fall vpon you, to affirme; that all things necessary to be be∣leeved, or done, are plainly set down in Scripture: And con∣sequently what is not so delivered, is thereby sufficient∣ly signified not to be necessary. As for your limitations, in declaring these words, plainly set down, whe shall (be∣sides what wee have already said) say much more in the end of this Section and Sect. 7. Now wee must give a di∣stinct declaration of this your opinion, which perforce must be held by all kind of Protestants; for necessity en∣forceth them, who disagree so often, here wholy to a∣gree. 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 necessa∣ry: 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 com∣munity; 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 plain∣ly

tould in what manner shee is, in all times and places, to be provided of Lawfull Pastors, and that with perpe∣tuall 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 know∣ledg 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 whe∣ther they be all equall, so that the one cannot be jud∣ged, 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 de∣posing of these Pastors? Pastors have such a main influen∣ce 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 Em∣perors, Kings, or other Magistrates, or common peo∣ple? 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 go∣vernment; by the highest Tribunall vpon earth; which Tribunall Protestants acknowledge to be Lawfull gene∣rall Councels, and then nationall Councels. For vpon the lawfulnes of nationall Councels, and vpon theyr le∣gall power (even in matters of making so great a change of Religion, as was made, by bringing in Protestant Re∣ligion, 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 re∣forming; and can do it regularly, according to the way of the Church by Provinciall Synods. And this is considerable in the En∣glish Reformation. So he here; and again more fully in his new booke. C. 1. num. 24. against D. Champny. A stran∣ge, though a necessary contradiction, in places so ve∣ry 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 de∣monstration 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 ob∣scurely 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 Salva∣tion

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 re∣gularly reforming, (though perhaps out of policy to op∣pose 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 Chur∣ches vpon the face of the whole Earth. Now as the salva∣tion 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 ne∣cessity be called to this Councel, to make the calling law∣full? 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 cen∣sures 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 fift∣ly, who must preside in this assembly? Nor sixtly, what po∣wer this assembly hath to declare all doubts in faith? Or whether it can impose precepts vnder paine of damnati∣on? For example, commanding all vnder this penalty to keepe Christmas day, assension day, and to commu∣nicate once a year, to fast on Christmas Eve, yea to fast

a whole Lent? Or whether, after all theyr decrees, eve∣ry 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 Pas∣tors may, and ought to performe in the Church? Whe∣ther they may have none at all, as now the fashion is? Or whether they may have such an one as is different, e∣ven in the prime substance, from all the world; as the fa∣shion was heretofore? For it cannot but be a thing high∣ly importing, in a whole Community, to retaine such or such a publik service as was, at least in substance, ap∣pointed 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 Chris∣tians of all Nations, (which were not confessed Heretic∣kes) 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 nei∣ther 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 ne∣cessary 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 exam∣ple, by whom is every Sacrament necessarily to be admi∣nistred? 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 vnde∣cidable 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 Sa∣craments, at least in publik: Yea, though they hould Ma∣trimony no Sacrament, yet wee see a world make scru∣ple about the Lawfulnes of it, except by ordeyned Mi∣nisters 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 Sacra∣ments, or that they only should have power to blesse the bread: for where is this writtē? For Christ, after he had ta∣ken 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 al∣so, 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 na∣tions, 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 Commu∣nity; 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 ge∣nerall Councels observed, when these Councels are law∣full; and consequently they must be furnished with suffi∣cient meanes to know the lawfulnes of them: which they can never be, but by knowing those six things speci∣fyed aboue N. 6, no one of which six things are clearly tould them by any Scripture. To these Pastors also it be∣longeth 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 be∣leeue

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 necessa∣ry 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 plain∣ly tould them in Scripture: as whether they may have two wives, or no, at one time? wee all hould this damna∣ble, 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 with∣in such and such degrees of kindred, as wee all hould; where be these degrees cleerly tould vs in the new Scrip∣ture? If wee are to practice what is in the ould Testa∣ment, 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 lawful∣ly 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 mar∣riage 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 no∣thing of the obligation which parents have, to send theyr children to be baptized in due time; because of the obli∣gation of baptizing children wee shall speak hearafter sect. 8. n. 3. as also of sending them to such who can law∣fully 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 prac∣tice 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 submis∣siō 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 cōmend∣ed 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 (clear∣ed by no plain Scripture) is, whether the Book of Scrip∣ture, 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 al∣so by no plain Scripture, is whether, though such a book be Gods word; yet I be secured, that it hath not been cor∣rupted in the Chapter, or verse, expressing the point in cōtroversy. The third difficulty, cleared plainly by no Scrip∣ture is, that these words, on which the controversy de∣pends, 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 figu∣ratively, 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 al∣low 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 Scrip∣ture) 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 dif∣ficulties wee shall speak fully in the following Se∣ctions.

12. Now wee must consider how these words, Plain∣ly 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 differen∣ces in most important matters.

13. A sixth difficulty (and a most fruictfull Mother of a number of difficulties) ariseth from your own explica∣tions, and declarations, and modifications, and limita∣tions, and as good as annihilations, by which you so re∣strain this principle; which you strain so much at other ti∣mes, 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 manifest∣ly draw out of it the knowledge of all points that are ne∣cessary;

but (sayth he) it is enough, if it be done by the Mi∣nisters. So litle plain dealing there is in calling, or mis∣calling that thing plain; which plainly proveth it selfe not to be so, by not beeing plain to any, who are not as know∣ing men as theyr Ministers. All woemen (who so des∣peratly read, ād cite the bible) may now despaire of know∣ing, 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 re∣probate 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 fin∣ger if you can) as vse all these things following. 1. Atten∣tion, 2. Diligence in search of the Scripture, 3. Collation of places, 4. Observing the connexions, 5. Sincerity and impar∣tiality, 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 sufficient∣ly, 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 be∣sides vnderstanding the words and places of Scripture. No won∣der 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 ma∣ny 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, a∣mong 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 Minis∣ters abuse thee, which do, all of them, teach this doct∣rine (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 Coun∣cels 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 re∣ally 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 pro∣mised 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 nine∣teene 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 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.

SECT: IV. AN EIGHT ARGVMENT,

That the Scriptures cannot decide this Controver∣sie, which bookes bee the true vncorrupted Copyes of the true bookes of Scrip∣ture: And therefore Protestāts believe not Scrip∣ture 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 Testa∣ment, of which I conceive my selfe to have a true Copy: without I can authen∣tically prove, the Copy that I have to bee indeed authen∣tical. So, it is to small purpose, that God did, by his Pro∣phets, write such bookes as Genesis, Exodus and the rest of the old and new Testament, to our inestimable advan∣tage; 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 e∣very 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 vncorrup∣ted, wee are no where told plainely in Scripture. The last part of the Scripture which was written, was written a∣bout a thousand and six hundred yeares agoe. No Scrip∣ture hath been written, since that time, to telle vs, that since that time no corruption hath happened, or falsyfy∣ing 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 au∣thentically declare their being true originals, or agree∣ing 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 tradi∣tion 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 infallib∣ly true as your faith; which I proue by this Demonstra∣tion: 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 deliver∣ed to you by these Copyes: just as wee say, our faith is built vpon the word of God, as propounded or deliver∣ed 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 de∣livered to you by such Copyes as you onely, by an hu∣mane faith, know to bee the true deliverers of Gods vn∣corrupted 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 vn∣corrupt, 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 Origi∣nals, 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 Pro∣phets, 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 bo∣dy (as farre as any body knoweth) telling vs one word of that man, good or bad? For these bookes were writ∣ten by God knoweth whom. Wee haue nothing but vn∣certaine

opinions concerning the writers of diverse of the most assured and protocanonicall bookes of scrip∣ture: as of the bookes af Ioshua, Ruth, Iudges, Ester, the bookes of Kings the bookes of Chronicles, or Paralypome∣non. 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 Tradi∣tion, 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 infallib∣ly, 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 writ∣ten, 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 con∣fesseth. 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 pla∣ces, changed since Moyses writt them. That the like chan∣ges 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 au∣thority 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 Scrip∣tures, 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 cor∣ruption, for any thing you know. Again.

5. If wee speake of such changes as may bee both corruptions, and most pernicious corruptions, in the He∣brew 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 chan∣ges might, after their times, be made by the Iewish Rab∣bins (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 Rab∣bins 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 per∣fidious Iewes, taught vs to reade every vowell as it should bee read in such a place: and did not; by the add∣ing 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 as∣surednesse 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 pru∣dence, much expect from such sworne enemyes to Chris∣tianity, as those Iewes were. Such men then as these put∣ting 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 dif∣ferent 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 Protes∣tant, 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 milde∣nesse

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 Co∣pye, 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 exam∣ple, of whose true meaning, these false pointers have dis∣appointed 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 vow∣els should for certaine bee putt, according to the mean∣ing 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 Co∣pye 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 Testa∣ment was written: But you your selves exceeding often refuse, in your English Bibles, to follow the present Co∣pyes of the Septuaginta, as copyes that are by you esteem∣ed corrupted in severall places; and consequently se∣cure 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 re∣ward 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 read∣ing 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 translat∣ed 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 dig∣nifyeing their good works;) you refuse againe to stand to the Septuagint, ād flye againe to the present Hebrew Co∣pye, which having both the sense of the Septuagint, and another sense helping you to shift off this place, you fol∣low 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 Septua∣gint. 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 Co∣pyes 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 dif∣ferent Translation; as hee proveth by many arguments, of which one is this: Genesis 26. Where the servants of I∣saac doe say, according to the Septuagint, wee have not found water: Whereas they should say, Wee have found wa∣ter; 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 Co∣pyes. 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 lec∣tions and annotations; and for that purpose had vsed great diligence, and spent much money to furnish him∣selfe 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 A∣theisticall, 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 writ∣ing.

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 great∣er 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 in∣credible almost in every verse: how much more incredible would the multitude of severall readings bee, if the dili∣gence, 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 caus∣ed 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 cor∣rupted in many more. And sure I am, that corrupted Iud∣ges, 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 in∣credible 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. Where¦fore 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 him∣selfe, whether this vndoubtedly bee that Rule given him by God. Excellently Seneca, Omnia delibera cum ami∣co, sed priùs delibera de amico. All consultations with thy sure friend make: But first consult Whom for this friend to take. Be∣fore 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 con∣cernement 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 pro∣mised

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 novel∣ty. 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 M^r. Mi∣nister, and by you M_r. 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 iudge∣ment. 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 Prudent∣ly 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 thou∣sand pounds, and bee vnwise, if I trust him with an hun∣dred 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 im∣prudence 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 Sa∣crament, or no? What Scripture, or any thing like Scrip∣ture, 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 delive∣red 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 sen∣tence 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 anti∣quity, 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 appear∣ed (as they say) for the number of the ancient langua∣ges in which it is setting forth, and for the exquisite ex∣actnesse 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 Lon∣don 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 read∣ing, 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 in∣dustry, such as this is (that is, as greate as is to bee ex∣pected 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 iudge∣ment, pronounced by and with the consent of a gene∣rall Councell;

shee will have vs to thrust out our right eye, the eye of our spirituall vnderstanding &c; Where∣fore, 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 Iudge∣ment of the Church in a full Counsell,

(I adde notwith¦standing also the private iudgement of such greate Doc∣tors as these are, Who now so painefully labour in pro∣curing the true Copye of the Bible For vs)

Private Christians (sayth D.^r Fern) have their private iudge∣ment 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 al∣lowing 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 end∣ed, (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 trust∣ing 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 Coun∣cels, 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 Wor∣ship of Reliques and holy Images of Christ and his Saints Act, 3: Yet wee have the private iudgement of discre∣tion 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 in∣deed 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 lan∣guages as well as you; and pervse all the authenticall tes∣timonyes, 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, be∣sides 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 par∣ticular, 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 other∣wise. 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 Co∣pyes disagree about the texts concerning the reall presen∣ce; 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 ac∣count 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 embra∣cing the Copyes presented vnto them in this most accu∣rate 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 autho∣rity of these learned men, who most plainely confesse the frequent differences of their Copyes in points not funda∣mentall, and who also, by the name of points not fundamen∣tall, 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 Rea∣ders) That you have not among you any Copy, which you vndoubtedly know, so much as by evidence of hu∣mane 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 rea∣son? 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 an∣swer that this is to suppose the very thing which is in que∣stion, Whether Christ gave vs Scripture for our onely Rule. Yea, because it is cleare that, standing in humane evi∣dence, 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 Controver∣sye, 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 sal∣vation 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 neces∣sary to salvation: But it cannot doe this to the farre great∣er 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 writ∣ten: 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 pai∣nes 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 ton∣gue

was quite lost (for as much as concerneth the vul∣gar 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 no∣thing 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 pas∣sionate affection to it, or disaffection to the contrary: or rather, not so much with so plaine downe right wilful∣nesse; as with an overswaying preiudice, which hath pre∣possessed 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 mes∣senger had not immediate accesse to Gods word, in that very hand writing in which it was written by the scrip∣ture 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. Be∣sides 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 in∣cidēt, 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 Trans∣lator, 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 Co∣pye for Gods owne word, and sets it downe as advanta∣geously 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 indi∣rectly 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 Trās∣lations 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 ne∣cessary 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 vnder∣stand 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: Ther∣fore 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 ma∣ny vncertaintyes in this very point, vpon which all their whole fayth doth rely. First they must rely vpon this vn∣certainty, 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 Origi∣nall, 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, care∣lesse to expresse the true sense of his Copye, not mark∣ing 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 vn∣certaine 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 pai∣nes as hee could. A fayth relying vpon so many vncer∣tainetyes, for certaine cannot but bee vncertaine: But all the fayth, which such Protestants have, is thus vncer∣taine; 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 Reforma∣tion) 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 Mar∣cionists 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 no∣ting 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 Testa∣ment 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 Bel∣larmine 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 Apo∣logy

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 Transla∣tors, that they were fooles, Asses, Antichrists, Deceauers and of an Asse-like vnderstanding. That Beza reproueth the trans∣lation of Oecolampadius (who with Zuinglius and Carolosta∣dius did first begin your Reformation in point of the Reall Presence:) He then hauing set forth his Bible at Basile, Be∣za 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 An∣notat: goeth on and calleth Castalio his Translation false, foolish, vnskilfull, bould, blasphemous, vitious, ridiculous, Curs∣ed, 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 Trās∣lators 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 autho∣rity 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 Corrup∣tions 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 Testa∣ment? 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 Transla∣tions (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 En∣gland) in the 26. year of her Reign (as Sir Richard Baker writeth in that year) did command Whitgift her Archbi∣shop of Canterbury, to set forth three Articles to be sub∣scribed 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 de∣praued the sense, or obscured the truth, and deceaued the igno∣rant. 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 pre∣sent 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 di∣uers examples, particularly that in the hundred and fifth Psal∣me. V. 28 where it is sayd They were not obedient; in the Origi∣nal 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 Bis∣hops, Doctors, Deuines &c. in Queen Elizabeths dayes, euen to her last day, did subscribe, and by Publick Au∣thority 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 corrup∣tions of the word of God, that Mr. Broughton (a man as skilfull in Hebrew and Greek as any was in England) ac∣cording to his skill did giue this Censure in his Aduerti∣sement of Corruptions to the Bishops; saying, That theyr pub∣lick Translation of Scriptures into English is such as it peruer∣teth 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 sel∣ues: when your learnedest Deuines (who made so cor∣rupted 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 Pil∣ler 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 gros∣se 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 Coun∣sel, 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 for∣mer verse tell vs, All men cannot, receiue this saying. Where∣as

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 Trans∣lator not to make any conscience of so willfully falsi∣fying 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 ex∣tant this day in Europe, there is none of all them which is of di∣vine and infallible authority: For faith doth rely on the autho∣ritie or veracity of God, which allwayes is certaine and infal∣lible, although all the meanes be not infallible; For translati∣ons have only so farre authority as farre as they agree with the first own-hand written Originall: But they are sufficient mea∣nes 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 pre∣sent 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 controvert∣ed 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 content∣ed 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 on∣ly 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 Trans∣lations 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 where∣as

you tell vs that Translation (the only Rule wee can handle) have only so farre divine authority as farre as they a∣gree 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 re∣stored 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 pre∣sent 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 conse∣quence 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 autho∣rity, 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 Sal∣vation, 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 man∣ners; 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, with∣out 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, with∣out 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 man∣ners, 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 Controuer∣sy 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 Co∣pyes

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 Origi∣nal-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 suffi∣cient 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 infal∣lible, 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 de∣liuered 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 neces∣sary 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 Scrip∣ture against the Marcionists the Cerdonists, and the Ma∣nicheans, 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 Transla∣tions, as in true Originals; yet because you of your Re∣ligion, 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 Trās∣latiōs; 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 argu∣ments) 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 assur∣ing 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. Mat∣thews 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 in∣fallible 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 deli∣uered be agreeable to Gods word, or only to the Inter∣preters 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, com∣municated to him in the reading of his English Transla∣tion, may as well, and better, (because by diuine illu∣mination) be assured, that all is true which is in his En∣glish Translated Bible; and so, by good consequence, be assured that it is a very true Translation; though he nei∣ther 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 En∣glish 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 al∣low to euery man and woeman who belieueth S. Mat∣thews 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 en∣deavouring 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 al∣so the due meanes to obteyne this illumination concer∣ning euery Book, Chapter and verse of Scripture, assu∣ring 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 diui∣ne faith; Nor no sure ground of theyr Religion.

IN the former sections I haue giuen you eighteene points, all necessarie to salua∣tion, and yet not one of them plainly set down in Scripture: Now I adde a nine∣teenth point, which, though most neces∣sary, 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 Con∣trouersies: 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 com∣pleatly: And so, by consequence, they are driuen (to the scandall of all Christians) to make God fall short of effect∣ing 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 pro∣posing most comfortable motiues to vs: so S. Paul teach∣eth 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 docu∣ments, 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 pre∣uaile 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 pray∣ed 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 sug∣gest

vnto her all things what so euer Christ hath taught his Apo∣stles, 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 Com∣munion. All these Texts I shall shew to be spoken of the Church; by which (I think) it is a apparent by Scriptu∣re, 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 a∣gain, 2. Tim. 2. The things which thou hast heard of mee by many witnesses (he sayth not by his writing only) these com∣mend 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 Scrip∣ture 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 dan∣gerous 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 expoun∣ded, 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 end∣les. 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 in∣deed true, and agreeing wholy to the mind of the Ho∣ly 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 exteri∣ourly; 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 es∣cape 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 Reli∣gion; and that as properly as any thing can be called fun∣damentall 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 be∣cause 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 a∣gree, 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 gro∣und vpon which wee build our beleef. For, if wee think our selues to build our beleefe securely, vpon a founda∣tion 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, be∣cause his Alcoran (which is the Rule of his faith) teacheth

him so: Now, because he beleeueth the truth vpon a de∣ceitfull foundation; he, vpon the same foundation, buil∣deth 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 vn∣fould; and controuersies also are exceedingly intangled; and the conferring texts with texts, like and vnlike, ra∣ther 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 va∣riety 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 exte∣rior 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 in∣terpreted 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 Lu∣therans did truely interpret those texts; and so he beca∣me 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 Lu∣theran: and therefore in his first Edition of his Commen∣taries vpon the sixth of S. Iohn and 26. of S. Matthew, he asketh pardon of God and the Church for hauing bewitched ma∣ny with the Heresy of Zuinglius. Fiftly, yet after this he since∣rely 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 Pos∣sevin in notis Verbi Dei and Vlenbergius Causa 12. And in∣deed for one, who hath first beleeued Scripture as in∣terpreted by euery Mans priuate judgment, to be to eue∣ry 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 high∣ly important point, it cannot but breed a strong temp∣tation, to fall quite out of loue with Christ and his Reli∣gion,

in those who will not admitt any thought of seek∣ing 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 liv∣ing 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 mea∣nes to end all theyr Controversyes; which do not con∣cerne 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 fur∣ther 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 con∣sisteth 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 wis∣dom 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 re∣lying (iust as thou doest) vpon the word of god: in so much that there be no fewer then two hundred severall in∣terpretations 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 an∣swer 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 represen∣tative 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 judg∣ments, 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 concer∣ning necessary points. And if you, by your private inter∣pretation 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 assu∣redly 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 cer∣tainly 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 be∣leeved, as infallibly true, which is not written in the Bi∣ble: 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 preposte∣rously ridiculous is it, to hould your selfe infallible in de∣claring 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 Ro∣man 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 can∣not 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 (espe∣cially 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 Salua∣tion: 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 relat∣ed, that there did fall in the fourth, or fift, or sixt age, such a thick mist vpon all the best seeing eyes of that vn∣happy age, (about which age also none of you cā agree;) that no one Doctor could, or would see him selfe to pro∣ceed 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; on∣ly 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 infalli∣ble 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 at∣tentiuely, before he goeth further. There wee haue shew∣ed (and that by D. Ferns own confession in his Sect: 26.) that all things necessary are not conteyned expres∣ly in Scripture: but some of them are only thence dedu∣cible. But tell mee (great Doctor) be they deducible by all of vs, whō you promise so gloriously to make eye-wit∣nesses of this demonstration? They be (sayth he) deducible not all by euery one that reades; but it is enough if done by the Pas∣tors and guides which God appointed in his Church to this pur∣pose. 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 de∣monstration, but your grosse cheat. Yet (my dear Bro∣ther) 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 deduc∣tion: for Dr. Ferne addeth that they must be Ministers vse∣ing 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 be∣leeuers) at it is for them to be cunning in Greek and He∣brew; for they (to know they haue interpreted the Scrip∣ture 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 Ru∣les: 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 some∣times allegoricall, sometimes Tropologicall; sometimes there are diuers literall senses in the same places: so he. Now it de∣pends 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 am∣biguity 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 ob∣seruers. 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 infallib∣ly 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 pla∣ces, 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 dif∣ficulty 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 fol∣low 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 de∣ceitfull; 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-ne∣cessary 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 ne∣cessary points are set down here, in the begining of the Bi∣ble; 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 there∣fore 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 Trans∣lated 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 skil∣fully:) yet, for all this, I neither haue, nor can haue full as∣surance, 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 ce∣remony which he exacted is, with most minute exactnes set down in the cōpasse of not many leafes: Yet farre few∣er 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 Pro∣testant 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 Minis∣ters thou knowest. These men in the Preface to theyr great work, which I citted Sect. 4. n. 8. hauing first en∣deavoured 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 re∣ceived, 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 judg∣ment (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 pub∣lickly; both in theyr discourses and in theyr bookes; both in ban∣quets, 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 on∣ly 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 li∣mitts 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 son∣nes of the Church? By what meanes shall they distinguish the truth conteyned in Scriptures from the falsity of theyr interpre∣tations? 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 obiec∣tion 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, Do∣natus an other: Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius an other; Apol∣linaris ād Priscillianus, Iovinianus ād Pelagius, an other: La∣stly Celestius ād Nestorius an other. And therefore multum ne∣cesse 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 accor∣ding 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-Tra∣dition; 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 teach∣eth 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 Ro∣man 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 Par∣liament decided such a thing; meaning the Parliament of En∣gland: 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 me∣ant some French Parliaments. Those who haue made themselues of a different Communion from Rome, will

now in these dayes vnderstand that pure ould Ca∣tholike language still common to all vs of the Roman Communion: The Church decreed this; Follow the interpreta∣tion 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 out∣landish (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 vnder∣stood 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 vn∣derstod by that forreignner, who, more bouldy then ad∣visedly, 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 Fa∣thers, 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 conteyn∣ed in, or decided by Scripture.

1. TO the former nineteene points all neces∣sary, 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 beleeu∣ers, and your English Church doth pro∣fesse 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 Ca∣tholike 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 ne∣cessity that there is to salvation, to beleeve all the fore∣said 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 ob∣served

that the third part of Mankind dyeth before the se∣venth year of theyr age be ended. The third part then of Mankind is concerned in this one point, of giving Law∣full 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 con∣teyned expressely in Scripture; (id est) it is no where comman∣ded 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 Scrip∣ture, by Bellarmin and others alledged, do sufficiently shew. Fu∣thermore, 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 neces∣sary 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 Bap∣tisme of Children; Yea, almost at every text that he cit∣eth, 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 a∣voyded; 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 Bap∣tisme 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 Cal∣vinists: whom Bellarmin had shewed to teach that the for∣me of Baptisme was only a Sermon; which agreeth not to Infants: This evasion cannot any way elude this Argu∣ment 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 Sacra∣ment 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 ne∣cessary both for the male and female Children of all na∣tions 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 capa∣ble: 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 obli∣ged 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, besi∣des these, is this, Except a man be borne of water and the spi∣rit; 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 obser∣ue, that the Anabaptists can, by the same probability of Scriptu∣re 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 Ve∣rily 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 ad∣deth; 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 con∣demned for heretikes. The Pelagians were ever account∣ed Heretikes, even in this respect, that they (as S. Austen witnesseth Heresi, 88.) taught; Although Infāts be not baptiz∣ed, 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 Confe∣rence 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: Ana∣thema. But that which I cheefly insist on, is, that the Fa∣thers professe to beleeve the necessity of Baptisme for In∣fants vpon Tradition. So that here D. Ferne will see a point necessary to Salvation to come down to vs by vn∣written

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 belee∣ved at all, but vpon Tradition: (Note his words Mr. Do∣ctor, 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 suffici∣ent ground for faith) is kept by vs, when wee do that which seemed good to the Catholike Church; which Church the Autho∣rity 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 be∣leeued 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 Scrip∣ture. 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 bap∣tized 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 o∣ther 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 opi∣nion. 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 deli∣vered down to vs. Hence, saith this holy Father, the end of the busines was that; Antiquity kept possession. And he add∣eth, strange change of things. The Authors of this selfe same o∣pinion are judged Catholikes, and theyr followers Here∣tikes. The Maisters of it are absolved, and the disciples condem∣ned. So he: For it was not a necessary point of beleefe, before the Church had declared this opinion to be con∣trary 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 autho∣rity 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 exami∣ned, and proved for Apostolicall, were, for that very oppo∣sitiō 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 A∣frican 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 per∣forme 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 conse∣quence, which is; Whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church, doth resist our Saviour himselfe who by his tes∣timony 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 Dona∣tistas, lib. 15: C. 23. The Apostles (in Scripture) have pre∣scribed 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 necessa∣ry 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; whe∣ther 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 com∣manded 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 mo∣ther: 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 com∣manded 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 com∣manded 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 lift∣ed 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 approu∣ed 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 af∣firming that the Virgin Mary had other Children after the birth of our Sauiour: and there is no clear text of Scrip∣ture 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. Epi∣phanius 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 ninetee∣ne 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 ob∣teyning Salvatiō, are clearly put down in Scripture: I now, by a four and twentith instance, shew this to be false. That is ne∣cessarily 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 damna∣tion; 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 Satter∣day; 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 keep∣ing 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 Contro∣versy 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; ground∣ing them selves also in the Apocryphall Recognitions of S. Clement lib. 7. C. 24. where the Satterday is com∣manded 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 Satter∣day, 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 a∣mong the seven dayes) it is sayd; And God blessed the se∣venth day, and sanctified it; because in that (and not in a∣ny other) he had rested from all his worke. Gen. 2. How co∣mes 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, be∣cause 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 gi∣ven to the seventh day, on which God rested, was ta∣ken 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 Sun∣day in honour of our Saviours Resurrection, more then

was given to the Thursday in the honour of his Ascen∣sion?

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 whe∣ther 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 Deca∣logue, 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 Sa∣uiour meant? out deer Lord did clearly explicate him∣selfe 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. Lu∣ke 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 Comman∣dement.

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 particu∣lar 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 communica∣te 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 won∣der they assembled to communicate that day before S.

Pauls departure, because they were vsed then to Commu∣nicate every day, as many Doctors say, or wonderfull fre∣quently, as is strongly gathered by that text, Act. 2.46. and they continuing dayly (mark the word dayly) with one ac∣cord in the Temple, breaking bread from house to house. Third∣ly 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 exceed∣ing 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 se∣uenth day, or Satterday, was one) did still stand good, and in its full observance: so that wee have now our Sa∣viour 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 Commande∣ment, 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 conse∣quence 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 Saui∣our 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 pilla∣ging, 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 endeauor∣ing 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 no∣thing to our purpose to bring reasons, why the sabbaoth might be taken away; and this obligation of not work∣ing 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 Sun∣day; 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 Tradi∣tion of the Church, which you absolutely deny to deli∣ver down to vs any necessary obligation, not clearly ex∣pressed 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 falli∣ble discourses concerning the abrogating of the satter∣day, 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 man∣ner, 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 Sab∣baoth 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 Euen∣ing to Euening shall you celebrate your sabbaoths. It was then forbidden, vnder pain of damnation, to work on fry∣day after the evening: in so much that a taylor, shoe mak∣er, 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 vn∣till mid night: But I hope there is no such thing held law∣full on Sunday after the euening; neither is it vnlawfull to do any, though never so laborious worke, vpon sat∣terday 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 gro∣und 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 contay∣nes, and decides all necessa∣ry Controversies, wee proue the con∣trary.

1. All of you say, that all things which are neces∣sary 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 neces∣sary 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 evi∣dence of clear Scripture, according to your own prin∣ciples: If wee then can but shew that al the texts you bring do not suffice to this evidence, you are condemn∣ed, 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 labour∣ing 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 vn∣doubtedly 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 pre∣cedent 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 par∣ticular 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 ne∣cessary points, distinctly putting them all down? Where∣fore, as you must not vnderstand that short speech made by our Sauiour to have sufficed to Salvation, by expres∣sing 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 par∣ticular instruction, know distinctly all particular necessa∣ry points: so the Scripture did suffice to Salvation, by ex∣pressing clearly enough that Iesus Christ was the true Sa∣uiour 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 salva∣tion (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 Scrip∣tures

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, be∣cause 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 con∣teyne all points now necessary, and to put all down cle∣arly: 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 Fa∣ther, bidding vs hear him; nor to the voice of Christ him selfe testifying of himselfe; nor to the voice of his Mira∣cles, 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 suf∣ficient 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 impos∣sible 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 La∣tin Scrutamini, doth as commonly, and as properly signi∣fy You do search (in the indicative mode,) as, Do search (in the Imperative): and therefore the Translator of your Bi∣ble 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 notwith∣standing they did misse with all theyr search. If wee read (as wee may) you do search; then this place evidently pro∣ueth, that the search of the Scriptures only doth not suf∣fice to Salvation: and therefore it is as probable (to the very full) that this text maketh against you, as that it ma∣keth 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 admo∣nishing 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 vnavoide∣able 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 Scrip∣tures; for at that time the Scriptures were not in the Sy∣riake 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 know∣ledges 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 choi∣ce of a meanes sufficient to that end, which he clearly sayd he intended; to witt, that they might be saved: Yet you can∣not say, that speech, by it selfe alone, sufficed to make them wise to Salvation; but it did inable them with suffici∣ent 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 knowled∣ge which that short speech gave; was a knowledge effec∣tuall for the direction of all those Iewes; not by direc∣ting 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 ma∣ny 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 di∣vine writings then so full of these speeches, and these di∣vine writings expounded, not by private, but by publike exposition of the Church, do not in part only and imper∣fectly,

work this effect, by teaching vs some knowledges to that effect; but they teach vs a great summe of such knowled∣ges, 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; be∣cause 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 begin∣ning of his former Chapter saying to Timothie; Thou there∣fore (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 prein∣structed 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 man∣ner 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 per∣dition 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 Infallibi∣lity 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 alled∣ged 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 correc∣tion, 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 a∣ble to make a man wise to salvation; to witt, as interpret∣ed by the Church, or as vnderstood by men well pre∣instructed 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 on∣ly 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 con∣ferēce 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 ar∣gument 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 there∣fore

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: there∣fore 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 argu∣ment. 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 Scrip∣ture 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; e∣specially if you except the four Ghospels. And yet the O∣riginall 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 Tra∣ditions, 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 Scrip∣tures; 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 in∣ferre for an absurdity, that the ould Scripture should be a∣ble 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 per∣fect 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 con∣teynes 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? Third∣ly you have forgot that the Iewes had at least two vn∣denyable 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 obliga∣tion to vse it, Or that it was so necessary for the Sal∣vation 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 ridicu∣lous 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 suf∣ficient 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 suffi∣ciency 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 pit∣tifull 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 pri∣vate interpretations to deprave any Law either by restre∣yning, 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 Sen∣tence is to be followed of those Iudges which God ap∣pointed to tell you what was Gods Law rightly vnder∣stood, 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 prophe∣sie, when he said in his first Preface to the new Testa∣ment, 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 assu∣res you (for all other assurances wee by your own prin∣ciples 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 vnneces∣sary.

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 o∣ther 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, a∣nathematized, 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 faith∣full 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 Excommu∣nication falleth. Where you see, by the way, a good rea∣son, 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 Ghos∣pel 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 Prefa∣ce of the Epistle to the Romans. And you can bring no∣things 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 con∣trary, for in S. Mathew c. 4. v. 23. Iesus went about all Gal∣lilee preaching the Ghospel: what Ghospel was then written? And c. 9. v. 35. Iesus went about all the Cittes ād Villages prea∣ching the Ghospel: what Ghospel was then written? or writ∣ten 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 of∣ten 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 pro∣veth 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, Bel∣larmin tould you truely, that he did not expound this text, but did only cite it to proue that nothing was to be be∣leeved

against Scripture: No nor besides Scripture inter∣preted 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 be∣fore that Epistle, as I said: neither do wee teach any thing of faith besides that which hath authority from the Scrip∣ture, though not from the Scripture expounded as pri∣uate men think fittest, but from Scripture rightly expo∣unded 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 argu∣ment be only vsed as the Fathers vse it, that is, when it

was notorius that such a thing was not delivered by tra∣dition: 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, Con∣trary 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 Bre∣theren to mark them who Make dissentions and scandals (note the next word) contrary to the doctrine which you haue lear∣ned, and auoid them. Who are contrary to what was deli∣uered 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 im∣powered by Gods commission to this end, and wee re∣quire no more. Lesse then this cannot in reason be requi∣red: so that your iest of a will partly written parly nun∣cupatory is lost. No wills worse made then those which concern many intricate matters belonging to very seve∣rall persons, and yet prohibiting any Court in the world to interpret them, but do let the sense be iudged by eve∣ry 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 pre∣vent 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, twen∣ty 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 assu∣rance 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 yea∣res

before all of it was written to the end. Hauing thē shewed that the words Ghospel and new Testament accor∣ding to Scripture, do most properly signify the vnwrit∣ten word of Christ: wee may confidētly say, that wee ad∣de 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 visi∣ble Church, by whose testimony you know that such boo∣kes 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 be∣fore any one word of Scripture was written, which time conteyneth aboue two thousand yeares: for if the Tradi∣tion of that Church, in the Law of Nature, were suffici∣ent 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 compari∣son of Christs vnwritten doctrine; as shall be said Sect: 16. n. 2.

13. Your Sixth and last text here obiected is our Saui∣ours speach Matt. 15. taken from Isa. 29.13. Their fear towards mee is taught by the precepts of men. Whence you in∣ferre

that all things of worship or faith necessary to salvation which are not commanded or written, are to be condemned. Be∣fore I returne answer, give mee leave to tell you whose language you speak when you deliver this your own do∣ctrines. S. Austen (contra Maximum l. 1.) Bringeth in this A∣rian 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 re∣ceived 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, be∣fore the first Scriptures were written, were truly the pre∣cepts 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 pro∣mise made our future Redemption, was notified by Adams Children, who delivered the same to theyr Chil∣dren, 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 li∣kewise 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 Cir∣cumcision: And yet neither this precept, nor this Cove∣nant, 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 doc∣trine 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 gouer∣nours 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 tes∣timony of the Church suffice to make the vnwritten doc∣trine, 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 vni∣versall 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 Scrip∣ture 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 testi∣mony 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 interpre∣tation 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 hither∣to 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 fin∣ger 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 Chur∣ches which were in the world at your Reformation: A∣gainst 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 ne∣cessary then the true choice of the only Rule directing to true faith; Therefore, according to your own princi∣ples 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 Epis∣copacy is vnlawfull. It were well, more Authority were yielded to Tradition of the Churches of God. And §. 14 wee thence recei∣ved 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 cle∣arly 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 parti∣cularly

examined all your cheefe texts for baptizing chil∣dren: 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 ne∣cessary Controversies: if I can do all this, then these texts of mine cannot but be allowed by you to be indeed cle∣ar; 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 so∣me 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 where∣fore my texts, beeing as clear as those which are acknow∣ledged to be Sufficiently clear, must also be acknowled∣ged 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 pro∣cure forgivenes of his Sinnes. But what faith your own Bible? Is any Man sicke among you, let him call for the Elders (the Pri∣ests) 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. Ia∣mes 5.14. Have you among all the texts which you ci∣ted, 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 conse∣quently

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 (con∣trary 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 gen∣der 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 here∣in 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 brea∣thed 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 consequent∣ly 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 Scrip∣ture 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 hould∣ing 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 ne∣cessary to all baptized by heretikes: ād yet he held on the other side, that this point could not be cleared out of on∣ly Scripture; see them n: 7. In the next number I did shew how Antiquity hold also the Quarta-decimani for hereti∣kes, 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 He∣retike, 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 he∣retikes 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 consequent∣ly Scripture alone is not the only Rule of faith.

3. Secondly it was by holy Fathers noted to be pe∣culiar to heretikes to stand to Scripture only, and to re∣fuse all other Rules: So the Macedonians and Eunomians, hau∣ing no regard of what was taught to the contrary by the mul∣titude 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. Au∣sten de Natura & gratia c. 39.) were vsed to say; Let vs

beleeve that which wee read, but let vs beleeve it to be a wick∣ednes to beleeve that which wee do not read. So S. Austen L. 1. against Maximinus the Arian Bishop, bringeth him in say∣ing: 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, re∣ceaved 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 Scrip∣tvres. 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 dis∣pute 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 adversa∣ries. 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 Scrip∣tures 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 Be∣za 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 there∣fore 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 Coun∣cell, 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 au∣thority of Tertullian, as if it were delivered against those only who reiected great part of the Scriptures, and cor∣rupted 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 con∣fute 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 Scriptu∣res. Note heere first, that he speakes of such as would appeal to Scriptures; therefore they did receive them, Note Se∣condly, that without Scriptures Tertullian promisseth him∣selfe 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 vn∣to 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 Fa∣thers 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 al∣ledged 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 fa∣cility 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.

THE THIRD QVESTION.

VVhether the Church be the Iudge appointed by God to end all our Controversies? with a word of the Socinians concerning Reasons bee∣ing our Iudge.

1. SOME men may perhaps wonder why, in so short a work, I should be so long in proving the Scripture not to be, by it selfe alone, our only Rule, or direction of faith; but those who are vnderstanding Schol∣lers will easely see, how, after the proofe of that point, I have in a manner dispatched all this bu∣sines: Because all Sectaries, making theyr standing to the sole Iudgement of Scripture, to be the only foundation of all and every one of theyr so severall Sects; when now this foundation is shewed not to serve the end they in∣tend, but that wee must yet have a Iudge giving vs infal∣lible assurance of many necessary verities of which the Scripture alone doth not assure vs: hence followeth ma∣nifestly the vtter ouerthrow of all these and all other imaginable Sects, by the apparent Necessity of houlding the true Church of Christ to be this Iudge; she only beeing the Iudge, to which wee are sent by Scripture it selfe, with an obligatiō of our beeing held for Publicans or Heathens vnles wee hear her. Neither is there any kind of probabi∣lity now left of finding any other Iudge sufficiēt to direct

vs in all things necessary to Salvation, and to end all our Controversies, and sufficient to conteyne vs all in vnity of one interior faith, and exterior profession of the same, with all other conditions requisite in our Iudge.

2. Human Reason, so adored by the Socinians, can∣not be this Iudge; First, because fallible: But with this they easily dispense, denying any faith to be infallible. Secondly no one parish in the world was ever yet known to be of this their opinion; is it thē likely to be true in the eyes of any rationall man? What witt is there in thinking to be wiser then all witts? what reason to make Reason iudge in things knowne to surpasse Reason? Thirdly doth not reason perswade any mā to thinke that it is fitter for him to submitt to the authority of all the Christians of all ages, ād places, who ever had any thing like a Church, then to adhere to a few scattered selfe-conceited people, pretending to find out a wiser ground of Religion, then ever was acknowledged by any kind of people in the world, who had the shape of an Vniversall and perpetuall Church? of which more Sect: 14. Fourthly how imprudent∣ly did the Apostle exhort all Idem sapere, to be of one opi∣nion, to keepe vnity in faith, To speake one thing, to be perfect in one sense, and one Iudgement 1. Cor: 1. & 2. Cor: 13. if he knew it were Gods will that every one should follow his own iudgement, which everyone hath as different almost from an other, as theyr faces are? Fiftly what an improportionable meanes is this to keepe that vnity in faith, and to adhere to what hath been evangelized or deliver∣ed vnto vs, though an Angel should come to perswade the con∣trary. For let but an abler Man then my selfe come, and shew mee, that I have not so good reason for what I be∣leeve as he hath, and as he (If wee stand only to rea∣son,

without respect to authority) can bring to the con∣trary; I must (say they) follow what he proposeth: So that weake men must be weather cocks, Sixtly, is it not all rea∣son, that what convincing motives make evidently credible to be revealed by God, that I should credit that not as the word of man, but receave it as the word of God, as truely it is; and so rely vpon it as strongly as is fitt to rely on the word of God? Seventhly, according to this vnreasonable Ground, there must be allowed, all the world over, as great variety of beleeving more or lesse, as there is of vnderstanding more, or lesse: and as great Contrariety of beleefe must be lawfull, as these is con∣trariety in the Iudgments of one to an other, and of the same man in different occasions. Can any creature who is but like a rationall man, beleeve that the world was taugh to proceed so by Christ, and his Apostles; or that the world did ever proceed so in any one age? What Record testifieth any such thing? Is this to bring into Captiuity all vnderstandings to the Obedience of Christ? 2. Cor: 10.5. If this wilde Liberty be called Captivity; I am sure that, by as good a figure, you Socinians (who call your selves Ra∣tionall men) may as truly be called the most Irrationall of all Christian men. You needs most pardon mee if I Iudge so, for your own principle of following what my own Reason tells mee, maketh mee most really to thinke so, after mature consideration of the matter.

SECT: XIII.

It is declared what wee vnderstand when wee seeke whether the Church is to be our Iudge or no?

1. IT must still be carried in our minds, that wee are in the search of the Iudge ap∣pointed vs by Christ; and consequently. wee must proceed as men do, who first seek after a generall knowledge in gros∣se, and then descend to particulars. So first wee searched whether God had Given vs any Iud∣ge; then finding that he hath given vs some infallible direction, wee did see whether this were given sufficient∣ly in any one Book of Scripture, or in any particular Number of Bookes, or in the whole Canon taken toge∣ther. But wee, not finding as yet what wee sought, wee cast an eye vpon naturall reason, which, if it were to be followed by vs as our Iudge, this very Iudge of ours (that is our own Reason) tould vs shee neither was, nor appear∣ed like to that judge wee sought for shee beeing a Iudge not ending, but endlesly raysing doubts in all points: still therfore wee are in our generall search. And wee have only in grosse got a hint of finding some infallible meanes, to guide vs securely in all our doubts, in that bles∣sed congregation of people which followed the instruc∣tions of Christ, ād his disciples, still propagating the doc∣trine delivered to them from age to age vntill wee come to our Age. Here, or no where, this infallible direction

is to be had. But by what particular way this Congrega∣tion is to communicate, and impart this direction vnto vs, is not the thing wee now seeke at the first; but it is the very last thing wee can seek for. For that beeing found, wee are to follow that particular meanes, and by no meanes to stray one foot from it. Wee must seeke that wee may find; and after wee have once found what wee sought for, wee must stand still firmely fixed in the faith wee have found. Because by what wee have found wee are also taught to beleeve this particular, that wee are to rest free from further enquiry; Because our God would not have vs follow any other Iudges then he ap∣points: therefore he would have vs seeke after no other; but beleve that no other was to be sought after; least so wee •• should bee allwayes seekers ād never be Beleevers: as Turtullian discourseth admirably C. 7. de Praescript:

2. Wee do not therefore as yet search whether this particular meanes of directing vs, be by the Decrees of the cheef Pastor of this Church; or by the Councels held without him, or held by him and defining together with him; for this search is yet a further worke; though it be a work soon dispatched, for as much as concerns our purpose, after that wee have once assuredly found out that this infallible meanes is to be found in this blessed congregation instituted by his disciples, and theyr fol∣lowers with a visible succession in all ages frō Christs age this. Now then, this one thing wee search. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whe∣ther this blessed Congregation (which wee alwayes vn∣derstand here, when wee name the Church, as long as wee speak of searching our Guide or Iudge in a more ge∣nerall manner) hath not some meanes or other appoin∣ted by God, by which shee can infallibly guide vs to the

knowledge of the true fayth? When wee have found that shee hath some such meanes; wee shall readily passe on further, to see what meanes this is. Now let vs be sure not to intangle our selves with that further Search, or any thing belonging to it, vntill wee have fully satisfied our selves of this generall verity, that this blessed Congrega∣tion hath in it some meanes appointed by God, to direct all to the knowledge of the only true faith. Neither yet do wee be∣gin to search, whether this Congregation, instituted thus by Christ, and still visibly continuing in his doctrine, be the Church of Rome, or the Protestant Church, or both these, or any other besides these, of which hereafter: but that one thing for which now wee only search is, whether this Congregation (wheresoever it is) hath not some infallible meanes appointed by God, to be followed by all, that all may come to be saved in it?

3. And wee most groundedly say that this Church (still meaning, by this name, the Congregation wee speak of) is our infallible Iudge: and consequently, this Church hath some infallible meanes to guide all to the truth in all points of faith, though not expresly conteyned in Scriptures, and to decide all our Controversies in Reli∣gion: for which I shall give my reasons in the ensuing Section. But before I begin it, I note in a word; that this Church, hauing some infallible meanes appointed by God to direct vs in the only true faith, (without which faith eternall Salvation cannot be had) it must be a dam∣nable Sinne not to take paines, in a tolerable manner, to find it out; and to imbrace it, when wee have found it: for otherwise wee should neglect the execution of what God hath appointed vs to do, in a matter necessary to our Salvation; and wee should also. Sinne against that Cha∣rity,

which every one oweth to his own Soule, if, hauing meanes offered vs, to be infallibly guided in the choice of that faith necessary to Salvation, wee should neither take ordinary paines to find it, nor to follow it, when wee had found it. This lesson is so very necessary to many thousands, that it deserueth to be a thousand times over inculcated vnto them.

SECT: XIV.

It is proved out of the ould Testament that the Church is our infallible Iudge in all Con∣troversies of Faith.

1. FOR more then two thousand yeeres, be∣fore any word of the ould Testament was written, Gods Church had some infallible way to end all controversyes; for all that time there was no Scripture, and yet there were many points then necessary to be beleeved, in which men of various judgments might vary in theyr judgments: For example, about the beleefe of reward, and punishment of the life to come; about the immortality of the Soule; about the fall of Adam; the promise of a Redeemer; and afterwards of this Redeemers beeing to be the Sonne of Abraham; about the necessity of the Circumcision given vnto him &c. The Church of that time was the only Iudge of all these, and such like Controversies: and as they, who opposed her known tradition, were account∣ed misbeleevers; so those who beleeved them, are de∣clared

by S. Paul to have had the same Spirit of Faith that wee. 2. Cor: 4.13. Shall not then Christ Church be as much enabled by God to passe an infallible decision, of what is to be held now by vs in poinct of Faith? The like argument houldeth strong the Iewish Church, which from the time of Moses, to the time of Christ, had some infallible meanes, besides Scripture, to end all Con∣troversies, as appeares by Deutr. 7.8. Where those words, An they shall shew the sentence of judgment, and thou shalt do according to it? &c. And those other words: The Man that will doe presumptuously and will not harken to the Priest, even that man shall dy: Cleerly intimate the in∣fallibility of this Iudges sentence. For God would never oblige all to follow an erring judgment, which defines often lyes for truth: And oblige all to imbrace those lyes, vnder paine of death. Secondly the refusers to embrace a ly do not do presumptuously, as God sayth those doe who will not harken to the Priests: He therefore ever sayth the Truth. Thirdly according to the true translated Bibles it is sayd in the ninth verse, of the Priest, Who shall shew thee the truth of the Iudgment. Which words prove that God would assist in declaring alwayes the truth. Fourthly it had been a most vnjust murther to put a man to death for not following that which might be a Lye: God would never have enacted such a Law. Fiftly, Ioseph the Iew L. 2. contra Apion: testifyeth theyr High Priests to have been theyr Iudges of Controversies. And D. Whitaker de Sacra Scrip: Pag: 466. Acknowledging as much sayth, It was not Lawfull to appeale, for otherwise there would have been no end of contention. Shall Christs Church, which is the mis∣tris and Lady, want that which the Iewish had, shee beeing but the handmaid?

Before I come to the texts, which speak particu∣larly of Christs Church, I appeal to any sober judgment, who shall ponder them with due reflection, to judge whether they be not, to the very full, as cleer to prove my intent, as any of those, which any of our adversaries can bring, for any one of those twenty four necessary points, which I have heretofore shewed to be cleerly set down in no Scripture, though they affirme them all to have cleer texts of Scripture for them? Whence againe I ask, how you can deny these my Texts to be cleer, which are in any sober judgment as cleer, as those which you all hould (and must hould) to be cleer? And par∣ticularly, I wish the texts I am now going to cite, were equally ballanced with those texts which D. Ferne and others cite, to prove that Scripture is our only judge; for so my Reader (if he will but please to turne to those texts Sect. 10.) may soon see whether, even according to the judgment of Scripture, (theyr own only Iudge) the Church be not better proved to be our Iudge, then the Scripture alone is proved to be so. And I desire all to note, how vnjustly wee are dealt with-all, who beeing advantaged by the peaceable possession of all publick ec∣clesiasticall authority, which any Catholik Church had in the world, at that time in which you began your Re∣formation (all which authority stood for the Churches beeing the infallible judge;) and yet no evidence of Scripture, halfe so good, beeing brought against this our authority, as wee can bring for it; wee notwithstanding were dispossessed of it, and condemned of the most vn∣just vsurpation that ever was, by those who hould, that against publik authority evident demonstration of Scrip∣ture must be brought. Examine the texts I shall bring and

then examine your weak evidences brought in my tenth Section.

3. Again, before I cite these texts, I must needs de∣sire my reader to carry alone with him in his mind one note more, which is this; that all these texts speak still of a Church alwayes teaching truth in all points which she proposeth to be believed, and not in some certain points only. This I desire much to be noted, because our adversaries only acknowledge, that by these texts the Church is secured from erring fundamentally To the sub∣version of saving faith; as D. Ferne acknowledgeth Sect. 20. This confession of theyrs vndoeth all Religion; because the texts I am going to alledge speak as vniversally, and as farre from all limitation of the Churches beeing by God secured from all kind of error, fundamentall, or not fundamentall, as any texts speak of the Apostles or Prophets beeing secured from all kind of error funda∣mentall or not fundamentall: And you by Limiting these texts to the only securing of the Church frō only funda∣mētall errors, do teach others in like māner to limit those texts by which the Prophets, or Apostles, are said to bee se∣cured frō errour, to only such a security, as secureth them frō fundamentall errors only; which would be a most dā∣nable doctrine: For, thence would follow that, the fun∣damentall points beeing very few, (as you say,) all that is written or said by the Apostles, or Prophets, which con∣cerns not those few fundamentall points might be false, as beeing delivered by men not secured from error in any points not fundamentall. For my part, I take the most fundamentall point of faith to be this; That there is a God speaking infallible truth in all that he sayt, by what instrument so ever any one of his sayings, in any matter

(whatsoever it bee) is proposed by him, whether this instru∣ment be the Church, as it was for the first two thousand yeares of the world, or the Prophets or Apostles raysed vp in his Church. And now let vs proceed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to our texts.

4. My first text is out of the second of Isa: v. 2.3. And it shall come to passe in the last dayes (so the Apostles called the time of the New Law) that the Mountaine of the Lords house shall be established in the topp of Mountaines (behould its great visibility, so that) All Natiōs shall flow vnto it (behold its vast extent) ād say (witsh ioy) Come ye and let vs goe vp to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Iacob: ād He (note this word He) will teach vs his wayes (in this House or Church;) For out of Sion shall go forth the Law (as it did by the Apostles on whit-Sunday;) and the word of God from Ie∣rusalem (from whence the Churches first preachers began the diuulging of theyr doctrine:) And he shall iudge among the Nations, (not in his person, for Christ went not out of Iewry; but he shall Iudge among the Nations) by his Churches tribunall erected amōg all Nations, so conspicuously, that they all may flow to it: Will any man say His iudgement is fallible? in this tribunall it is He who teacheh vs his wayes: dare you say that He teacheth vs errors? Is any error, (though not fundamentall) his way? Christ then, erecting a Church visible to the whole world, that the whole world might resort with ioy vnto it for necessary instructiō; and intēd∣ing himselfe to instruct them by it, and by it to Iudge among all Nations; had not cōplied with this intention of his, if he had not secured that Church frō all error, by which be himselfe teacheth all the world his wayes, and not supersti∣tious errors. And had this his Church been Liable to passe false iudgement, in deciding controversies about faith; the disgrace had redounded to God, who authorized that

Tribunal, to be that very Court in which, to the joy of all, He iudgeth among all Nations.

5. My Second text is out of the same Prophet C. 35. promising to vs, at the coming of Christ, a way so direct (not only in it selfe) but so direct vnto vs, that fooles cannot erre by it. Is it not then infallible? But of this text I say no more here, because I have pōdered it already in the very Preface, Num. 3. I only note that this way, beeing so di∣rect to vs all, must needs be only in such a Church, as is of a Vast extent, and so visible every where in all ages, that, all men of all places might be in all ages directed by it, and so directed as not to erre; For fooles can not erre by it. What more infallible in order to vs?

6. My third text is out of the same Prophet. C. 54. where first mention is made most gloriously of the vast extent of Christs visible Church; Sing O barren &c. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the Curtaines of thy habitations. Spare not, lengthen thy Cords, and streng∣then thy stakes, For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles. As I have sworne that the waters of Noah should no more go over the Earth, So I have sworne that I would not be wroth with thee (as I am with all who admitt superstitions and foul errors to reigne over them.) Every toung that shall rise against thee in iudgment thou shalt condemne. The toungs of all heretikes be toungs that rise against the Church, in iudging contrary to her definitions in matters of faith: but feare not (O Church of God) for every toung that shall rise against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemne: Yea theyr very rising in opposition of iudgement vnto thee, is theyr condemna∣tion; because hence appeareth that the Church differeth in iudgement from them, which is enough (in the opi∣nion

of S. Austen) to make vs hould them heretikes; For iust in the end of his catalogue or Booke of Heresies he sayth, it is superfluous to set down what the Church (in parti∣cular) hath defined against them all: but (sayth he) Scire suffi∣ciat eam contra ista sentire, Let it suffice (for theyr condem∣nation of heresy) that shee is contrary in her iudgment to them all. And therefore it is not lawfull to hould any one of them. See Sect: 21. n: 4.

7. My fourth text is out of the same Prophet Cap: 59. v. 20. and 21. which text (Rom: 11. v. 26) S. Paul interpreteth to be spoken of the Church of Christ, to which, after his coming, many of the Iewes were to vnite themselves beeing to be baptized in it, instructed in it, governed by it, and consequently the text speaketh of such a visible Church, as that must needs be, to whom the Iewes con∣verted could vnite them selves, to be by it baptized, in∣structed, governed. To this visible Church thus sayth our Lord; As for mee this is my Covenant with them, sayth our Lord: My spirit (free from all error) that is vpon thee and my words (free from error great or litle) which I have putt in thy Mouth, (that Mouth by which Visibly shee doth teach my wayes to all Nations that flow vnto thee, that Mouth by which I iudge among all Nations, that Mouth which shall condemne every toung that shall rise against it in iudgment) My words (I say) which I have putt in (this) thy Mouth, shall not depart out of thy Mouth (thus visibly tea∣ching, iudging &c.) nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed; nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed; sayth the Lord, from hence forth and for ever. Behould here the Spirit of truth intaled vpon the Church visible, and Gods words put in her Mouth, by which shee teacheth all Nations in her first Age; And in the Mouth of her Seed,

by which shee teacheth all Nations in the second age; and in the Mouth of her seeds seed from thence forth and for ever, by which shee teacheth all Nations in the third age, and in every other age thence forth following, to the end of the world. Find mee then an Age, in which this everlasting visible Church shall teach any error, though never so litle? If you can do this, then in that Age his Covenant was made voide.

8. My fifth text shall be out of the very next Chapter (to witt Isa: 60. v. 10.) in which God by the Prophet tri∣umpheth in the vast extēt and glory of his Church visible, The Sonnes of strangers shall build vp thy walles, and theyr Kings shall Minister vnto thee, Thy gates shall be open continu∣ally (A poor glory if they admitt in Idolatry, Superstition &c.) they shall not be shutt day nor night, that man may bring vnto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that theyr Kings may be brought (securely from all error to be instructed by thee:) For the Nation and Kingdom which will not serve thee, shall perish. The sense of which last words is cleerly this; What Nation so ever refuses to serve the Church, by not submitting to her doctrine: shall perish, not temporally in this world, in which they often florish; but aeternally in the next. It is therefore damnable, not to submit to the doctrine of some Church which is visible at all times, and known to all Nations: for it could never be damnable not to submitt to an Invisible Church; There must then ever be some visible Church on Earth, which all Nations, vnder pain of damnation, are to serve; And to which, God may truly say, The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish. Now tell mee, I pray, when this En∣glish Nation, by a Nationall Synod (as they call it) ac∣knowledged no visible Church which this Nation was

bound to serve; but decreed many things contrary to all the visible Churches: how escaped they this Sentence of damnation? I confesse Nations should do well, and should further theyr Salvation, in refusing to serve all Churches then visible; if all those Churches did both erre, and also father theyr Lyes vpon God the Father of truth; venting theyr own errors for divine verities: But, I say, it is impossible that all the visible Churches in the whole world should in any Age come to this passe; For in every Age it must be true, that The nation and Kingdome which will not serve thee, shall perish. But you will say perhaps, for these 10. or 12. Ages her errors have Eclypsed her? Read then the following Verses, I will make thee an everlasting excellency (an excellent Church indeed which fathereth her Lyes and superstitiō vpō God him selfe. It followeth, but should not follow, if this were true; And thou shalt suck the breasts of Kings &c. yea, Thy Sunne shall no more go down, neither shall thy Moon Withdraw it selfe: but the Lord shall be vnto thee an everlasting light: How an everlasting light? an everlasting excellency, which ended with an Eclipse of some thirteen hunded years; if shee failed with the third Age, as D. Hammond and others please to say? which third Age was before shee sucked the breasts of Kings when∣ce appeares the falsitie of their assertion. Againe, how doth it follow; The dayes of thy Mourning shal be ended? when you make her to have had so sadde a time of mourning as thirteen hundred or (at the least) a thousand years, vnder the yoke of Popery? How truly then doth God in the next Chapter v. 7. promise her Sonnes, That an everlasting Ioy shall be vnto them: Where as the dayes of Popery are acknowledged to have covered the face of all Christendome four times as lōg as the day of her true Ioy? How then also is it sayd to her in the end of the next

Chapter following, Thou shalt be called a Citty sought for, and not forsaken, if all this while shee were the woman fledde into the desert? Away, away with these false glosses; these words of Esay must needs be vnderstood of a visible Church, which was not only sought for, but also inhabit∣ed, and not forsaken, nor left forlorne, nor made abandon∣ed by Idolatry, superstition &c, and Errors intolerable, as D. Fern calls those of the Church Sect: 19.

9 My sixth text (for I will count all the many texts, in the last number, but for one, which might be vrged severally, all having great force) shall be out of the Pro∣phet Daniel C. 2. v. 44. In the dayes of those Kingdoms, the God of Heaven shall raise vp a Kingdome, which shall not be dispersed, and his kingdome shall not be delivered to an other people. And then to signify the vast extent, the manifest visibility, and Perpetuity of this Kingdome (which is his Church, founded by Christ) it followeth, And it shall breake in peeces and consume all these (Idolatrous) Kingdomes, and it shall stand for ever. Behould here, God promising the Kingdome raysed by him, that kingdome of his only true Church, which visibly hath by its doctrine broak in pee∣ces all Idolatrous kingdomes of the known world, and is so well secured of Gods assistance, to preserve it in quality of a kingdome, that, even in this quality, it shall alwaies continue, and stand for ever a glorious visible Kingdome. And thus literally is fulfilled that, Luke 1.33. And he shall reigne in the house of Iacob for ever. Whence I argue thus; No Church fallen into Heresy, schisme, Ido∣latry, Superstition; yea no Church fallen so deep towards Hell, as to father grosse, and intolerable errors vpon God, delivering them as divine Verities, can be sayed to be Gods Kingdome; or (beeing so fouly fallen) to be his

standing Kingdome; or permitting grosse errors to raigne in quality of divine verities, to be the house of Iacob, in which he reignes for ever Therefore, to verify these of Scripture, there must be found, some ever visible Church vpon Earth, a Church florishing in quaiity of his standing Kingdome, not fallen into such errors as you say did ra∣igne; but a Church where hee, and not any error may reigne. This Kingdome, so secured from error, is that which I call Christs visible, perpetuall, and infallible Church, The House of our Lord established (so as to stand visibly for ever) in the toppe of all Mountaines, and all Nations shall flow vnto it, ād say come, ād let vs go vp to the Mountain of our Lord, and to the House of the God of Iacob, in which he shall reigne for ever, and he will teach vs his wayes and not grosse errors of superstition, Idolatry, and there he shall Iudge among the Nations; Even He who cannot give a false Iudgment, and consequently infallible is his Tribunall erected here in his Church, to send forth his Decrees, by which he gouerns, and reignes. If error be president in this his Tribunal, Er∣ror should reigne, and not He: I pray mark how fitly all the above cited texts agree with this interpretation, and how harmonically they explicate and confirme one an other.

10. It is also a thing most remarkable how, at the very first attentive reading of these texts, all these new vpstart sects (and Socinianisme as well as the rest, yea and so much the sooner because it never florished in one whole Parish;) how, I say, all these new vpstart sects, presently appear to be so exceedingly vnlike to Gods only true Church, which is foretould to be of so vast extent, so glo∣rious for the multitude, and magnificence of her profes∣sours, as Kings; yea all Kings, Princes, and cheefe Poten∣tates

of the Earth, so conspicuously visible in all Ages, and places; that there is noe tolerable interpretation to be thought of, by which these and such like Texts can be applied to any one of these Congregations. Take Protes∣tanisme, and allow it to conteyne all these new fangled Sects; and yet all the professors of it will not make the thirtith part of Christendome, although Christendome be but the fifth part of the world. But take Protestanis∣me as it was for some twelve hundered yeares before Lu∣ther, and so down ward, in every one of those twelve Ages to Luther; and you will not find it to be the tenth thousand part of the world, even by its own accovnt: Yea by true account it will be found not to have had one parish any where. How then do such kind of Religions agree to these descriptions of the true Church in the Scripture? especially if to the former places you adde di∣vers others of the same nature, As that Isa: 49. (which S. Paul Act: 13. interpreteth of the Church) It is a light thing that thou should be my Servant to rayse vp (only) the tribes of Iacob; I will, also give thee, for a light to Gentiles, that thou mayst be my Salvation vnto the end of the Earth. Kings shall see, and arise; Princes also shall worship. Behould these shall come from farre, and loe these from the North, and from the West, and these from the Land Sinam. Sing O Heaven, and be ioyfull O Earth, The Children which thou shalt haue shall say againe, The place is too strait for mee: give place to mee that I may dwell; Kings shall be thy Nursing-Fathers, and Queens thy nursing Mothers (They shall not be thy Heads, or Governours, but) They shall bow down to thee with theyr faces towards the Earth, and lick vp the dust of thy feet (prostrating themsel∣ves to kisse the feet of thy Supreme Pastour.) Tell mee now, of what Church speakes this Prophet? where was it.

Read also his next Chapter; Kings shall walk in the bright∣nes of thy rising. Theyr Kings shall Minister vnto thee, And not Rule over thee, as thy cheefe Gouernours. And yet much more Chap: 62. particularly; All Kings shall see thy no∣ble one, with that other eloquet expressiō of the Churches visible gloriousnes, Passe ye, passe ye through the gates, and prepare a way for the people, and make the iourney plain, and pick vp the stones, and lift vp the signe to the people: Behould our Lord will make heard to the end of the Earth. For, as David said: Ps: 21. v. 28. All the ends of the Earth shall remember and be converted to our Lord, and all the families of the Genti∣les shall adore in his sight. And Malachy 1.11. from the rising of the Sunne even to the going down of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gentiles, and every where incense shall be offered to my name (as it is in the Roman Church,) and a pure offering (of Christs pure Body.)

11. These and divers such like passages bee so clear of the vast extent, majesty, and glory of the Church, with its perpetuity in all ages, that divers of our adversa∣ries, not finding any Church vpon Earth, but the Ro∣man, to which hey could be applyed, and perswading themselves that the Roman Church was false; became so wicked, as to deny all Christian Religion, because they could not see theyr own Scriptures verified in it, as it is most fully shewed in the Protestants Apology Tract: 2. c. 1. S. 5. There you shall see how this consideration made that famous Protestant David George to preach against Christ and his Apostles. This made your cheif Pastour of Heidelbourg, Adam Nauserus, to turne Turk. This made your Alemanus to turne Iew, having been a great disciple of your great Beza, with a multitude of others here in England, cited by the above named author. Now I con∣clude,

that Christianity cannot be maintained without such a Church, as is here described, to be found some∣where on earth; which Church cānot be found if the Ro∣man Church be such a Church as you make her. But whe∣ther shee be Christs only true Church, and our Iudge, wee shall see here after. Now I go on.

SECT: XV.

It is proved out of the new Testament, that the Church is our infallible Iudge in all Contro∣versies of Faith.

1. TO my sixe texts out of the ould Scripture I adde six more out of the new. My seventh text then is Mat: 16.19. Vpon this Rock I will build my Church, (that Church which Christ foretould by the Prophets to be of so vast extent, so visible in all ages to the end of the world) and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Of this text D. Ferne treateth in his whole twentih Section. The substance is; that the Roman Church is but part of the Catholik Church, and so though the gates of Hell had prevailed against her; yet they had not prevailed against the Catho∣lik Church. Yet sayth hee, Wee acknowledge that Hell gates did not privaile against the Church of Rome to a subversion of the Faith in it, or a totall infection of the members of it, with all the errors and superstitions that prevailed in it.

2. Although it be not to my purpose (as long as I continue still in a generall search after some infallible

Church) to passe to that particular inquiry, whether this Church be the Roman or no, (of which afterward:) yet because this prime objection may be best solved in this place; I answer, that neither D. Ferne, nor any other Doc∣tor, can find out vpon earth such a Church, different from the Roman, as hath been promised in the texts of the former Chapter, to which all Nations were to flow, to which Kings and Princes were to minister, whose gates should be open night and day, whose Sunne should never set &c: For by the Roman Church wee do not vnderstand the par∣ticular Diocese of Rome; but wee vnderstand all such Churches as are joyned in Communion to the Roman, as members to theyr head. Had Hell gates privailed against all such Churches, where (I pray) had there vpon Earth beē found any one single Church against which Church, Hell had not more prevailed, then against the Roman? Name but one, and I am satisfied. But that one must be shewed to have been perpetually conspicuous to which all nations might flow, having Kings and Potentates of the earth Ministers vnto her; in so much that the Nati∣ons which would not serve her (as the Nations joyned to the Roman Communion would not) should perish. That Church must have these and such other qualities, expres∣sed by Scripture in my precedent Section. Knowing you could not finde any Church vpon Earth so qualified but the Roman, which taken (as wee vsually take it) com∣prehendeth the Churches of all Nations joyned in Com∣munion vnto her, you are forced so to qualify your cen∣sure of her errors preuailing in her, that you say, they pre∣uailed not to a totall infection of the members of it, with all the errors and superstitions that prevailed in it. How come you to know this; if it be not vpon record, that some consi∣derable

quantity of men in All Ages (sufficient to consti∣tute such a Church, as wee have seen Christs true Church must be) did not assent to all that was defined by the Roman Church, nor to other errors as great as hers, but kept themselves to that which you call the pure doctrine of Christ: if this be not vpon record (as I was saying) then you say you know not what: If it be vpon record, begin to tell mee who these men were in that second, third, fourth, fifth, sixt age after Popery, against whom these er∣rours prevailed not; and I will trouble you with no fur∣ther examination of your Records. You can as well eat a whole Milstone to breakfast, as prove any such thing by any Records.

5. But you say the Fathers interpreted this promisse, of the gates of Hell not preuailing against the Church, of the not failing of the Church; and never of the not er∣ring of it. Those who object this, mark not that the cheif way of failing is to faile by erring. How did the Church faile in the Dominions of the Arians, was it not by er∣ring? And so of all dominions corrupted by Heresy. So also the whole visible Church had failed, if the whole vi∣sible Church had proposed any errour to be believed for a point of faith; for to do this is to propose alye as vpheld by divine authority; which is to fall no lesse foully then he should fall who should teach, God to be an affirmer and confirmer of Lyes. For whatsoever point any Church held as a point of theyr faith, they held it as a divine ve∣rity, affirmed and revealed by God: Therefore if in any age the visible Church held any Errour for a point of faith, it did faile most miserably; And yet your Protestant Doctors generally teach, that the only visible Church did teach severall errors as points of faith. So. D. Fern accus∣seth

even the primitive Church of teaching the Millena∣ry beliefe, and Infants Communion, though most falsely; as our Doctors often have shewed: Thus they throw dirt vpō Christs vnspotted spouse. And as the black Aethiopiās painted theyr Gods black: So your fouly erroneous Church would have all Churches to have been fouly er∣roneous; as you would have even the purest Church to have been, had shee proposed these two grosse errors for divine verities, as you say she did.

7. Yet to make a shew of some thing like a Church, D. Fern sayth; the Gates of Hell may prevaile, not to the ouer∣throwing of the fundamētall Sauing faith; but to Superstructiō of hay, stuble and worse, I mean errors in beleefe and practise; Yet such as may still be convinced by the doctrine of sauing faith, still preserved in the Church. With these superstructions you charge the Roman Church, yet adding; that shee hath the fundamentall faith in expresse tearmes delivered down in her, and such saving knowledge as was sufficient to discerne the foun∣dation from the superstructures. All this is confidently sayd by you; but still (like your selfe) you end the matter, and offer no kind of proofe: Neyther do you adde any one syllable to satisfy the great difficulties which occure in this confident assertion, against which I have some thing to say. First, to assume such Liberty to our privat selves, of Limiting that which the Holy Ghost thought not fitt to limit; is to teach others to limit such texts as promise divine assistance to Scripture writers, and to the Apostles, so, as to say in like manner, that they shall deliver nothing against the fundamentall sauing faith, but yet that they may superadde a vast multitude of theyr owne private phansies. Secondly you cannot name a perpetuall visible true Church, which Christ had vpon Earth, against which

this Error (for so you call it) did not preuaile, of admit∣ting for an infallible truth whatsoever was proposed by the Church. Of this error (if it be one) you can assigne no beginning in the Roman Church, (nor in any other Ca∣tholick Church:) But this error is a fundamentall error, not only because it layeth the foundation, vpon which infinite errors must be built; but cheefly, because it admits of no other ground vpō which to foūd any divine faith; For it admits of Scripture it selfe vpon this only ground, See Sect: 20. n. 5. If this ground be an Error, the founda∣tion of all the faith that is in the Roman Church is an er∣ror, and an Error fundamentall, as properly as you can proue any error to be fundamentall: For it makes the fo∣undation of all our faith to be an error. Have you as good ground to say (as you do Sect: 6.) The Arian Heresy is an error directly fundamentall? Wherefore you must needs say that the gates of Hell prevailed against the Roman Church to the Overthrow of fundamentall saving faith. And then you will never be able to finde Christ a true vi∣sible Church, by which you received your doctrin, your Mission, your Ordination, your Succession from the Apos∣tles: for these you had not from the Greek Church. Thirdly, as I iust now vrged, every Church, to which you dare af∣firme the name of Catholike to have agreed, did teach all the Articles shee proposed to be beleeved as divine veri∣ties revealed by God: even the Greek Church did this. But now, as it is damnable, even in matters of smalest im∣portance, to affirme with an Oath any Lye (because wee should take God for a witnes and assertor of our Lye;) so it is a most damnable thing to all those Churches, to propose errours even in matters of smalest importance for Articles of theyr faith, to be beleeved as divine veri∣ties,

revealed, and affirmed, and confirmed by God. If the Roman Church, as well as all the rest, did this (as you must say shee did) shee was no Church, but a Synagog…… of Satan, because she proposed Lyes to be beleev…… equally to divine verities, and thus did make the Sp…… of Truth, to be the Father of her lyes: wherefore you must needs say the gates of Hell prevailed against her suf∣ficiētly, to bring her (and those who followed her doctri∣ne) to hell. But when, not only the Roman, but also all other Churches for the last thousand yeares did this, where will you find Christ such a Church as Scriptures promise? from which Church you did receive your doctri∣ne, your mission, your ordination, your succession to the Apostles. Fourthly neyther you, nor any of yours, can tell (with any certainty) which be those particular points by the beliefe of which the saving faith is preserved so, that, if all those points be held, this faith is held intirely; if they be not all held, shee is lost. How blindely then do you proceed, when you affirme, that the Gates of Hell pre∣vailed not to the overthrow of fundamētall saving faith; which is more then you can know, vnles you can tell in the be∣leefe of which particular points, this fundamentall faith consists. Do you thinke this was done by preserving still in her such knowledge as was sufficient to discerne the foundation from the superstructure? If this be enough, then Arianisme, or any other Heresy, preserving the Scriptures, and not having sufficient force to abolish the knowledge of prin∣ciples, by which they may be reclaimed, may be said not to have erred in fundamentall saving faith: for you say that in the Scripture all fundamentall points are clearly set down.

8 Now give mee leave to vrge the force of my text

God buildeth vpō a Rocke (a full expressiō of greatest se∣curity) not any Church, but that very Church describ∣…… in my former Section out of the Prophets: And so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that hath been said of that Church, must be verified of ••his; with a reiterated promise, that the gate of Hell shall not prevaile against it: without breach of which promise this Church could not have erred so notoriously, as I have shewed you affirme all Churches visible vpon Earth, to have erred; And particularly the Roman Church vses to be stiled by yours, Idolatrous, Superstitious, the Seat of Antichrist, the Synagogue of Satan, a Nest of Errors, covered with an vniversall Leprosie, overwhelmed with more then Cy∣merian darkenes, averted by apostacy from the whole Body of Christ. This is the character you give of the Roman Church: And then, when wee presse you with this and other clear Texts; you, for your own ends, say, the Ro∣man Church erred not fundamentally: yet your famous French Brother Iohn Daille, whose book of Schisme hath been now twice or thrice published in England, in ex∣presse tearmes chargeth the Roman Church With funda∣mētall errors overthrowing the foundations of Christianity. C. 7. And then in the next Chapter, he begins to shew how our opinion of adoring the Eucharist is a fundamentall error; in the proving whereof he laboureth even vntill his nineteenth Chapter, the title of which is, That there be very many other beleefes in the Church of Rome which overthrow the foundation of our faith. And indeed he is the true disciple Of Calvin, who Instit: 4. C. 18. sayth of vs; They made all the Kings and the people of the Earth drunk from the first to the last. Adde now to this, that which D. Whitaker Controv: 4. Q. 5. c. 3. confesseth in these words; In times past no Reli∣gion but the Papisticall had place in the Church. Therefore,

(say I) if this Papisticall Church was such an one as yours describe it; and if there were no other Church but this the gates of Hell prevailed against all Churches vpon the Earth. And indeed the very claime which this Church maketh to infallibility, and her conformably pressing all the world to submitt to her definitions, and hould them for divine Oracles (if they be errors) is the very bane of Christendome, as D. Fern calls it Sect: 27. For vpon this prin∣ciple shee may oblige all to hould your Church (which you will say is Christs purest Church) not to be any Church at all, but a damnable Congregation of Heretiques. How then have not the gates of Hell prevailed against her, who teacheth the purest Church to teach most damnable Heresy? And again, if Hell gates have prevailed against Her; against what Church did they not, for a thousand years before Luther, prevaile? So much of this Text.

9. My eight Text, to prove the Church to be our infallible Iudge, secured by God from leading vs into any error great or litle is Mat: 18.17. He that will not heare the Church, let him bee vnto thee as a Publican or Heathen: There∣fore, meerly for not hearing the Church, a man, according to the true Iudgment of God himselfe, is to be held (and consequently doth justly deserue to be held) as a Publi∣can, or Heathen: But all men are obliged not to do that, by which so heavy a Iudgment may deservedly fall vpon them: Therefore all men are obliged to hear the Church; the meerly not hearing of her, deserving so heavy a Iudge∣ment, even in the sight of God; who saith in the next verse, that the Churches judgment (condemning those who refuse to heare her) shall be made good, and ap∣proved of in Heaven. No man therefore is secure in con∣science, or innocent in the sight of God, who refuseth

to hear, or obey the Church. Hence followeth first, that this Church cannot erre damnably, for so a man in con∣science might be bound to follow a damnable error. Se∣condly, hence followeth that shee cannot erre in any small matter belonging to faith, for all men beeing bound to hear her, and follow what shee teacheth; and it beeing impossible any man should in conscience be bound to hould the least falsity as an article of faith revealed by God (for that were to hould God a revealer or affirmer of a Lye) it followeth, that it is impossible the Church should ever deliver any small error for an Article of Faith. In hearing and obeying the Church wee follow Gods Command: But no kind of Errour Litle or great can be incurred by following Gods Command; Therefore in hearing and obeying the Church wee can be led into no kind of Errour litle or great.

10. Now if any one reply; that wee are to hear the Church, so lōg as shee swarveth not from Gods word. My answer is; that to swarue from Gods word, is to erre: But this text proveth she cannot erre: therefore this text proveth shee cānot swarve frō Gods word. And indeed, if she could erre, or swarue from Gods word; the meerly not hearing, or not obeying her, could not deserve that a mā should be justly accoūted by God as a publicā, or Heathē. See here. N. 19. Others reply that this text is to be vnder∣stood, not of hearing this Church in matters of Faith and vnbeleefe, but of matters of trespasse between Brother ād brother, which trespasses are also to be tould to every par∣ticular Church ād to severall Prelates; ād therefore this pla∣ce maketh nothing for the authority of the vniversall Church. I āswer; particular trespasses are to be referred to particular Prelates; ād that the Church is not to be assēbled

in a generall Coūcel for every private mās trespasses. Sin∣gular private men are to be condemned by they particu∣lar Prelates of theyr particular Churches, proceeding ac∣cording to the known decrees and Orders of the vniver∣sall Church. If any man, when they proceed thus, diso∣beyeth them, he in them disobeyeth the vniversall Church; according to whose knowne Lawes, and Decrees, these Prelates clearly proceeded. And therefore he, meerly for this only act of refractory disobedience to the Church, deserueth, by Gods own iudgment, to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. So wee see, that every man, who disobeyeth the particular Iudges, iudging clearely accord∣ing to the known Lawes of the Commonwealth, diso∣beyeth the Commonwealth. And it is this refractary diso∣beying, and not hearing the Church, which maketh the Crime so enormous: For this teacheth others to do the like; and so all government falls to confusion, all Order to disorder. Whence you may easily see, that the not obeying and following particular Prelates, in so well ordered a Commonwealth as the Church is, doth commonly come to be the very selfe same enormous Crime of not hearing the Church. And because all particular Prelates of the Church are supposed (if the contrary be not notorious) to do theyr duty in giveing sentence according to the known Decrees, orders, and Canons of the vniversall Church, those who disobey the Prelates of particular Churches, must (by no lesse generall a manner of speak∣ing) be sayd to disobey the vniversall Church; as those, who disobey the Iudge, are sayd to disobey the Common∣wealth. So that at last, this disobedience against the Church, is against Christ and God himselfe, according to that which God said to Samuel; lib. 1. c. 8. They have not

rejected thee, but they have rejected mee: and Christ to his dis∣ciples, the first Prelates of the Church; He that despiseth you, despiseth mee. Luk 10. whence you did see Sect: 8. n: 6. how S. Austen taught vs, that if there were a Man appoint∣ed by God to be heard by vs (and knowne to be so com∣missioned) noe body would dare to refuse obediēce vnto him in what he taught; least so doing, he should be truly iudged, not so much to have refused Obedience to this man, as to have refused it to God, who gave Commission to this man. Iust so (as S. Austen also discourseth) beeing it is God who gave this Commission to the Church, oblige∣ing all to hear her, with so strict a command, that the Refusers are to be Iudged, by his expresse Order, as Pub∣licans, and Heathens; he who refuseth to submitt to this Church, for doing so, is truly Iudged not so much to dis∣obey the Church, as to disobey God who gave the Com∣mission to the Church: see Sect: 22. n: 5. And therefore Christ commanded the Lawfull Successors of Moses to be obeyed, in what they commanded (to witt, either by publik authority, or by the known doctrine or practice formerly ordered by publike authority;) although these Successors of Moses were men, not only wicked in theyr lives, but also did (on theyr private authority) teach er∣rours, and that publickly; Yet never authorized by any one publik definition of the seat of Moses. And they were these never-authorized errours of theirs, which Christ called the Leaven of the Pharisees; bidding his Apostles take heed of it. But now, for as much as concerneth the doc∣trine, which was authorized by the publik definition of that feat, Christ was so farre from bidding, evē the com∣mon people, to take heed of it, that he sayd publikely, to the whole promiscuous Multitude, and also to his disciples;

Vpon the Chayer of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharises, All therefore what soever they bidde you, observe, and do. Mat: 23. v. 1. Note those must ample words (All therefore what soever.) O! will you say, what if they bidde vs do against the Scripture; what most you do? I answer that, iust as you must say concerning that voice, which came from Heaven, commanding (Mat: 27.) to hear our Sauiour, Ipsum audite, was not to be eluded by the Pharises saying, heare him if he teach no falsity; but was a declaration from Heaven, that he, who was so vniversally to be heard, should be secured from teaching any falsity: see Sect: 22. n: 5. so also these words, All therefore whatsoever, And these words of the text I am now vrging, If any man will not hear the Church &c, be words conteyning a declaration made by our Saviours own Mouth, that the ould and new Church so vniversally commanded to be heard, were secured from teaching any falsity. And I shall answer, before I end all your cheefe obiections to the contrary, Sect: 23.

11. Now as the Synagogues authority was to be heard in all whatsoever they did bidde in matter of doctrine, and not only in point of trespasses betwen Brother, and Bro∣ther; wee cannot (without notably depressing the Au∣thority of Christs Church, and casting of it vnder the Sy∣nagogue) allow to the Synagogue a power to be vniver∣sally heard in all whatsoever, and yet confine the Autho∣rity of Christs Church to those narrow limits of beeing heard only in point of trespasse betweē Brother and Bro∣ther; where as the Synagogue is but the Handmaide, the Church the Soverain Lady, and hath a better Covenant established vpon better promises. Hebr: 8.6. The force then of my text is this, If any one will not hear the Church, even in trespasse between Brother and Brother belonging to

her Court, let him be accounted as a publican or Heathen and much more, let him be so accounted if he will not heare the Church in such trespasses which one Brother committs against all his Brothers, and against his Dearest Mother the Church; this beeing incomparably a crime more haynous, and more particularly belonging to the Court of the Church; over which crime if God had not given her power, he had not given her sufficient power for her owne preservation, as every Commonwealth hath, and of necessity must have; especially so ample a Cōmonwealth, as was intended to be dilated over the whole face of the Earth, and to be established in a vast extent for ever. Wherefore as our adversaries vse to say, that every King∣dome or Commonwealth must needs have power to make Lawes and statutes, of sufficient efficacy to keep off all forrain Iurisdiction, by which it may be ruined, be∣cause as Suarez sayth (lib 3. de Primat. Pont: C. 1. n: 4.) humane nature cannot be destitute of necessary remedies to its own preservation; so wee say God having erected a King∣dome to stand for ever, as Daniel called his Church (of which I spoak the last Sect: n. 9.) he cannot but be sup∣posed to have given this his Kingdome, or Church, that Ecclesiasticall Power which was requisite to preserve it from all secular insurrections, against the Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power thereof; or else it might easily be quitted and cast off by them all. This Kingdome then, beeing to reigne in the midle of all Nations, he gave it a Spirituall Iurisdiction over all Nations, in so much, as he said to his Church; The Nation and Kingdome which will not serve thee, shall perish of which I speak more the last Sect. n. 8: Who so ever then broacheth any heresy, as a poysoned cup prepared to the ruine, not of one Brothers body; but

of as many Brothers Soules as he can any way intice to drinke thereof: if he still persistes in this malitious prac∣tice, and so, to the notorious trespassing of all his Bre∣theren, and dearest Mother, continueth committing this Soul-Murthering Crime of Heresy (a Crime the most destructive of the Common good that can be thought of) he is questionles to be proceeded against by the Church: to which if he submitt not, he, most deservedly, in the highest degree, is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. And Note that all heretikes are not only guil∣ty of this Soul-Murthering crime of heresy: but by stand∣ing out against the Prelutes of the Church, in the mayn∣teyning of theyr Heresy, they fall into Schisme; which Crime of its own Nature (as S. Thomas affirmeth) is the most haynous trespasse against our Brothers, and against the most solemne band of fraternall Charity, that can be committed. If therefore trespasses against our Bretheren belong to the Court of the Church, and shee is here by God made the Iudge thereof, with that high prerogative of having her Sentence ratifyed in heaven: then doubtles those whom shee condemneth are condemned persons, both in the sight of God and men. Shee therefore, vn∣der so great a penalty, beeing to be heard, is secured from all kind of errour in her Sentence, or decree. And as the broaching of heresy, and the standing out in defence of it by Schisme, is incomparably more destructive to out Bretheren, and offensive to our Mother the Church, when this is done by a great multitude or a whole Natiō; so, in this Case, the Crime more Neerly concerns the Court of the Church, and shee is impowered to passe sen∣tence against it; which beeing no lesse, but rather more iust, then in the former Case, will no lesse, but rather

more assuredly, be ratyfyed in heavē. I note this for D. Ferns sake, who, vnder pretence of Reformation, licenceth a whole nation to stand out against all other Churches. S: 4.

12. Here fitly cometh in the discussing of that (which some inconsideratly vse, to elude the force of this Text;) that this sentence of the Church consisteth only in an exterior excommunication, in which shee may erre, and the party (erroneously excommunicated) may be a iust man in the sight of God. I answer; if wee deceive not our selves by putting a Cause different from that which concerneth the true vnderstanding of this text; the mat∣ter will soone be cleered. This text speaketh of one who will not heare, nor submitt to the Church, after shee hath given sentence against him: Give mee a man, who, in this case, doth not submitt to the Church, and this very not submission of his, cannot but be that very crime, for which Christ him selfe houldeth him ac∣countable as a Publican or Heathen; and affirmeth that this sentēce shall be ratified in heaven: wherefore it is im∣possible this Censure should be vniust, if he be truly guil∣ty of not hearing the Church. It is true that by false infor∣mation, or some such way, a man may be iudged to be guilty of not hearing the Church, when really in the sight of God he is not guilty; and so there may some times be an errour in the mistake of the fact: and thus Clave er∣rante, by an errour only in matter of fact (in which the Church is not infallible,) the sentence will not be ratified in Heaven. But this is nothing to the purpose of our ad∣versaries, who would have a man be innocent in the sight of God, who professeth in many particulars not to conforme to what the sentence of the Church comman∣deth all to conforme; for example to adore the Sacred

Eucharist &c. Every man who professeth this, professeth not to hear the sentence of the Church, which is still by severe Censures pressing this vpon him. Wherefore in pronouncing sentence here (where the fact of not hear∣ing the Church is maynteyned as good and laudable,) there cā be no errour in the fact: for they cōfesse ād pro∣fesse that here they neither do, nor will hear the Church; against which they (with D. Ferne Sect: 10) say, they have Evidence of Scripture, demonstration of Reason, and a conform∣able consent of Primitive times, the pure ages of the Church. Wherefore when the Church pronounceth these persons, so notoriously refractary, to be accounted as Publicās, or Heathens; her sentence shall be ratifyed in heaven; and either Scripture must be false, or those men guilty.

13. That all may cleerly see what an empty boast this is, which D. Ferne, and others make of theyr having evidence of Scripture against what our Church teacheth; I chal∣lenge him, or any other, to shew, if he can, by Scripture only (for that you all make your Iudge) that the texts which here I alledge for the Church her beeing our in∣fallible Iudge, cannot be interpreted truely, as our church sayth they are to be interpreted. For to shew this, it is not enough for you to devise some differēt interpreta∣tion, in which it is possible for these texts to be taken: For it is no proofe to say, This may be true true interpretation, Therefore it is so: Or, it seemes probably to be so, therefore evi∣dently this, and no other but this interpretation is true: But you must, (and that by evidence of Scripture only) shew that these texts cannot be truly interpreted, as our Church in∣terpreteth them; and you must proue by Scripture only, that the tradition, by which shee hath received these in¦terpretations, is not a true tradition descended from the

Apostles. For if it be a true tradition (he contrary to which can never be evidently demonstrated out of Scripture alone) shee is grounded as well as those who received theyr doctrine from Scrip••ure only. For the Tounges of the Apostles were as infallible as theyr pen∣nes; and what they sayd, and caused to be reduced to practice all the world over, is farre lesse subject, to be ei∣ther counterfeited, or mistaken, then theyr writings. You also will never answer what I sayd, that these texts, which now I am bringing for this point, be as cleer evidēces out of Scripture for the Churches beeing our infallible Iudge, as those other texts brought by you, and examined here by mee Sect: 10. be cleer evidēces to demōstrate that Scrip∣ture only is to be our Iudge; which point, if you cannot make more evident out of Scripture then I can make this point; it is manifest, that you stand out against all the Pre∣lates of all the Churches vnder which you lived before your division, without convincing them by evidence of Scripture that you might and ought refuse submission to them. The Church then beeing in possession of her Au∣thority over you, and not manifestly convinced by you with any evidence of Scripture (of the Evidence of which there is farre more reason shee should be iudge, then you:) you, for not hearing her, are by her iust sentence denounced to be held as publicans or heathens; and this sentence is ratifyed in heaven.

14. My Ninth text, to prove the Church infallible in her Defin••tiōs and iudgements, is out of S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. calling her The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. May not all securely rely in theyr faith vpon the very pillar of truth? May they not, most groundedly, ground theyr faith vpon the very ground of Truth it

selfe? what do wee say more? Now I pray, what possibi∣lity can there be for you to shew by evident Scripture, that this text is not capable of this interpretation, which our Church gives vnto it? In place of shewing this (which only maketh to the purpose;) you go about to shew that text may have other interpretations, therefore (you in∣fer) this is not the true one: which is a pittifull argument. For what text was ever cited by S. Paul, or other Apostles, which might not have had some other interpretation putt vpon it? Thus in place of bringing evident Scripture aga∣inst vs, you still bring your owne interpretations of it; as if Scripture (fallibly interpreted by you) were to be our Iudge. What text have you for that? If you say, Scriptu∣re interpreted truly, must be our Iudge; but you do inter∣pret it truly; therefore Scripture, as you interpret it, must be our Iudge. What heretik will not say thus much for his damnable interpretations? Tell mee then, what inter∣pretation can bee demonstrated to be the only true one, which is different from our interpretation: which sayth thus; The Church beeing the pillar it selfe of truth, wee may, without fear of ever erring, rely vpon her? Shee beeing the very ground of truth it selfe; wee are securely grounded, as long as wee are grounded on her Authori∣ty. What have you in Scripture only, to prove this inter∣pretation to be manifestly false; as you must prove it aga∣inst so publik authority? what (I say) have you out of Scripture on••y, to demonstrate this? Nothing: But, in place of bringing vs evidence of Scripture, so vainly bo∣asted of; you bring vs, for your best answer, an interpre∣tation of your owne, which you say must be true, because perhaps it may be true; As if I should sufficiently prove that A. B. must be a theefe, be acuse perhaps he may be so.

To answer in the like forme, I may as well say; this inter∣pretation of yours must be false: because perhaps it may be false. But let vs heare what your best interpretation is. You commonly say, there is a double Pillar, and a dou∣ble Ground: One pillar, or ground which is principall, and that is the Scripture; an other pillar or ground subor∣dinate to the former, and that is the Church. But this double dealing in distinguishing, helpeth you not. The Church must still be a true pillar and a true ground of the truth. The people beleeved God and Moses, sayth the Scrip∣ture, Ex: 14. v. 31. Moses was infinitely vnder God, and sub∣ordinate to him; as the Church is vnder Scripture and sub∣ordinate to it: and yet this did not hinder but that all the people did most truly beleeve Moses, and ground theyr faith on what he said; because they knew he had received what he taught, from God. So all the subordi∣nation the church hath to Scripture, doth not hinder, but that wee may truely rely in our beleefe vpon the Church as the people relyed vpon Moses; because wee also know that what the Church teacheth, shee hath received from God by Christ, and his Apostles. Again, the tradi∣tion or doctrine of our Church is as secure, as the tradi∣tion or doctrine of the Church in the Law of Nature was for all those two thousand yeares which were before all Scripture: but then men might (and all did) securely re∣ly on that Church as the pillar and ground of truth, on which all theyr faith relied: Ergo they may now thus rely on Christs Church. Again, what clear text have you to prove, that Christs Church is lesse secured frō falsity, then that Church? Had not this ground been sure enough (as it had not if that Church had been fallible) the faith of all the world, could not have been grounded sufficiently

vpon it: And that, which is most to our purpose, at that very time in which S. Paul did call the Church the Pillar and ground of the truth; he did call her so before the Canon of the Scripture was finished, before which time, you your selves confesse the Church might be, and was securely relyed vpon, in all points of faith; And no one Christian can, by any text, be proved to have then vnderstood S. Paul to speak these words of the Church, as of a pillar and ground of truth subordinate to the Canon of Scripture when it should be finished. How then comes this now to be the only true sense of Scripture? what text have you to prove (and that demonstratively) that the Church of Christ, which, before any word of the new testament was written, was the Pillar and ground of truth; and that so vniversally, that shee was secured from proposing any er∣rour to be beleeved, were it great or litle: but yet shee, im∣mediately vpon the writing of the Scripture (confirming this title vnto her) became lesse vniversally a Pillar and ground of truth, and more subject to errour then before? You, who will have nothing of moment held without cleer Scripture: shew but one single cleer text of Scripture for this. More again of this Sect: 16. in the beginning N. 1. 2. 3.

15. An other shift to elude the force of my text, is, to say; that by these words S. Paul intended only to set forth the office of the Church, and not her authority. For Gods sake mark how you handle Scripture against vs. You say you will bring evident demonstration of Scripture, and now you bring your meer conjectures of S. Paules inward and secret intention, known to God only. Let mee then ask you. What Text tels you cleerly that S. Paul had only an intention to set forth the Churches office, and not her au∣thority?

whereas, in fewer words, I think, it scarse possible more fully, and more emphatically, to sett forth her in∣fallible authority, then by tearming her the Pillar and gro∣und of the Truth; which words strike so strong vpon our vnderstandings, even at the first hearing of them, that the first consequence wee can make from hence is; there∣fore vpon this pillar of truth wee may securely rely in our be∣liefe of truth; Therefore vpon this ground of truth wee may safe∣ly ground our beleefe. Concerning the office of this Church no man thinketh, vntill he be putt in mind, or hath turned a while his vnderstanding to the search of severall inter∣pretations. S. Paul then vsing words as sufficient to de∣clare the infallible authority of the Church, as men in or∣dinary speach vse to do, yea, vsing a most Expressive Metaphore, which cometh fully home to this intent; what do you but tell vs your bare conjectures (and those most weakely grounded) when you tell vs, you know his inten∣tion was not to declare the authority of the Church. So∣me prove this weak conjecture by an other weaker: for they say, to what purpose was it for S. Paul instructing Timothy, how to behave himselfe in the Church of God, to set forth vnto him her infallible authority? I answer, that is was not only much to the purpose to instruct all posterity in one of the most necessary points; but also it was most pertinent to that particular end of moving Ti∣mothy to behave himselfe irreprehensibly in the Church, because shee was constituted the Publike Oracle for all the world, that all in all ages might come to her for secu∣re direction in theyr faith, and for assured decision of all theyr controversies (shee beeing the Pillar and ground of truth) S. Paul thought fitt to admonish Timothy, and all other Prelates in his person, so to behave themselves,

as not, by theyr misdemeanour, to make men think it im∣probable that God should give a perpetuall infallible as∣sistance to such a Church, whose prime and first gover∣nours (who should be the paterne of the rest) lived scan∣dalously or lesse Godly. How much do, (not your mul∣titude only) but even your greatest Doctors, think them∣selves to say against the Church of Rome, claiming this infallibility (yet improbably say you;) because her Prela∣tes have been avaritious, cruell, lascivious, or otherwise scandalous? This indeed is a pittifull argument, for so it should be proved improbable that, God assisted infalli∣bly wicked men to write (without the least errour) some parts of the Holy Scripture. And yet wee know David was both an Adulterer and murderer; Salomon was an Idolater, who went after Astoroth the Goddesse of the Sidonians, and after Michom the abomination of the Amonites: 1. Kings 11. v. 5.7. Of diverse bookes wee know not the Authors, and so wee cannot tell whether they were good or badde. Yet as pittifull an argument as this is, wee know it troubleth weak Soules; and therefore you vse it against vs. Where∣fore, to take away all scandall from these litle ones, it was very convenient that Bishops, especially those who first helde that place in the Church (as Timothie did) should be blameles, continent, vigilant, sober, of good behavi∣our &c: For such good precepts as these were here gi∣ven by S. Paul, as much making to his purpose; to main∣taine the credit of such a Church as might seem to all, fitt to be that which indeed was constituted the Publike Oracle of the world, the Pillar and ground of truth.

16. My tenth text is out of the last words of S. Matthew. Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c: and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I am with you always; even to the end of the world. The

Apostles, in theyr own persons, were not to be here te∣aching and baptizing vntill the end of the world: There∣fore, not only according to S. Austin and S. Hierom v∣pon this place, but also according to manifest reason, these words were spoken as a promise both to them and to theyr successors for ever, by whom they were for ever to be teaching all Nations, and baptizing: and conse∣quently this promise was made to the assembly of Tea∣chers, Doctors, and Bishops of that visible Church, in which they were visibly to performe all that belonged to the instruction of all Nations vnto the worldes end. That Church which had no such visible beeing in all a∣ges, hath no share in this promise; for who is not the party to which the promise is made, hath no part in the promise. You then, having no share in it, enviously la∣bour to lessen it, by saying; that it is not to be vnderstood that there should be aequality of assistance in all ages, se∣curing the Church at all times, from all errour in every age, as shee was secured in the first age, when shee was governed by the Apostles; And after they had written the Scriptures, there was no further need of any other in∣fallible Rule; a lesser assistance therefore might serve af∣ter ages. I answer that this is only to tell mee what you think might be sayd: but where is your evidence of Scrip∣ture, to demonstrate that the assistance God promissed was indeed extended to infallibility in the first age; but was not so in any other age? I aske for infallible texts, and not for fallible reasons: Though I must tell you, that according to reason, after the first age (when the Church was now grown from a graine of mustardseed to be a vast tree; extending her branches from Sea to Sea, and still growing to a greater extent) in processe of follow∣ing

ages, there must needs, in so huge a compasse of the world, imbracing men of different vnderstandings, dic∣tamens, principles, educations, instructions, humors, and wills; there must (I say) needs happen in the pro∣gresse of many ages (still removed further, and further from Christs time, and the dayes of his Apostles) a world of Doubts, debates, and controversies, some affirming such and such Bookes to belong to the true Canon of Scripture, others rejecting them as Apocripha. Some affirming such and such Copies to be the only true vn∣corrupted Copies of those Bookes, others affirming those Copies to be corrupted, and others different from them to be the only true ones. And againe after they had a∣greed vpon the true Bookes, and the true Copies (though perhaps they might in that agree in a fundamentall er∣rour) yet they would be sure mainly to disagree about the true sence of those copies. Why then might not Christ, to secure his Church from erring in so important Con∣troversies (vndecidable by Scripture,) promise also an assistance extended to infallibility in latter ages, as well as in the first age? For infallibility was given to the A∣postles, not for theyr own sakes, but for the good of those whom they were to teach, and to secure them from errour. Now the Christian people of after ages were in∣comparably more in number, and theyr very number made them incomparably more subject (in processe of many ages still remoter from Christ) to be led into inex∣tricable errours; wherefore surely they did exceedingly need this infallible assistance, given, as I sayd, for the peoples sake. Those who had been instructed by the A∣postles, before Scripture was written, converted and in∣structed thousands, who never had heard any Apostle

preach: All these Beleeved vpon the authority of the then present Church, and theyr faith was infallible; therefore that Church, which was then before Scripture, had an infallible assistance to secure her from proposing any er∣rour. What Scripture tells you shee lost this assistance when Scripture was written? And that men could not rely vpon her authority, when now, besides the help of tradition, she had also the help of Scripture, to rule her selfe by? See this more fully S. 16. n. 2. You say, this in∣fallible assistance was lesse necessary for her after shee had received the Scripture. I might say, it was more necessary; because in processe of time heretikes would arise, who would affirme the Scriptures to have beē purposely writ∣ten to be our sole and only Rule of Faith; and this they would say of Scripture as interpreted by them, and not as interpreted by any infallible, visible interpreter. This he∣resy, into which all heretikes have ever fallen, maketh the necessity of an infallible assistance greater after the writing of Scripture, then it was before. Again, what Scripture tels you that God is so sparing in his providing meanes for the direction of his Church, that, giving them Scripture, he will subtract his assistance formerly extended to infallibility, and not leave them, with theyr Bibles in theyr hands, to go which way every one in his private judgment shall think fittest, with out the former direction of a publik, visible, and infallible guide? Had wee not better have kept such a guide still? D. Ferne could not but acknowledge, that such a visible infallible Iudge, or Vmpire of all Christendome, would (if to be had) be a ready meanes to compose all differences, and restore truth and Peace. S. 27. The Church was this infallible visible Iudge before Scripture was written; and it is also confessed, that such

a Iudge would now, after wee have the Scripture, be an exceeding benefitt: why then do you say, God took a∣way this inestimable guift from his Church with one hand, when he gave the Scripture with the other; there not beeing the least text in Scripture for so important an assertion? I think any one would hould it most rash to say, that S. Iohn the Evangelist, after he had writt the last words of the whole Canon or Scripture, presently lost his in∣fallibility in teaching, instructing guyding, interpreting &c: Why then should the whole Church of Christ loose that infallibility which confessedly shee had before the Canon was quite finished? Again, you cannot say the Scripture was superfluously written, though the Church, before the writing thereof, was an infallible guide: How then can you say the infallible guidance of the Church is superfluous, after the writing of the Scripture? especially, beeing such an infallible guidance is even now confessed to be so ready a meanes to end all controversies; which among those who admitt no such guides, are endles. See also my next Sect: n. 1. 2. 3. Christ therefore, not only in the first age, but even to the consummation of the world, is with his Church; But he is not with those who introduce, and father vpon him, as the first Reuealer thereof, many grosse, and intolerable Errours, and super∣stitions, as you call those which you found in all Churches vpon the face of the Earth, this last thousand years: There∣fore these last thousand yeares he was not with his Church, or else her errours were not such as needed so sadde a Reformation as yours was, to the disturbance of all Christendom. If her errours were tolerable, they should (to auoid so great mischeefes) have been tolerated: if they vere intolerable, how was Christ with her? Or what

other Church can you name whose errours were not as intolerable? Now that all may clearly see, that this promise of Christ assured the Church of an assistance extended to an infallible security from all errour fundamentall, or not fundamentall: this will appear by that farther, and fuller explication made of this promise in S. Iohn, who writt on purpose to explicate more fully some points, lesse fully set down by the former Evangelists.

17. My eleuenth text then is out of S. Iohn, where C. 14. v. 15. Our Sauiour sayth; I will pray the Father and he will give you an other Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive. And v. 27. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name, he shall teach you all things, and suggest vnto you all things whatsoever I shall say vnto you (fundamentall or not-fundamentall.) And C. 16. v. 12. I have yet many things to say vnto you (the fundamentalls be not many things, as you all confesse;) How be it, when the spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth, not on∣ly fundamentall, but also not-fundamentall, which belong to those many things which I (who have tould you things fundamentall) have not yet tould you. In these things this Spirit will guide you into all Truth. But all Truth exclud∣eth all Errours, not only in fundamentall, but also in not-fundamentall points. You know not which points be fundamentall, which not; which destructive of Salvation, which not; which curable, which incurable; Yet feare not: beleeve the Church in teaching these, or any other points; for shee, guided by this Spirit of Truth, will guide you into all Truth: But you will say, How long shall her cheefe Pastors have this great privilege? For ever, sayth the first part of my Text; by which words it is made evident

that the promise was made, not only to them for themsel∣ves (they not beeing to live for ever teaching vs these Tru∣thes;) but also for they Successours in the prime govern∣ment of the Church, who were to guide the People into all Truth for ever; as I shall presently shew farther out of S. Paul. I argue hence (iust as I did before;) This assistance which was promissed for ever, was ever, and in all ages, performed; therefore in those ten ages (which made the thousand yeares before your Reformation) this promise was performed; Therefore what All the prime Prelates of the Church did teach all that while for truth, was not erroneous, or superstitious: But in all these ages they all confessedly did teach for truth those very points, which you hould to be our grossest errours; Therefore these be not errours, but truth. Here you see againe clearly, why this great promise cannot belong to your Prelats or other Governours of your Church, as it is different from ours. First, because you had no visible governours at all of your Church as distinct from ours. For Governours must needs be visibly chosen, have visible subjects, send forth visible decrees &c. Name such governours as these dif∣ferent from ours, if you can. You can name none but ours. With ours then only the Holy Ghost abided all these ages, guiding them into all Truth. Whence Secondly it follow∣eth, that he cannot now be guiding your governours into all truth; they beeing manifestly guided into opi∣nions directly opposit to those doctrines which were, all these last thousand yeares, taught by all those who were governours of the Church. If you could shew governours of Churches in all these last ten ages still teaching those points in which you differ from vs, without teaching other notorious errours; then indeed you might have

some colour to plead; that this Spirit of Truth might as truly have been sayd promised to the governours of your Church, as to those of ours: But this promise, not beeing performed to them (there beeing no such persons to be found in those ages) was not doubtles promised to them; otherwise Christs promise had not been performed.

18. My twelfth and last Text, shewing clearly that this promised assistance was extended to infallibility, is. Ephes: 4. Whence appeareth that the end, and intention of Christ in giving the chiefe Gouvernours of that Church (which was to be visible in all Ages) was such an end, and such an intention, as could not be compassed by giving vs such cheefe Gouvernours, guides and instruc∣tors in beleefe, as were meerly fallible, and who might lead vs into circumvention of errour, even then, when they were legally assembled togeather to deliver the Truth, from theyr highest Tribunall, in a generall Coun∣cell. For had all these our cheefe Gouvernours, even then, been lyable to broach grosse errours, vented for divine verities (and pressed vpon all to be admitted as such) how had Christ obtained that end for which he gave vs these our prime Gouvernours, guides and in∣structors? For he gave some Apostles (succeeding alwaies in full Apostolicall authoritie, as wee see in S. Peeters suc∣cessors:) some Prophets (those sayth S. Thom. 12. Rom. v. 6. Are called Prophets in the new Testament who ex∣pound the Propheticall sayings with that Spirit with which the Scripture was written:) and some Evangelists (that is Preachers of the Ghospel; So Philippe is called an Evangelist Act: 21. v. 8. So S. Paul bad Timothie do the work of an Evangelist. Tim. 4. v. 5.) some Pastors and Tea∣chers; whose offices are more knowne. But to what end

did he give all these? It followeth; For the perfecting the Saincts. How pittifully should they be perfected by ob∣truders of grosse intolerable errours for divine verities? For the work of the ministery; how pittifully also had such men performed this work? For the edifying of the body of Christ: such Broachers of Errours had been fitter to work her destruction. How long did God intend to give all these sorts of persons, of which some were to be endued with the plenitude of Apostolicall authority, and conse∣quently with an infallible authority; How long, I say, did God give such to his Church? Till wee all come into the vni∣ty of the faith; which will not be vntill the last dayes of all: Wherefore vntill the end of the world, the world shall be provided. But are wee, by beeing thus provided, suffi∣ciently secured from all Errour? The next verse will tell you, that this was Gods chiefe intent; That wee hence forth be no more childeren tossed to and fro, and carried about With every winde of doctrine, by slight of men and cunning craftines, whereby they ly in wait to deceive. Gods end then was so to provide vs of a meanes, by which wee might be so secured in our beliefe, that no mans craft or cunning might be able to tosse vs to and fro; as wee see now all they are, who hould themselves able to bring evidence of Scripture, against all those who for the last ten ages have been Apo∣stles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours, and teachers in Christs visible Church.

19. To elude some of my texts, our adversaries vse to say; wee must indeed hear the Church, as long as shee teaceth what is conformable to Scripture: and so long the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against her; so long, and no longer, shee is the pillar and ground of truth, and God is with her &c. I answer first, That in consequence to this

the father of lyes himself may be beleeved so long as he teacheth comformably to Scripture. Secondly who seeth not how ridiculous it is to say; wee shall heare the truth from the Church as long as shee doth not teach against the truth. Is this to be the pillar of truth? A straw is a pillar as long as it bendeth not, and quicksand is sure ground vntill it yeelds. Blasphemous is the sēse which maketh Christ speak non-sense. As all by a voice from Heaven were bidde to hear Christ, so all are biddē by Christ o hear his Church: her governours therefore shall never come by vnanimous consent to propose lyes for articles of faith. For if all should teach a lye (as every errour against Scripture is a lye) with whō is that promise made good, that the spirit of truth should guide them into all truth. If wee may be misseled by all those guides which God gave his Church, to the end that wee hence forth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about &c: how short did God fall of his intent in falling vpon such guides as beeing lyable so to swarue from the Scripture, must needs leave vs, yea make vs tossed to and fro. Read but over the texts I cited last Sectiō out of the ould testament, and you shall see how flatly this interpretation opposeth Gods word, which shall never de∣part from the Churches mouth, nor her Seed, nor the Seed of her Seed &c. See also my answer above, n: 10. Thirdly, thus you will leave no Text to prove shee shall never erre in fun∣damentalls: for you will still be answered; that so long as in them shee teacheth conformably to Scripture, shee shall not erre in them; But if once in them shee teacheth not conformably to Scripture, shee shall erre even in them; and so Christ shall have no Church.

20. Having now ended the compleat dozen of texts brought partly out of the ould Scriptures, manifestly

promising infallibility to Christs Church; partly out of the new, manifestly conferring the same: I cannot but desire all those who read those lines out of a desire of finding the truth, that they would stay here a while, and examin carefully whether these texts be not clearer, and come not farre more home, then those texts which were the best D. Ferne brought to prove, that Scripture by it selfe is so our infallible Iudge. See those texts examined Sect. 10. See also if you have any thing neer so good grounds out of Scripture for any one of those 24. points which I have shewed to be necessary to salvation, and for which consequētly you say you have cleer Scripture. Conferre these with the best you have for the keeping the Sunday, for baptizing infants &c, Which I have here examined; and ask your owne conscience, whether you can be able to give your owne Iudge a reason why you did not heare his voice, speaking farre more home in these texts, then he did in those? Lastly, I again call vpon our adversaries, to shew by evidence of Scripture, if they can, that these twelue texts here cited by mee, are not capable of that interpretation which wee, conformab∣ly to our Churches doctrine, have given them. But still wee note that they fall short of doing this, so long as they only shew, that it is possible to invent some different in∣terpretation of these texts, from that which wee have given them: for so even the texts which the Apostles have interpreted out of the old Scripture, may be shew∣ed to have been capable of other interpretations, though the interpretation they gave them were very true: you must then shew, and that by evident demonstration, that the interpretation which our Church giveth them, is not true; Or else vaine is your boast, that you heare not our

Church, because you have evident demonstration of Scripture against her; For no lesse can suffice against so publik au∣thority, even according to your own principles.

SECT: XVI.

The same is proved by severall Reasons.

1. THe first reason, why the Church must needs be furnished with some infallible meanes besides the vse of Scripture, (which vse is not infallible though the Scriptures be infallible) is taken out of that which I touched vpon (S. 10. n. 13.) to wit; that there is no Reason, nor any one single text, teaching that the Church in the Law of Nature, should be said to be priviledged with infallibility, above the Church of Christ in the Law of grace: But the Church in the Law of Nature, which lasted for two thousand yea∣res (vntill the first writing of Scripture by Moses) was all that while infallible in proposing true traditions, and not so much as lyable to propose false ones. This I prove, be∣cause all the faith which the true beleeving people had in those two thousand yeares was infallible, though it re∣lyed only on the proposall of the Church; proposing such, or such a point as received from God revealing to Adam or some other Patriarch those verities: for example, that they were to observe the sabboth, Gen. 2. the distinction between cleane and vncleane beasts ād meates, Gen: 7. and Gen: 9. v. 3. That the soule is immortall; that the rewards and punishments of the next life lasted for ever; that they

were, by the fall of Adam, conceived in originall Sinne; that such, and such remedies, were to be vsed to free them selves and theyr children from it; what repentance they were to vse; how fast they were to stand to theyr traditi∣ons; how they were to account it a most damnable Sinne to forsake them &c. This was the faith of all true belee∣vers in the world, which for two thousand yeares had no other ground then the revelation of God, as propo∣sed by the tradition of the Church present to all believers in every age, in which these beleevers lived. And though theyr Tradition was inferior to ours, as I shewed in the place now cited, yet the Church then, in every age, was infallible in propovnding that which they had once recei∣ved by Revelation: And the beleevers of each Age rest∣ing vpon the infallible authority which theyr present Church had in propounding those divine verities, had the same spirit of faith, as S. Paul sayth 2. Cor. 4. The misbe∣leevers then had the same Spirit also which they have now in opposing the Churches tradition. This Spirit, before the flood, was in Cain, who, as Thargum Hierosolymita∣num sayth, protested to Abel that there was no Iustice, nor Iud∣ge, nor other world then this, nor noe reward for vertue, nor pu∣nishment for Sinn: And perhaps he vsed the argument which D. Ferne and many now vse, that his part was nega∣tive, Abels affirmative; and so Abel was bound to prove what he held: which because he could do only by Tra∣dition, Cain (having the true misbeleevers Spirit) scof∣fed at all Tradition: His Heresy made the world so cor∣rupt, that few iust men were left at the flood of Noë, al∣though this heresy was strāgely opposed by Enoch, above four hundered years before the flood; whence S. Iude (v: 11.) having said Woe be to them for they have gone in the way

of Cain; addeth (v: 14.) And Enoch also the seuenth from Adam prophesied of these saying, behould our Lord cometh in his holy thousands to do iudgement vpon all, and to convince all that are vngodly amongst them of theyr vngodly deeds. After Noës flood, these denyers of Gods iudgemēt beeing extinguished; Nē∣rod was the secōd Arch-heretike, as Iosephus wittneseth l. 1. Antiq: C. 4. for he taught, That men were not behoulding to God, but to thēselves for tēporall prosperity; and thus Heresies, by contempt of Tradition, again multiplied: Yet still God had a visible Church houlding fast the above named tra∣ditions received frō Adā as the keeping of the sabbath &c: And some five hundered yeares before God gave the first Scripture to the Children of Israel only, he did sepa∣rate Abraham from all other Nations, giving afterwards vnto him and his, the precept of Circumcision (Gen: 17.) which precept (though no Scripture could be thē shewed) was, for above four hundered yeares, observed by his po∣sterity as a necessary precept. Vpon tradition also they beleeved the Covenant God made to Abraham of mak∣ing him the Father of Many Nations; and that the Mes∣sias should be borne of his seed. Then after Moses his dayes Scripture was written, but given only to the Chil∣dren of Israel: No other Nation beeing bound to submitt to this Law. All other nations, as they had then severall true beleevers among them, when Abraham was seperated from them, so there is not the least mention of theyr to∣tall decay in beleefe after that separation; all they then still beleeved what they had beleeved before, vpon the same ground as they did before, neither were the Scrip∣tures promulged among them. And thus true faith might be preserved amōg many who never heard of Scripture, vntill Christs time; that is for an other two thousand yea∣res,

and more. Iust so true faith, even aften Christs time, was preserved among many without any Scripture; as I shall by and by shew. But to go on; wee read that Iob and his friends (when or wheresoever they lived) lived not among the progeny of Abraham; and yet Iob was most eminent in vertue and true faith, and his friends (and probably many of his and theyr neighbours) beleeved in one God, held the resurrection of the flesh, and that God should iudge all according to theyr works, and di∣vers other points, relying still vpon only Tradition. Why should the Tradition of Christs Church be more fallible then theyrs was? As I argued Sect: 13. see that place, and also what I said Sect: 10. n. 13. and you will see that there is farre greater reason why our Tradition should be cre∣dited more them theyrs. Is not Christs Church nobler then theyrs? Did God give them any meanes fitter to secure theyr Traditions from beeing falsified, then he gave his Church: Could Tradition be an infallible ground for above 4000. yeares before Christ, and can it not have been so ever since Christ for 1657. yeares. Adde also to this, that the children of Israel, though they had the Scriptu∣res, yet they had not all necessary points written in theyr Scripture, but did rely wholy vpon the Tradition of theyr Church for the truth of them; as I shewed Sect: 10. n: 7.

2. My second reason, to prove the Church is provid∣ed of some infallible meanes for the secure direction of her Children, is, that not only from the begining of the world to Christs preaching his new Ghospel, the infallible faith of severall true beleevers had no other ground but the infallibility of theyr respectively present Church, in proposing the Traditions shee had receaved; but also the

first true beleevers in Christ relyed in theyr faith vpon the infallibility of Christs Church, not having any other in∣fallible ground but her authority, affirming that shee, by Tradition? had received such and such points taught her by Christ, or his Apostles. See what I said in my last Sect. n. 16. This manner of beleeving, even our owne Protestant adversaries confesse to have been infallible vntill the whole Canon of the Scripture was written, and divulged, which was some 70. or fourscore yeares after Christs passiō. Now how this māner of security relying vpō the church, which, frō the begining of the world vnto the finishing of the last book of Scripture ād publishing of the same, had been the commō practise of true beleevers, did presētly turne to be Popish, ād vnlawfull, I cānot cōceave: But I ā sure all our adversaries stoutly affirme that it is so; and here theyr part is affirmative, and affirmative of the vnlawfulnes of that which from the begining of the world was ever lawfull vnto that day. Wherefore to plead aga∣inst so long a prescription (that the world was not capa∣ble of a longer) for introducing a new obligation of not beleeving vpon a ground which had been, for above four thousand yeares, able to beare all the faith of the world, evidence of Scripture ought to be brought: What then more reasonable then to ask of them to cite at least one single cleare Text, commanding all the beleevers of Christs Church to give over relying vpon her authority, as now never to be any more infallible after the finishing and publishing of the last booke of Scripture? Our adver∣saries cannot bring any such text affirming this clearly, without wee will be pleased to take theyr fallible and vn∣grounded interpretations to be a ground sure enough to make the Texts reach home to the proof of what wee

demād: which cannot be allowed by vs; because, by theyr owne confession, theyr interpretation is fallible: And wee must have an infallible ground to overthrow an in∣fallible authority, standing sure even from the begining of the world. Call then, and call again and again; for this text, and be sure to allow no Interpretation to help the text to reach home, but such as can, by clear Scripture, be shewed to convince that the Text tells you evidently, that after the finishing and publishing of the last book of Scripture, no body was ever to rely vpon the Churches authority, now grown fallible, though ever before infalli∣ble. Do but stand close to this, and theyr vain boast of demonstrating this by Scripture, will fall down dead be∣fore thy feet to be trampled vpon by thee. Yea, not to condemne theyr own Bretheren the Lutherans (who de∣ny the Apocalyps or Revelations to be Scripture) they will tell thee that for diverse ages this Book was not known to be certain Scripture, and yet perhaps this was the very last Booke of Scripture, vntil the publishing of which the infallibility of the Church was to last. If this be so then, you must allow it probable that the infallibility of the Church lasteth vntill this very day, for any certainty wee have of the contrary: For your Lutheran Bretheren will say, that Book of the Apocalyps was never as yet suffi∣ciently published to the Church to be Scripture; for if it were so, they neyther could, nor would reject it. Secondly it seemeth inconceptible how the writeing and publishing such a Scripture, as was at last written and published, should, without any distincter declaration then the Scrip∣ture, by litle and litle (that is, as people were pleased to copy it out) should make invalide the hitherto-infallible authority of this Church: there beeing in this Scripture

twelue texts at the least (as I have shewed in the two for∣mer Sections) recommending to all, the authority of the Church; besides divers others bidding them hould still her Traditions, and inculcating this over and over again; as I shewed Sect: 10. n. 9. Traditions do not grow weaker, but stronger, by being witnessed also by writing; and the more authority the writing hath, the more strength is ad∣ded to the former tradition: For example, wee know by tradition there is such a place as the Indies, where gould is to be found; but when our own fleetes come to go thither, and fetch the gould from thence, and in testi∣mony there-of stampe goulden peeces with this inscrip∣tion, Brought by our fleet from the Indies; and when Acts of Parliament come to be set forth concerning the value of such, ād such peeces: whē I say this gouldē-printed-testi∣mony comes forth, is not the former traditiō grown rather more, then become lesse credible? So whē any of the for∣mer most credible traditions come to be now written in the gouldē letters of the Scriptures, and of such Scriptures as commanded Traditions to be held; and commanded again and againe the Church to be heard, followed, obeyed, relyed vpon as the very pillar and ground of truth; is not her authority and the credit of her Traditions rather increased, then lessened, by this goulden and divi∣ne writing? Again; it was wholy necessary that if after the finishing of the Canon, the Church was no longer to be infallible, that notice thereof, by some very publike Decree, or Act, should have been given to all the people in the Church; that they might not go on, grounding theyr fayth vpon the infallible tradition of this Church, as they did before; least so doing they should rely now, not vpon the pillar and ground of truth, but vpon a fal∣lible

authority. That this was done you can prove by noe kinde of testimony.

3. But I can prove, by a most grave testimony, that, long after the finishing of the Canon of Scripture, the faithfull beleevers still held on theyr former manner of relying in theyr whole Faith wholy vpon the infallible authority of the Church: just as I said before that, when Moses gave the Scripture to the Iewes, the faithfull people among the Gentiles had not these Scriptures, but con∣tinued still to beleeve vpon Tradition only (See my first Number:) My testimony is out of S. Irenaeus, who was disciple to S. Polycarp, though he lived a hundred and fourscore yeares after Christ. This saint, in that vnquestiō∣ed work of his against Valentinus. L. 3. C. 4. Where he sheweth, in what manner wee were all to beleeve the same things which now wee do beleeve, although there were no Scripture at all; and he sheweth this by shewing how, even after the writing of Scripture, many whole Nations did beleeve, who had never seen the Scripture, by follow∣ing (as an infallible Rule) that order of Tradition which had from hand to hand been dilivered to the Pre∣lates of the Church; and by them to the Churches of which they respectively had charge. For thus he speaketh; What if the Apostles had not left vs the Scriptures? Must wee not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose charge they left the Churches to be governed? To this order of Tradition (by the vnwritten word) many barba∣rous Nations do assent, who have beleeved in Christ without any Writings, keeping diligently the ancient Traditions. Note, that he calleth these Traditions ancient because they had stood a good while after the finishing of the Canon, be∣fore which time all Nations beleeved meerly on Tradi∣tion,

as I sayd, and before which time, no one tradition of Christian faith could be ancient. Hence then S. Irenaeus proueth, that wee might beleeve with divine faith, vpon the sole account of, or meerly relying vpon, that very tradition, which the Apostles de facto left to those to whō they left the government of the Church; although the Apostles had never written any thing at any time. S. Ire∣naeus therefore did beleeve that the tradition de facto left by the Apostles, was a sufficient ground to vphould divi∣ne and infallible faith; and consequently that it was infal∣lible: So that vpon it meerly, whole nations might be∣leeve: For, if he had not thought that they had beleeved meerly vpon tradition, but had only by it been recom∣mended to take the Scripture for theyr ground; he could not hence have shewed (to shew which he brought this proofe) in what Measure wee had all been obliged to be∣leeve all the points of our Christian faith, although never any Scripture at all had been at any time to be written; in which case it had been impossible for our beleefe to have had any kind of Relation to Scripture. And because the beleefe of these Nations had no such Relation, this exā∣ple was to his purpose: which otherwise had not been So. Now what S. Irenaeus sayth must needs in all reason have been true; for the Scripture by the Apostles was only written in Greek, and some very few parts in the Hebrew then currant: A vast multitude of Nations vnderstood not these languages, as I have shewed Sect: 1. n. 9. neither did the Apostles take any care to procure the Scripture to be turned into the languages of every converted Na∣tion which had a different toung; For had they done So, divers of these translations would either have been for some ages extāt, or at least some memory of them; where

as there is not the least signe of any such thing. The La∣tin toung was by the Romanes imposed vpon most of those many Nations, which were converted in the Apo∣stles Age, and the Ages following: wherefore a mā would think that in the first place, or among the very first, this lāguage would have bene chosen by the Apostles for pub∣lishing the Scriptures, if the Scriptures had been the only ground to be relyed vpon in faith: Yet for all this you will not graunt our vulgar Edition (which you graunt to be the most ancient of all Latin Editions) to have been set forth by any command given by the Apostles, or by any one of theyr immediate Successours, or to have been approved by them: from hence then wee manifestly ga∣ther, that the Apostles esteemed that very tradition, which they delivered to these to whome they committed the government of the Church, to be a most sufficiēt ground to support infallible faith: And consequently they held such traditions infallible, leaving them for the only gro∣und of faith to the farre greater part of the Natiōs which they converted; to whom they delivered no Scripture at all in theyr own toung, nor left any Command (that can be proved) that Scripture should be (presently after the finishing of the Canon) delivered to them in theyr own languages; for had this been done, some of theyr Transla∣tiōs would have been kept. If you say they had the Scrip∣tures, though in Greek only. I answer, that those who vn∣derstand not Greek, are never the neerer for having a Greek book. Why did not S. Peter and S. Paul (who writt in Greek even to the Romans themselves) at that time they stayed in the Latin Church, procure or order the Scriptures to be putt in Latin; if, without grounding our selves vpon Scripture in every point of beleefe, no part

of our beleefe, which is not so grounded, can be infalli∣ble. And hence cleerly and orderly followeth.

4. My third reason, That no man now hath any infal∣lible faith, but he who relyeth vpon the Tradition of the present Church, as an infallible ground. This I prove out of what hath been by mee already demonstrated. First, for the most learned sorte that be in the world, they cannot know, by any ground which is infallible, (ex∣cept the Tradition of the Church be infallible,) which Bookes the Prophets or Apostles did write, which not; as I have shewed Sect. 3. Nor which be the true vncor∣rupted originall Copies, which not; as I shewed Sect: 4. and therefore they must rely in these two points, (vpon which no lesse then all theyr faith doth rely,) vpon the Traditiō of the Church as infallible; for a fallible Traditiō cānot be a sufficient ground to support an infallible faith: either then they have no such faith, or they must allow Tradition to be infallible. As for those who are not so lear∣ned as to vnderstand Hebrew and Greek, or who have not meanes to know which Copyes be vncorrupted in Greek or Hebrew; They must beleeve this but by meer humane authority, if they refuse the Churches Tradition; So by and by: n: 7. And so for Translations, which be the very prime conveighers of all that is in Scripture, to those who vnderstand not Greek, and Hebrew; either these men must rely vpon the word of God, as conveyed vnto them by such fallible men, as I have shewed theyr Trans∣lators to be, Sect. 5. or, farre more wisely, they must rely vpon the Tradition of the Church as infallible: And if they do not, theyr faith will ever be fallible, as I have shewed. Again, it is not the bare letter of Scripture which can be a Rule or ground of faith vnto vs; but it is the sense

of this letter interpreted according to the true minde of the holy Ghost: Now the private interpretation, which any particular Mans Witt, or learning, or Spirit can give to this bare letter, is fallible; even though he shall exactly observe those 20. Severall Rules of which I spake Sect. 7. n: 7: for theses Rules are all fallible; wherefore the bare letter, taken in the sense that wee, by our privat witt, learning, and Spirit imagin, and meerly conjecture it to be taken, is not the infallible sense of the Holy Ghost; and therefore no ground of faith, even to those most lear∣ned men who are able to vse exactly all those twenty Rules. See the place last cited. But as for all that vast multitude which cannot vnderstand perfectly Hebrew and Greek, it is impossible for them to observe those twenty Rules (of which one supposeth perfect skill in Hebrew and Greek:) wherefore it beeing our adversaries own doctrine that, without the exact observance of all these 20. Rules, the infallible sense of the Holy Ghost can∣not be infallibly known to any one, but only fallibly: after all that still fallible industry, it is a cleare demonstration, that those who know not Greek and Hebrew, cannot know infallibly what the Scripture biddeth them do or beleeve; they not beeing able infallibly to know the sense of the bare letter, which sense (you say) is the only Rule and direction of faith, and the only infallible ground vpon which all divine faith must rely. Wherefore almost all mankind, who is vnskilfull in Greek and Hebrew, must first have not only the letter of the Scripture faithfully delivered vnto them vpon trust of the Translators; But Secondly, this must be done after that these Translators have made an vnquestionable choice of sure vncorrupted Originall Copyes, (in which choice it is not possible for

them to proceed, but very fallibly as I shewed, Sect: 5.) Thirdly also they must have the sense of the letter deli∣vered truly and assuredly vnto them. I aske, by whom? You say, by your Ministers. Then (say I) you rely vpon the witt, skill and Spirit of those Ministers. Is this pro∣ved infallible? No. How then is your faith infallible? As for vs, wee rely vpon the vnanimous tradition of those Governours of our Churches to whom the Apostles, with that charge, delivered all the important points of our faith, as well by word of Mouth, as by dayly practice an∣swerable therevnto: commanding them to deliver to all in theyr Churches (among whom were theyr future Suc∣cessors) the same points both by word of Mouth, and by the answerable practice, iust as they had received. In like manner theyr Successors successively were directed and commanded to proceede. No writing (as I shall shew Sect: 19. n. 4.5.6. &c.) can, with so full assurednes, bring down to our age, what was taught and practised in the first age, as perpetuall Tradition of the same doctri∣ne, confirmed by the continuance of the same practice first received, and never able to be shewed to have been altered or changed. Vpon this Tradition wee are sure that wee beleeve as groundedly, at the least, as all the true beleevers did for the first two thousand yeares before any Scripture was written: And as groundedly as all the Gentiles (for only Iewes had the Scripture) beleeved at any time after wards: And as groundedly as the Iewes be∣leeved still some things only vpon Tradition; for exam∣ple, what remedy was to be vsed to take away Originall Sinne from theyr female-Children, or from theyr male-Children dying before theyr Circumcision on the eight day: And again, as groundedly as those many Nations,

converted by the Apostles successors, beleeved after the Scripture was finished; though they never had so much as seen Scripture; but wholy relied, in theyr whole be∣leefe, vpon the ancient tradition received from them from whom the governours of theyr Churches had originally received theyr gouernments and authority; to witt, from the Apo∣stles; as I shewed out of S. Irenaeus. Tradition then of these Governours of our Churches, delivered vnanimously by them, maketh the points so delivered now as evidently credible, and as fitt Objects of divine faith, as it made the points delivered then by theyr Governours or Pas∣tours; Wherefore wee have as good reason now, to take what is thus proposed for truth revealed by God, to be indeed so; and consequently to be imbraced with so fir∣me and immoveable adhesion of vnderstanding, and will; that the preaching of the contrary by an Angel from Heaven should not stagger our beleefe therein: And wee have as good reason to proceed thus in our beleefe, as all those, I spoak of, had to proceed so in theyr beleefe.

5. My fourth reason hence deduced is, that Christ him selfe expecteth and exacteth an infallible assent of faith to be given to any point, which is confirmed by miracle from Heaven; and such an assent hath a suffici∣ent ground to support its infallibility. Christ calleth these Miracles a testimony greater then Iohn. Mark 5. Yea a testi∣mony (in order to vs) greater then his own word; If you will not beleeve mee, beleeve my works. He calleth that a kinde of sure knowledge which is groūded on the testi∣mony of a miracle; So Matt: 9. v: 6. But that you may know that the Sonne of man hath power on Earth to forgive Sinnes, he sayth to the man Sicke of the palsie: Arise, take vp thy bed, and go into thine house. You see Christ vsed the testimony

of this one miracle, as sufficient to make them know the truth of his having power to forgive Sinnes. Miracles then groūd a sure knowledge of faith, or an infallible as∣sent to what they confirme: But the Tradition of the Church maketh that which it witneseth to be as infalli∣ble, and as evidently credible in order to vs, as this cu∣ring of the man sicke of the palsie, or any such Miracle can do; therefore this Tradition may be as solid a ground of an infallible assent, as a miracle: I prove it clearly thus. Let any man speak as he thinks in the fight of God, and he will plainly confesse, that to be most true which I am going to say. I say then, that though a man had lived in the Country all his life, and never had seen London; yet be (meerly vpon the testimony of Tradition) would so fully beleeve that there is such a Citty as London, and that it is the Head Town of England: that neither I, not you can prudently conceave how the testimony of any one miracle (wrought on pourpose to prove that there is such a Citty as London) should make it more evidently credible vnto him, that there is such a Cittie, without the Testimony of any Tradition; then Tradition hath made it without the Testimony of any miracle: whence you see Tradition wins beliefe as powerfully as any Mi∣racle. True it is, this Tradition wee spoak of is but hu∣mane, and so be the motives of Credibility making it evi∣dently credible that God, by his Apostles, affirmed such or such a point vnto the first beleevers of the Church. But when it is once made to mee as evidently credible that God hath revealed such and such verities, as it is credi∣ble by human tradition that there is such a Cittie as Lon∣don, then presently (by the grace of God) I conclude; that it beeing so credible that God hath said such, and

such a thing, that I cannot in prudence no more doubt that he hath said it, then I can doubt there is such a Citty as London: I beeing thus assured, am by my dutie to God bound to yeeld that submission of my vnderstanding to this saying of God, which is fitt to be yeelded to the word of a God, which word cannot (without blasphemous im∣piety) be held subject to the least fallibility. And therefo∣re what by Tradition is made so evidently credible to mee, to have been revealed by God to this Church; ought to be accepted by mee, as the word of God. Whence I ought to account it blasphemous impiety to doubt of the trutht of it, and consequently I ought to hould it infalli∣ble, and as far from all possibility of beeing false as Gods word is. And beeing that this very selfe same tradition tells mee, that the same God who revealed by his Apo∣stles so many other Verities to his Church, did also reveale, by the same Apostles, to the same Church, that this Church was to be heard as the Mistris of truth, with whom he would ever be present, suggesting her all truth and never permitting the gates of Hell to preuail against her; but that he placed her as a Pillar, and ground of truth; gi∣ving her such Pastours, as should secure her Children from beeing tossed to and fro wi••h every wind of doctri∣ne: being (I say) this very selfe same tradition, which made it evidently credible vnto mee, that God had re∣vealed many other verities to his Church, had also (to∣geather with them,) revealed this verity, of her beeing infallible in proposing any point for divine faith; and beeing that I did see with my eyes, that shee did propose her Traditions for verities received from God, it could not but be evidently credible vnto mee that God had revealed the infallibility of his Church, and consequent∣ly

the questionlesse Truth of her Traditions. Wherefo∣re I yielded that submission of my vnderstanding to this saying of God, which was fitt to be yielded to the word of a God, which word I could not without blasphemous impiety suspect to be any way lyable to fallibility.

6. Here, by the way, out of what hath been now sayd, wee may easely clear two common difficulties. The first is, how wee do committ noe vitious circle in our faith: For though first wee beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word, because the Church, which is infallible, tould vs so: Yet, when again wee are asked, why wee first be∣leeved the Church to be infallible? wee do not say (as our adversaries would needs make vs say, whether wee would or no) that wee first beleeve our Church to be infallible, because the Scripture tould vs the Church was infallible; But wee answer, that wee first beleeve the Church ••o be infallible by her Tradition delivered her by the Apostles before any Scripture was made; which tradition maketh things so evidently credible, as I have iust now declared, that even a miracle wrought purposely to confirme such a point maketh not that point more evi∣dently credible. Tradition therefore is a ground able to support an infallible assent. Well then, I beleeve Christ to have been crucified because the Scripture sayth so: I be∣leeve the Scripture, because the Church by her tradition, saith the Scripture to be Gods word; I beleeve the Church, and her tradition, for its own credibility. If you ask mee why I do so? I answer, because I will do prudent∣ly in a matter of so great consequence; that is, I will sub∣mitt, and I will captivitate my vnderstanding in such manner, as to yield all firme assent, which (by God his grace) I possibly can do, vnto that, which the Church

by her Tradition proposeth vnto mee as Gods true word; vpon which word my vnderstanding shall be fixed so im∣moveably, that no Angels words shall move mee from it: see Sect: 23. n: 5 6. Hence you see to what my vnderstand∣ing cleaveth so fast; to witt, to Gods true word propos∣ed by the Church, or her vnanimous Tradition. Now if you ask mee; why my will is so resolute in making choice of thus submitting, and thus captivating my vn∣derstanding? I easely answer; because my vnderstanding hath evidently Seen (I do not then go blindely to wor∣ke, (as our adversaries conceive wee all do Sect. 8:) Be∣cause my vnderstanding hath evidently seen that, even according to all reason, prudence, and piety, it is most vnreasonable, imprudent and impious, not to yield this submission of vnderstanding to that which is evidently credible to be Gods word; and that to the full as that which is confirmed by miracle: For what is affirmed by the Churches vnanimous Tradition, is no lesse evidently credible then what is confirmed by miracle, (as I pro∣ved in the very last Number;) Therefore (and in many other respects) it is most vnreasonable, most imprudent, and impious, not to yield all possible submission of vn∣derstanding to that which is proposed as Gods word, by the vnanimous Tradition of the Church. It is madnes not to beleeve what is made evidently credible, even then when heaven, is offered vnto mee if I will beleeve it, and when hell is infallibly to be my punishment, if I will not beleeve it. For so our Sauiour himselfe said, when men had only Tradition to rely on (to witt, before any word of that new Scripture was written) He that beleeueth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that beleeveth not shall be dam∣ned. (Mark 16 v. 15.) And many were damned for not

beleeving the Church, before either the ould Scripture was written in the Law of Nature, and before the finishing of the new testament in the first seaventy yeares after Christs passion; and after the finishing of it also, many were damned for not beleeving among those Nations to whom the faith, without any Scripture was so well pro∣posed, that thousands of them were most true believers, meerly grounding theyr whole faith vpon the Church and her vnanimous Tradition.

7. The Second difficulty (which may easely be clea∣red by what hath been here said) is, how the ignorant vulgar sorte come to imbrace our faith, and all the points of it, with an infallible assent, and that prudently? whence will appeare that Tradition is the fittest deliverer of cer∣tain truth, and the most proportionable to the capacity of the incomparably greater part of the world. For no man, who is above the degree of a foole, is so ignorant, but by such carefull search, as all are bound to vse in finding out the way to theyr last end (which is eternall Salvation;) he will presently find, that the vnanimous Tradition of our present Church proposeth such and such points to be be∣leeved as beeing points reveled by Christs Apostles to the Church, for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour, his having planted vpon Earth an infallible Church for our direction &c: Then having found this to be the vnanimous consent, and Tradition of our Church, he may easily be made capable how evidently credible that is which is proposed by the Tradition of such a Church. First, because all those who beleeved for the first two thousand yeares, did beleeve all that they beleeved vpon a weaker Tradition then this is, as I dis∣coursed before: Secondly, he may also easily vnderstand

how true it is which I sayd n. 5. that no miracle can move a man so effectually to beleeve that there is such a place as London, as Tradition doth move him there vnto: whe∣refore as miracles can beget an infallible assent, so also may Tradition. Thirdly, he can vnderstand that the Churches Tradition is secured by God, from deceiving vs; for else all the faith of those millions and millions (to whom God gave no other ground but this to ground that faith which he, vnder paine of damnation, exacted of them) might have been an error; and could not have been infallible, as he exacted theyr faith should be. Now all this beeing most true, and beeing also a reall proposall of what is indeed revealed by God (which it is not when any false Church vseth this argument) God can, and will concurre with this ignorant mā, as well as with any Doc∣tor, to rayse him by supernaturall Grace to an infallible assent to the truth, which he embraced most prudently vpon Reasons proportionable to his capacity; which Reasons do really make the verities which he beleeveth to be first evidently credible to him. His faith may thē be truely infallible, though he knoweth not that it is infalli∣ble; for this knowledge is no way necessary even in lear∣ned men, as I shall say. Sect. 23. Now among our Sectaries ignorant men can never imbrace the points of faith with an infallible assent. For they must imbrace no point with such an assent but when the Scripture, not taken according to the bare letter, but taken as interpreted tru∣ly, tels them that such a point is true. But I aske how it can ever be made evidently credible to them that such a place of Scripture is truly interpreted in that sense but es∣pecially seeing that the greatest Protestant Doctors teach that the true sense cannot be found out but by obser∣ving

perhaps twently Rules; of which they are by them plainly tould, that they cannot observe divers, as I no∣ted iust now n: 4. whence it is clear they may and must de∣spaire of finding amongst you any true groūd fitt to sup∣port an infallible assent. This your own prime Doctors did easily see, and knew not how to deny. Hence Whitak∣er de Sacra Scriptura Q. 5. C. 9. Eightly because the vnskilfull know not rightly to vse these meanes (of consulting the Hebrew and Greek Originals) they must go to those who are more skilfull: So he. And your great Devine Baronus in Apodixi P. 47. The vnlearned Laymen cannot have a certain and explicit and distinct knowledge of the Scriptures, and of the doctrine conteyned in the Scriptures, or that the Translated Bi∣ble agreeth with the Originall edition. Yea they do not know but by the testimony of others, that the doctrine which is proposed to them to be beleeved, is conteyned in this Bible. And again P. 48. They only by human faith beleeve that the doctrine which is proposed to them is conteyned in the Bible. So he. You then, who are not perfectly skilled in Hebrew and Greek, are taught by your own Doctors, that it is impossible for you to beleeve, but vpon trust and relyance on the authority of some more ski••full. Do you not know evidently these on whom you rely, to be fallible? Yes. Why then know evidently that your beleefe, amongst Protestants, can ne∣ver rise to be infallible, nor so much as evidently credible, even to the ignorant; For they are sure that, as your Mi∣nisters say, such and such Protestant Doctrine is evident∣ly by them deduced out of the word of God; so they are sure that a farre greater and learnedes number of the present age, ād all the whole numberles number of those who lived these last tenne ages before your Reforma∣tion, who were men most vertuous and most learned, did

vnanimously affirme the quite contrary doctrine to be conformable to Scripture rightly vnderstood. And this they know by your own confession: For you never deny that Popish doctrine was the currant doctrine of all Christians these last thousand yeares, excepting only such Christians as were notorious Heretikes, or some few others who make no number at all fitt to appear in the viewe of so many millions of millions as these ordinary Lay-men know to have most cōstantly imbraced the Ro∣man faith; and, with a vast multitude of Bookes, to have most learnedly mainteyned, the doctrine flatly contrary to yours, to be the more conformable to Scripture; in which they lived with farre more sanctity them now you do: why then should I now forsake that, which is also confirmed (as you acknowledge) by many great Coun∣cels; and chose to venture my Soul with these new be∣leevers, whom I and every ignorant man knowes to go to a Church every sunday, the very Walls of which Church be many yeares elder then theyr Religion: If they will go with vs the ould beaten way, trodden by all Antiquity, and chalked out by an vninterrupted Tradi∣tion from the Apostles dayes to these, they (as ignorant as they are) may, as I said, easily come to see, First that, they shall have as sure groūd for all their whole beleefe, as all true beleevers had the first two thowsand yeares before the first Scripture was written. Secōdly, they shall see they have as sure a groūd as all true believers (the Iewes at the most excepted) had for those two thousād yeares follow∣ing, before other Nations had the Scripture. Thirdly they shal see that they have as sure groūd as all Christiās are cō∣fessed to have had the first seventy yeares before the New Testament was finished, and divulged. Fourthly they shall

see they have as sure ground as those many Nations had, who beleeved all that other Christians did, and beleeved it with as true a divine faith; though they never did see Scripture: as I said evē now out of the most ancient Doc∣tor S. Irenaeus. So that they see that the ground of theyr beliefe hath been a most sure ground of true divine in∣fallible faith for above more then four thousand yeares, to witt, a good way down-ward after Christs time. Fiftly, they see also that the last thousand yeares, which was iust before your Reformation, all those vast multitudes, whom you confesse to have followed Popery, to have still be∣lieved on the same ground relying on the present Church as infallible; Therefore from Christs time to the Refor∣mation they see only a wonderfull short space of yeares, in which space you say all refused to rely in theyr beleefe vpon the Church: What is this space to be compared to that almost whole space of time which was from the beginning of the World to this Reformation: in all which vast space all faith of all men relyed on the Church as infallible. Again (as simple as I am) I vn∣derstand this evident argument, that in the thousand yeares iust before your Reformation there were many Councels, many learned, and many very holy men (for they say that then men generally rather lived better then now) Now these Councels, these great numbers of lear∣ned and Holy men could not but see the truth of those matters which are clearly and plainly set down in Scrip∣ture; And even the Protestants themselves teach that all necessary matters are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture: I therefore neither have charity nor witt, if I say that they then could not see the truth, so manifestly clear in such points; wherefore vpon good reason in those

points I will agree with the Roman Catholicks: But now for those points which are not clear in Scripture, I will also not disagree from them; because, in things confessed∣ly-not clear, you are likelyer to misvnderstand Scrip∣ture then they: And they (besides Scripture) give mee that excellent sure ground of the Tradition of the Church, which hath been a sure ground for so many thousand yeares; and questionles is a surer ground then trusting you; I will then, in these points, trust them, and not you. And so you see why I resolve in all points to trust the Church. But all this is spoaken by the way: now let vs go on.

8. My fifth Reason for the infallibility of some mea∣nes in the Church sufficient to ground divine faith, and yet differing from Scripture, is this: God hath given vs some meanes sufficient to come to the faith necessary to Salvation (as hath been proved Quest: 1.) But this mea∣nes is not the Scripture (as I have shewed in the twelve first Sections;) Neither is it naturall Reason (as I shewed Sect: 13:) Therefore the meanes which now actually is gi∣ven vs by God, is the infallible direction of the Church; there beeing not the least appearance of probability for any other meanes which God hath given vs, though he might have given vs other meanes, if he had pleased.

9, My Sixt Reason is that, Whatsoever was held by the vniversall Church, was, without farther question∣ing, held for true; and the contrary to it was ever rejec∣ted as an errour: two manifest Signes of infallibility; both which will appear sufficiently proved, when I shall come to cite the Fathers authority for the infallibility of the Church. Sect. 20:21:22: and you know already S. Austens saying in the End of his Booke de Haeresibus, that though

he tell you not, in particular, what the Church hath de∣fined against every one of those severall heresies, yet saith he; Sufficiet eam contra ista sentire, It is enough (to make vs fly them as heresies) to know that the Church houldeth the contrary. Neither will you ever find any Catholik who ever had the bouldnes to say, that all the Church of his dayes did vniversally hould any thing that was an error: And theyr works were conformable; for never shall you read of any Catholik (much lesse of any Holy Father) who refused to conforme himselfe to the vniversall beleefe and practice which was current in the whole Church of theyr times: your Luther and Calvin ••ad not theyr Spirit. Here I intreat you to read the Authorities which hereaf∣ter I shall bring out of the Fathers, and you shall see the sense and feeling which Sacred antiquity had in this point, see my Sect: 20. &c. How close in all interpretatiō of Scripture (on which all depends) Antiquity did ever stand to the Church, I have said Sect. 7. n: 9. out of Vincentius Lerinensis.

10. My Seuenth Reason is that, without the Church be provided of some other infallible meanes to direct vs to the truth, besides Scripture; there will never be any Vnity and agreement in the Church, in necessary points of Religion. For I have already fully shewed that Scrip∣ture alone (though submitted vnto by all sides) doth not produce this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 even in necessary points: for I have numbred vp. 24. such points not so much as conteyned in Scripture. Hence I frame this argument; vnder pain of damnation all are bound to agree in this one thing, that all and every one interiorly giueth an infallible assent to all such points, as are necessary to be beleeved for the atte∣yning of Salvation; because all are bound to please God,

and consequently to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God: But all cā never be brought to agree in this one thing (that all and every one of them interior∣ly giueth an infallible assent to all such points, as are ne∣cessarily to be beleeued for atteyning Salvation) without all and every one submitt theyr assent to some other in∣fallible Rule besides Scripture; for submitting to Scriptu∣re only doth not produce this vnion, as so long and so lamentable experience hath taught vs: Neither can the Scripture alone suffice for this end, beeing it doth not so much as conteyne 24. of such points as are all necessa∣ry to Salvation; Therefore all can never be brought to a∣gree in that one thing (in which vnder pain of damnation they must agree) without they all and every one interior∣ly give an infallible assent to some other Rule of faith then the Scripture: No other, with any appearance of reason, can be thought of, but the direction of the Church; Therefore her direction is this Rule. But if her direction be this Rule, her direction must needs be infallible; and this for two very manifest Reasons. The first is, that it is impossible all should be (as they are) bound vnder pain of damnation to follow this Rule, if this Rule could guide thē into errour: Because it is impossible God should dāne men, for not following so foule an errour as this is, which makes thē father as many lyes vpon God as they beleeue errours to be divine verities. The Secōd reason is becau∣se all (as I said) are bound interiorly to give an infallible assent to all such points as are proposed by the Church: But it is impossible to give an infallible assent, grounded vpō a groūd which is not infallible (as it is clear:) There∣fore seeing that the ground, vpon which theyr beleefe in these points must rely, is only the meer direction of the

Church; it evidently followeth that her direction is infal∣lible. Why I defer to answer the Objections against the infallibility of the Church, and some other things: I shall presently tell you.

THE FOVRT AND LAST QVESTION.

Which is that Church which is the infalli∣ble Iudge in all Controversies? How shee exerciseth her infallible Iudgement? and what submission is due there vnto?

1. HITHERTO wee have, only in generall, de∣clared the Church to be our Iudge, and to be provided of some infallible meanes (besides Scripture) to guide and direct vs in faith: not intermedling with other important, but more particular doubts; vntill wee had gotten suffici∣ent principles solidly established, to proceed to these particulars with more clear and distinct knowledg. By the Church, wee have hitherto vnderstood that blessed congregation of people which followed the doctrine of Christ and his disciples, still propogating the doctrine de∣livered to them from age to age, vntill wee come to our Age. But, because there be a number of Congregations pretending to be this blessed Congregation; wee must see in particular, in which of them wee can finde this infal∣lible

meanes to end all controversies, and to direct vs se∣curely in all points of faith. Secondly wee must see, in what particular manner this particular blessed Congre∣gation doth iudge all Controversies; and how shee directs vs in particular in all our doubts of faith. When wee have found these two things, wee shall soone see the last thing wee seek for, to witt, what particular submission is due from all, that they all may be securely directed in that faith which leadeth to eternall Salvation: the end for which wee all were created; and consequently at which all our most serious endeauours ought to ayme.

2. And because wee now shall come to speake of the Roman Church, and to shew how shee in her generall Councels, proposing vnto her selfe the word of God, as well written, as vnwritten, doth issue forth her Defini∣tions, Decrees, and Orders, by which shee directeth vs: wee only now can clearly dispatch some things, which very properly belonged to the last question, but could not be so commodiously treated there, because they re∣quired a more distinct knowledge of the questions to be handled here. Heere then wee shall solve the obiections against the infallibility of the Church, which our adver∣saries vse to make against the Roman Church in particu∣lar; and therefore they were to be treated heere. Heere also wee must answer many things they bring against Councels; and when wee declare how Councels propose to them selves Gods word written, and vnwritten, wee must adde somewhat more of Tradition then hath yet been said; answering what else they object against it. And because the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, confirming the infallibility of the Church, do sometimes speak of her infallibility in generall; sometimes they speak of the Ro∣man

Churches infallibility in particular; some times how infallible generall Councels are; some times how infallible the vnwritten Traditions of the Church are (which meerly rely on her authority:) wee have thought good to place theyr testimonies after that wee have treat∣ed of all these particulars: which are linked togeather with so necessary connexion one of an other; that the proofe of the one, is the proofe of the other.

SECT: XVII.

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

1. BY the Roman Church, wee do not vnder∣stand the particular dioces of Rome: but wee vndestand, that vastly extended Com∣munity of Christians which houldeth Co∣munion with the Church of Rome, submit∣ting 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 pro∣posing 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 vn∣derstood 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 testa∣ment, 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 Ro∣man, 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 Chur∣ches 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 infal∣libly

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 diffe∣rent 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 Chur∣ches which teach them selves not to be this infallible iud∣ge; because they teach them selves to be fallible. If then they be infallible in the doctrine they teach, they are infal∣lible 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 fa∣lible:

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 aga∣inst 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 Coun∣cel,

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 ne∣cessary for the Church, or that guidance which is neces∣sary 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 infalli∣ble 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 direc∣tiō. 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 repre∣sentative, by which wee vnderstand the Bishop of Rome our Supreme Pastour defining with a Lawfull generall Councell. The infallibility of the Church, thus vnder∣stood, 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 sen∣se as wee still take it.

2. If you aske vs then, not our opinions, but our beleefe: (I pray mark this distinction:) Wee all vnani∣mously 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 in∣fallible 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 gi∣ven vnto vs. Yea, who can choose but think it strange, that Christ, for the secure direction of all the first Christi∣ans 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 in∣finite 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 Sou∣les, 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 de∣crees concerning the most important affaires in Chris∣tendome? 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 Chris∣tendome (as a Councel indued with infallibility) would (if to be had) be a ready meanes to compose all difference, and re∣store 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 fur∣nished 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 Controver∣sies: 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 de∣crees, 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 dif∣fused or vniversall is directed, and gouerned, is by a Lawfull Pope, as supreme Pastour, joyntly with a Law∣full Councel: and this assembly is called the Church re∣presentatiue, 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 deci∣sion 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 govern∣ment 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 ec∣clesiasticall, 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 Coun∣cel 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 Iudge∣ment of the Priests, did call togeather Episcopale Concili∣um a Councel of Bishops, to Iudge of the Propositions, and Questions of Arius. Behould theyr power of Iudica∣ture 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 Em∣perour;

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 iud∣ged by men: wherefore expect only the iudgement of God vpon you; and that your complaints, whatsoever they be, may be re∣served 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 vn∣blamble 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 Anas∣tas: 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 Coun∣cels 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 ho∣ly Fathers made by the Spirit of God, consecrated by the reve∣rence 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 per∣haps 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 be∣leefe. Behould how he relieth on the Coūcels, as S. Paul see∣meth 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 Coun∣cels 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 representa∣tive, 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 cal∣led purposely to end all controversies in faith, by defining

what is to be beleeved by all; that is, what is to be vn∣doubtedly held as a divine truth revealed by God. All the Fathers, who assembled to define this, did assume an vn∣questionable 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 curs∣ing and excommunicating all who should at any time be∣leeve 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 pre∣cedent 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 Vnani∣mous consent of Christendome) to imbrace that as a Di∣vine Verity, which is, in reall truth, a lye fathered vpon God. Surely a practice so vniversall, so frequent, so per∣nicious, so notoriously publike, would have been cryed out vpon over and over again by the most Zealous, and most learned ancient Fathers; who notwithstanding ne∣ver 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 assem∣bled, 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 defi∣nitons 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 pro∣ceeding 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 iud∣ging 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 con∣formable 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 de∣claring 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 Coun∣cel, 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 pre∣sided by his Legates in the Councel of Chalcedon, who writt these following Words to the Emperour; (Leo Mag∣nus 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 hun∣dred yeares ago. You, who make these definitions falli∣ble, 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 discre∣tion (with out any iudgement and discretion) freely rejec∣teth 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 ju∣diciousnes 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 evi∣dently 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 great∣est 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 Iud∣gement, if wee passe so bitter a iudgemēt against the whole Church representatiue: And yet if you passe not this judg∣ment, 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 vn∣written: and why shee ruleth her selfe by tradition.

1. IT was a very grosse proceeding in Cal∣vin 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, with¦out 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 e∣very generall Councel is to examin cōtroversies belong∣ing to faith, according to the word of God. But, be∣cause 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 pri∣vate 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 Sec∣tiō 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 exa∣min 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 con∣formable 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 belee∣vers, 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 Tradi∣tion also is, and was ever, accounted by the Church the very best and surest interpreter of the Scripture. The vo∣tes therefore of the fathers assembled in Councel are de∣manded, not only of what they think to be conformable to Gods word written in Scripture, but also how confor∣mable 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 prac∣tice and beliefe amongst them? And whether at any time such a point was ever said to have been introduced a∣mong 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 aver∣ed that in all these so vastly distant Nations, Prayer for the dead, Adoration of the Sacrament, Auricular Con∣fession, were ever, time out of minde, practised, and belee∣ued, 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 vo∣tes 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 wri∣ting to all posterity. These be the very words of Vincentius Lerinensis advers: Hereses: neither could I devise any fit∣ter 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 vnwrit∣ten 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 deliver∣ed 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 Tra∣dition, 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 an∣swer 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 be∣leeue 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 ad∣mirable 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 Ori∣ginalls 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 tra∣ditios 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 su∣rer, by perpetuall practice, and vniforme doctrine, then by any writing. To shew this, I brought many strong argu∣ments 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 tra∣dition as the former; and therefore either the former is not proved Sufficiently by this testimony, or else the lat∣ter 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 re∣commended 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 prac∣tice, testified in this respect; because those who are bor∣ne, 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 pray∣ers 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 hu∣man 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 Scrip∣ture questioned of beeing true Scripture: for example, the Apocalyps, or Revelation, which your Lutheran Bre∣theren hould not to be true Scripture. How will you de∣fend 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 Apo∣calyps 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 pe∣culiar 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 doc∣trine 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. al∣most 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 dea∣les 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 al∣most 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 mi∣lit. C. 3. It is ordinary in Law (for proofe of long posses∣sion) 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 al∣lowance to a thing testified to be a tradition, to allow it three or four descents (can the authenticalnes of the Apo∣calips 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 a∣mongst those great reverencers of tradition) draw all the world, in so short a time after the Apostles, to follow cus∣tomes 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 Aë∣rius 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 ser∣vice 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 founda∣tions be those, which our greatest grand fathers made (as appeareth by the most ancient Records) for the ob∣teyning 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 vniver∣sally 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; be∣cause 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. Secon∣dly, 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 mea∣nes; 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 particu∣larly well versed in the received, and approved ould cus∣tomes of theyr countries. For the countries of those in the Councel beeing so farre distant, and so wholy indepen∣dent 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 recei∣ved theyr whole faith, and this particular tradition for part of it. For, had the beginers and sowers of this tra∣dition now questioned, been after the first Planters of our faith, there would in some countrye or other, be fo∣und 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 doc∣trine; and to be firmely held so by all the world, without

opposition in any part thereof, even though this tradi∣tion (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 testi∣monies from all corners of the world; it is now iuridical∣ly 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 recom∣mended these bookes was examined in the third Coun∣cel 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; Tradi∣tion beeing as credible a relatour of Gods word deli∣vered 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 tra∣ditiō is as sure a messēger as any writing cā be, ād is to be beleeved, as much as the word of God delivered by writ∣ing

and such a writing as hath no surer witnes of beeing Authenticall then tradition. Hence S. Austen (de vtilit. Cre∣dendi C. 14.) disputing with an Heretike, who would first have him to beleeve Scripture before Catholike Tra∣dition, 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 testi∣mony 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 Mul∣titude, 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 rea∣son 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 gi∣ven 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 Catho∣lik Church, precepts made by her with so great an autho∣rity. 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 con∣firmed by miracles, and by the miraculous multitude fol∣lowing 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 the∣re is some authority appointed by the same God, on which Autho∣rity wee relying, as on an assured steppe, may be lifted vp to God. This Authority moveth vs by two wayes, partly by Miracles, par∣tly by the multitude of its followers. Behould here an autho∣rity 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 au∣thority, 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 Tem∣perance extended to fasting with bread and water, and not only dayly fasts, but fasts continued for many dayes. A Chastity dis∣daining 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 autho∣rity; 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 great∣est 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 infalli∣bility of the Church in her traditions and doctrine. Well then, shee beeing as infallible in delivering the vnwrit∣ten 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 Tradi∣tion, 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 finish∣ing 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 whe∣reas 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 suf∣ficient for an exterior and infallible direction for so ma∣ny Millions (as were to be directed by it in the way of Salvation before the Scripture was all written, and di∣vulged in such languages that might make it fitt to di∣rect all Nations) you must of necessity put this word of God outwardly expressed by some meanes or other, ex∣pressing it in such a manner, as might be able to produce this effect of guiding whole Millions in the way of Salva∣tion, 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 belee∣vers

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 deli∣vered (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 di∣rect 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 dan∣gerours 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 on∣ly; 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 Scriptu∣re, 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 he∣ard (he sayth not read) of mee by many wittnesses, these com∣mend 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 on∣ly 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 inter∣preting 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 in∣fallibly 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 affir∣ming 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 condi∣tions, 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 mil∣lions, taken in so different circumstances, all testified vnanimously to be true. If this doth not make it evidēt∣ly 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 suf∣ficeth 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 doct∣rine of praying for the dead, of baptizing infants &c, be∣cause 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 suf∣fice, 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 Apostoli∣call 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 ap∣prehensions, who do not conceive suck Au∣thorities 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 infal∣lible, 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 An∣tiquity.

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 in∣fallibility?

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 be∣leeving the Hoy Ghost to have spoken in the Fathers of that Councel, and by S. Cyrill affirming them to have been ins∣pired 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 pro∣ceeding 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 infal∣libility 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, concer∣ning this point in which they could never content them∣selves

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 re∣verence this infallibility, as the communication of the Spirit of divine truth, as indeed it is; Concerning Coun∣cels then what wee said in that Section cōteyning all this here recapitulated shall suffice. Remember also what Vin∣centius Lerinensis C. 4. saith All those who will not be acco∣vnted Heeetikes must conforme themselves to the decrees of gene∣ral Councels. Let vs now see what they say of the infallibi∣lity of Tradition, taking Tradition as it conteynes what is not written in Scripture, and yet is necessary to be be∣leeved or practised.

3. This Tradition the Fathers acknowledge infalli∣ble 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 sufficien∣tly 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 di∣vers 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 suf∣ficient 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 fal∣lible 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 ha∣ve also Sect: 16. n. 3. shewed, how manifestly S. Ireneus teacheth the vnwritten Rule of Tradition (and such Tra∣dition as was really in the Church then existent) to be a sufficient Rule, and ground for divine faith and conse∣quently 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 tea∣cheth 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 Apo∣stles) 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 fal∣lible 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 se∣cond Apology for the Christians, among these vnwritten Traditions placeth some things made necessary by Apos∣tolicall precepts; As the consecrating of Wine mingled with water; and that is is lawfull to no body (though never so con∣trite 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 sup∣per of our Lord? There followeth the Authority of S. Ire∣neus, which I have shewed to reach so home, that the who∣le 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 ma∣ny things without any writing: and these be Worthy of the very selfe same faith. Good M. Doctor is that, which is fal∣lible, worthy of the same faith which that which is infalli∣ble 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 pla∣ce of S. Paul deliver iust the same doctrine. Of S. Epipha∣nius I have spoaken already. And Bellarmin recounts how angry Brentius is whith him for saying; that it is by Aposto∣licall 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 kno∣wledge of this point is necessary Tradition therefore de∣livereth some necessary points: Heare S. Epiphanius his words (Heresy. 61.) It behoueth vs also to vse tradition be∣cause all things cannot be had out of Scripture. The Apostles de∣livered 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 ad∣vantagious 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 foun∣ded 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 Sou∣le and interpretation of it conserved in the dayly answera∣ble 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 expres∣seth 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 the∣se 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 evi∣dent that all doctrine, agreeing with the doctrine of these Apos∣tolicall and Mother Churches, is sutable to truth, and to be im∣braced 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 Ques∣tion, why do you do it? proueth that wee do it. And becau∣se wee every where do it in the Church, the observation of these practises is to stand good, because, wee are Ha∣bentes observationem inveteratam quae praeveniendo, statum fe∣cit. Hanc si nulla Scriptura determinavit, certe consuetudo robo∣ravit; 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 custo∣me 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 ob∣jection, 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 obseuan∣ces 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 Apostoli∣call 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 be∣neficiall 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: Pe∣riarch: That only is to be beleeved for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church: And in our vnder∣standing

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, con∣cerning 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 Car∣thage 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 Ter∣tullian S. Heirome, S. Aug: S. Leo, do admitt such bookes to

be, and to deny others to be Canonicall. Vpon this gro∣und 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, genv∣ine and manifestly allowed by the opinion of all, and that hen∣ce, 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 in∣sinuating, 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 tea∣ching the church infallible in her Tradi∣tions (by which and by her answerable practice, shee makes known to her Chil∣dren her beleefe) and besides those other Authorities tea∣ching that this Church, in her Representative or Gene∣rall 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 autho∣rity, 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 vniver∣sall, 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: Sym∣bol:) 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 &c; But those Churches be not wi∣thout 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 grea∣ter deformities then wrinckles. See how you have pain∣ted 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 dwel∣ling 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 ex∣communication, 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 testi∣monies 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 He∣retikes, 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 befo∣re the Church had or could have any generall Councell, by reason of the vniversall persecution vnder those Hea∣thenish Emperours: and so Tertullian doth not indeed speak of the Church representative in Councels; Yet he speakes home of the infallibility of the Church vniuer∣sall, declaring her doctrine by her Tradition, and her practice conformable to her Tradition and in all thus de∣clared Tertullian houlds her infallible; as I have already shewed the last Sect: n: 4.

3. The third Father is S. Epiphanius, who how clear∣ly 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, nei∣ther 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 cla∣mours, 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 choo∣sing 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 in∣curable: 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 Here∣sies with this foule marke, saying; That every of these Here∣sies leaving this Kings high way (of the Church the sure Ru∣le, 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 ap∣plieth 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 re∣ioyse in spirit beeing receaved in a Serene Haven? Wee have pas∣sed 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 busi∣nesses 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 par∣ticular 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 Chris∣tian 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 direc∣tion: 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 deli∣vered here by him.

4. S. Epiphanius was most wrongfully accused by that vniversity man of silence, concerning this point of infal∣libility (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 Here∣tike for denying of it, whereas all Heretikes mentioned by him in his bookes of Heresy, could not but deny it ac∣cording to vs, or els they had not been Heretikes. A stran∣ge 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 Catho∣lick 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 infal∣lible in deciding all points truly. A litle skill in Aequipol∣lentibus (to which those arrive who have passed the brid∣ge) 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 necessa∣ry 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 de∣maunded (what you expected to be tould by mee) what the Ca∣tholick Church iudgeth against all these seeing that for this end (of having as much instruction as it is necessary) it is suf∣ficient to know that the Catholick Church is of a contrary iud∣gement 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 au∣thority 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 cle∣arly 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 bap∣tisme given by Heretickes to be a point revealed by the Ho∣ly Ghost; to witt, when the Apostles delivered this Tradi∣tion 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. Cy∣prians dayes; as the same S. also teaches. Fourthly he acco∣unteth 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 no∣tify

this will of the Holy Ghost, and to make it obligato∣ry. His words are; It is manifest that when the Disciples re∣ceived the Body and bloud of our Lord, they did not receive fas∣ting: 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 be∣fore 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 dan∣ger 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 bid∣de 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 ans∣wer 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 man∣ner Christ hath commanded those to be admitted of, who desire to passe from Hereticks to the Church? This clearly and mani∣festly (set down in Scripture) neither I do read nor you. Now then, seeing that in the Scripture wee find not that any who pas∣sed 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 ha∣ve 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 tes∣timony 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 Sal∣vation (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 Scrip∣ture 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 infalli∣ble authority without other Scripture is to be wholy re∣lyed 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 re∣ly on the Church as infallible. Hence Eightly on the psal: 57. he writheth thus: It may be that a man may lye, but it can∣not be that Truth can lye. From the Month of Truth I acknowled∣ged Christ Truth it seife. From the mouth of Truth I acknowled∣ged the Church partaker of truth. Behould that to a mā sub∣ject 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 Scrip∣ture) he accounteth him selfe by the Churches authority alone so infallibly grounded in this point, that he brea∣keth 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 defen∣ders of your cause in the famous Conference of Ratisbon, were forced to answer to it thus; In this point wee freely dis∣sent 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 infal∣lible. 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 Coun∣cel 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 for∣saken, 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 pro∣veth vnanswerably what he sayth. And therefore this au∣thotity is not answered with out answering the arguments which he presseth like a Master Disputant, demonstra∣ting 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. con∣tra 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 Mani∣cheus 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 Mani∣chean, because you manicheans (you Lutherans and Cal∣vinists) 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 Ghos∣pel 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 buil∣deth 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 occa∣sionally

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 re∣flect 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 ha∣ve 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 infalli∣ble 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 re∣lying 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 fol∣loweth 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, be∣leeve

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 dis∣praysing Manicheus; do you think mee so very a foole that, no rea∣son beeing rendered for it, I will beleeve what you list, and dis∣beleeve what you list; except you do not only bidde mee beleeve what you will, but you also, most manifestly and evidently, ma∣ke 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 can∣not 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 in∣fallible? 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 be∣leeve 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 infal∣lible, 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 ma∣nifest 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 Scrip∣ture 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 pas∣sing 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 in∣fallible 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 follow∣eth; 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 objec∣tion; for how often in Scripture doth this particle, By, ex∣presse the true Cause vpon which, and only which men beleeved infallibly, as all did first by or through the prea∣ching 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 Scrip∣ture he would have denied her infallibility: For accor∣ding to this fond cavelling reason he should have also es∣teemed 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 spea∣keth 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 Apostle∣ship af Manicheus, I will rather beleeve the Catholiques then thee: but if thou shalt read mee out of the Ghospel any place ma∣nifestly for Manicheus, I will neither beleeve them, nor thee. I will not beleeve them, because they have lyed vnto mee concer∣ning thee (this one Lye shewing theyr Church to be falli∣ble;) 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 cau∣se, and vpon that ground be would forsake Scripture, be∣cause 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 recom∣mended to him for such; houlding also her recommenda∣tion so sure, that shee could not faile in recommending any one booke for Gods word, which was not of necessi∣ty to be held so, meerly vpon her recommendation; For thus he proveth that it was then necessary for him to be∣leeve 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 pro∣per 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 be∣leeved, 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 in∣fallibility of the Church in her Traditi∣ons 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 adver∣saries theyr last shift, which is that al∣though S. Austen and so many other Fa∣thers speak so often of the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church, and of the Councels, of the Church, and of the Churches autho∣rity 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 An∣tiquity 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 vniver∣sally 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-Pa∣stour: For thus the Roman Church, as comprehending

all Churches vnited to her Communion, cannot be shew∣ed in any time since Christ, to have differed in doctrine from what the vniversall Church ever taught, or practi∣ced: If therefore the vniversall Church, following Tra∣dition be, by the guidance of the same Tradition infalli∣bly 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 de∣crees be infallible Rules, as I have proued, then the Ro∣man 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 Ro∣man 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 vn∣to 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 com∣mitted both to Peter and his successors. Hence you see that with him the Church vniversall, is one, and the selfe sa∣me 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. Gre∣gory 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 ioy∣ned 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 Com∣munion; 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 subor∣dinatiō 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 Bro∣ther 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 ho∣ly 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 no∣torious that by the name of the Church they ment no other thing then Christs flock vnder theyr true Sheep∣heard the Bishop of Rome: And when it is once notori∣ously known to the hearers what is ment by such a word, the vse of it is sufficiently determinate. So here in En∣gland when with one an other wee say the Parliament did decree or examin such a thing, wee are known no∣toriously 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 ha∣ve, in those sayings of theyrs concerning infallibility, vn∣derstood 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 Mi∣racle 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 Bis∣hop 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 Ro∣man 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 Catholi∣que 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 Anacle∣tus hath tould you. Hence a S. Austen (Epist: 162.) will tell Cecilian, that he needs not fear the conspiring mul∣titude of African Bishops as long as he communicated with Melchiades the Pope. Hence Optatus l. 2. contra Perme∣nian: will thrust the Donatists out of the number of Ca∣tholiques, 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 v∣nity 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 com∣mended 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! de∣fendeth; 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) ac∣cording 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 de∣fining 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 ar∣gument

against infallibility the deep silence of Antiqui∣ty (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 answer∣ing our adversaries objections.

I. BEfore I begin any one of our adversaries Objections I must (to take away all preju∣dice) intreat my Reader in the whole read∣ing of this next Section to note, First how infallibly all the Christian world, except some few So∣cinians) affirme them selves to beleeve all things contey∣ned in those Bookes which they hould canonicall Scrip∣ture. 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 Scrip∣ture 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 recei∣ved if mens wills were bent as resolutely to receive no

answer but a manifest one against the infallibility of scrip∣ture 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 e∣vident 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 e∣vident, 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 infallibi∣lity of Scripture, and with how much sweat and labour these be scarce solved at last? where as the others be an∣swered so that nothing like evidence can be brought a¦gainst 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 mo∣ment 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 cōtey∣ned 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 ob∣jection that I could ever yet see made against the infalli∣bility 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 ge∣nerations, and from David vntill the carrying a way into Ba∣bilon 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, be∣cause 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 seve∣rall 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 fol∣lawing 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 faith∣fully 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 Son∣ne 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 see∣meth 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 Atha∣liath.

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 af∣fi••mes that he was fourty two yeers ould; Therefore the Scrip∣ture is not infallible in speech.

4. Here by the way reflect (deer reader) how de∣monstratively 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 fundamen∣tall 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 ans∣wer to those three places, that the reader may, by his own experience, see how true it is that all that concerns nece∣ssary 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 incompara∣ble

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, ac∣cording 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 er∣rour: 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 vnder∣standing 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 adhe∣sion 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 rea∣son 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 ra∣ther 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 autho∣rity 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 eviden∣tly credible vnto mee, that in prudence I cannot think it to be otherwise, and Heaven, is also by most highly valua∣ble promises, offered mee, if I will assent to this with that respect which is due to Gods word, and Hell on the con∣trary is threatned vnto mee by most truly formidable me∣naces, if I will not assent to this verity as to a Verity affir∣med by God; am I not rather stark mad, then impru∣dent 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 Ve∣rity ought to be esteemed. Wherefore, as it is a blasphe∣mous

inpiety to suspect that the very least danger of fal∣sity can be in a thing affirmed by God; so, because the rea∣sons 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 evi∣dence, that I can have, thē to give way to the entertayn∣ment 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 in∣fallibility 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 him∣selfe 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 in∣fallible, 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 ap∣parent 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 circum∣stances 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 per∣mitt (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 ha∣ve 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 de∣livered 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 Provi∣dence 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 fal∣sity to be thus recommended to vs. For it is not our kno∣wing that no falsity will ever be permitted by God to be thus recommended to vs, which is the cause why no fal∣sity can be thus recommended: but it is meerly the ex∣trinsecall 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 set∣teth 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 acknow∣ledg 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 cre∣dible 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 threa∣ten 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 na∣ture 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 dises∣teeme 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, ha∣ve 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 contradic∣tion to say, that (supposing our nature and the present circumstances appointed de facto, by the divine providen∣ce) 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 con∣cerning 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 real∣ly (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 attes∣ted 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 as∣sent, by which I say wee beleeve with an infallible beleefe the articles of our faith, wee must here note that the as∣sent 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 imme∣diate relation to the Supernaturall state of Heavenly glo∣ry, 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 super∣naturall light infusing it vnto the vnderstanding to eleva∣te it, and inable it, to produce the supernaturall act of

faith. Yet when man hath not this supernaturall assis∣tance in his act, he cannot tell, be he never so learned. This all may know, that God doth never give this super∣naturall 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 be∣leeve 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, be∣cause 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 Schis∣mes, 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 indea∣vour

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 Contro∣versies because so litle is said against Heretikes, for de∣nying 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 ans∣wered 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 adversa∣ries no Iudge vpon earth (as yon say) but Scripture, you must note that they spoak as they did, not because the faith∣full 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 ac∣count of our new testament: Wherefore as, when Doc∣tors 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 Autho∣rity of the Church, which they them selves held infalli∣ble 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 ta∣ke 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 Iudg∣ment of those who passe theyr iudgment with that pro∣phane 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 si∣lence 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 infal∣libility) 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 in∣fallible, 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 infal∣lible 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 compari∣son of what wee have alledged for the Churches Autho∣rity 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 de∣manded. 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 men∣tion of more then human authority in Councels. And be∣cause 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 there∣fore 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 belon∣ging 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 infalli∣ble 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 accor∣ding to those two infallible rules yet wee are secured that they have done theyr dutie both by the notorious publi∣city 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 intro∣ducing 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 ins∣piration?

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 ha∣ve 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 particu∣lar 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 ma∣kes a generall Councel which hath, ever since the primi∣tive 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 Chur∣ches did beare this preface. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and vs. In the fower first Councels (which your En∣glish 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 Coun∣cel 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 si∣lently 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 alrea∣dy 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 e∣vident 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 dig∣nity) they be, by divine institution, invested with a po∣wer to call Councels. Wee seek for this divine institution. This wee will not admitt vntill it can be shewed in Scrip∣ture or tradition. The fact of calling sheweth not divi∣ne

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 ecclesi∣asticall 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 ra∣tification 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 pre∣sence 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 determina∣tiōs 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 fun∣damentalls 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 fundamen∣tall 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 expli∣cated 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 de∣liver not the Churches beleefe, but theyr private opinion to be that the Pope should beheld infallible out of a Co∣uncel; 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 Co∣uncel 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 Co∣uncel. 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 no∣thing 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 Cardi∣nall 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 de∣fects, So I may farre better say, that this defect beeing on∣ly 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 in∣deed. For no Bishops, no Councel. Now if he, who or∣deyned 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 impos∣sible 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 acknow∣ledging, 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 Fa∣ther 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 ti∣me 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 im∣possible 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 hap∣pe 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. Sure∣ly 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 hi∣deous: 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 Bastar∣disme

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 assu∣red 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 iud∣gement 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 effica∣ciously 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 Di∣vel 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 Bi∣bles to be burnt, by which meanes the true Copies grow∣ing scarce, false ones might possibly be brought into com∣mon 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 intole∣rable a caveller were he in a Commonwealth, who should plead the not obliging of Parliamentary decrees, by rea∣son of the impossibility to know for certeyn what was de∣creed? and which were the true Copies of the true de∣crees? 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 Coun∣cels are publikely read, in the Councel publikely subscri∣bed, 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 gi∣ven. 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 eviden∣ces make every one know these decrees with an vnques∣tionable credibility, which, when wee have, wee are suf∣ficiently furnished (for as much as concerns the propo∣sing of the object to embrace with our will these decrees as proceeding from the Holy Ghost, and teaching Veri∣ties 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 En∣glish 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 Sec∣tion 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 ans∣were 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 lear∣ned men have been of contrary opinions about the mea∣ning of them. I answer, that to ease your tender Cons∣ciēce, 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 pu∣blick 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 li∣ving 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 ne∣cessary 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 collectio∣nem; where having observed what I now sayd of the per∣secutions 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 ne∣cessary 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 pur∣pose. 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 ear∣nest. Yet even in this I hope to give you satisfaction. Your objection then is P. 16. out of D. Taylor, endea∣voring 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 Con∣clusionem, say you; but according to truer Logike you should say Cavete Principes Heresim. I answer first, this ob∣iection maketh nothing against our faith, but against pri∣vate 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 res∣traine theyr loose opinion to such peculiar circumstances, as would presently clear, even theyr opinion from beeing the least inconsistent with the present government, besi∣des 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 put∣ting 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 boul∣dly say, that those very Doctors never intended to speak of the lawfulnes of murdering an Hereticall King, or Go∣vernor 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 Brethe∣ren: 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 no∣toriously known to have preached rebellion, and to ha∣ve 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 Magistra∣tuum in subditos; to say nothing of a world of others which might be cited whom you hould not to have erred fun∣damentally 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 particu∣lar 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 ear∣nestly 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 damna∣tion 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 in∣fallible Iudge or Rule appointed by God to decide all necessary controversies. Now, because all faith essenti∣ally 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 interior∣ly 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 di∣rection, or determination of that infallible Iudge which was appointed by him as the only meanes to bring vs as∣suredly to this one true faith. I earnestly in treat the Rea∣der 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 di∣rection which God hath given every one, as the only meanes to bring him assuredly to the true faith: Wee Ca∣tholikes do no lesse readily then they, submitt to the Bi∣ble as to Gods word: but from the beginning to the end∣ing 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 me∣anes appointed vs by God to bring vs to the assured knowledge of the true Faith necessary to Salvation; nei∣ther can it by it selfe alone, end and decide all controver∣sies 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 fol∣loweth 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 ques∣tion, 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 Gene∣rall 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 ad∣versaries (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 ima∣gined the least fear of falling into any errour, by following our guide, who is proved to be secured from leading in∣to 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 go∣vernment which the devine providence hath by his wis∣dome 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 Com∣mission 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 (ac∣cording to what hath been proued) having given Com∣mission to the Church to decide and determine all our Controversies in faith, and to direct vs in all things ne∣cessary 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 re∣fractary 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 ne∣glecting 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 gui∣dance 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 fol∣lowing 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 sub∣mission, 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 in∣fallible 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 other∣wise 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 pro∣fesse 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 im∣brace 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 de∣vine 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 pre∣posterous 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 infi∣nite 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.

FINIS.