THE QVESTIONS OF QVESTIONS Which rightly resolved resolveth all our Questions in Religion. THIS QUESTION IS Who aught to be our judge in all these our differences? THIS BOOK ANSWERETH THIS QUESTION And Hence showeth a most easy, and yet a most safe way, how among so many Religions the most unlearned, and learned may found the true Religion. BY OPTATUS DUCTOR Call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter, and he will tell thee what thou oughest to do. Act: 10. Vers. 5.6. Printed in GANT. By Maximilian Graet. 1658. Permissu Superiorum. The Table. The four chief Points handled in this Book. The first Point. That there must be some infallible judge, or Rule to decide all necessary Controversies to whom all are bound under pain of damnation to submit their understandings. Quest: 1. The second Point. That the Scripture is not this infallible judge or Rule appointed us by God to end all our Controversies. Quest: 2. The third Point. That the Church is the judge appointed by God to end all our controversis in Faith. Quest. 3. The fourth Point. That the Church which is the infallible judge in all Controversies is the Roman Church, and therefore all are bound to submit to her. Quest: 4. There followeth a Table of the several Questions and Sections into which the four foresaid Points are divided. THE QUESTION OF QVESTIONS. Who aught to be our judge in all Controversies? The Preface. The importance of this Question, and how easily even ignorant people may come to be fully resolved in itt, all being reduced to fover only points. P. 1. The First Question. Whether there must be some infallible judge or Rule to decide all necessary Controversies, to whom all are bound under pay of damnation to submit their understanding? And how orderly we proceed in the finding out this judge. Pag: 1. The second Question. Whether the Scripture be this infallible judge or Rule appointed us by God to decide all necessary Controversies? Pag: 9 The first Section. Containing five proofs that Scripture is not this judge or Rule. Pag: 9 Section 2. That Scripture containeth not plainly all things necessary to be believed or done to Salvation. This is showed by 14. Examples. Pag: 26. Section 3. By Scripture we know not which books be Canonical Scripture, which not. Neither is Scripture known to be God's word by its own light. Wherhfore Protestants do not believe Scripture with divine Faith. Pag: 43. Section 4. That the Scriptures cannot decide this Controversy, which books be the true uncorrupted copies of the true books of Scripture? And therefore Protestants believe not Scripture with divine Faith. A word of the famous Bible now coming forth at London. Pag: 65. Section 5. That Scripture cannot decide this Controversy which Translations of the word of God be true? And therefore ordinary Protestants cannot believe Scripture with divine Faith. Pag: 88 Section 6. That the Scripture cannot decide the Controversy about the truth of S. Matthewes Gospel. And that our adversaries do not believe this Gospel with divine Faith. Pag: 104. Section 7. That the Scripture cannot decide the manifest Controversies about the true sense thereof; Therefore in the belief of the true sense thereof our adversaries have no divine Faith, nor sure ground out of their Religion. Pag: 110. Section. 8. Divers other necessary points not contained in, or decided by Scripture. Pag: 136. Section 9 A Four and twentyth necessary point not contained in Scripture. Pag: 148. Section 10. By the text which our adversaries bring to prove, that Scripture contains and decides all necessary Controversies, we prove the contrary. Pag: 156. Section 11. Although Scripture only should be our judge: Yet this judge would decide many points clearly against you. Pag: 181. Section 12. That Holy Fathers never allowed Scripture for the only Rule of Faith. Pag: 185. The third Question. Whether the Church be the judge appointed by God to end all our Controversies. With a word to the Socinians concerning reasons being our judge. Pag: 191. Section 13. It is declared what we understand when we seek whether the Church be our judge or no. Pag: 194. Section 14. It is proved out of the old Testament that the Church is our infallible judge in all Controversies of Faith. Pag: 197. Section 15. It is proved out of the new Testament that the Church is our infallible judge in all Controversies of Faith. Pag: 210. Section 16. The same is proved by several Reason:. Pag: 342. The fourth and last Question. Which is that Church which is the infallible judge in all Controversies? How she exerciseth her infallible judgement? And what submission is dew unto her? Pag: 368. Section 17. Whether the Roman Church be that Church which is our infallible judge? Pag: 370. Section 18. In what court this infallible judge decideth our Controversies in Faith? Pag: 373. Section 19 This Court in deciding Controversies ruleth herself by the word of God written and unwritten. And why she ruleth herself by Tradition? Pag: 385. Section 20. That the Fathers teach these Traditions, and the definitions of Counsels or Church to be infallible. Pag. 405. Section 21. That the Fathers teach in general the Church to be infallible. Pag: 414. Section 22. That all which the Fathers say of the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions or Counsels, or in general terms, is meant by them particularly of the Roman Church as we understand the Roman Church. Pag: 435. Section 23. Some things very necessary for the easier answering our adversaries Objections. Pag: 443. Section 24. Twenty Objections of an university man against the infallibility of the Church and also some others are resolved. Pag: 456. Section the last. The Roman Church having been proved to be our infallible judge, all under pain of damnation are bound to submit to her judgement. Pag: 477. A Table of some particular Matters incidently treated in this Book. OF Reading the Scripture, and using divine service in the vulgar tongue. Question: 2. Section. 1. num: 10. 11. Pag: 23. Of doing good works for hope of Reward. Quest: 2. Sect: 4. n. 6. Pag: 74. Of the great difference in fundamentals between the Roman Catholic and Protestants. Q. 2. S. 2. n. 13. P. 40. 41. and Q. 2. S. 7. n. 7. 8. 9 10. &c: Pag: 121. Of the necessity of Baptism for Children. Q. 2. S. 8. n. 3. &c: Pag: 137. Of the fast of Lent. Q. 2. S. 8. n. 8. Pag: 146. How Protestants are cheated by their Ministers who say to them come with us and you shall see evidence of Scripture for all you believe and do. And how Roman Catholics see better reason for what they believe and do than Protestants. Quest: 2. S. 2. n. 1●. Q. 2. S. 4. n. 7. 8. Q. 2. S. 5. n. 2. 3. 4. 5. Q. 2. S. 7. n. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. Q. 3. S. 16. n. 7. That the Power of judging Ecclesiastical affairs belong not to the Lay. Q. 4. S. 18. n. 3. Pag: 377. It is a sin to marry after vowed Chastity. Q. 4. S. 20. n. 4. Pag: 409. Faith is more assuredly grounded upon Tradition than upon manifest Miracles. Q. 3. S. 16. n. 5. Pag: 356. No Circle in the Resolution of Faith made by the Roman Catholics. Q. 3. S. 16. n. 6. P. 358. The Protestant Circle, Q. 2. S. 3. n. 13. Pag: 64. How the belief, even of ignorant Roman Catholics comes to be infallible. Q. 3. S. 16. n. 7. Pag: 360. What it is which maketh our faith infallible though we have no infallible knowledge of this infallibility. Q. 4. S. 23. n. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. etc. Pag: 449. Prayer for the dead better grounded than Baptism of children Q. 4. S. 19 n. 4. p. 411. Also better grounded than the faith by which Protestants believe the Apocalypse to be Scripture. They were held for Heretics who denied Prayer for the dead. Ibidem the Church shined with the custom of praying for the dead in S. Austin's days. Ibidem Before thou readest this Book take a pen and correct the chief faults thus. Page. Line Fault Correction. 8 7 which in which 114 25 are care 120 26 corruption interpretation 121 20 which? I which I 159 near the end as he ask 173 near the end now here no where 224 10 Cause Case 366 12 head had 366 26 Verity Unity 373 17 infallible infallibly 394 2 Arminians Armenians 412 near the end now here no where 412 5 , again . Again 416 8 Thus. If this 423 3 Those these 428 last as is 439 14 Freach to Freach French to French 456 1 hath not hath or hath not 458 8 of of 470 last intention with intention. With In the nineth line before the end of Page, 90. blot out from such, and writ from such at the beginning of the next line. THE QUESTION OF QVESTIONS Who aught to be our judge 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 being reduced to four only points. I. SAint Anselm hath a very fit Similitude to express, how much a contentious spirit in disputing doth blind the understanding from seeing that truth, which a peaceable search, free from all prejudice, doth easily discover. He tells us, that a little before Sunrising, two men in the open fields, did fall into a hot debate concerning that part of the heavens, in which the Sun was that day to rise. They passed so far in their contention, that, falling first together by the ears, they at last pulled out one an others eyes, Whence it happened that, when by and by after the Sun did rise, neither of them both could see a thingh so clear as was that part of the heaven, in which the Sun did shine so conspicuously 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 prejudicated opinion of the truth of that Religion, in which they were from the first use of reason bred up, and which bringeth many temporal commodities unto them; they stand so hotly to the maintaining thereof that their passionate affection quite putteth out that clear eye sight of reason: Whence it cometh to pass that, when the Truth, is no less clearly set before the eyes of their understanding, than the brightest Sunshine is set before our corporal eyes, they are not in case to behold it, though men of mean capacity would most evidently see it, when they have laid a side all passion, and prejudice, and with a calm and humble mind begged of Allmighty God grace to embrace that sincerely, which upon diligent search, they should understand to be truth. He who thus seeketh, shall not fail to found. II. I know the multitude of Controversies which have been raised this last age, and the manifold difficulties with which they are now grown to be entangled, do make the Search of Truth seem an impossibility to the ignorant, and overwearisome to the most strong and struggling Wits: Therefore no Books seem now more necessary than such Treatises which handle the main question of Questions, upon which all other particular questions so wholly depend, that the true solution of it doth necessarily draw with it the solution 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 Souls to that happy eternity for which only he created them hath not left us some judge upon earth to end all our, otherwise endless, controversies? And who this judge is For the incomparably greater part of those Souls, for which Christ hath shed his most precious blood, being unlearned, his providence had been defective, if the means of ending controversies in points necessary to salvation, had been so hard to be applied that it had been out of the vulgar reach. It beseemed therefore the Divine Providence to leave us such means as should be both easy for all men to use (that so all men might, by the use of them, come to the end which God so earnestly desireth) and should also be most sufficient for our safe direction. For, to provide us of easy means, which had been unsufficient to direct us securely, had not been to his, or our purpose. III. We must say than, that God hath provided us both of means sufficient to bring us securely to the knowledge of that Truth, which is necessary for the Salvation of our souls, and we must say also, that this means is sufficiently easy to be duly used, and applied by the fare greater part of the world, consisting of unlearned people. For if it were not sufficiently easy to them to apply it duly, so as by it to attain to that true belief, Without which it is impossible to please God (11. Hebr: 6.) It would also be unprofitable unto that end for which God did give it them. This is most agreeable to reason and also to those most comfortable words of Scripture (Esay. 35.) Say to the faint hearted take courage and fear not. Behold God himself will come and will save you. Than the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf. And there shall be a path and a way, and it shall be called the Holy Way. And this shall be unto you a direct way, so that fools cannot err by it. These words must be made good, and therefore such a way must be given unto us. And it must not only be a Way direct in itself, but also it must be unto us a direct Way, and that so direct that even fools cannot (except Wilfully) err by it. This way was promised to be given us, as it is there said when God himself should come and save us; and provide better for our Salvation than he had done for those of either the Law of Nature, or jewish Law. Our labour must be to found out this Way. And this must not be hard even to the ignorant. 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 means, to be put in this way, were also sufficiently easy, even unto them as ignorant as they are. See my second Section, also the 3. 4. 5. 6. iv I intent than (by the grace of God) in this Treatise to show that this Way may be easily found out, by only satisfying ourselves in the true Resolution of this Question of Questions, leading us to know assuredly Who is to be our judge in all our Controversies appointed to be so by God Himself? For when we have once found him, all Controversies cease of what questions so ever; for without all Controversy we must follow this judge appointed by God to no other end, than to make an end of all our Controversies by his clear sentence; Whence D. Ferne in his 27. Section: Indeed such a judge or Umpire of Christendom would (if to be had) be a ready means to compose all differences and restore truth and peace. We will than endeavour to show that such a judge is to be had: And our prime care shall be to proceed so clearly, that a man, of ordinary capacity, may carry away the substance of our whole discourse, which for this effect, we draw to only four pomits. First I shall show that we must have some infallible judge, or Rule deciding all our necessary Controversies, to which Rule we will show all men bound under pain of damnation to submit even with interior submission of judgement. Secondly I will show att large that the Scripture is not this judge or Rule, which point will require a very full examination, because our adversaries ground themselves mainly in the contrary opinion, and all our new Sects have no other ground at all. I will show Thirdly that this infallible judge can be no other (as things stand) than the true Catholic Church; And this must be also fully handled because it is the ground of our Religion; And the true Resolution of the Question of Questions depends wholly on itt. Lastly I will show that all the arguments, which convince the true Catholic Church to be this judge, do convince the Roman, and no Church but the Roman. To be this infallible judge to whom all consequently must be bound under pain of damnation to submit their judgements, and accordingly live united to her Communion; this blessed union will end our Controversies. V Indeed this Question of Questions truly resolved quite undermineth the foundation of all Sects opposite to the Roman Church, showing us a most easy, and yet a most safe way, how in these times the most learned and unlearned may found the true Religion, to wit, by following the judgement of that judge, whom God hath appointed them in all doubts of Religion to folllow. And therefore, in this infinite confusion of new fangled Sects, this Question (though never so often handled heretofore,) seemeth now more necessary than ever, even although I should do nothing, else but publish new Copies of old arguments; such Copies being now so very necessary to be thrust into every man's hands. My best endeavours shall aim at making these arguments truly public: that is to set them down so plainly, and in so vulgar and clear language, devoide of School Terms, that ordinary people may fully conceive and perfectly understand the force of them. If my endeavours in this can be successful, I hope this work, after so many other men's writings will, not be unseasonable at lest for the vulgar. But they must have patience with a long answer to a most important and ample Question. printer's device of Maximilian Graet M.G. THE FIRST QUESTION. Whether there must be some Infallible judge, or Rule to deduce all necessary Controversies to whom all are bound under pain of damnation to submit their understandings. AND How orderly we proceed to the finding out of this judge. 1. THis Question is put in the first place, rather for order sake, than for any debatable difficulty which it contains. For all Christians, of what Religion so ever they be, do agreed in this, that there must be some certain and assured means to end all Controversies or doubts, which either be, or can be in Religion. The reason is apparent, because otherwise every man might be left free to believe what he judged best, and so we should soon have as many Religions as there be private and different judgements. 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 whosoever differeth from this one opinion which is true, differeth from the truth. S. Paul tells us (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 we please God it is impossible to be saved, and you see it is impossible to please him with out true Faith. And again you see that true Faith cannot be found in quite contrary persuasions, of which one only can be true, there must therefore be some means to know this one true Faith from so infinite a multitude of false opinions. What means is this? 2. It must be a means infallible, as all Christians agreed, but Socinians. For if it be fallible, all Religion may be a fancy. Christian Faith is an infallible assent, to which no fallible means can bring us. This means therefore must be infallible. Hitherto we all agreed. See whitaker Cont. 1. Q. 1. Cap. 8. 3. All also can not but agreed in this, that our inward understanding must be bound, under pain of damnation, to submit itself unto that infallible judge, or Rule appointed by God to decide all necessary Controversies. For if you in your private judgement, without any fault at all, may follow what you really think 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 fittest to be followed? Wherhfore, it were to no purpose at all (in order to the preservation of unity in faith) to have an infallible judge, unless every man in particular were bound, by a most strict precept, to submit to that judge. 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 means by which the Divine Providence had decreed 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 judge, or determination of that Rule which God hath placed, for no other end but for all to stand and submit unto it, that by this submission, they may be guided infallibly to that one true Faith, without which it is impossible to please God, or be saved. Now because all Faith essentially consisteth in the inward understanding (which is the very seat of true or false Faith) God, who looketh upon our interior Soul, exacteth to see in that a ready embracing of that Faith, without which no Salvation is to be had, and therefore he should not seriously desire our Salvation, unless he desired that we interiorly yielded full assent to this one, and only Saving Faith, which Faith consisting essentially (as I said) in the interior judgement, God would have this judgment ready to submit to that infallible judge's determination, appointed by him, as the only means to bring us assuredly to this one true Faith. Things which are necessary to please God. must of necessity be things of precept and strict command, even under pain of damnation, because our very greatest obligation, of all obligations, 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 maketh most for our Salvation. True Faith therefore being a necessary means to bring us to our eternal good, he, with all reason, exacteth of us all, to submit our interior understanding (the very seat of true or false Faith) to the full assent of that, which shall be prescribed us to believe, by that means, which his holy providence shall assign us, for our guidance in Faith: that so all may be united in Faith interiorly: for in deed otherwise they be not of one Faith at all. And hence again appeareth that this means must be infallible, for it is not possible that God should put a Command upon all to follow that which might lead to any error great, or little. 4. Out of this general doctrine, received universally without any considerable contradiction, there followeth manifestly this consequence, that two men, of two different Religions, cannot be saved, if both of them know what doctrine is taught them, by that infallible judge or Rule, appointed them by God to be followed, as their guide, in matters of Faith. For both these men, knowing on the one side that God hath put an obligation upon them, to submit to the believing of that, which is proposed by his infallible judge or Rule; and yet, on the other side, one of them flatly refusing to believe what is thus proposed unto him; this one who proceedeth thus must needs be guilty of the damnable sin of refractory disobedience against the express command of God, obliging strictly all to submit to the judge appointed by him, to guide all to the necessary true Faith, and known 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 saith: Gal. 5.20.21. They who do these things shall not obtain the Kingdom of Heaven. 5. These principles I lay down so distinctly in the beginning, and will again inculcate at the ending, that all may see of how high concernment it is to make use of this means, wholly 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 being strictly obliged to use that means, which is wholly necessary to come to the knowledge of this only true Faith, do not inform themselves carefully to found out this means appointed by God to guide and direct all to this only true Faith, either fond believing that men of contrary Religions may be saved (which we have just now proved to be false, except in case of invincible ignorance) or else by damnable negligence, omitting to use that serious care in seeking out, and solicitously searching, the knowledge of this means, which they are obliged to do in a matter concerning a no less business, than an eternity of everlasting bliss; or never ending misery. Now lest any one should secretly despair of finding out this means, and so grow slack in the search of it (which is the lamentable case of many thousands) I (in my preface at the beginning) took care to show, that, even ignorant people, might, by a very tolerable care, come to the knowledge of this means, or else God had not sufficiently, according to his most sweet Providence, provided for the fare greater part of those Souls, for whose Salvation he died, intending to save them all, by first bringing them to the profession of this only true Faith; and consequently, intending to leave them some certain means, to come to the knowledge of it, by such diligence as is very tolerable to human frailty, and very possible to us, as ignorant as we are. 6. What than is this means? It is (as I said in the beginning of this Question) to follow some infallible judge or Rule, directing us plainly and clearly to the knowledge of what God would have us believe, to whom we are all bound under pain of damnation to submit our understandings. But who is this judge or Rule? This is the Question of Questions. Here we and all Protestants, and all other Sectaries notably disagree. They all say that we are obliged to follow, and admit no other infallible Rule than the Scripture, which Scripture they all affirm to be a Rule sufficient, by itself a loan, to tell us so plainly, and so clearly, all that is necessary to Salvation in matters of Faith, that we need no other means to direct us in this point. We, who are Roman Catholics hold the Scripture to be indeed a Rule infallible, and to which all are bound, under pain of damnation, to submit their understandings; but we have very many, and very convincing reasons, which move us to believe that God did not intent the Holy Scripture to be, by itself alone, our only guide in matters of faith necessary to Salvation, as I show by five proofs in the first Section. Moreover we say that we 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 show not fewer than 24. all not to be known by Scripture, which doth not tell us which Books be the true word of God, which be not, which be true uncorrupted copies of these Books, which Copies be false and corrupted, and in what places they be corrupted. Here comes in an unanswerable difficulty about S. Matthews Gospel. Again we stand in need of an other infallible guide to tell us which is the true, certain and undoubted sense of these true Copies, and which is not. For, from hence arise almost all our gratest Controversies. Again, because our adversaries without such an infallible guide, different from Scriptures, can neither infallibly know which books be the true word of God, which be not; nor which be the true Original Copies of these true books, which not; nor which the true Translations of the true originals; nor which is the undoubted sense of these true Originals or Copies, and which is not. Hence we conceive it impossible for them truly to believe Scripture with that divine Faith, which is grounded always vpon divine revelation, and is wholly necessary to salvatio. Whence we hold ourselves only to be the true believers of Scripture; for we believe it with that Faith which resteth upon divine revelation. Moreover by our adversaries arguments alleged out of Scripture, to prove it to be the only Rule of Faith, sufficient by itself to decide all necessary Controversies, we prove that it is not such a Rule. Yea though Scripture were granted to be this Rule, we from hence can prove, that it clearly decideth many necessary Controversies for us against our adversaries. But we hold that, for our Rule clearly deciding all necessary Controversies, we must have a Living judge which the Scripture is not, and therefore the Holy Fathers, in their disputations against Heretics, often refused to stand to Scripture only. This infallible Living judge we say is the Church, regulating herself in her determinations according to the infallible Rule of God's word, out of which word she judgeth herself to be obliged also to Rule herself according to those Traditions which the Apostles did deliver by word of mouth only, and not by writing. For the Scripture not containing all matters necessary to Salvation; but the Apostles of Christ delivering some of these matters only by word of mouth, she ruleth also herself in her definitions according to these traditions knowing that those things which the Apostles taught by word of mouth, are not less worthy all credit, than what they taught by pen and paper. And by the same Traditions she is as sufficiently assured of what was delivered only by word of mouth, as of what was delivered by pen and paper. Now lest that in taking true Sripture for false, true Traditions for false, or in delivering the true Sense of the one, or the other, this Church should be subject to error, we say, she is in these matters, always assisted in her public determinations, by the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, promised to her for this end to lead her in to all truth. That chief Court, in which she delivereth to the people her infallible Definitions, we all hold to be lawful general Counsels, which the supreme Pastor of the Church presideth. Neither doth this Church want means to make all her decrees evidently known to the people, to be her true Decrees. And all this, which hath hitherto been said of the Church in general, we show 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 united in her alone: The Roman Church therefore beenig this our infallible judge appointed by God to end, and determine all our Controversies, all under pain of damnation are to submit their inward judgements and understandings to her decrees, Neither are they in state of Salvation who refuse to do it. 7. Here you have a brief Sum of all our doctrine in general, and just almost in that very order that I have delivered here so many important points, without bringing here any full proof of them. I shall now proceed to the full proof of all, and every one of these points here set down, so briefly, to the end that thou mayest see how clearly we proceed, resolving first this Question Who is to be our judge, by showing in divers Sections that the Scripture is not judge. And than showing that this infallible judge can be no other than the Church. And thirdly, that this Church can be no other than the Roman. And consequently all that hath hitherto been said, or hereafter shall be said, to agreed to the infallible judge (whom we are now seeking out) is verified of the Roman Church and of no other. THE SECOND QUESTION. Whether the Scripture be this infallible judge or Rule appointed us by God to decide all necessary Controversies. THE FIRST SECTION. Containing five proofs that Scripture is not this judge or Rule. 1. ALl Protestants, and all that numberless number of our new Sectaries, do affirm that the Scripture, and only the Scripture by itself alone, is that infallible Rule, by which all necessary controversies that are, or can be, are to be decided. As for the means to regulate ourselves in the knowledge of true, and false Scripture, and for the finding the certain and undoubted true sense of the same, they make no other use of the authority of any Church, or any general Council, but to consider of what they say, and ponder how agreeable, or disagreeable their opinions be to Scripture, And than, if, by their private judgement of discretion, they in their own, understandings be convinced that, what they say, is agreeable to Scripture, they, for this reason, give belief unto it. If they by their private judgement of discretion be convinced that, what they say, is not agreeable to Scripture, they freely reject it, and disbelieve it. And this hath ever been the proceeding of all ancient Heretics and is ever like to be the proceeding of all Heretics to come For by this means thy all come to that, which they all desire, that is, to have that pass for truth which each of them, in their private judgements of discretion, do think to be true according to their manner of understanding the Scripture. And they all trust more to their private understanding of the Scripture, than they do trust to the interpretation of it made by the greatest Doctors that ever the Church of God had for these thousand and six hundred years, how holy or how learned so ever they were: Yea more than they will trust all the chief Pastors and Prelates of the Church-assembled in a General Council, after they have with all mature deliberation considered all the texts of Scriptures coneerning such a point and conferred them with the originals, and with other places, and after they have examined each Bishop of each nation what they found to have been delivered to them by their ancestors touching this point, by much prayer, and public fasts of all the Church diffused, implored the assistance of Allmigty God to direct them to the knowledge of the truth in such a point. For after all this done, and after all these prime learned, and Holy Prelates of the Church, have, by full consent, defined such a point to be held as true, and that under pain of excommunication. Behold! When this decree Cometh forth, there will start up some devout Cobbler, 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 uncorruptednes of the Copy by which this English Bible was translated) yet into his hands he will take it. And than sincerely he will make a revew of this decree, or of the whole book of decrees, made by this, or by any general Council. And than if after his serious perusal of the matter his rude understanding, according to his private judgement of discretion, doth in good earnest think this Decree (or all these Decrees) to be contrary to the word of God (rightly interpreted by him) this man, according to the principles of our adversaries, may securely disbelieve this doctrine, though proposed by so great an authority as I have said, yea though this authority, as they themselves say, be the very greatest authority upon earth. To relate this prodigious opinion is enough to refute it; and to show how far more rationally wee Roman Catholics rather trust to the interpretations of general Counsels, which we on the one side found seconded every where by the authority of the gravest Doctors of the Church of God, according to their judgement of discretion, and the Tradition and judgement, and perpetual practice of their Ancestors. And then on, the other side we see our own selves, that all this is to the very full as much yea and fare more agreeable to the word of God according to our own private judgement of discretion, wherefore in this respect we are to the very full as well grounded as they, and we see as well what we do: But we infinitely exceed them in the advantage that we have, by following not only our own, but also a fare better sighted judgement then our own, even in the use of natural reason, besides which reason those General Counsels have a more special assistance of the Holy Ghost. And thus we persever in all ages in all unity, whilst they in this one age have so run division upon the ground of Scripture, that the mere relation of their several Sects in this one age, with the several opinions of every Sect of this age, filleth whole books, which be to to be seen in every Stationer's Shop. And it is a wonder if any new year pass without one or more Religions springing up, as long as this one Principle passeth for current, and men may have free liberty to follow the consequences which manifestly follow from it, as of late they have it. If this daily hatching of Religions happened not sooner, it was because this liberty was not granted sooner. For although their Bishops held the doctrine of giving all liberty to follow in Conscience what they in their private judgements of discretion held to be conformable to God's word; yet they very inconsequently, forced their Consciences to an exterior conformity, as long as their 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, we say the Bible by itself alone is not this judge, or rule appointed by God to decide all necessary Controversies, without you take the Bible as it, by many and very clear texts, sends us 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 we deny that, which our adversaries affirm, that the Bible, taken by itself, doth suffice to decide, and end all our controversies. This I prove first; by an argument so manifest, that, in these days, he must put out his eyes who will not see the truth of it. For who seethe not now the Bible daily consulted, place conferred with place, the best originals searched for, and looked for, and published more than ever (we having the advantage of printing:) and yet after this; who seethe not that Controversies about the very chief points of Religion, are so far from being lessened, that never was age seen, or heard of, in which they multiplied more No sooner had Martin Luther broached this Principle, that every man might take the Bible into his hand, and follow that interpretation, which after due diligence used, he thought to be best; but presently, there sprung up an incredible number of different Sects. For An. 1526. Carolostadius, Zuinglius and OEcolampadius began to preach that opinion of the Sacramentaries, which denieth Christ to be really present in the Sacrament (an opinion which Luther did curse until his very death.) The next year after Paciomontanus and Rothomannus, retaining other opinions of Luther brought in Anabaptism. And these Anabaptists are now grown to be divided into twenty different Sects, all described particularly by Spanthemius. In fine Luther himself and his disciples did so tumble about their new Religion, turning it with so many chops, and changes, that OEcolampadius objected unto them, If we reflect upon your dissensions, surely there are almost found among you seventy seven changes. Aequa responsio ad Lutherum. Praefat. Their chief permanent Sects were, the Antinomians, Osiandrians, Majorists, Synergists, Stancarians, Amsdorfians, Flavians, Substantiatians, Accidentarians, Adiaphorists, Musculans, Pseffringians, ubiquists. So much for Lutherans. 3. Now in the year 1538. john Calvin a disciple of Zwinglius, despising his master did set up of himself, adding many opinions to that of the Sacramentarians. This man's Religion, and his disciples began so quickly to be divided, and subdivided in to so many sects, that Luther did live to writ thus of them: I scarce ever read of a more deformed beresy, which presently in the beginning was divided into so many heads, such a number of Sects (mark what followeth) not one like an other, and such variety and disagreeing of opinions. Tom. 7. f. 380. And in another place he addeth, Six or seven Sects of them to have risen in only two year's space. T. 6. f. 335. Thus much could Luther say of their very beginnings. We, at this day, see that his English disciples can ring the Changes as well as any of their forefathers, so that now every family is like a house in which the Master speaketh high Dutch, the Mistress French, the children one Spanish, one Irish, one Scotish, and some servants welsh, some japonian, some Polonian etc. And all this Babylonian confusion proceeds from this one principle, of thrusting the Bible (in the vulgar language) into every hand with teaching them this Principle, Behold here is the only Rule God hath given you to Rule your own selves by; and by which Every one is to judge for himself, which is true doctrine, which is false, after he hath used such industries, as shall be declared, Sect. 2. n. 13. Though even after the use of all those industries we do see with our eyes no end present, or ever like to be made of our Controversies still increasing, and increasing like Snow falling from a mountain. 4. A Second Reason much illustrating and declaring the former (because it discovereth the true original cause why we shall see no controversies ever ended by standing only to the Sentence given by God in the Bible) is this, that whilst we take thus the Scripture for our only Rule, and God, as he speaketh by the Scriptures alone, for our only judge, we needs must fall into a vast confusion. For every one of us having our private judgements as different almost from one an other, as our faces are, and these judgements being so very weak in hard, and high matters, how can it be but that presently we should come to frame different judgements of the true Sense and interpretation of that sentence which we found given by God in Scripture as shall be very fully declared Sect. 7. well than in this variety of judgements you say we may refuse to stand to the interior embracing of that interpretation, which is made by the gravest general Council that can be gathered upon earth, unless, perusing the definition of this Council, we, in our private judgement of discretion, judge it conformable to the word. But if (after use of such industries as you require) we, according to our private judgement (so very various and so very weak in points so hard) do really think the definition not to be conformable to Scripture, than (you say) we may interiorly descent from it, And yet it is true that all faith consists in the interior assent. Whence it followeth that the last Rule which is followed, when all comes to all, is the Scripture, not taken as it sounds (for that we all reject) but taken in that sense which our private judgement (for this is your doctrine) draweth from it. This is that, say we, which openeth a wide gap to all Sectaries and D. Fern in his 13. Sect. in vain labours to show the contrary by telling them they must bring evident Scripture and demonstration against public authority of the Church And that upon dissent and gainsaying they must undergo the Church's censures, which censures, according to our adversaries doctrine, shall nothing hurt your Soul. And he concludeth, that there is no other means to preserve unity proper to the Church. But questionless this means is most uneffectuall, which both experience teacheth us (as I have just now showed) and the very consideration also of the Nature of the means. For this means must at last be applied by men, that is, by those to whom Nature hath given as different judgements in their understandings, as affections in their love and wills. Well now, when this weak, this most fallible and most various understanding, hath got in to his hands the Rule, by which only every one is to be directed in Faith, what can we expect but that, as every one's 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 sincerely say that he bringeth evident demonstrations of Scripture, and therefore he contradicteth public authority upon as good ground as you did, when you (at your division from the Roman Church) did contradict, not only her authority, but also the public known doctrine of all other Churches which God had visible, at that time, upon the face of the earth. Tertullian wittily saith: what was lawful to Valentinus was lawful to the Valentinians. As lawfully as Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin, and others did separate from all the Prelates and Pastors of the Church of their age. So lawfully at the lest the Lutherians, Zwinglians, Calvinists may separate from them and their few new Prelates and Pastors, and may according to the example which these men gave them, make themselves independents and cast of this remnant of dependency not only of higher Prelates, but also of all inferior Curates: for this is but to go on consequently to the example given unto them. 5. But for the importance of the matter, I will further declare this by a clear example, which may here after be useful to us. Let us take an Arrian Cobbler, 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 Son is of the very self same substance with his Father; and that consequently our Church must show him evident Scripture for what we affirm. If you tell him, the great Council of Nice hath unanimously declared the sense of these words in Scripture, I and my Father am one thing, to be this, that God the Son is one and the self same substance with is Father, though yet he be a different person: well, will he say, I reverence Counsels very higly, yet I must peruse their decrees, and consider how conformable they be to scripture. I beginning to do this, began to ponder how God the Father and his Son are one thing; being they be quite different persons? And surely this different personality, in all reason, should be a different thing. How than (said 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 told by our great Doctors. This I can easily understand: I will see a little further whether this interpretation, conferred with other texts of Scripture, may not be found to be very good. I conferred it with the text, which one of our Doctors cited out of john. 17.21. where Christ prayeth to his Father That all his disciples may be One thing, as thou Father in me, 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 seethe, that Christ never begged, that his disciples might be one thing in substance with him. Hence I manifestly conclude that I now am not convinced of my negative opinion, for which I have all human reasons; but contrary wise I bring for my opinion the evident demonstration of Scripture, against the public authority of the Council of Nice. Wherhfore if the followers of that Council press me to make public profession, that God the Son is of the same substance with his Father, I may and must gainsay them all. Good M. Doctor either convince this Arrian Cobbler, or give us better satisfaction why you deny, that these your principles open a gap for Sectaries, and even such Sectaries as overthrew the foundations of true Religion, as you confess this Arrian belief doth. And just as this Cobbler proceeds in denying this Consubstantiation, so you proceed in denying Transubstantiation. Only he who denies Confustantiation hath incomparably stronger reasons and better authority of Scripture for himself. Of this review of Counsels see Sect. 18. n. 5. 6. 6. A third reason, why we say Scripture not to be our only judge, is; that our very adversaries confess, no one Book of Scripture, nor no certain number of Canonical Books, to be our judge: but they say the whole Canon, or all the Canonical Books together, make up the only Rule, by which we are to be wholly directed. Now if this be so, that you will have us judged by all Canonical Books, than you must agreed to tell us, which Books for certain be those which belong to the making up the whole number of Canonical Books. For it is a most just request to ask of you, by what judge you would have us to be judged? You say by all Canonical Books. Give us leave to ask how many, and which books they be? Your English Bible thrusteth out of the Canon, and placeth among the apocryphas, some half a score Books which we hold for Canonical. Again, your English Bible taketh into the Canon of Scriptures, divers Books which your Lutheran Brothers cast out: as the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, the Epistle of S. james; the second Epistle of S. Peter, the second, and third of S. john; the Epistle of S. jude; the Apocalypse or Revelation. We than say unto you, agreed at lest first, by which Books you would have the Canon to be completely made up, and than press us by your arguments to be judged by them alone. This at lest we have reason to say; but we conceive ourselves also to have reason to exact of you, to demonstrate unto us, that the Books of Maccabees (by which we prove Purgatory) and the other Books which you are pleased to discannon, do not Belong to the making up of the true Canon. Yet when you have done this, or allowed us all these Books for Canonical, we shall not have the number of books requisite to make the full Canon. Hence followeth. 7. A fourth reason, that many, and very many of the Canonical Books of Scripture have quite perished, and not so much as appeared in the days of the very ancient Fathers: so that nothing but the names of these Books are come unto us. Adamus Contzen in his Proëmiall Questions to his Commentaries upon the 4. Ghosples Q. 4. §. 8. doth not only affirm, but most solidly prove, that no fewer than twenty several Books of Scripture have thus wholly perished. Serrarius doth the same. I will give you the names of some of these Books. In the Book of numbers c. 21. v. 14. we read thus: It is said in the Book of the wars of the Lord. Where is this Book? It is quite perished. In the third Book of Kings (which you call the first) c. 4. v. 32. Solomon Spoke three thousand Proverbs: and his Canticles were a thousand and five. Where be these Books? What a small part have we of them? In the second Book of Chronicles c 9 v. 29. it is said. Now the rest of the acts of Solomon first and last, are they not written in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Prophecy of Ahijah and in the vision of Iddo.? Where be these three several Prophets Books. They are all quite perished. And the first Book of Chro: endeth with these words, Now the Acts of David the King first and last behold 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 several Prophet's Books? They be quite lost. In the last to the Colossians S. Paul Commands to read in the Church the Epistle from Laodicia. Where is it? It appears not. He also in his first to the Corinthians c. 5. v. 9 saith. I wrote to you in an Epistle. Where is this Epistle to them which he wrote before the first that we have unto them? It appeaers not. S. Matthew (whose Hebrew Gospel is now quite lost) in his 27. Chap. v. 9 citeth words spoken by the Prophet jeremy, which be not to be found in all jeremy as we now have him. Wherhfore part of jeremy the Prophet is also perished, as Contzen on this place excellently proveth out of Chron: 2. c. 35. v. 26. S. Matthew also c. 2. v. 23. saith. It was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Na●aren. The Books of those Prophets who spoke this are also perished, for we found Christ never called a Nazaren in all the Prophet's Books which we have. Whence S. Chrysostom writing on this place Homil. 9 in Mat. saith, Many of the Prophetical monuments have perished; for the jews being careless, and not only careless, but also impious, they have Carelessly lost some of these Monuments: others they have partly burned, partly torn in pieces. So he, Now those Books which the jews out of impious malice burned, or tore a pieces, 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 their making away the Prophet's Books cited by S. Matthew. See S. justin against Tryphon showing that the jews did make away many Books of the old Testament, that the new might not seem to agreed with it, as it should. 8. Well than by all this it is manifest that many, and very many Books of Scripture have quite perished, besides those many which you yourselves thirst unjustly out of your Bible. Will you have us now, in all our Controversies about necessary points, be wholly judged by all the Books of the Scripture? Than bring them forth all, that we may know what is written in all of them. For who can doubt but many things, as necessary as others that are in the Books we have, were written in these Books which we have not? Especially the jews maliciously being most likely to have destroyed those Books first, which contained the most clear places for our Religion. Where is it written that all things necessary to be believed, be written in the Books which we now have? Cite me a Text proving this, and I have done. Nay you yourselves teach, that all the whole body of the Books of Scripture is required, to give us those points which are necessary to Salvation: and the reason is, because you cannot assign any particular Books, or particular number of particular books, containing clearly all these necessary points. Yea, we shall prove, that there be not fewer than twenty four necessary points, which are, not contained in any of those Books of Scripture which we have, whether they were contained in the Books which have perished, no man but a Prophet can tell; or if they were, than (now at lest) since they are perished, we cannot know these necessary points by them. Yet, these points being necessary to be known, God must provide us of some other means to know them. 9 A fifth reason. If either all the books of Scripture, or some particular number of them, had contained the only necessary direction, for every man to guide him self by, in all points necessary to Salvation, it cannot be doubted but the Apostles, who spent all their labours and lives, in seeking the Salvation of Souls, and who knew very well that, on the one side true Faith in matters necessary for belief and practice, was wholly necessary to the Salvation of every one; and knew also on the otherside (as you must say) that the only means, appointed by God for their necessary direction in this necessary Faith, was the Scripture, and nothing but the Scripture, by which every man was to judge for himself; it cannot, I say, be doubted but they (had this been true) would either themselves have procured, the Scriptures to be put into such tongues, and languages, as the vulgar people of so many different nations use, and only understand; for without their understanding the Scriptures, it is impossible to direct themselves by them: and with out they direct themselves 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 we could never hear, that they took so much as the lest care by themselves, or charged their successors to take the lest care, to turn the Scripture, either all, or that part which is so wholly necessary, in to such languages as the several people of these several nations (which they converted) did use: neither could we ever hear, that their successors (so very well instructed by them) did ever take the lest care to do this, so wholly necessary to be done, if your doctrine be true. Yet you all deny, that their 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 took this care because they writ the greatest part of the new Testament in Greek. And than, they being put to prove that greek was understood either by all, or by the greater part of the world, they prove this most pitifully, by only citing Tully pro Archia Poëta saying. Graeca omnibus fere gentibus leguntur. Greek is read almost in all nations. I answer, that as we commonly say, that Tully and Virgil in latin, are read in all nations; and yet our meaning only is, that the more learned sort in all nations read these latin books: so, in this sense, Tully may so much the easier be supposed to have said, Greek was read almost in all nations, because he added the word Almost even than, when he delivered this his saying in an encomiasticall Oration, in which Orators make freest use of amplifications, and hyperbolical exaggerations ever without any restrictions at all; especially when such Amplifications be for their turn, as here it was for Tully his turn, because he was to show that this man (though a Greek Poet) could by his Greek Poëtry make the Romans famous, Greek Poets being read, by the learned sort of the neighbouring nations, and the fame among the learned of those nations being chiefly to be regarded. And either, in this usual sense, Tully must be understood; or else flat Scripture must be denied. For the Scriptuer Act. 2. intending on set purpose to give us the names of several people whose languages were all different one from another, at the beginning of the Church, nameth Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia (minor) Phrygia, Pamphilia, all which places are situated between that City, which now we call Constantinople, and the city of Antioch, in which town Tully saith that Poet, which he undertaken to praise, was born. Within that compass also is Galatia, which S. jerom testifieth to have had a language some what like that of Trevers. Now, if even in these places, where a man, by Tully his words, would most imagine the Greek tongue to be the Vulgar language, it is manifest (by Scripture itself) that it was not so; surely we have all reason to imagine, that in remoter parts, both in East, West, North, and South, it was in few places the vulgar language in respect of the fare greater part of the world. Call here to mind how much you use to cry out against us, for using our common public prayer in latin, though this language, be so common among all well bred people; and yet, this our Common public 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 their necessary instruction, as you say all the Scripture was. And moreover Mass is offered up by a Priest, who understandeth the language in which he offereth up these public Prayers: But the Scripture, especially the new Testament, is delivered to every one of the people (as you teach) for every one to judge by it for himself, what is necessary for him to believe, and to do, to work his salvation; and this is his necessary direction appointed by God to be so. Why than do you not cry out much more against the Apostles, and their ill instructing their Successors in so important a point, as was the communicating or delivering to the people of all nations, in such languages as were known to all nations vulgarly and commonly, that very Rule of Faith, so wholly necessary for their direction, that all other means are accounted by you fallible, and consequently unsufficient to bring forth an infallible assent, such an one as true saving faith must be. But the truth is, that the Apostles knew well enough, that oral tradition, joined to the daily profession of the faith so delivered, and to the daily practice, answerable to what they so professed, would abundantly suffice for the sufficient communicating of God's infallible word to all Nations. 11. All this is confirmed by this demonstration. The jews in their Captivity at Babylon did wholly lose the vulgar use, and knowledge of the old hebrew tongue in which the Law and Prophets were written, and ever after spoken Syriack, a language Mixed with Hebrew and Chaldean, and wonderful few by their private study did so much as understand 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 their introduction they say: Certum est ante Christum nullam fuisse versionem Syram. It is certain that before Christ's time (and some time after) there was no Scripture translated into the Syriack language. So that for fourteen generations the jews had not the bible in their own vulgar language: but the law and Prophets were read in their Synagogue, and the Psalms were sung, in a language which the people not more understood then they now understand latin. This was done before Christ's own eyes, and he never found fault with it. An evident proof of the lawfulness of prayer in an unknown tongue, and that God gave not the jews the Scripture only for their Rule or judge: for than it would have been judged necessary to have been translated into Syriak; the only tongue they understood. Let us go on. Yet before we proceed, let us note by the way; how soon you came to call your public 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 arraigned and condemned: and is so vulgarly contemned that scarce any minister dares offer to read it. But we must proceed to other Matters. SECTION II. A SIXTH ARGUMENT. That Scripture containeth not plainly all things necessary to be believed or done to salvation. This is here showed by 14. Examples. DOctor Ferne in his Sect. 22. tells us: That Scripture contains all things of themselves necessary to be believed or done to Salvation: not expressly 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 and faith is for the most part, plainly set down. I suppose he saith it is so, for the most part, because sometimes it is only deducible by consequence, which must be evident and clear; as a little after he saith. 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, using the means that are needful to that purpose; such as is attention and diligance in search, of the Scripture, collation of places, and observing the connections, also sincerity and impartiality in the collection or deduction which they make, also prayer and devotion for assistance in the work. So he; very discomfortably for the fare greater part of the world, who (though most unlearned) are most preposterously by Protestant Doctors invited, yea declared to be commanded, to read the Scriptures, to the end they may plainly know by themselves what is necessary for them to be believed and done to salvation; and yet here they are plainly told that these necessary things are not all, but only for the most part, plainly set down, and though they be deducible from Scripture, yet they be not all deducible by every one that Reads; but it is enough if done by their Pastors and Guides. What by them all? Not, not by them all, but only such as have used all these great diligences here expressed: to which he aught to have added several things more, as perfect skill in Greek, and Hebrew, with the perusal of the true, and certainly true, Originals: which diligences, with all these conditions, one Minister amongst one hundred useth not, and those, who have useth it, cannot b●●vidently known by the people to have used them; and hough they could be known to have done so, yet they should be known to have used means that are fallible. How than grow these consequences to be evident? Yet all the people are all to hold such consequences evidently deduced; and yet without they themselves use these means (impossible unto 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 their Ministers, thus and only thus deduced, (even according to their own confession) before the quite contrary consequences deduced by incomparable better means: for what our Church teacheth in her general Counsels, is deduced from God's Word by most skilful, and most learned Prelates assembled from all parts of the world, bringing with them the best Scholars that can be got by them in the world: all chief having regard to what was first delivered with their first faith. Moreover all the Christian world is still helping them by their prayers all the time they are assembled. 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 supernatural assistance of the holy Ghost, made fare surer; by promise of Christ, to them, than to any private Ministers: what than more unreasonable than to forsake them, to follow these? 2. But let us 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 their salvation. For many things which are to be believed, are most hard to understand: And many things must be practised, which are very hard to be done. And the belief and practice of these things must oblige all the world, as long as the same shall continued. Now to oblige all for ever to this with out giving them means to know plainly and clearly, what they should believe or do, had been a thing unreasonable, in so sweet a Providence, as that of our Heavenly Father is. This obligation than in every particular point which is necessarily to be believed, and done by us, for the obtaining heaven and avoiding hell, must be clearly intimated to us all, even in all and every one of these particulars. The means, by which this is only to be done, is the Scripture taken by itself alone, as all you Protestants teach: Wherhfore an unavoidable necessity doth fall upon you, to affirm; that all things necessary to be believed, or done, are plainly set down in Scripture: And consequently what is not so delivered, is thereby sufficiently signified not to be necessary. As for your limitations, in declaring these words, plainly set down, when shall (besides what we have already said) say much more in the end of this Section and Sect. 7. Now we must give a distinct declaration of this your opinion, which perforce must be held by all kind of Protestants; for necessity enforceth them, who disagree so often, here wholly to agreed. First than, let us declare those first words of their assertion: All things necessary to be believed, or done. These words must of necessity be understood so, that all things are plainly set down in Scripture, which are thus necessary: First, to the universal Church, as it is a Community; Secondly, all things which are necessary to all such states, and degrees, as must needs be in so vastly diffused a community; and Thirdly, all things which are thus necessary, to every single person, bound to be of this community. As for the first; the Church being 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 told many things, wholly necessary for her direction, and perpetual preservation, which no one of you can show to be plainly set down in Scripture. 3. As first; she must by infallible authority be plainly told in what manner she is, in all times and places, to be provided of Lawful Pastors, and that with perpetual succession? As, whether it be in her power only to appoint the manner of choosing these Pastors? Or they may be appointed her by mere laymen, having secular authority: and that, whether this secular authority be lawfully obtained, or unlawfully usurped? The knowledge of this is necessary: For we are bidden, not to hear those Pastors which enter not by the door. 4. Secondly; in like manner, she must be told, what power these Pastors have in respect of one an other; whether there be one, or none at all, to have supreme authority over the rest? And who they be? Or whether they be all equal, so that the one cannot be judged, corrected, or deposed by the other, or by the secular Magistrate? Or how many of these Pastors, must concur to the lawful judging, correcting, or deposing of these Pastors? Pastors have such a main influence into their flocks, that, in so vast a Community, scarce any thing is more necessary, than due and Lawful subordination among them, legally appointed, legally observed. What plain texts of Scripture telleth her how this is to be done? 5. Thirdly; in like manner, she must be told, what power these Pastors have over the laymen, be they Emperors, Kings, or other Magistrates, or common people? What Laws any of these Pastors severally taken can make? And how strictly these Laws 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 conscience he can, and aught to do, not to exceed his power, or not to be defective in his duty. 6. Fourtly; She must in like manner be told that which so mainly concerns her, in point of universal government; by the highest Tribunal upon earth; which Tribunal Protestant's acknowledge to be Lawful general Counsels, and than national Counsels. For upon the lawfulness of national Counsels, and upon their legal power (even in matters of making so great a change of Religion, as was made, by bringing in Protestant Religion, in place of the Roman faith, and dividing from the whole world) dependeth wholly the lawfulness of the English division from the Church of Rome, according to the great Defenders thereof D. Hammond and D. Ferne who Sect. 9 Saith; A national Church hath its judgement within itself, for the receiving, and holding the definitions and practices of the Church general: and may have possibly just cause of dissenting (he means in matters of faith) and reforming; and can do it regularly, according to the way of the Church by Provincial Synods. And this is considerable in the English Reformation. So he here; and again more fully in his new book. C. 1. num. 24. against D. Champny. A strange, though a necessary contradiction, in places so very near of so small a book, to lay for one ground of their faith; that all things necessary must be evidently deduced from Scripture; and that, against public authority evident demonstration of Scripture must be brought in points of dissent (as I shown out of his 13. Sect.) And yet here to make this authority of a national Synod to be so very great, with out showing any single Text of Scripture, so much as obscurely intimating any such thing: Yea a Doctor could not but evidently know that in all Scripture, there is no where any mention of the authority of national Synods, especially in so mainly important matters for the Salvation of a whole Nation. 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 contained in the Bible. What than is this but to speak just what is for the present turn? Mr. Doctor this authority of national Synods, being made by you the foundation of your regularly reforming, (though perhaps out of policy to oppose these daily borne Sects) should have been proved by you, by evident demonstration of Scripture, to be so great, that it may lawfully stand in opposition to all Churches upon the face of the whole Earth. Now as the salvation of a whole nation is so nearly concerned in the true, or usurped authority of a national Synod, or Council; so the salvation of all nations is not lesle concerned in the true, or usurped authority of a general Council: and yet first, the Scripture neither tells you, who must of necessity be called to this Council, to make the calling lawful? Nor secondly, who must of necessity be assembled, to make the assembly full and lawful? Or how many may suffice? Nor thirdly, who, or how many of those, who are assembled, must consent to the voting of a decree, or definition before it obligeth? Nor fourhtly, who must call these men? Or what power he hath to force them by censures to appear at the time, and place appointed, and to continue there? Or whether any one be bound to come, except those who please, and when they please? Nor fifthly, who must preside in this assembly? Nor sixthly, what power this assembly hath to declare all doubts in faith? Or whether it can impose precepts under pain of damnation? For example, commanding all under this penalty to keep Christmas day, ascension day, and to communicate once a year, to fast on Christmas Eve, yea to fast a whole Lent? Or whether, after all their decrees, every one, without Sin, may leave all they command in these, or the like matters, quite undone 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 told her in Scripture. These six points, added to the former three, make nine. Let us than proceed. 7. Tenthly, this Community or Church must also be plainly told, what public service her Pastors may, and aught to perform in the Church? Whether they may have none at all, as now the fashion is? Or whether they may have such an one as is different, even in the prime substance, from all the world; as the fashion was heretofore? For it cannot but be a thing highly importing, in a whole Community, to retain such or such a public service as was, at lest in substance, appointed by the Apostles; and not to make what changes private men, or national Synods please; nor to discard all public service: Yea, that very service which all Christians of all Nations, (which were not confessed Heretics) every where used; as appears by all their most ancient service books which you could found in any Corner of Christendom. The beginning of the substantial things in this Lyturgy, or public service, can never be found out, by all diligent search used by Protestants this last hundred years; though the time of every little accidental 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 practices of Christian Religion brought in by the Apostles. 8. Eleventhly; the Church is primely concerned in the use lawful or unlawful of Sacraments, and therefore this (as all other things necessary for her) should be plainly taught her in Scripture: And yet in all Scripture she can neither found the name of Sacrament in this sense which we, and our adversaries take it, nor any rule, to direct her to know what a Sacrament is? Or what is required to the lawful administration of true Sacraments? which our adversaries hold to be so necessary to the true Church, that in their Tenth Article, they make it one of their two certain signs and marks, by which the true Church may always be known from the false Church; and yet (O preposterous proceed!) they, who will have all necessary things set down plainly in Scripture, know very well that many necessary things, concerning the true use of Sacraments, be not where expressed therein, as no one of those things are which I have now named, nor many other things concerning their true use; for example, by whom is every Sacrament necessarily to be administered? 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 form must these Sacraments be conferred? or whether are we bound to use these Sacraments only when we list, and as often, or as seldom as we 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 us; all undecidable by Scripture, which is so deeply silent in all these points. Hence some of you, for ordering Priests and Deacons, require Bishops ordained, and ordaining with such a form as never antiquity used; And without these Priests, they say, there is no lawful administering Sacraments, at lest in public: Yea, though they hold Matrimony no Sacrament, yet we see a world make scruple about the Lawfulness of it, except by ordained Ministers or at lest tickett Ministers: A thing manifestly not expressed in Scripture, to which notwithstanding they all contend nothing to be added. Others therefore fare 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 ordained, or are only to administer Sacraments, or that they only should have power to bless the bread: for where is this written? For Christ, after he had taken the wine, said: Drink you all: which words import a command to laymen to drink (as you say;) why therefore do not these words: Do you this, concern all Lay people as well as your Priests, who can show no better authority why they only should bless the bread and wine? You differ also, whether the bread of necessity must be of wheat, or barley? Oats, or pease? In baptism, some will have such, and such words to be necessary; others will allow baptism in the name of Christ alone; others will say no words at all are necessary. For (say they) when our Saviour would have his Apostles to ask in his name, Io: 16.23.24. he is not to be understood, that of necessity they should use any words, so when he did bid them Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father etc. Matt. 28. he is not necessaryly and plainly to be so understood, as if he did bid them to use 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 unnecessary. Lo here in this number, how many other things have been set down by me all, so necessary to the Church, as a Community; and yet not plainly told her by the Scripture? But let all these many things go to make up an even dozen. This dozen proues twelve times over what I said of the Church taken as a Community. 9 But most of these things also are necessary to be known by some peculiar states of persons, which must of necessity be in this Community: For in it there must be Lawful Pastors, who cannot know themselves to be lawful Pastors, nor carry themselves for such, unless they know themselves to be sent by lawful authority; because (according to your doctrine), 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, unless they be (lawfully) sent? Rom. 10.15. They must know also whether, according to God's ordinance, any other be their Superiors to judge them, correct them etc. that so they may discharge their duty in obeying them. Thy must know the bounds and limits of their power over some, or all Lay men. They must know what their duty is to see the Decrees of national or general Counsels observed, when these Counsels are lawful; and consequently they must be furnished with sufficient means to know the lawfulness of them: which they can never be, but by knowing those six things specified above N. 6, no one of which six things are clearly told them by any Scripture. To these Pastors also it belongeth to perform the public service in due manner, and to teach the people when they are bound to assist at it; and consequently they, of necessity, must be told which is the public service used by the Apostles, and their successors instructed by them to use it. For who can believe they used none at all, though what they used be no otherwise written than in the public Practice of, not one, but as many Nations as they converted; all which used Liturgies containing the essence and substance of a true sacrifice. These Pastors also must know all that in the last number we said to belong to the wholly necessary knowledge of true Sacraments: they must know, for example, whether they may permit women to baptise, in case of necessity; as I shall show 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 their state. Marriage is also a state of millions of lay men, and to which so many of them, not yet married, do pretend: now some things under pain of damnation must be practised, and consequently known, by these men, which notwithstanding are not plainly told them in Scripture: as whether they may have two wives, or not, at one time? we all hold this damnable, and yet this obligation of having but one (so hard to many) is not where clearly, and manifestly set down in any Scripture: Secondly, it is damnable to them to marry within such and such degrees of kindred, as we all hold; where be these degrees clearly told us in the new Scripture? If we are to practise what is in the old Testament, men may, at once, have one or more wives; against which you have no clear Text in all the new Testament. I might add that it is necessary, to those who marry, to know whether it be lawful to do so without a Priest, there being no such thing intimated in Scripture; according to which holy and mysterious things are known to have been lawfully performed by the Ministry of Laymen. For the kill of the Paschall Lamb was both holy and mysterious, and yet done by Lay men. Why may not than marriage be performed without a Priest? Add now these two or three things to the former dozen, and you have at lest fourteen several things, the knowledge of which are all necessary to men of several states in the Church; and yet no where set down in plain Scripture. I say here nothing of the obligation which parents have, to sand their children to be baptised in due time; because of the obligation of baptising children we shall speak hearafter sect. 8. n. 3. as also of sending them to such who can lawfully administer Baptism; of which I have said some thing. 10. Lastly, speaking of all in general, whatsoever they be, many of the things now specified must, under pain of damnation be known by them, that they may practise their necessary duty which obligeth all and every one to be of a Church which hath lawful Pastors, and which hath lawful Priests, Ordained, with the matter and form 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 fare they are bound to obey these their lawful Pastors, both with interior submission of iudgement in some cases, and also exterior comformity, in others. They all must know themselues to be of a Church where God is publicly served, with that public service which the Apostles brought into the Church, and commended to their successors. Every one is bound not to work upon the Sundays, as we will show, though neither this, nor yet many other things (of which we shall speak in many of the next sections) be plainly set down in any Scripture. Here we have had above 14. of these things specified, only for the full declaration of these words; Necessary to salvation: all which you say are plainly set down in Scripture. 11. Let us now declare these words, plainly set down in Scripture; that all may plainly see how many more great new difficulties spring from them. The first difficulty (cleared by no plain Scripture) is, whether the Book of Scripture, in which such a point is set down, be God's word, or no; as when it is written in the book of Toby, judith, the Maccabees, the Apocalypses? The second difficulty, cleared also by no plain Scripture, is whether, though such a book be God's word; yet I be secured, that it hath not been corrupted in the Chapter, or verse, expressing the point in controversy. The third difficulty, cleared plainly by no Scripture is, that these words, on which the controversy depends, be infallibly taken in this place in their Common and usual sense, or perhaps taken figuratively, or spoken mystically 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 wholly depends? being this dependeth merely on the inward free will of God, who perhaps would use only the plain vulgar sense of these words in this place, perhaps would use them only figuratively, or only mystically. To know this secret free will of God, and that infallibly, I must have such a Revelation, or such an assistance of the Holy Ghost, as you will not allow to the Church represented in a Council, and therefore it cannot prudently be allowable to any private man: neither can any private man show plain Scripture for his particular pretence, to know infallibly this secret will of God. A fourth difficulty (not to be cleared by plain Scripture) is, that after I have perused the whole Scripture, purposely to know what I am bound of necessity to believe, and do, for my Salvation; I found not where plainly told me, that I am only to believe, and do that only which is plainly told me in Scripture: so that perhaps I may be bound both to believe, and do, somewhat not expressed clearly in Scripture, especially it not being clear, plain, and manifest by Scripture, that I am not to hear the Church, nor admit of unwritten traditions, but stand only to what is written. But of these four difficulties we shall speak fully in the following Sections. 12. Now we must consider how these words, Plainly set down in Scripture, be yet liable to a fifth difficulty; which is, that men of quite contrary persuasions in faith, say, that such a text saith plainly this; an other saith, that it saith plainly no such thing; yea, that it saith the plain contrary: witness 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 plain and clear? which makes it plain and clear, that Scripture, though submitted to by us both, endeth neither of our differences in most important matters. 13. A sixth difficulty (and a most fruitful Mother of a number of difficulties) ariseth from your own explications, and declarations, and modifications, and limitations, and as good as annihilations, by which you so restrain this principle; which you strain so much at other times, to make it reach home to all points necessary, by a clear decision of them all, even in any necessary controversy. Doctor Ferne, with whose words I began this Section, tells us, that all things necessary are not so plainly set down, that every one who reads Scripture, can manifestly draw out of it the knowledge of all points that are necessary; but (saith he) it is enough, if it be done by the Ministers. So little plain dealing there is in calling, or miscalling that thing plain; which plainly proveth itself not to be so, by not being plain to any, who are not as knowing men as their Ministers. All women (who so desperately read, and cite the bible) may now despair of knowing, by their 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 their word: For you are a reprobate if you tell them their 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 general Counsels have deduced from Scripture. But this which they would have you believe to be plainly set down, they tell you cannot be found out to be so by all kind of Ministers, but only by such (point them out with your finger if you can) as use all these things following. 1. Attention, 2. Diligence in search of the Scripture, 3. Collation of places, 4. Observing the connexion's, 5. Sincerity and impartiality, 6. Prayer and Devotion for assistance in the work. To all which you must ever put this Notandum, that neither you can tell, when they have used these things sufficiently, to come to the plain and wholly necessary truth; nor they can tell whether there hath not crept in some error in the use of these means, spoiling all. Neither will the use of these only suffice: Skill in Greek, and deep skill, is required for perusing the new Testament, and no less skill in Hebrew for the old. 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 than Nineteen Rules, besides the having the Spirit of God (quite forgot by D. Fern) and besides understanding the words and places of Scripture. No wonder than that your learned Scharpius (in cursu Theologico de Scriptoribus, Controvers. 8. P. 44.) assigns full twenty Rules for the understanding of Scripture; which, unless they be kept, we cannot but err, as he saith. I wonder how many more Rules be necessary for ordinary-understanding men, to know that you have not erred in the use of all these twenty Rules, especially he and others exacting, among other Rules, to know Original languages, to discuss the words and Hebraisms. Now, dear Reader, as thou lovest thy soul, stand here a little, and ponder how thy Ministers abuse thee, which do, all of them, teach this doctrine (delivered by D. Fern. in Sect. 8. 9 10. 11. and 14. in these words, the place last cited) If you will be with us, you shall see what you do. We require your obedience to what we demonstrate to be Gods william. The Church of Rome (because, forsooth, she will have you use the better light of Counsels illuminated by the holy Ghost) saith; If you will come to me, you must put 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 their trial, they tell thee thou must trust Ministers, and not all, but such as can, and really do use 20. hard Rules. But of this more Sect. 7. n. 3. Here, I only beseech thee to tell me, how thou canst come to think that he, who for our salvation gave his precious blood, would not give us also some more plai● Rule to direct us to the infallible belief of that, which he obligeth us to believe under pain of damnation. See my Preface num. 2. 3. Dear Lord? Is this that was promised for an extraordinary favour (not yet granted) when God himself should come, and save us, and give us a way, so surpassing all former ways. A way so direct unto us, that fools cannot err by it: For surely wise, and very wise men know neither Greek, nor Hebrew, nor the means how to know that those, who know these languages, have duly used their knowledge, and the other odd nineteen Rules, which unless they be kept, we cannot but err. See also Sect 7. Here protestants with weeping eyes may say, what juvenal did sing, O quis custodiet ipsos Custodes! What Rules to men given shall be, To know when Overseers oversee? SECTION III. A SEAVENTH ARGUMENT By Scripture we know not which Books be Canonical Scripture, which not? Neither is Scripture known to be God's Word by its own Light; wherefore Protestants do not believe Scripture with divine Faith. 1. THe force of this Argument briefly is this. If Scripture were our only Rule of belief, it would tell us all things necessaryly to be believed: It doth not tell us what books be the only true word of God; which is a point most necessary to be believed: It is not therefore our only Rule of belief: Here you see a fifthteeths necessary, and most necessary point, not plainly set down in Scripture. Luther denyeth the Apocalyps, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of S. james, and other parts of Scripture, to be true Scripture what text tells him plainly he must believe the contrary? We hold some half a score books to be true Scripture, which you hold Apocrypha: what Scripture, or one single syllable of Scripture, tells us we hold false, and you true? Cite that text, and we yield. If you cannot cite that text, than yield yourselves to believe many, and so, very many, parts of Scripture to be God's word, which by no one single text of Scripture, you can prove to be so. Tell me than, I pray, tell me, as you tender your own and my salvation, upon what ground you believe them to be so? You believe all things for the saying of true Scripture: Why do you believe the Scripture to be Scripture and God's word? Not upon any text, for you have not one: And yet you believe this infallibly. What other ground have you, besides texts of Scripture, able to support an infallible belief? Is the tradition of the Church to be relied upon in so great a matter? Than much more may it be relied upon in lesser matters. But if she be fallible in the delivery of her traditions, how can I, upon her authority, ground an infallible assent to the belief of all the books of Scripture being Gods certain word? For this is a very hard point, because many of them contain things of themselves 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 Son should not be all one thing with the personality of God the Father; and yet be all one thing with the divine essence; which divine essence 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 man's eating an Apple. Is not that authority, which is able to support the infallible belief of Books, which contain things so hard to believe, able also to support the infallible belief of things fare less incredible, as Purgatory, Prayer to saints, an inferior worship of Images in respect of the persons they represent? Have you any text to tell me, that I must believe the Church in this most hard and important matter, (to wit in this matter that such and such Books be infallibly God's word) and that I must not believe her in lesser matters? Give me this Text, or confess that you voluntarily believe a most huge hard point, on which all your belief 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 saith he sect. 13. We say the Scripture conteyns all the material objects of faith necessary to Salvation, that is, All things that had been necessary for Christians to believe and do, though there had been no Scriptures. Whence sect. 24. he, out of this principle, answers my objection thus; That to believe Scripture to be the word of God, is not of those material objects of faith which we say are contained in Scripture, and are such as had been necessary for Christians to believe though there had been no Scripture. And then he proveth the impossibility, that there is, that Scripture should sufficiently tell us which Books be infallible God's word: and that, therefore we must suppose universal Tradition still to bring it down to us. But Sr. you mark not how pitifully you undo that very prime doctrine of yours, which forceth you all to maintain, that all things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture, to wit; That (according to you) Scripture is given us by God, to be our only direction, in all that we must necessarily believe and do for Salvation; for if this doctrine must pass among all for so very true, that it must be embraced by the belief of all, before they can wisely say; In this Bible only we are to found all necessary truth; It followeth than most undoubtedly upon Gods giving us the Bible, to be taken by us as our only Rule, that there must needs arise a necessity of our believing something which we should not have been bound to believe, if there had been no Scripture written. For there must arise a necessity of believing this very doctrine of yours, that the written word of God is given us for our only direction in the points aforesaid, Or else no man is bound to believe this, and to admit of Scripture only for his Rule. For nothing can be more sure, than that this doctrine hath not universal Tradition, still to bring it down to us: Therefore either this doctrine is most false, (as really it is:) or most false it is that we upon the writing of Scripture, are only obliged to believe that, to the belief of which we should only have been obliged though there had been no Scripture. For what say you to this argument. True faith is necessary to Salvation, therefore the only Rule guiding us to true faith, must of necessity be known assuredly by us: Because, without the guidance of this Rule we have no assured means (as you say) to true faith: But the only true Books of Scripture, are the only Rule guiding us to true faith; as you all teach: therefore we must have an infallible assurance of these true Books. Again, the more impossible it is for Scripture to inform us sufficiently which Books be Scripture, which not, and that infallibly; the more certain it is, that just as this most important point of all points, and the hardest of them all (for it containeth all the points that are most hard in our faith) can be made infallibly assecured unto us without Scripture, so other points also may be; as Purgatory, Prayer to saints & c? and therefore these other less hard points may be, as infallibly, by the Tradition of the same Church, assecured unto us. For if tradition can support an infallible assent to the hardest points, it can support the like assent to the less hard. He that can carry a hundred pound weight, can carry three or fourscore pound weight. 3. Hence it is that D. Fern, in the same place, is forced to fly to that paradoxical opinion, to which nothing, but desperation of escaping any other way, hath driven him and his Protestant brothers. Thus than he saith; Scripture being received upon such tradition, it discovers itself to be divine by its own light, or those internal arguments which appear in it to those who are versed in it. Which others express thus; the Canonical Books are worthy to be believed for themselves; as we assent to the first principles by their own light, so we do assent to Scripture to be the word of God, through the help of the Spirit of God; as by its own light The Canonical Books bear witness of themselves, they carry their own light, by which we may see them to be God's word: as we see the sun, to be the sun, by his own light; so they. 4. We must than first speak a word of this Tradition, which D. Fern called universal Tradition, that is the tradition of the whole Church, which you all say is fallible, and so you must not rest upon it with an infallible assent, but take it as a prudent motive persuading such Books, as you hold to be Canonical, to be God's word, which you believe to be so for itself. But Sr. it is most false that universal Tradition hath delivered just that number of Books, and those Books, which you hold to belong to the true Canon. The Council of Laodicea (in which you use to boast your Canon to be contained) omitteth the Apocalypse or Revelations, and, besides Ruffinus, you will not found one ancient writer who either putteth not fewer or more Books in the Canon than you do. Our Canon you deny, and discard some half a score Books out of it. Yet ours is the only Canon which can claim a sufficient Tradition, as I shall here show Num. 11. And as for the Council of Laodicea, it is fare from being against us, for it defines in deed such Books to belong to the Canon of Scripture: but it doth not exclude any one of those which also afterwards, 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 Council of Carthage, to which S. Austen subscribed in person. An evident Proof of this is, that the Sixth General Council doth confirm both this Council of Laodicea, and that very Councel of Carthage, which by name defined all the Books, set down in our Canon, to be God's word: see Num. 11. And than tell me with what face you can so much as pretend to universal Tradition, for admitting your Bible a Bible putting among the Apocrypha so many Books, flatly against the tradition of the precedent 12. hundred years. If this Tradition be a prudent inducement to embrace what it commendeth, than it induceth us to embrace half a score Books more than you put in your Canon: If it be not a prudent inducement, it helpeth you nothing. If you fly to the tradition of the Church only of the first four hundred years, remember that the Council of Carthage, just after the end of those years, alleged the ancient Tradition of their Fathers, which they judged sufficient for defining our Canon. They, who were so near those first four hundred years, knew far better the more universal Tradition of that age, than we can 12. hundred years after it. True it is (nothing being defined as than) private Doctors were free to follow what they judged to be truest: and as you found them varying from our canon, some in some books, some in others; so you will find them varying from one an other, and varying also from you. For in those first four hundred years Melito and Nazianzen excluded the book of Ester, which you add. Origen doubts of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the second of S. Peter, of the first and second of S. john. S. Cyprian and Nazianzen leave the Apocalypse or Revelations out of their Canon. Eusebius doubteth of it. Only Rufinus aggregeth just with you. Doth he make alone a sufficiently universal Tradition from Christ's time to this? Now than all of you, by refusing the Canon commended by the Tradition of our Church; are left to the sagacity of your own noses, to hunt out that most important and infallible certain truth of the true Canon of Scripture. 5. Here we must examine what help you will have by the true Books of Scripture, which you say carry their own light with them, by which they may be as clearly seen to be God's word, as the Sun by his own light. For to the truth of this strange Paradox, explicated as above, you have brought the whole substance of your faith, which must all fall to the ground, to be trodden upon by the Socinians, if this groundless ground holds not sure: Because you believe all other particular points relying upon Scripture only; All the Scripture you believe relying on this ground only, that you know by the very reading of such a book, that this book is as evidently God's 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 pitiful a case as your greatest enemies could wish it in. 6. First than this ground (upon which you ground all) is accounted a plain foolish ground, by your own renowned Chillingworth; I say, your own, for the most learned of both your universities have owned, and higly magnified his book, notwithstanding his scornful language concerning this ground of your whole Religion. Chillingworth than (p. 69. n. 49.) answering these words of his adversary. That the divinity of a writing cannot be known by itself alone, but by some intrinsical authority: replieth thus; This you need not prove: for no wise man denyeth it. And M. Hooker (esteemed the learnedest Protestant which ever put pen to paper) writeth thus; Of things necessary, the very chiefest is to know what Books we are to esteem holy, which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. So he Eccl. Pol: L. 1. S. 14. Pag. 86. And D. Covel in his defence, Art. 4 P. 31. It is not the word of God which doth or can assure us, that we do well to think it the word of God. Yet that which such men as these hold impossible, and a mere Chimaera, or fancy, which no wise man would hold, you hold to be as evident as the sun being seen by its own light; as evident as the first Principles, which are so evident of themselves that they need no proof, but are clearer than any thing you can bring to prove them. For example That the whole is greater than any part. It is impossible that any thing should be so, and not be so, just in the same circumstances etc. Do you think any rational man will believe that it is thus evident that S. Matthewes Gospel (for example) is the true word of God, by the only reading of it, to him, who did not before read this verity? Do not all evidently see, that there is no such evidence to be seen? About the truth of first Principles not man ever doubted, or could doubt; about S. Matthewes Gospel the Manicheans, Marcionistes, Cerdonists etc. did not only doubt, but flatly rejected it. And incomparable more doubt hath been made of other parts of Scripture, as we have seen, and shall yet further see. Sometimes indeed divines call Scripture the first Principle, an undoubted principle, a most known and certain Principle, Not that it is so for any evidence it carrieth with itself, manifestly showing it to be so: But the Scripture is said to be such a Principle among us Christians, because all of us now admit Scripture, as of unquestionable and infallible truth. Upon this Supposition (evidently granted by us all) we all, in arguing with one an other, still suppose, and take for an undoubted Principle, that the Scripture is God's infallible word But this doth only suppose, and not prove this truth, even so much as to our own Consciences, that Scripture is the undoubted word of God, which it cannot show itself infallibly to be, by the only reading of it. 7. Secondly there be many millions who can most truly and sincerely protest before God, and take it upon their Salvation, that they are wholly unable, by the mere reading of the books of Scripture (for example the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews &c) to come to an infallible assurance that they be God's word, to which assurance, even your admirable Luther, and his most learned disciples, never came: For they all reject these, and other Books admitted for God's infallible word by you. Now good Sr. tell me what means hath God provided to bring us (who have not these new eyes, requisite to see the Sunshine you speak of) or to bring your Lutheran Brothers who will be confessed not to want the true Spirit (for they had the first fruits of the spirit in the blessed work of your Reformation) what means, I say hath God provided to bring them and us, to this infallible assurance, by which we are all obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe the Scripture to be God's word? 8. Thirdly; how comes it to pass, that the Preachers of the Church found that concurrence of God's grace, in delivering the verities contained in the Scripture to very Heathens, that millions of them have been thus converted: but no single Man is reported (as fare as I know) to have found such concurrence by only reading the written word, as thereby to have been illuminated with the belief of Scripture? How cometh this about, if the divinity thereof be to the reader (when he is as well disposed as the hearer) no less evident than the broad Sunshine? Doth not this show that it is true which we teach, that these internal Arguments are only discovered after the Scripture is accepted for God's word, and not before, as the Cause of accepting it for such? 9 Fourthly; as the Scripture is the only ground, upon which you build your belief of all other things; so this divine light (discovered to you by reading the Scripture) is the only ground, upon which you believe Scripture; and consequently all other things which you believe. This ground than is the ground of all true faith, according to your doctrine. If it be so; how is it possible that the greatest Doctors that ever God placed in the Church to the edifying the same, upon no one single occasion (having so continual occasions) do so much, as once at lest profess themselves to believe such or such a book to be God's word, because they, by the reading of it (which was their daily and nightly work) did discover such divine rays, or such internal arguments appearing in it, to those who were versed in it; as D. Ferne speaketh? Neiher do any one of them 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, merely because they could not discover this light, or these internal 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 understandings which so many ages have brought forth? This argument falleth heavier upon D. Ferne, and those who like his doctrine, than upon any other. For Sect. 7. having undertaken to show, that Sectaries cannot make the plea which Protestants make; he proveth this by this Principle: That Sectaries do not pretend to confirm what they say by practice of antiquity as Protestants do, according to D. Ferne and Doct Hen. Hammond. But O great Doctor I pray, if you can, show us but one small scrap of antiquity for this your fundamental Doctrine: For surely this most imports in the very groundwork of faith. And (to use your own so often iterated argument) your part being the affirmative, affirming a main difference to be between you and Sectaries (arising from your adhering close to antiquity) you are obliged to do this, at lest where it so imports, as it doth in the belief of that upon which you believe all what soever you believe. Again, if you be so good at finding out assuredly Gods true word, from his false word, merely 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 them assuredly which were the true Copies of the true Originals, which not; whearas those short sighted Doctors do openly profess themselves to sweated at this by indefatigable labour in conferring every verse with several Copies, and than culling out that which agreeth with the most and best Copies. To this industry they Profess themselves to trust, and not to that pretended light, though you make it the ground of all your faith. See the next Sect. n. 8. 10. Fiftly; I argue thus, Take the Book of Baruch, (which you hold not to be God's 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 me that Chapter, or the part of that Chapter in any one of these seven Chapters, which hath more divine rays, or internal arguments for the holiness of it, than appear in the six Chapters of the book of Baruch. Your part is the affirmative, affirming that there be such internal arguments, and such evidences, and that there be more of them in the one, than in the other: Show me but one of them, or else you will show yourselves to the world to vent your own fancies, for grounds of belief, even in the most important points of belief. So I say again, take the book of Toby, take the book of judith, which you reject for Apocryphal, as not carrying with them a divine light, and those internal arguments: take (I say) either 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 Brethrens can afford you, to point out any one Chapter, verse, or word in the book of Numbers, carrying with it more divine rays, or better internal arguments, than appear in either of the books I named. What would you have us do with our eyes, to keep us from seeing how clearly this is impossible unto you; which nevertheless should be most easy, if your opinion were true, or any thing like to true. For these divine rays (say you) carry an evidence of so high a degree, that you do not only believe (as we poor folks do) but you do know these books to be divine: and this you know with a most infallible knowledge, produced by the evidence carried in the clear Sunshine of this Light, and these so conspicuous internal arguments making it no less apparent than the first Principles. 11. Sixtly if any one verse, or any one small word, changing the sense of the holy Ghost (especially this little word, Not) beleft out in any one Chapter, either through ignorance, malice or carelessness of those writers (whose Copies our printed Bibles have followed;) whom will you be able to make believe, that you are so sharp-sighted as to see this small omission, and that by a light sufficeing for an infallible belief 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 fare all of you are from doing this, I will now declare: All the days of Queen Elizabeth your Bibles did read in the 105. Psalm. v. 28. they were not obedient, contrary directly to the true text; which hath, They were not disobedient, or rebelled not against his words, as now you read it. These, and two hundred more Corruptions in the true Psalms, you did sing daily. And who was there who did see in what places these corruptions were? Yea the Queen, than 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 than of your Religion believe the Scripture upon no ground which is not fallible, and which may not really be false as this light may be; and therefore it sufficeth not to a divine faith: and so you have no infallible belief assuring you, that this book is God's word; whence all that is in that book hath no divine authority, of which you are assured. And thus, most pitifully, all of you are destitute of divine faith, in all points you believe; because you believe them all upon the authority of those books, which you, vpon no infallible ground, can believe to be divine. See here how you, who boast of Scripture so much, come, by rejecting the Church, not to believe the Scripture itself with any divine faith; but only with such human persuasion as may be false, because it is fallible, having no infallible ground to stand upon. Hence it is that your famous Chillingworth, having wit enough to discover the ungroundednes of this ground, and not having grace enough to set sure footing upon that firm rock of the true Church, in plain terms comes to defend (P. 327.) it to be sufficient to believe Scripture with no other kind of assent, than we believe, That there is such a city as Constantinople, or the History of Caesar and Sallust. Whence the ground of his belief of the Scripture (upon whose authority only he believeth all other things) being thus confessedly found to be human, and to have nothing of divine faith: he is forced to say (P. 159.) We have, I believe, as great reason to believe, That there was such a Man as Henry the Eight King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. Is this a book to be owned by the prime Doctors of both universities, and to be so universally cried up by our Nation? Dear jesus! to what times were we come? No wonder that these times are now come to us. 12. Seventhly; I further show the manifest falsity of your doctrine, by unanswerable experience, confirming what now I said Nu. 9 Luther (a man acknowledged by common consent of English Divines, to have had God's Spirit in a very Large measure) did read the Epistle of S. james, and he held it to be an Epistle of Straw Praefat: in Nou. Test. and his chief disciple Pomeranus, upon the fourth Chapter to the Romans, saith: Out of this place you may discover the error of the Epistle of james, in which you see a wicked argument: moreover he ridiculously deduceth his argument: he citeth (saith this fellow) Scripture against Scripture. But I go on with Luther, he did read the Apocalypse, and, for all the light and internal arguments he could discover in it, he thought it not written with an Apostolical Spirit. All our English Divines read these self same books, and there is not one of them, nor of their disciples, so ill-sighted, but they can discover a light not less clearly showing these Books to be Gods infallible word, than the Sun showeth himself to be the Sun by his light; they all see internal 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 Luther's not seeing such Books to be Canonical, is only a negative argument of small force. I answer, that, where things are affirmed to be as evident as the Sunshine, and as clear as the first principles: and that these things, affirmed by you to be so clear, are also daily 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 ever be able to see this light (though their sharp-sighted eyes so often laboured to discover it:) this cannot be but a certain sign that either these men were pitifully blind, or that you miserably fancy such a light to shine in the very reading of the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of S. james etc. Is it a weak argument to say; I have been in the hall on set purpose to see if there were a Candle set up lighted there, and I could see none, though I most carefully endeavoured to see it, and had my eyes about me; therefore I conclude there is no light set up there? I conclude also that either I, who say this, am blind; or you, who say there is such a light, are manifestly deluded by a false fancy of your own? And I can also make my argument as strong in the affirmative, as in the negative. I do it thus; S. Austen (the most sharp-sighted man that the Church hath had) a man confessedly endued 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 belief is built; to wit, that true Scriptures were infallibly believed to be God's word, because they were discovered in the very reading of them to be so, by a divine light, and by internal arguments sufficeing to ground an infallible assent to this verity; this man, I say, and the whole third Council of Carthage together with him, did believe that all and every one of those books, which we believe to be Canonical and divine, to be so indeed; and to be propounded to be so to the people. Behold here, as good eyes, as you can pretend to have, reading these books, and believing them infallibly to be divine: which they could not do (according to your doctrine) but by discovering in them a divine light, showing this truth evidently, and by such internal arguments as suffice to infallibility. Therefore these books, (seen so infallibly to be divine) are indeed so: and you must grant them to be so, and not to be Apocryphal, as you hold them; or else you must grant, that S. Austen and the Fathers of the Council of Carthage and all the Fathers, who ever after this Council held this our Canon, did not agreed with you in the prime principle of your Religion, teaching that there is no infallible ground to believe such and such books to be God's word, but that divine light appearing in the reading of them to such Readers as they were. For if they agreed with you in this principle, than they did conceive themselves to discover this divine light in those very books, which you call Apocryphal, as well as in the other, which you hold Canonical: And if they all were deceived by this principle, in those books; than you may be deceived in all the other, because your only ground for their being divine, is hence clearly proved to be fallible and false, and most unsufficient to ground an infallible belief: But you have no other faith, than that which resteth wholly on this ground; Therefore all the faith you have is fallible. And if any one object that S. jerom, (as great a Doctor in point of the knowledge of the Scriptures as S. Austin) did not hold the Books of the Maccabees for God's word, which S. Austen held to be God's word: therefore one of them relied on a fallible ground; why not S. Austen, as well as S. jerom? I answer, that even from hence it is evident that neither of these two (though the most Eagle-sighted Doctors that ever the Church had) did make the ground of their receiving or rejecting books for true or false Scripture, to be any such divine light, appearing to such readers as both they were: For than they could not have held quite contrary one to an other; as I said of the Lutherans and you. The true reason, why these two great Doctors were of contrary opinions concerning these books, as also divers other holy Fathers were concerning divers other books, (which had been impossible if the evidence of true Scripture had been so great as you make it;) the true reason, I say, was, that as yet the Church of Christ had not defined which Books were Gods true word, which not: wherefore, than it was free to doubt of such books as were not admitted by such a Tradition of the Church, as was evidently so universal, that it was clearly sufficient to ground an infallible belief. For all those holy Fathers agreed ever in this, that such books were evidently God's word which had evidently a sufficient tradition for them; Now in the days of those Fathers, who thus varied from one an other, it was not by any infallible means made known to all, that those books (about which all their variance was) were recommended for God's infallible word, by a tradition clearly sufficient to ground belief: for the Church had not as yet examined and defined, whether Tradition did clearly enough show such, and such books, to be Gods infallible word. But in the days of S. Austen, the thirde Council of Carthage Anno 397. examined how sufficient, or unsufficient the Tradition of the Church was, which recommended those Books for Scripture, about which there was so much doubt and contrariety of opinions. They found all the Books contained in our Canon (of which you accounted so many Apocryphal) to have been recommended by a Tradition, sufficient to ground faith upon. For on this ground (Can. 47.) they proceeded in defining all the books in our Canon to be Canonical. Because, say they, we have received from our Fathers that these Books were to be read in the Church. Pope Innocent the first (who lived Anno 402.) being requested by Exuperius, Bishop of Toloufe, to declare unto him which Books were Canonical, he answereth Ep. 3. that having examined what sufficient Tradition did demonstrate, Quid custodita series temporum demonstraret, in the end of his Epistle c. 7. he setteth down, Qui libri recipiantus in Canone Sanctarum Scripturarum. What books are received in the Canon of the holy Scriptures. To wit just those which we now have in our Canon: and though he rejecteth many other Books, 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 confess to be Heretics; until the days of Luther, who presumed to call Apocryphal, not only those Books which you count to be so, but also divers others; as I shown here nu. 1. Hence from the time of the Council of Carthage, and Innocent the first, all in their daily citations of Scripture, until the days of Luther, held those very books to be God's word which we hold to be, and were defined by them to be held to be so upon tradition duly examined; And this within four hundred years after Christ, yet after the time of S. jerom. Now after this was done, there comes S. Austen, and sets down all these books for Canonical Lib. de doctrina Christiana c. 8. After him comes Gelasius the Pope (who lived Anno 492.) and confirms the same Canon. After him comes the sixth general Councel celebrated Anno 680. which in the second Canon (according to the Greek Copy translated by Gentianus) desiring to establish what their holy fore Fathers had delivered unto them, confirmeth this, and the other Council of Carthage. Go further downwards, and still all Doctors and writers, in their daily allegations of Scripture, cite these books as Scripture. The true Canon again is set forth by the Council of Florence Anno 1438. To which Council the very Grecians, Armenians, and Iacobites subscribed: Not man pertinaciously gainsaying this so well established tradition until Luther. Now if the true discovery of Scripture be to go by the votes of the best and the most eyes, who seethe not, but that even by this rule, we shall have above half a score books discovered to be God's word, which your own sharp eyes cannot see to be so? especially that second book of Maccabees in which we so clearly discover Purgatory c. 12. v. 43. 44. 45. If any man objecteth, that, in the Council of Carthage etc. that one book of the Prophet Baruch is not set down by name (though never excluded:) he must remember that this book of Baruch, is joined in our Bible with jeremy, whose Secretary he was, and as his Secretary he joined his book as an Appendix to jeremy: And therefore it is understood by these Fathers to be admitted together with all jeremy, excluding no part of him, as you exclude. I end than this Sixth reason thus. The best seeing eyes of antiquity have seen different books to be God's word, from those which you hold to be so: again, your own first brothers in your Reformation have seen those books not to be Canonical, 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 dim light appear clearly to him, which so many others (for want of the assistance of this spirit) come not to see: this man will run upon two main inconveniences. The First is, that he most vngroundedly layeth claim for himself, and for all the little flock of his brothers, to have in private this assistance of the spirit assisting them, even as fare as infallibility, to the hardest of all points: and yet, most vngroundedly denyeth any such assistance to the universal Church, represented in a general Council. He denyeth also the same spirit unto the greatest Doctors of the Church, confessed by all to have been the chief lights of the world for Sanctity and knowledge in Scriptures: For all these are found standing directly opposite to them in their Canon of Scripture, and not one of them can be showed to agreed with them in this prime ground of admitting any book for God's word, upon 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 ground an infallible assent; and how he is most assured that this is not an illusion? He can only answer, that he hath tried, as well as he (poor Soul) could, whether this Spirit were from God or not; and he found it (and that infallibly) to be from God. But Sr. I ask you by what infallible means did you try it? If you say (as you must needs say) that you tried it by the word of God: we cannot but pity your pitiful answer; for you forget that, before this trial was made, you could not have any assurance that the Scripture was God's word; to the belief of which truth you cannot possibly come, until you have first an infallible assurance, that you in particular have God's Spirit. For tell me, by what other way you can come to this assurance? How can you than say, that you have tried your Spirit by that word, which, before this trial of your Spirit, you could not possibly know to be infallibly God's word. You will all walk in a circle, as the wicked do, and as that wicked spirit who circle's about to see whom he can devour: until you come to stand steadfastly upon the Rock of the Church. SECT: IU. AN EIGHT ARGUMENT, That the Scriptures cannot decide this Controversy, which books be the true uncorrupted Copies of the true books of Scripture: And therefore Protestants believe not Scripture with divine Faith. A word of the famous Bible now coming forth at London. 1. AS it is in vain to know for certain, that my Father did (to my great advantage) make a true authentical will and Testament, of which I conceive myself to have a true Copy: without I can authentically prove, the Copy that I have to be indeed authentical. So, it is to small purpose, that God did, by his Prophets, writ such books as Genesis, Exodus and the rest of the old and new Testament, to our inestimable advantage; unless I can also, by undeniable assurance, show myself to have the true authentical and uncorrupted Copies of all these books; uncorrupted, I say, in all parts of them: for if it were not known to be uncorrupted every where, it might be suspected of falsity every where Now, that the Copies, which we have of Scripture, even in the Hebrew, or Greek tongues, be uncorrupted, we are not where told plainly in Scripture. The last part of the Scripture which was written, was written about a thousand and six hundred years ago. No Scripture hath been written, since that time, to tell us, that since that time no corruption hath happened, or falsyfying the copies written since that time: no Scripture than written did plainly assure us, that the Scriptures should never be corrupted by those who printed, or writ them. Neither did the Apostles take care to have the Copies, written by them, to be authentically signed, sealed, and delivered into the hands of such and such, as might authentically declare their being true originals, or agreeing in all things exactly with the true originals; which is an evident sign, that God intended not the Scriptures for our judge, and only direction in all points: For all lawmakers use this diligence, to secure their laws from corruption. Behold than, here is now a sixteenth point primely necessary to salvation, and yet no where set down in Scripture: I say, primely necessary; for if it be necessary to have faith, it is necessary to have the only Rule directing, and guiding to true faith, not where made crooked and directed false, as a false corrupted Copy would do. Here than, you must fly to the tradition of the Church; yea, and to the Tradition of the present Church also: for the Church of other ages could not asseure us that the Scripture should be uncorrupted in our Age. Is it not as great a contradiction as can be, to say, we know by the tradition of the present Church that; that very Scripture is uncorrupted, which very Scripture bids us not to believe the Tradition of the Church: Which if I do not believe, I cannot believe the Scripture to be uncorrupt, and that infallibly if her Tradition (upon which only I believe this) be fallible? The traditions than of the present Church be as infallibly true as your faith; which I prove by this Demonstration: Your faith cannot be more infallibly true, than it is true that the Copies of the Scripture be uncorrupt; for your faith is built upon the word of God, as delivered to you by these Copies: just as we say, our faith is built upon the word of God, as propounded or delivered to us by the Church: but it is not infallibly true, that the Copies we have now be uncorrupted, because that very Tradition of the present Church which telleth us this, is held by you to be fallible and subject to lie; and which in a multitude of her other Traditions, hath lied unto us, according to your doctrine. Here you see again that you believe nothing at all with divine faith; For all you believe, you believe upon the word of God, as delivered to you by such Copies as you only, by an human faith, know to be the true deliverers of Gods uncorrupted word: This ground is fallible, being merely human; therefore the ground which supporteth all you believe, is human, and not divine; Therefore all your faith is human, and not divine: And this holdeth true in all and every point which you believe. 2. I will now further show you, how you cannot know by Scripture only, that the copies of it be uncorrupt, 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 Originals cannot be known asseuredly to be uncorruptedly copied out, all the translations of these Originals may also be false: Now the more they agreed with corrupted Originals, the more we are sure they are corrupted. But of Translations I will speak in the next section: Here I will speak of the Copies, which are said to be Copied out of the true Original Copies, agreeing word for word with those very Copies, which S. Paul, S. Matthew, Moses etc. did writ; These Copies we know by no scripture to be uncorrupt. Yea, if you will hold the Church to be fallible; I will bring you several convincing proofs, that there can be no certainty, that these Copies agreed with the true Copies written by the true scripture writers. These scripture-writers did writ, either in such Hebrew as was used in the Age in which they did writ, (as did the writers of the old Testament:) or they did writ in Greek; as did most of the writers of the new Testament. Let us see first, how disagreeing the Hebrew Copies may be, from the Original Copy of the true writer thereof: Than we will see the same of the Greek Copies. 3. First; divers of the very originals themselves were written by such men as we know not at all, and so we cannot know them certainly to have been true Prophets, but by Tradition; which, if it may be false, it may also be false, that they were true Prophets, having Gods true spirit, assuring them infallibly in all that they did writ: And so, though we did infallibly know, that we had a most uncorrupted Copy of what they did writ, yet we should not be able to know that it were Gods infallible word; For how could we know that he who writ this book, was a true Prophet; no body (as fare as any body knoweth) telling us one word of that man, good or bad? For these books were written by God knoweth whom. We have nothing but uncertain opinions concerning the writers of divers of the most assured and protocanonicall books of scripture: as of the books of joshua, Ruth, judges, Ester, the books of Kings the books of Chronicles, or Paralypomenon. So also, it is not certain whether Solomon himself did writ his books of proverbs: or some that were about him did severally, in scattered papers, one note what he heard at one time; another what he heard him say at another time: And than, in the days of Ezechias, some certain men (God knows who they were) belonging to Ezechias; did make that collection of them which we now have; as the most learned Lyranus holdeth, writing on that book, and grounding himself on these words, cap: 25. These are also Proverbs of Solomon which the men of Ezechias Copied out. Wherhfore not upon the authority of any scripture; but merely upon the authority of Tradition, we know those true Original Copies to have been penned by true Prophets: though we know not who they were. 4. But, that which I press most is; that, though we had all infallible knowledge that could be, that such Prophets and Moses had writ, with their own hands, such and such books: Yet it is impossible (if the present Church's authority be fallible) to know infallibly, whether the Copies, we have now in our days, agreed in all places exactly with the Original. Yea, we are sure they do not agreed with it, which I prove thus: No books of Scripture were so solemnly, publicly, and most authentically delivered to be kept, just as they were written, as the books of Moses, witness the Scripture, Exodus 24. v. 4. and Deutr. 31. v. 24. And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of the Law in a book, until they were finished: that Moses commanded the Levites, which bore the Ark of the Covenant of our Lord, saying take this book of the Law, and put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, that it may be there for a witness etc. But these very books, thus written, until they were finished, have manifestly received the Addition of the last chapter of Deutronomy which was written after the death of Moses; as Calvin himself confesseth. So Gen. 26. the 31. verse is clearly added by some body, who lived in the times in which the Children of Israël had Kings: which was long after the days of Moses: how than 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 set down these Kings as having reigned until the days of the Kings of Israël, But some body who lived after their reign? Bonfrerius, in his preface to the Pentateuck, addeth two other places, changed since Moses writ them. That the like changes have happened to the book of joshua, to the fourth of Kings and to jeremy, is witnessed by Torniellus Anno Mundi 1612. But let no man think, that I recount these changes as corruptions; for we all believe those additions to have been made to the true Copies of Moses, and those other writers by men specially inspired by God to make them: Yet we, standing only to the human authority of history, cannot tell by whom those changes were made: no history telling us, that the authors of these changes were Prophets, or Impostors. Only we have the tradition of the present Church, assuring us infallibly (which she could not, if she were fallible) that the Scriptures, we now at present have, are infallibly God's 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 be most foul corruption, for any thing you know. Again. 5. If we speak of such changes as may be both corruptions, and most pernicious corruptions, in the Hebrew Bible: You (who reject the testimony of the Church as a fallible witness,) cannot possibly make it appear, that the Hebrew Copies be not grossly corrupted since the times of the Apostles: For many and great changes might, after their times, be made by the jewish Rabbins (men most perfidious and malicious,) when they did add points to the Text, under pretence of preventing such mistakes, as might easily hap to the less skilful, in reading the Hebrew text; which to that day had no points to express the vowels: For in the Original it was written only with Consonants, and the vowels were left to be added by the well instructed Reader; for whose help (in reading the Scriptures right,) the jewish Rabbins did first begin to add certain points, so to tell us where an A, or an E, or any other vowel was to be added according to the true manner of reading that place. Now only God knows whether these, so malicious and perfidious jews, taught us to read every vowel as it should be read in such a place: and did not; by the adding of what vowels they pleased change the sense of the word, to signify what they pleased. The putting of the vowels right or wrong depended, not only upon the assuredness of their skill, which (for any thing we know) might in some places be deficient, and we not knowing these places, are seure of no places: but also the putting of these vowels depended primely on their sincere, and upright honest dealing: which we cannot, in true prudence, much expect from such sworn enemies to Christianity, as those jews were. Such men than as these putting all and every one of the vowels, to every word of the Hebrew text, a good while after the Apostles time: what human evidence have we, sufficing to a certain assurance, of the adding the right vowel to every syllable of the whole Hebrew Bible? If wrong vowels be added, the sense will be incredibly wronged: The vowel is the very soul of the syllable, either making, or marring the true sound and signification, and altering it to most different senses; In so much that, not only in every word, but even in every syllable, alteration may be made of the true sense. So in the latin word monere to admonish, if you change the vowels at your pleasure (as those jewish Rabbins might often do, for any thing we know) you may read moneri, to be admonished; manere, to stays manare, to flow from; minari, to threaten; munire, to fence; muniri, to be well fenced; munera, gifts; minora, less things: And thus the vowels change and altar the right word in several parts. The Hebrew language is most subject to this inconvenience of any other, because it consists exceeding much of words of one syllable; in which the change of the vowel, maketh the sense a perfect changeling. So in English, suppose the Scripture should speak against the abuses in Balls: there comes a Protestant, and he will say, it is against the abuses of Popish Bulls; there comes a Puritan, and he will say it is against the abuse of Bells, useing them in such manners as have no authority in Scripture; some upstart Sectary will say it is against Bills, and other arms, which Christian mildness doth not allow of. See here how the change of one vowel in one syllable only, quite altereth the sense. This change of one vowel, makes a fat man, to be a fit man: and fatness in all places, to be fitness in all places: It maketh that which is Better, to be Bitter: It maketh a pot full of Butter to be a pit full of Batter. Though you magnify so much the present Hebrew Copy, as we have it now pricked and pointed, to point us out the true vowels; yet your own English Bibles, in several places, testify their corruption, by forsaking their translation to follow ours: I will give you but one example; We, (and you with us) read, They have pierced my hands and my feet, Psal. 22. v. 16. So clear a Prophesy for our Saviour's Crucifixion, is quite turned to another sense in the present Hebrew Copies, where these malicious jews make us read, As a Lion my hands and feet. 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 be, according to the true meaning of the scripture-writer: Of David for example, of whose true meaning, these false pointers have disappointed us. We than now have no assurance, to know what vowels should have been put. And if any man now in these days, doth pretend to be sure that he hath so much skill, as to tell, by the consonants only, what vowels should for certain be put, according to the meaning of Moses, of David, or of any other writer; I would only desire this cunning man, to give me a trial of his skill, by telling me what vowel I mean to have put to these three Consonants, Bll: whether I mean to signify a Ball, a Bell, a Bill, or a Bull. You will sooner tell me whether the pins I hold now in my left hand be even or odd? Here you will be sure to hit right at twice; for surely they be one of the two: But you may guess twice two times, before you assuredly Prophesy, whether I mean by those three consonants to signify a Bal, a Bell, a Bill, or a Bull. 6. Now for the Greek Copies; Though the Copy of the Septuaginta be not Original, yet question less, if we were sure that we had the true Original of that Translation, it would be a strong ground, for as much as concerns those books which those 70. Interpreters Translated; who lived 300. years before the new Testament was written: But you yourselves exceeding often refuse, in your English Bibles, to follow the present Copies of the Septuaginta, as copies that are by you esteemed corrupted in several places; and consequently secure in no place. I show this in several points of great consequence. So Psal. 118. v. 12. I have inclined my heart to perform thy justifications for a reward: S. Augustin upon this place, saith; For which reward, he saith, he did incline his heart to perform the justifications of God: Hence proving, as you see, that David did make profession to do good works, and to keep God's commandments for the reward he hoped to get thereby. So the Scripture saith of Moses, that he had respect to the recompense of the reward, and out of this respect did that most noble act of preferring the ignominy of Christ, before the being great in the Egyptian Court: Heb. 11. v. 26. You to avoid this argument drawn from the clear text of the Septuaginta, fly from they translation, to the Hebrew Copy of a doubtful sense, the one agreeing with the Septuaginta, the other agreeing to your turn of shifting of our and S. Augustine's sense; by reading as you read, I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes always even unto the end. So in the fourth Chapter of Daniel, v. 27. Daniel saith to Nebuchodonozor, Redeem thy sins with alms: which words are most literally translated out of the Copies of the Septuaginta: but because they make so manifestly for Popish satisfaction, by which they hope to redeem their sins, (Christ's passion dignifyeing their good works;) you refuse again to stand to the Septuagint, and fly again to the present Hebrew Copy, which having both the sense of the Septuagint, and another sense helping you to shifted of this place, you follow that sense and read, Break of your sins by righteousness. Hence it appears, that you yourselves will not allow the true sense of the Original greek Copies of the Septuagint. And indeed S. Jerome findeth frequent fault with the Copies he had in his days of their translation; (which translation he reverenceth:) See him in Quaest. Hebr. de optimo genere interpretandi, Epist. ad Suniam & Fritillam: And he often complains of the corruption of his Greek Copies in his commentaries upon the Prophets. Now in our days Bellarmine Lib. 2. de verbo Dei, C. 6. holdeth that the Copies of this most famous Translation are so corrupted, that they seem to make a new, and quite different Translation; as he proveth by many arguments, of which one is this: Genesis 26. Where the servants of Isaac do say, according to the Septuagint, we have not found water: Whereas they should say, We have found water; as is proved by the Hebrew, and by Isaac his own 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 Gospel) was by the Apostles themselves written in Greek. The chief points of our our faith depend upon the new Testament. If the Copies in this language agreed not exactly, and in all places, (for falsity in one place proveth possibility of falsity in other places) with the first Copies written by the Apostles; our judge (for whose sole authority you pled) will be convinced of corruption, and therefore no infallible judge. Your great Doctor Beza upon Acts, 7.16. doth muster up a whole catalogue of corruptions in the Greek Copies. The same Beza judgeth Erasmus the best of all latter translators: and yet Erasmus, speaking of the sixth of S. Matt. condemneth the Greek of trifling and rash additions. If you will be judged by the Greek Copies, than you must confess that Christ in the Sacrament did give us his true blood; For all the Greek Copies of S. Luke cap. 22. v. 20. read thus. This cup is the new testament 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 us; But not wine, but Christ's true blood, was shed for us: Therefore not wine, but Christ's 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 Usher professed, that whereas he had of many years before a desire to publish the new Testament in Greek, with various lections and annotations; and for that purpose had used great diligence, and spent much money to furnish himself with manuscripts: Yet in conclusion he was forced to desist utterly, lest, if he should ingenuously have noted all the several differences of reading which himself had collected: the incredible multitude of them almost in every verse, should rather have made men Atheistical, than satisfy them in the true reading of any particular passage. An evident sign that Governors of the Church did not rely only vpon what was in writing. So he. And though he hath now twice printed this, and though others have also divulged the same in print; Yet Bishop Usher, seeing this done before his eyes, doth not disclaim from it; Therefore I cannot but believe the story to be true: And if it be true, how wonderfully corrupted is your only judge. Now if B. Usher alone, in this remote corner of the world, being a private man, could procure so many old Copies in writing; what might have been done by some great Prince, useing all industry to get (by means of other great Princes, and all other diligences,) all the old Copies they could? For as the multitude of Copies, procured by Bishop Usher, did increase the variety of different readings; so a fare greater multitude of Copies, 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 be fare greater, if five or six great Princes, living in five or six Kingdoms (at the greatest distance from one another,) should have all conspired to gather together all the ancientest Copies that were any where to be had. Wherhfore, if in those only copies procured by Bishop Usher, the multitude of several readings were incredible almost in every verse: how much more incredible would the multitude of several readings be, if the diligence, I spoke of, should be used to procure a greater multitude of written Copies? I ask now, when, in these later days printing was invented, how those, who caused the Greek Translation (which we have) to be printed: how (I say) could they know for certain, that, that one reading (which they thought good to follow in their printed Copies) was the true reading? Or how could any man tell which written Copy of B. Ushers was the true written Copy? I pray let us so much as know our judge, before we be obliged to accept of him in all matters. Yea, you make us know he is corrupted in many matters: and others may make us know that he is corrupted in many more. And sure I am, that corrupted judges, are not competent judges. Crooked Rules are not good directors. The Rule that is given to us all by God, to direct us all, must be a rule easily appliable by all: For this reason, you say all must read the Scriptures, and your meaning is (and must be) that they must read the true Scriptures; that is, some true copy of the true books of Scripture: by what means shall they be assured, that they read the true Copy, there being such an incredible difference between Copies which are set forth for true? Not one, among an hundred thousand, can have this assurance; either want of means to get the reading of these manuscripts, or for want of skill to read them, and understand them so, as to be able to inform himself of their perfect agreeing in points necessary: especially seeing that you so little agreed in teaching us, which points be necessary and fundamental, that you could never yet be able to give us the number of them; much less to tell us which they were, or in what books, or Chapters of the Bible, they were to be found. Wherhfore he, who will upon his own knowledge, and not upon some other man's credit, (fare inferior to a general Council,) inform himself of the truth of his Copy (sufficiently to have a full assurance that it is the true undoubted Copy of the true undoubted Word of God:) he (I say) who will so much as hope to do this, is not one among an hundred thousand. How than can this be that Rule given by God, to be applied by every man, to judge by it for himself: by which one among one hundred thousand cannot be able to judge for himself, whether this undoubtedly be that Rule given him by God. Excellently Seneca, Omnia delibera cum amico, sed priùs delibera de amico. All consultations with thy sure friend make: But first consult Whom for this friend to take. Before thou consultest the whole business of thine eternity With this Copy, first consult how sure thou art of the sureness of this thy Copy. If every man (as protestants Will have it) be to be judge for himself, in points which so nearly concern himself, than doubtless, in the very first place, he is to be judge for himself of this point above all points, which concerns him as much as that upon which all other points of highest concernment do wholly depend. Thus you see, how, not one man among one hundred thousand escapeth being gulled by you, Whilst you all make him believe, that if he will follow you, he shall see with his own eyes, what he doth, and he shall judge for himself: and not take his religion upon trust, as you make them believe we do, because we trust general Counsels. O dearest Brethrens in Christ, for his and for your own sakes, set your eyes at lest half open, and you shall presently see, whether we, or you be those who take up our faith on trust. Do we do this, because we believe and trust general Counsels? These Counsels, Even in human knowledge and sincerity of judgement, fare excel any private man, trusted by you in this capital point: and, besides human knowledge, they have the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost promised to them; at lest as much, if not more than to those men, whom you trust. Or rather do not you take your faith on trust? for who of you is able to judge for himself, Which is the true undoubted Copy of the true Word of God, by which only you must rule your faith in all points? And who therefore is there among you, who seeing himself wholly unable to judge for himself in this point, (on which all others wholly depend) is not forced to rely upon incomparable Weaker authority, than is the authority of a General Council, to which the prime Prelates of this World are called, bringing with them the ablest Divines they can get, Each one in the Province, from which he cometh: And all of the Council delivering not so much their opinion (equal at lest to yours) but delivering what hath been by them received universally from their Ancestors, without note of novelty. Whereas you, when all comes to all, must in this very point of points, rely wholly on the authority of those few learned men, who have thought good to set forth this Copy, which you take upon their word to agreed faithfully in all places With the true undoubted Original. And this also must be done by you Mr. Minister, and by you Mr. Doctor, Without you be Perhaps a man more learned, than that one, who cannot be picked out among an hundred thousand. Now if this be the case of men though so very learned; What more clear than that the less learned (which make up the multitude of souls redeemed by Christ) cannot possibly judge for themselves in this point of points; but must trust others to judge for them, and rely wholly upon their judgement. What think you now? is this as safe as relying on the Church Universal, represented in a General Council? Now if this Council may be more Prudently relied upon in this point of high concernment; Why may it not be relied upon, and judge for us, in points of less concernment? Shall I wisely trust a man with a thousand pounds, and be unwise, if I trust him with an hundred pounds? shall it be most prudently done, to let General Counsels judge for me, which Books I am to hold for the Copies of God's Word, and shall it be imprudence to let a General Council judge for me, whether I am to pray to Saints, or no? to pray for the dead, or no? to hold Christ most really present in the Sacrament, or no? What Scripture, or any thing like Scripture, have you, to tell me that the Church, represented in a Council, shall not deceive me in this point (most important of all points:) but that it may deceive me in other things, in which it is more Easy to judge right? The Church is a judge, (as I shall show hereafter) to which the multitude of people may have free access; and hear plainly, clearly, and most undoubtedly, what is delivered for true, by the sentence of this most grave judge: And such a judge it beseemed the Divine Providence to give to the people, if he seriously desired to bring them, by belief of the only true faith, to salvation. Whereas it is not possible, for one among one hundred thousand, to hear plainly, clearly, and most undoubtedly, the sentence delivered by any Book of Scripture, concerning the true Copy of the true Scripture; though all my faith must depend upon this, as you say: Neither can you find any other way to make me secure of this choice of a true Copy, comparable to the authority of a general Council. 8. To show this more plainly, I will most faithfully relate unto you, that which you may soon see with your own Eyes, if you please. Your prime masters of antiquity, your chief Doctors in all those languages, in which Scripture anciently was written, have begun to set forth the most complete Bible that ever yet appeared (as they say) for the number of the ancient languages in which it is setting forth, and for the exquisite exactness of the Copies, of which I spoke Sect. 3. n. 9 The first five books are already printed, and to be seen in many persons hands. The same men have also (in order to their Bible) set forth an introduction, printed at London by Tho. Roycroft, Anno 1655. In the preface to this Introduction, they profess, they cannot produce any one Copy, which they can assure us to agreed in all things with the true Original handwriting of the Authors; Wherhfore (say they) in the variety of Copies, what better Means can so much as be invented, to pick out the true reading, than the conferring of the most choice and most ancient Copies; and than to stand to that reading, which agreeth best with the greater part of the most ancient, and most choice Copies? This course S. jerom &c: This S. Austen took &c: So they. The chief thing they pretend to excel others in, is Exemplarium optimorum delectu, In the choiceness of the very best Copies. Well now (dear reader) can human industry, such as this is (that is, as great as is to be expected in this world by thee) take more pains, or do more, to procure for thee the truest Copies, which can be had for love or money? And, standing in human industry, millions of millions have wanted this means of discovering the true Copy, which these learned men have. But what doth all this avail another man? For your religion will have every one in point of faith to judge for himself: So Dr. Fern, S. 8. thinks that, because the Roman Church will have us to trust to her judgement, pronounced by and with the consent of a general Council; she will have us to thrust out our right eye, the eye of our spiritual understanding Wherhfore, saith he, we cannot yield, but must say, that no man can believe any thing truly, unless he be convinced of it in his judgement according to that Rom. 14. V, 5. Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind; Concluding, by the due use (note these words) of his reason, that it is Gods holy will that they should so do and believe. And by and by he tells you, why he said, that he must conclude (all that he is to believe) by the due use of his reason. For notwithstanding the public judgement of the Church in a full Counsel, (I add notwithstanding also the private judgement of such great Doctors as these are, Who now so painfully labour in procuring the true Copy of the Bible For us) Private Christians (saith Dr. Fern) have their private judgement of discretion for themselves only, which is the discerning, and receiving to themselves only, as the will of God, what is delivered and propounded to them. For they must answer also for themselves, and live by their own faith; which cannot be without allowing them due use of their reason and judgement, to see the evidence of that to which they must assent. This is that which Dr. Fern, and other protestant Doctors are pleased to call, The due use of reason. Behold here (you most learned Doctors, who so unwearyedly sweat in setting forth this your admirable Bible) behold a doctrine taught every where by your own Divines, and most necessary to maintain your standing out to submit your inward judgement to the definitions of Counsels: A Doctrine, making all your labour of very little or no use at all, to your Protestant Brethrens: For some seven or eight years hence, when your Bible shall be quite ended, (for until the quite finishing of it, we cannot have the benefit of it as a judge,) than your own Brethrens must not trust your judgement, judging for them in the choice of the true Copy, picked now out of one of your old Copies, now out of another; now trusting to this old Copy most in this verse, and by and by not trusting it most in the next, or almost the next verse. The due use of reason (say they) permits us not to stand blindly to the public judgement, even of whole general Counsels, when they define matters of less moment, than is the taking upon your word, our judge in all the points necessary to be believed or practised. For though in the second Council of Nice Anno 787. no fewer than three hundred and fifty Fathers, did allow of the Worship of Relics and holy Images of Christ and his Saint's Act, 3: Yet we have the private judgement of discretion to judge for ourselves, because we are to answer for ourselves; and we (duly useing our reason) judge Worship of Images to be either Idolatry or superstition. Now, if you allow us, by your own Doctrine, not to trust a whole general Council of three hundred and fifty ancient Fathers; you have not the due use of reason yourselves, if you think we may lawfully blind ourselves so fare as to let you judge for us in a fare more important point; that is, in the taking the only Rule of our whole faith upon your judgement. I must, in this point, have your leave not to accept of any one of your Copies, as sufficiently true, to be my Rule in my whole faith, Without I also can see the evidence of what I must assent unto: For so you teach me. See what I said in the very end of the second Section. But I go on, and confess that I see it is evident enough, that you do indeed say, that you give me the best Copies that can be got; and that, which is more, I see it is evident that you do indeed say all your Copies agreed in things, which are necessary to salvation: But I do not, nor cannot set (though one among one hundred thousand be not so learned as I) that all you say to me is evidently true, until I have conferred all the Copies as well as you; and until I be as fully certified of the antiquity, and choice exactness of all your Copies, as well as you: and this is impossible for me, until I can understand all those languages as well as you; and peruse all the authentical testimonies, which you have of this antiquity, and perfect exactness of your Copies. Besides all this, how can I trust you to judge in all and every point, whether the agreement of all the Copies be exact in all and every point fundamental and necessary to salvation: for I know, we ourselves cannot agreed which be all the points fundamental and necessary; and my judgement may in this vastly differ from yours, as much and as lawfully as it differs from the Council I now spoke of. Thus much your own Brethrens must be allowed to say. 9 As for our parts, we, to say nothing of what you mention concerning Beza, Munsterus and Erasmus etc. (from whom, as from professed enemies, we cannot without just suspicion receive any thing) we I say, besides this, do not only suspect, but also evidently know that you mainly disagree from us in understanding the sense of your own words, when you say, There is (in all the Copies you have by you) great agreement in all things belonging to faith, and necessary to salvation &c: And more towards the end, you say, That they agreed in fundamentals. Bishop Usher, (whose Copies you profess to use so much) if he had gone on with his work I spoke of n. 7. had given us better satisfaction in this particular, in that we had seen how great, and where, the disagreements be: but you make us rely wholly on your authority in this point; I know you could not do otherwise. But as for your judgement in fundamentals, we know not how to rely on you; You tell us our religion and yours agreed in fundamentals: If your Copies agreed in fundamentals not more than our two Religions; this agreement will be little to our satisfaction, nor much to the satisfaction of many of your Brethrens: For being they know you accounted all the points, in which we and you disagree, not to be points fundamental or necessary to salvation: they, by your granting frequent disagreeing in your Copies in points not fundamental, are not freed from, but confirmed in the suspicion which many have, that the Copies of the Bible agreed not better than Papists & Protestants; and that (for any thing they can yet judge by their own judgement of discretion) these your Copies disagree about the texts concerning the real presence; the Pope's supremacy; Image-worship; Prayer to Saints, and for the dead; yea about our justification itself; the number, the right use, the fruit, the necessity of Sacraments; and such points as these are; which, though you accounted them not to be fundamental, yet you accounted them of so great concernment, that the difference in these points, gave you most just cause of separating and dividing from the Roman Church, with all those Scandals and public evils ensueing upon this division. Will not than, this be a sufficient reason of not embracing the Copies presented unto them in this most accurate Bible, they having no better assurance, that these Copies agreed with those other Copies concealed from them, in these points, (in which their greatest difference from the Roman Church doth consist) than the authority of these learned men, who most plainly confess the frequent differences of their Copies in points not fundamental, and who also, by the name of points not fundamental, are known most commonly to mean such kind of points, as contain no meaner differences than 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 than this matter, you see (Gentle Readers) That you have not among you any Copy, which you undoubtedly know, so much as by evidence of human knowledge, to be Gods undoubted word: Will you, who contend so eagerly to have nothing believed, for which there is not clear Scripture, have us, in the most important point of belief, believe that for which we have neither Scripture, nor evidence of human reason? If you say the divine Providence would doubtless keep the Copies of the Originals uncorrupted, because otherwise we should have no sure Rule of Faith: I answer that this is to suppose the very thing which is in question, Whether Christ gave us Scripture for our only Rule. Yea, because it is clear that, standing in human evidence, no Copy can be freed of the guilt of corruption: Therefore God would have no Copy at all to be our only Rule of faith: but hath provided for out direction another way. SECT: V A NINTH ARGUMENT. That the Scripture cannot decide this Controversye, which Translations of the word of God be true: And therefore ordinary Protestants cannot believe Scripture with Divine Faith. 1. THe Divine goodness desiring passionately (as appears by his passion for all) the salvation of all, and intending to make faith a necessary means to this their salvation, must consequently provide some means to guide and direct us to the truth of this faith; which must be a means so easy to be applied by all, that all, by the use of this means, may (if they will) attain true faith, which is but one; for faith unless it be one is not Faith, as S. Leo saith Ser. de Nativ. Hence it appears, to the very eye, that if the Scripture cannot so be used by all (or the fare greater part) as to guide themselves by it, in all points necessary to salvation; it cannot be the only means given them for their guide in points necessary to salvation: But it cannot do this to the fare greater part of the world, as I prove; For the fare greater part of the world cannot make use of Scripture in those languages, in which it was written, as hath been showed in the last Section, even concerning men, who are more learned, than any one among one hundred thousand; and it is in itself clear enough concerning those, who know not Greeke and Hebrew in any perfect degree of knowledge, in which languages the Scripture was written: whence it followeth, that the fare greater part of the world, cannot know what the true word of God (their only judge and director) did say, but by the means of a Translator or interpreter. Now judge you, in what uncertainty that man should be left, who should have a very good guide locked up in some place; to which he himself could never have access, but must hear 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 being often to trust others of no undoubted credit: In this case, your own doctrine doth put you (O dear People) Who make God's Word your only guide, in a way full of a world of doubtful turn, in which to miss is everlastingly to perish. This word is locked up so in Hebrew and Greek closerts, that you cannot know what it saith, but by the use of a Translator, as by a messenger; who being a man, and having a weak understanding, and a will subject not to take all the pains required for the exact knowledge of all that, which the word of God speaketh, in so great a book as ●he Bible is, in which there be very many hard expressions in languages nothing easy to be understood, in all words and phrases; especially seeing that the Hebrew tongue was quite lost (for as much as concerneth the vulgar use) in the Captivity of Babylon, some six hundred years before Christ. How hard than must it be now to know the full force, which common use gave these words two or three and twenty hundred years ago? What skill can be known to be here secure? besides the difficulty of the points of which I have spoken; I say nothing of the wilful mistakes, which this messenger may commit, either fully on set purpose, to make all go the way which he conceiveth to be best, upon his passionate affection to it, or disaffection to the contrary: or rather, not so much with so plain down right wilfulness; as with an overswaying prejudice, which hath prepossessed his judgement, that the way which he, as from thy guide, biddeth the to go, is the only true way: not that he is fully sure that thy guide did clearly say so; but thy messenger thought best to put down clearly this way for thy true way, because his own prejudice of its being so, and his great desire that it should be held by all to be so, have prevailed with him to deliver it clearly to be so. Moreover this thy Translator or messenger had not immediate access to God's word, in that very hand writing in which it was written by the scripture writer: from such but what he knoweth, he knoweth Copies as were written by men of unknown fidelity, who perhaps often were such hireling penmen as had more care to writ much, that they might gain much; than to writ with all perfect exactness, and to take due pains and care in conferring their transcribed Copies with the Copies they transcribed. And those very Copies also were perhaps written out with the like carelessness. Besides this carelessness; ignorance might likewise 'cause many a mistake in so long a work, because all neither knew the languages perfectly which they transcribed, nor did not perhaps know so cunningly those abbreviations which those pennne men than used even almost at every word; in which also one writer often differs from an other: Hence in a long work numberless mistakes are incident, which soon grow to a fare greater number, whilst so many subsequent transcribers out of former Mistakers come to add their new mistakes to those former. And to do it in a hand fit to 'cause their mistakes to be yet more multiplied, when more Copies (subject still to the like inconvenience) come to be transcribed out of them successively for many ages. Now thy messenger or Translator, in this vast variety of Copies, (of which we spoke more in the last Chapter) if he findeth but one or two Copies, which more favour that way which he would have all go, or thinketh in his private judgement to be true; he makes choice to interpret this mistaken Copy for Gods own word, and sets it down as advantageously as he can, to further his opinion and his desire to bring such a way into greatest request. From such men as these, you are immediately to take that direction for your only Rule and guide: And yet, though you see with your eyes, your only direction to come so indirectly to you; and, that you most manifestly neither do here judge for yourselves, nor can possibly judge for yourselves in this Capital point (comprehending all the points you are to believe:) yet you are taught by all your prime Doctors, that, as you are to answer to God for yourselves in all you believe; so you must, by yourselves also, judge for yourselves in all you believe. Yet (O preposterous! O Monstrously preposterous!) you, in this chiefest point of all, must rely upon the authority of a few English Translators; who exact of you to rely on them with more confidence, then they will permit you to rely upon the authority of a whole general Council, 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 Translations of men for your only guides, in all and every point of your faith; and such Translations also as we just now described, and shall here more fully describe. In the mean time note, that here I have one more necessary point, not clearly set down in scripture, to add to the former sixteen. If any deny this point to be necessary to salvation, let him answer this Argument: that is necessary to salvation, without which I cannot come to be assuredly guided to true faith; But I (who understand not both Greek and Hebrew) can not, without a truly Translated Bible, come to be assuredly guided to true faith; the true Bible being (as you teach me) the only rule guiding and directing to true faith: Therefore it is necessary for me, to use a truly Translated Bible: But no scripture doth direct me in the choice of a truly translated Bible; Therefore scripture doth not direct me in all points necessary for me to salvation. 2. Here again I infer, that all that vast number of people, who, knowing not perfectly both Greek and Hebrew, are forced not to judge for themselves which is the true word of God, must of necessity rely upon many uncertaintyes in this very point, upon which all their whole faith doth rely. First they must rely upon this uncertainty, whether the Copy which this Translated Bible doth interpret to them, were a true Copy of the true uncorrupted word of God; which, how great an uncertainty it is, hath been showed in the last Section; Where I shown also (and here you may see it again) how much more you take your religion upon trust, than we do: Even those great Doctors, who now set forth the famous Bible, Confess (in their Introduction) that Copies are only so fare God's true word, as they agreed with the true Original Copy, written by the Prophets or Apostles. How thy Translators Copy agreeth with the true Original, God knoweth; I am sure thou knowest not, nor thy Translator himself. Secondly, it is uncertain, whether thy Translator did in every place interpret sincerely, and not follow his own private opinions, in expressing some points of Controversye. Thirdly, it is uncertain whether he were not, in several places of so great a work, careless to express the true sense of his Copy, not marking at all times attentively enough, or not useing 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 uncertain whether thy Translators skill was great enough to perform his duty in so vast a work as the Translation of the B●ble is, even though he should use as great pains as he could. A faith relying upon so many uncertainetyes, for certain cannot but be uncertain: But all the faith, which such Protestants have, is thus uncertain; unless they have skill and will to use the Hebrew and Greek Bible: Therefore their faith is not certain nor divine in any one point; because in all points they rely upon a Translators authority, which is subject to so many uncertaintyes. See this clearly 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 set before your eyes several undeniable proofs of the gross falsity which is in the Translators of your own Religion, in whom you trust most; that hence you may see, how little they are to be trusted by you in so great a matter; especially to be trusted more than a general Council. Luther (that great beginner of this Reformation) did set forth a Translation, which, how good it was you shall hear from your great Doctor Zvinglius lib. de sacra. fol. 412. Luther was (saith he) a foul Corrupter and horrible falsifyer of God's word. One who followed the Marcionists and Arians, that razed out such places of holy writ as were against him. Thou dost (saith he to Luther) corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and Common corrupter and perverter of the holy scriptures. How much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee etc. And Luther himself, twenty years after, confessed he had often erred because he had trusted too much the glosses of the Rabbins; as witnesseth Coc●●aeus in acts Lutheri. Behold here another way for Translators to err, of which we thought not before. It is also worth the noting which Bellarmin in his Sermon upon Pentecost saith of Luther; Those (saith he) who most diligently have read the Books of Luther do bear witness that he, in the New Testament only (so small a part of the Bible) hath changed above a thousand places. He did set forth the Gospel's seven times, every time most different from all the former, as the same Bellarmine there noteth. So much for Luther. After him came Zuinglius, and set forth a Bible, with the help of his disciples, which being printed at Zurich, the Printer sent one of them to Luther: but he, rejecting it, sent it him back again, as you may see in the Protestants Apology Tract: 1. S. 10. Subd. 4. out of which place I cannot but add divers most pertinent things to our present purpose. This Apology than setteth down all that here followeth; as that Luther said of those Zuinglian Translators, that they were fools, Asses, Antichrists, Deceavers and of an Asslike understanding. That Beza reproveth the translation of Oecolampadius (who with Zuinglius and Carolostadius did first begin your Reformation in point of the Real Presence:) He than having set forth his Bible at Basile, Beza said thus of it; The Basilean Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost. The same great Beza accounteth that so highly esteemed Translation of Castalio, to be Sacrilegious, wicked and ethnical. But Castalio was quit with Beza, for he writ a whole book against the Translation which Beza made, saying; That to note all his errors (in translating) would require a great volume. But Beza in his Annotat: goeth on and calleth Castalio his Translation false, foolish, unskilful, bold, blasphemous, vicious, ridiculous, Cursed, erroneous, wicked, perverse. Hitherto thou seest these Translations of thy prime Doctors condemned by the authority of other not less famous Translators. And both those who were condemned thus, and who did thus condemn, were men more famous among you than is any one translator of any one English Bible: so that a greater authority, than is the authority of that man (whose translation thou takest for the only Rule of faith) telleth thee that Translations of fare more learned Translators than thine, be so full of Corruptions, that great Volumes would not contain them: How than canst thou hope that thy less skilful English Translator hath done his part better than any of thy greatest Doctors. But I must yet further ask thee, how thou dost know this on thy own knowledge? and how it is possible for thee here to judge for thyself, which thy Doctors so often tell thee thou shalt be able to do if thou wilt follow them? dost not thou here again see how in a most important point, thou art enforced to trust an incomparable less authority than that is of any one of our general Counsels, which they so strictly charge thee not to trust even in fare less points? O blindness. 4. But thou canst not but see how much thou art gulled herein, and how impossible it is for thee to judge of truth and faith by these English translations, when thou shalt yet hear what I have to say of them. Your first English Bible was set forth in the days of Henry the eight by Tindal, whom yours esteem the Apostle of England in this Reformation. May I not trust him will you say? Truly Bishop Tunstall noted no less than two thousand Corruptions in his translation in the new Testament only, as witnesseth the Remish Testament in the end of the Table of certain places; etc. How little a part of the Bible is the new Testament? And yet two thousand Corruptions in that only? Yet surely in Queen Elizabeth's days, who lived so very long, and did see the Gospel so well perfected, our Translations (will't thou say) were completely exact: For than, if ever, our Doctors had the true Spirit. Indeed than they were so confident their Translations did agreed with the word of God, that the Queen (whom all your Doctors by oath acknowledge Governess of your Church in England) in the 26. year of her Reign (as Sir Richard Baker writeth in that year) did command Whitgift her Archbishop of Canterbury, to set forth three Articles to be subscribed by all her Clergy, and the second of these was That the Book of Common Prayer containeth nothing contrary to the word of God. By reason of the urging this subscription, many, marking well that in their Common Prayer their Epistles, Gospels, Psalms etc. were contained, all which were taken out of their Bible: and knowing by their learning that their Bible, even than, was full of gross 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 Psalms, comprised in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in Addition, Subtraction, and Alteration, differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at lest. And Mr. Burges in his Apology S. 6. writeth thus; How shall I approve under my hand a Translation which hath many omissions, many Additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense, being sometimes senseless: sometimes contrary. And Carlict saith in his book of Christ's descent to Hell. P. 116. The Translators thereof (the English Bible than used) have depraved the sense, or obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant. In many places they detort the Scripture from the right sense; and finally they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than Truth. When King james began now to reign, the Ministers of Lincolnshire, in an Abridgement of a book delivered to the king. P. 11. 12, of the English Translation speak 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 senseless, perverting 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 james his ●eign writeth thus: He called to Hampton Court divers of his Bishops and Divines, to see what they could say against the present governement 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 alleged divers examples, particularly that in the hundred and fifth Psalm. V 28 where it is said They were not obedient; in the Original it is, They were not disobedient. To this it was agreed that a new Translation should be made. Thus fare Sir Richard word for word. By all which it is evident that your Bishops, Doctors, Divines etc. in Queen Elizabeth's days, even to her last day, did subscribe, and by Public Authority were ordered to subscribe, that falsifyed word of God to be the true word of God; though it were flatly contrary (as in the place now cited) to the true word. How knowest thou that the Divines now, though they miss not alway in the same places perhaps, yet perhaps they may miss in Others of as great consequence? The Scripture was held than as confidently to be the only Rule of faith, and cited as fast, and as thick, for God's word than, 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 God's true word. divers years after the resolution made of setting forth this new Bible, there still remained such open complains of the corruptions of the word of God, that Mr. Broughton (a man as skilful in Hebrew and Greek as any was in England) according to his skill did give this Censure in his Advertisement of Corruptions to the Bishops; saying, That their public Translation of Scriptures into English is such as it perverteth the Text of the old Testament in eight hundred forty eight places; and that it causeth millions of millions to reject the new Testament, and to run to eternal flames. In what case than hath this your doctrine put you, which hath taken you of from following the judgement, of the Church in a general Council, to make you judge for your own selves: when your learnedest Divines (who made so corrupted Translations) did so ill judge for them and others? Upon thyself than thou canst not safely rely in this point; neither canst thou rely upon thy Translators, who have used thee thus: Found me than, for God's sake, found me, if thou canst, any where any, but half so sure, a ground as is that of the Church, which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Thou dost not only venture the being deceived in this great point of the uprightness of thy only Rule, and judge; but it is manifest that thou art deceived: for, thy Rule (which is thy present English translated Bible) still standeth accused of many and gross Corruptions. Not to trouble thee much, I will tell thee only of one or two; Thy Translator had a mind to make thee believe that faith only could save thee; a damnable Doctrine, unknown to the greatest Doctors of the Church, which could not be, were it the only thing which did justify and save us, as thy Translator would persuade thee, when translating what Christ said to the blind man, whom he cured Luke 18.43. he makes Christ to say, thy faith saved thee, in place of saying, thy faith hath made thee whole. Again, though Christ, by way of Counsel, did propose in a general manner the embracing of a chaste single life Matt: 19 v. 11. &. 12. saying; He that is able to receive it, let him receive it: Thy Translator had a mind to make thee believe not only that every one did not receive this doctrine, but he makes Christ in the former verse tell us, All men cannot, receive this saying. Whereas Christ said only, All men do not receive this saying, as is evident out of the Greek. Is this fair dealing? is it all one to say, All men do not lead single lives; and to say, All men cannot lead single lives, though they use fasting, praying etc. This is as wilful an error, as it would be in one who heard me say (and also set it down in writing to prevent mistake) All men are not honest; should report that I said, All men cannot be honest. When I see a Translator not to make any conscience of so wilfully falsifying Gods own word, in favour of his own opinion; have not I just reason to say, I cannot be sure of my faith in all points, if I (vpon this man's authority) take his translation as the only Rule of my faith in all points? What more clear? 5. Here I must needs examine the doctrine which those great masters of the ancient languages, who now set forth that mighty work of the London bible, in so many learned ancient languages, who in the introduction to this their 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 wholly infallible; seeing that de facto it is evident, that among those numberless Translations which are extant this day in Europe, there is none of all them which is of divine and infallible authority: For faith doth rely on the authority or veracity of God, which always is certain and infallible, although all the means be not infallible; For translations have only so fare authority as fare as they agreed with the first own-hand written Original: But they are sufficient means of faith when they contain (who knows when that is?) all things necessary to salvation, without any error against faith or good manners. So they. Let us examine, what they say, by parts as it lieth in order, and that in order to our present purpose only: and not in order to examine how true all they say is. If true faith can be had now without any infallible Translation, than the Bible is not our only guide to true faith, and our only judge in points controverted in faith: for this judge must be infallible, as all your Doctors teach. If you answer the judge is not the translated Copy, but the Original in Greek, and Hebrew. I ask you, what shall almost all the world do to hear this infallible judge speak? For almost all are deaf 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 themselves, and on the other side are told that they cannot handle the Ruler by which they should Rule their judgement in all points: but they must be contented with a fallible Lesbian Rule of lead, bend as it pleased the Translator? Again, how is it possible God should bid the people to search the truth in the Bible, not only as the only place to found it in; but also as the only place for them to found it in: For God knew all people could not search truth in any Bibles, but such as are translated into a language they understand; God knew all these Translations were liars, if indeed they be so as you say; Can God bid any man seek for the truth, only at a liars mouth? Yea, would God, who loveth Souls so well, give them no better means to know the truth wholly necessary to Salvation? True it is, faith doth rely upon the truth of God, who said such a thing to be so and so: but if my Translator tell me; that God said such a thing was so and so; and yet God said no such thing, but an other thing very different, in place of which my Translator ignorantly or wilfully obtrudes this thing: here manifestly I am left leaning, with all my force, upon a Lye. And whereas you tell us that Translation (the only Rule we can handle) have only so fare divine authority as fare as they agreed with the first own-hand-written Originals; This is small comfort to us, to whom it is impossible to know how fare this is. Yea you yourselves know not which be the true own-hand-written-originals, which you confess to have perished, though you say that they be faithfully restored by your laborious gathering and conferring together more exquisite Copies than hitherto have been published: which how true it is, I know not. And than secondly, without we also know the languages, which you present unto us very faith ully, (as we perhaps suppose,) it is impossible for us to know how fare our Translations agreed with the Originals: therefore it is impossible for us to know, how fare we may trust to their authority as divine, or suspect it as human. And so by clear consequence it is impossible for us to know when and where we may give a most full undoubted assent to what we found translated in our Bibles. Is this the comfort you leave us at last, when upon our leaving to rely upon the Rock of the Church, you promised to make us men knowing what we do in all points: and now, we are sure we know not what we do in any? For we know not what our only Rule bids us to hold upon God's authority, or what that man bids us upon his authority only to hold, when offering us his own Translation, he bids us take it for a divine Rule; which if he giveth not, we are gulled even in that point which nearest concerns our salvation. Indeed you conclude with a small, crumb of comfort, when you tell us; Translations are sufficient means to divine faith, when they contain all things necessary to Salvation, without any error against Faith or good manners. But I pray reflect, how wholly impossible it is for us to tell when they do this, without knowing first for certain all the points necessary to Salvation: about which you yourselves are not yet agreed; neither can you give us up a list or catalogue of them. Nay, I may affirm, that no such list or catalogue can be given, (though even here it be so apparently necessary) that thence we might see whether there be any such error in our English Bibles, in those matters: Yea, all of you tell us, that there is no way to know what is necessary to salvation, but by the true Bible; and yet we (poor souls) cannot possibly come to know, which is the true Bible containing all points necessary to salvation, without any error in faith or manners; until we know first that a true Bible hath told us so: And again, we cannot know that Bible to be so true, which told us so; until we know that, that very Bible contained all points necessary to salvation, without any error in faith or manners. This is not only to blind us (as you say the Papists do, when they make us follow the Church:) but it is to use us as the Philistians used Samson; first to put out our eyes, and than to make us run 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 footsteps, than the circle we are m●de runne-in blindfold; by having no other assurance, that the only Rule of all our faith is a Bible, containing all things necessary to salvation, without error against faith and manners; and having no other assurance of what is necessary to salvation, what not; what is against faith, what not; what is against manners, what not; but by an other Bible, of which Bibles truth we have no other assurance than the former; but we still require an other Bible to assure us of the like things; and this other will require yet an other, and so with out end. What circle can be more endless? SECT: VI A TENTH ARGUMENT. That the Scripture Cannot decide the Controversy about the truth of S. Matthews Gospel. And that our adversaries do not believe this Gospel with divine faith. HERE also I must needs propose a difficulty, which, in the principles of your Religion, I conceive to be unanswerable. You do not less believe all things written in S. Matthews Gospel, than you believe all things written in any other book of the Scripture: But even your Doctors of the highest form, have no other authority for all things in S. Matthews Gospel, but the Authority of a Translation made by one, whom none of us all know; and so we can neither assure ourselves of his fidelity, nor of his skill, nor of his care to use a true Copy, nor I of his industry in the use there of etc. Now you tell us (and it is true) that Translations (prescinding from any decree of the Church approving of them) have only so fare authority, as fare as they agreed with the true Original; But it is impossible for you (great Doctors) to know, how fare the translated Copies of S. Matthews Gospel agreed with the Original; because, for these many ages, there hath not been known extant in the whole world, any one Copy of the Original-hand-writing of S. Matthew, who did writ in that kind of Hebrew which the jews spoke in his days, as all and every one of the ancient Fathers (who have writ of this matter, and whose works we have) do testify, and S. jerom libro de Schriptorib. Ecclesiasticis affirmeth himself to have seen, and to have also written out that Hebrew Copy. But for these many ages no one Hebrew Copy hath appeared in the world which, with any sufficient probability, could be showed to be a true Copy: whence it is evident, that none of you all can tell, how fare the Translations we have of that Hebrew Copy, do agreed with the Hebrew Copy; therefore, not one of you all can tell, how fare these Translations, which we have now, be of divine Authority, and how fare now we may admit them as God's undoubted word; there being no reason known to us, why we should admit them more in one place (upon S. Matthews authority) than in an other: and there being no reason why we should admit of the whole Translation, made by I know not whom, rather than of other Translations, whom we know, to have been made with all the best industries which human ability can afford: whence I can neither admit the whole Translation as divine, nor any part of it, rather than the part I admit not; I not knowing any one part to agreed more with the true Original, than the other. All the whole Gospel I cannot receive as divine, for no Translation at all, (much less the translations of a man unknown) is to be admitted as divine and infallible, there being no one such in all Europe as you say. Hence I demonstrate, that you believe not S. Matthews Gospel with divine Faith: For you cannot say, that you give credit to any one thing in it for the authority of the writer of it, because you know not any one thing delivered from God by the writer unto you, but upon the authority of the Translation, which is not further divine than agreeing 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 Original: if I know not what the Original saith? 2. Again, to believe S. Matthews Gospel, is as necessary to salvation, as to believe S. Luke's or S. john's; but no infallible Scripture (Translations not being infallible) doth tell you that S. Matthews Gospel is the undoubted word of God; How will you than prove this by Scripture against the Marcionists the Cerdonists, and the Manicheans, who deny this Gospel to be God's word? All points necessary to salvation, you say, are plainly set down in Scripture: Show me this point plainly set down. Here than I have one necessary point more, not plainly set down in Scripture which maketh the former seven-teene points to be eighteen. Neither can you say, that, by the very reading this Translation, you can discover a light showing it, as clearly as the Sun, to be God's word: For, though I can see no reason, why such light might not be discovered, as well in true Translations, as in true Originals; yet because you of your Religion, who only have eyes to see this light, do profess (as we have lately seen your greatest Scripture-Doctors to profess) that there is not one infallible Translation in Europe; and because we see, even such Doctors as they are, not so much as to hope to discover, by such a light, true Translations from false ones; but to bestow great pains in conferring the several Copies, of their several translations, with the best copies of the originals which they can found; and by the agreeing, or not agreeing with these best copies, to approve or reprove these Translations; we are by this certified, that they trust nothing to this clear light, which if it were a reality, and not a real fancy, were the best guide of all, and would save them infinite pains: Yea, whatsoever (to avoid our arguments) they boast of this light; yet even in the approving or reproving the Copies of the Original itself, they trust nothing to it. If I thought, they did trust to such an ungrounded Imagination, neither I, nor any one of my opinion (nor of thine neither, as I think) would ever buy one Copy of their Translations. 3. Now; if you cannot discover any such light assuring you of the truth of all things in S. Matthews Gospel, I am sure you cannot do so in S. john's or S. Luke's, or any other: And your own Consciences cannot but tell you, that the light discovering its self in S. Matthew, is as great as in any other book of Scripture; But this light is now clearly showed to be unsufficient to prove S. Matthews Gospel to be Divine, it being only a Translation, which your best Doctors confess to be fallible: neither is there any means to know one part of it to be more infallible than an other, upon the authority of the writer there-of; because we know not which part agreeth with the true Copy of the writer. You say you fix your faith upon what is Translated, and not upon the Translation: But I say, if you fix your faith upon what is translated by a false Translator, you may soon fix your faith upon a ; at lest you cannot tell when you do so, and when you do not; For you know not whether the thing delivered be agreeable to God's word, or only to the Interpreters fancy; especially when you know not of what credit the Interpreter is. Do you know it because your fancy also tells you this is God's word? than thus we may have a double fantastical assurance, and nothing else; one from the unknown interpreters fancy, an other from thy own. I thought your faith had relied on Gods written word. What written word is that which can neither be showed assuredly written in any Original, nor in any Copy, nor in any Translation of the Original Copy? If you fly at last to that miserable shift, as to say, that the Illumination of the Spirit can tell you God's word, without the mediation of any certain undoubted means, conveying it unto you: than you must needs be Prophets all, and every one of you. Who ever 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 gave only some Prophets. Eph: 4.11. But all of you who know, immediately from God, that which not mediate means conveyeth unto you, must needs be true Prophets. If this be true, than also any English clown, by the like illumination, communicated to him in the reading of his English Translation, may as well, and better, (because by divine illumination) be assured, that all is true which is in his English Translated Bible; and so, by good consequence, be assured that it is a very true Translation; though he neither knew Greek, nor Hebrew. And indeed your Greek and Hebrew only helps you to confer the Translation with the Originals; but S. Matthews Original Copy not being for many ages visible in the world, can be not more conferred with by your Hebritians, than by this English Clown: And if his illumination assures him of all that is written in S. Matthews Gospel; we will all, with one consent, grant that it may assure him as well that all other parts of the Scriptures be God's word: what than need you talk of conferring with the Originals, or knowing Greek or Hebrew? 4. Now at last, I hope, when you so universally allow to every man and woman who believeth S. Matthews Gospel, so large a measure of divine Illumination, that it is sufficient to ground an infallible belief; You will confess yourselves to speak most inconsequently, if you offer to deny the like illumination to the whole Church representative in a general Council: so now we shall have a Church infallible; which is all I am endeavouring here by degrees to prove. And tell me not, that you are not assured, whether they in Counsels have used the due means to obtain this illumination; for I shall as easily tell you, that neither I, nor my Brothers, be assured that you, and your Brothers, have used also the due means to obtain this illumination concerning every Book, Chapter and verse of Scripture, assuring them all to be God's word; especially when they speak contradictions so fast as we see they do. SECTION THE VII. AN ELEVENTH ARGUMENT. That the Scripture cannot decide the manifold Controversies about the true sense of the Scripture: Therefore in their belief of the true sense thereof, our adversaries have no divine faith; Nor no sure ground of their Religion. IN the former sections I have given you eighteen points, all necessary to salvation, and yet not one of them plainly set down in Scripture: Now I add a nineteenth point, which, though most necessary, yet, it is so fare from being cleared by only Scripture, that almost all our Controversies do arise from hence, without ever being silenced by the definitive sentence of God, delivered in the Bible: An evident sign that God, in the Scripture only, hath not passed the clear decisive sentence of all necessary Controversies: For all parties submit unto that sentence, and yet none of them is clearly cast thereby. They do than the holy Scripture much wrong, who say that God did writ it on set purpose to end all controversies: and yet they cannot possibly show how God hath done this completely: And so, by consequence, they are driven (to the scandal of all Christians) to make God fall short of effecting that by Scripture, which they say he intended to effect; to wit, the ending of all Controversies; which with our eyes we all see wax endless, even among those, who all submit to Scripture as God's word. We Roman Catholiks are far from doing the Holy Ghost this wrong: we say, Scripture was dictated by him, for many most high ends belonging to the knowledge and love of God, and belonging to the increase of all virtue and hatred of Sin, arming us with patience in God's service, by proposing most comfortable motives to us: so S. Paul teacheth us, what things so ever have been written, to our learning they are written, that by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we may have hope, and thus walking cheerfully by those comfortable examples, and these rate documents, and fervent exhortations given us in Scripture to all virtue, we may go in the end for which God made us. Yea we add, that Scripture wanteth not this honour of providing sufficiently for our unity in faith, about all points which can ever fall in Controversy; not that it ends all these by itself alone: but that it bids us have our recourse, in these cases, to his Church, and to hear her, and that under pain of being accounted is a publican or Heathen; and telling us, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, by any false doctrine; telling us, that she is the pillar and ground of truth; that he is with her all days even to the consummation of the world; and that He hath prayed his Father to give her an other comforter, that he may abide with her for e●er, the spirit of Truth, who shall teach and suggest unto her all things what so ever Christ hath taught his Apostles, guiding her into all truth. He tells us also that he hath given us such Doctors, and such Pastors, as may secure her from circumvention of error; for his Covenant with her is this, My Spirit which is upon thee and the words which I have put in thy Mouth; shall not departed out of thy Mouth, nor out of the Mouth of thy seed, nor out of the Mouth of thy seeds seed, from hence forth and for ever. And that her Sun shall not more go down; For the Lord will be unto her an everlasting light; she shall be a Kingdom standing for ever; that the Nation and Kingdom which shall not serve her, shall perish. Not Nationall Synods shall justify any nation's division from her Communion. All these Texts I shall show to be spoken of the Church; by which (I think) it is a apparent by Scripture, that God intended not in Controversies of faith, to instruct us by Scripture only; the very Scripture sending us so often to the Church, as also to her Traditions; as 2. Thes. 2.15. Hold ye fast, and (to do this) hold the Traditions which ye have learned, whether by word, or by Epistle: and again, 2. Tim. 2. The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses (he saith not by his writing only) these commend to faith full men, which shall be fit to teach others also: And again, Those things which ye have been taught, and heard, and seen in me, these do. Who seethe not that we were to do, not only what we had read, but what had been taught us, and what we had only heard or seen shining in public practice. But of this here after see in the next Sect: n. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. God than teacheth us all things necessary in Scripture; first, by delivering many things clearly in it; secondly, by sending us for the rest to the Church, and to her traditions: By the Church's Pastors alone he instructed some sufficiently in faith; as he did S. Paul, to whom it was said Act: 9.6. Go into the City, and it shall be told thee what thou must do; and as he did Cornelius, to whom it was likewise 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 answer Sect. 10. n. 6. 2. I return to you, who say, God intended by Scripture only to teach us all necessary points; which if he hath not done, you make him deficient in an unworthy manner: and that he hath not done it I have already showed in eighteen necessary points: and now I add, that by Scripture alone he doth not teach us the true sense of Scripture: And yet the true sense thereof is that which must give sentence in the decision of all controversies; the sense is the kernel, the life, the Soul of the text; miss that, miss all; A wrong and false sense is not less dangerous than a false text obtruded for a true one. Hence Tertull: de Praescrip: The sense adultered is like perilous as the stile corrupted And S. jerom Ep: ad Gal: saith. The Gospel is not in the word but in the sense; not in the bark, but in the sap. wherefore D. Reynolds in his Conference with Mr. Hart P. 58. confesseth, that it is not the show but the sense of the words, that must decide Controversies. So he. It is not than the Text as it sounds, but the text thus expounded, which must end (as you say) all our debates: And yet this expounding thus or thus, is that very thing which first makes all our prime debates and Controversies; and it is also that very thing which maketh them to be endless. 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 controversies: not the dead letter, but the true sense of it, delivereth the sentence of the Holy Ghost. The text, as expounded by private judgements, is not to be held Gods undoubted Word; unless we first know the interpretation thereof to be indeed true, and agreeing wholly to the mind of the Holy Ghost; which to know is a thing wholly impossible with out a revelation; and yet, until we come to know this, we shall neither have reason to agreed in one inward faith interiorly, nor in one outward profession exteriorly; But still our hearts and lips will be divided. This we see, as clearly as noone-day-light, hap among those who take Scripture only for their judge; which all Heretics did ever use, and will ever use to do so, to escape being condemned or cast by any other iudgment-Seate. Hence they all still appeal to Scripture; for than they know beforehand all that can be said, and know also by what interpretations to show, all that can be brought out of Scripture against them, not to be spoken by God in any sense contrary to the opinion they hold. And thus contrary opinions, grounded in contrary interpretations, are held, and will be held until the world's end; if there be no other judge to end them, but the sentence given by God in the Text of Scripture; not as the text sounds, but as the Interpreter expounds. 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 persuade themselves, that, God saith that thing in the Scripture taken not merely as the words sound, but taken as they verily apprehended and judge the true interpretation to be so, or so. This is the ground of their belief in all points; and therefore this is fundamental to their Religion; and that as properly as any thing can be called fundamental to any Religion: for it is the foundation itself on which every single point of their belief, and their whole belief in general is so wholly built, that they rest upon nothing but this. Where first I observe, that you and we must needs differ in the most fundamemtall point which concerns Religion: for we believe nothing at all because, by our private judgement only, we judge it to be the truly interpreted sense of Scripture; but because we know it interpreted so by the Church, assisted by the holy Ghost in all her public interpretations. You will believe no one point (for example, that there is a Trinity,) for this reason only; because for soothe you hold the Church fallible in her public interpretations of God's word: and we will not believe any point of our faith (for example, the Trinity) upon that ground; because we know assuredly that our own judgements, in our private interpretations of Scripture, are most fallible. Whence it is evident, that in those very points in which we do agreed, we fundamentally disagree: because we disagree in the very foundation of our belief concerning those points. Now, in point of belief, we must mainly attend, not only to the truth of what we believe; but to the ground upon which we build our belief. For, if we think ourselves to build our belief securely, upon a foundation which is deceitful, (as our own interpretation is, and the Churches not:) we shall be soon lead to believe things which are false; as we see a world of People do, by relying on the scripture as interpreted by their private judgement. The Turk believeth that there is a God, because his Alcoran (which is the Rule of his faith) teacheth him so: Now, because he believeth the truth upon a deceitful foundation; he, upon the same foundation, buildeth the belief of a thousand falsities. Add to this, that this judgement of the interpreter (who according to you is every private man, yea every private woman, for his or her own self:) this iudgment, I say, is most weak, and many points of faith are matters very hard to conceive, and unfold; and controversies also are exceedingly entangled; and the conferring texts with texts, like and unlike, rather increaseth uncertainty of hitting right, than it helps to any full assured certainty: what than more sure, than a most vnassured proceeding, in this interpreter? Again, private judgements being almost as various as private faces (yea often differing from themselves) infinite variety of interpretations must needs proceed from infinite private men's judgements, so very various. You may see this in your Patriarch Luther; who, in matters of highest moment, is noted no less than fourscoore times to have taught flat contradictions: as you may see showed in the end of the first tome of our learned Coccius. Not only your Martin Luther thus contradicted himself in words; but also your Martin Bucer contradicted himself in exterior change from Religion to Religion: At one time he fully judged those texts of the Scripture, which speak of the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord, to be truly interpreted by the Roman Catholiks; and so he believed Christ's Body to be really present, and to be adored in the Sacrament. After this he judged most sincerely, that the Lutherans did truly interpret those texts; and so he became a Lutheran, holding the real presence, but denying Christ's Body to be there adored. Thirdly after this he most sincerely judged the interpretation of those texts given by Zwinglians, to be the only true sense of the Holy Ghost; and than he became a Zuinglian, denying Christ's Body to be really present in the Sacrament; for which Luther termed him perfidious: Fourthly, he once more most sincerely judged Luther's interpretation of those texts to be the truer sense of the Holy Ghost, and once more became a Lutheran: and therefore in his first Edition of his Commentaries upon the sixth of S. john and 26. of S. Matthew, he asketh pardon of God and the Church for having bewitched many with the Heresy of Zuinglius. Fiftly, yet after this he sincerely judged again Zuinglius his interpretation of those Texts to be the only true one: And this interpretation he did publicly profess and defend at Cambridge; to which University he was called out of Germany as a prime Doctor, to help us here in England in our new begun Reformation. And it is to be noted, that, at every one of these his changes, he still used most earnest protestations of undoubted certainty, conceived from the Scriptures: as you may see in the most learned Brierley in his treatise of S. Austin's Religion in the Preface; where he citys his authors for all these changes. To which I add that after all those changes, he is at last affirmed to have died a jew, by Possevin in notis Verbi Dei and Vlenbergius Causa 12. And indeed for one, who hath first believed Scripture as interpreted by every Man's private judgement, to be to every man the only ground of all he is to believe concerning Christ, and his doctrine: and than hath considered after this, how groundless a ground this is; and how, if this be the only means left by Christ for unity in his Church, his Church is most pitifully provided: for in this most highly important point, it cannot but breed a strong temptation, to fall quite out of love with Christ and his Religion, in those who will not admit any thought of seeking for a better ground amongst us, where it might be so easily found. 4. Questionless if Christ be God as he is; and if he truly loveth these souls for which he died; he would not have failed, to provide them of some more assured, means; to know that true faith without which he will not save them; than this means is, of leaving them to the Bible as interpreted by each one as he thinks rightest. What Lawmaker in any Commonwealth was ever yet found any where so imprudent as only to leave the people of his Commonwealth so miserably provided (for the final ending all their Controversyes) as they should be, if he did only leave them a Law-book for their sole and only judge in all their differences; without any living judge to expound it with unappealeable 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 until the consummation of the world: and therefore this Community, above all others, had the greatest need of a most super-abundantly-sufficient means to end all their Controversyes; which do not concern their temporal, but eternal welfare. A world of Controversies must needs be still rising in a community concerning so many sorts of people, and those still further and further removed from Christ's time until the very end of the world. Wherhfore this community had been most miserably and pitifully provided for, in point of unity in faith; and Christ should have gathered together a most heart-disunited sort of people, if in all their numberless differences, after all their reading of Scriptures, conferring of places and such like Rules as you prescribe; they should have no other means left them to end those Controversies, but the written Text of the Bible, to be expounded according as they can guess at the intent of the Holy Ghost. True faith consisteth in the interior judgement; if than Christ desired they should be of one faith, he desired also they should be of one interior judgement: But how could the wisdom of God expect this unity in the inward judgement, knowing so well that every one of these judgements were so exceedingly different in framing several judgements; and that even after they have used all the Rules which you give them. 5. By this discourse, without going further, thou mayest once more see the ungroundenes of all thy whole belief, relying only upon the word of God: as this word is expounded and understood by thy iudgment; which in fare easier matters hath deceived thee a thousand times, and may do so in this hard matter, in which a world of better understandings than thine do vastly differ from thee. If thou do answer, that thou relyest not on thy judgement, but on the word of God. I ask, whether, thou dost rely on the word of God just as the le●●er sounds? Thou must say, no. How then? Thou must needs say, that thou dost rely upon it, as it is expounded by thy own judgement. This also appears by the infinite contrariety of expositions and interpretations given by so many relying (just as thou dost) upon the word of god: in so much that there be no fewer than two hundred several interpretations of these four 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 judgement doth really think it aught to be expounded. Wherhfore upon the whole matter, it is all one to rely upon a man's private judgment: and to rely upon the Scripture, as interpreted by his own private judgement. See the vast variety of Religions lately sprung up by following this Principle, in my first Sect. n. 23. If thou repliest that thou dost not trust to, and rely upon thy judgement; but upon the spirit of God, which thou knowest assuredly to rule this judgement, securing it from all misunderstanding of God's word: this thy answer will have many difficulties. First, how canst thou, without high presumption assume, to thy private self so secure an assistance of the Spirit (assuredly preserving thee from all error in thy private judgement;) when thou dost so pertinaciously deny, that the Church representative itself (when it judgeth in a general Council for the whole world of believers) is assured so well in their public judgement as thou art in thy private? And yet, because thou seest their judgement quite contrary to thee, thou must fall into this presumptuous Paradox. Secondly how comes there to be so mighty contrariety in judgements, 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 believe thyself to have a greater gift in this kind, than any one of the Holiest Doctors of the Church ever yet had? Fourthly, if thou be'st not a Prophet, and also if all those of thy Religion be not Prophets (which was not in S. Paul's Church as I shown 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 can secure you of this; and it is not where written in the word of God, that you A. B. by your private judgement, can infallibly expound all texts in the Scripture concerning necessary points. And if you, by your private interpretation do expound any text or texts of Scripture so, as to secure you of this: yet you are assuredly to know, that you cannot assuredly knew this interpretation of those texts to be most certainly true: For to know assuredly these texts to be rightly expounded by you, you must be assured from some other text; about the right understanding of which text there will be still the same 〈◊〉, and the same certain uncertainty; until, 〈◊〉 bringing any text, you can 〈◊〉 yourself certainly to 〈◊〉 … us infallibly assisted 〈…〉 interpretation. And because you prove this 〈…〉 text; we are not to believe you, who teach us, that nothing is to be believed, as infallibly true, which is not written in the Bible: in all which I am sure, it is not written, that you A. B. are a true believer: and therefore, though it were written there, That all true believers had this assistance of the Spirit; You were never the nearer. Fifthly how preposterously ridiculous is it, to hold yourself infallible in declaring God's word: and yet not to hold the whole Church infallible in declaring or interpreting the same? 6. Wherhfore, your last refuge is to say, that all points necessary are clearly set down in Scripture; which I have showed (and shall further show) to be manifestly false: And you may even with your fingers touch the falsehood of it, in this most necessary point, of knowing which is the certain undoubted true sense of Scripture. For, in things, which are clearly to be seen, there useth not to be variety (and infinite variety) of judgements: as we have seen there is, in interpreting the necessary texts of Scripture: in so much as no Divine, by Scripture only, can convince an Arian Cobbler, as I shown Sect. 1. N. 5. Although this Cobbler holdeth also Scripture for his only judge. This variety of interpretations (one flatly opposite to the other) showeth evidently the Scripture in these points not to be evidently clear. Again, if we mark it, this answer is very little to the purpose, in our adversaries principles: for first, they teach that our Catholic Roman Religion doth not differ from theirs in any point fundamental, or necessary to salvation: secondly, they teach that the Scripture cannot be showed to be clear in points not so fully necessary for salvation. Hence I argue thus; in points wholly necessary to salvation you and we all agreed; as you say: so that by this you can infer not more than, that the Scripture is clear in those points in which we both agreed. What get you by this? Do you separate from the whole Church for other points, which you cannot prove yourselves, by this ground, to have clear Scripture for? It is your common doctrine delivered by D. Ferne in his Sect. 13. that against public authority (especially of all Churches, in the whole world, all which you opposed in very many important points) there must be brought evident demonstration of clear Scripture. You do not prove that you bring this, unless you can prove the Scripture Vniversally to be clear in points not necessary to Salvation: for about these (as you say) we only differ. If you please to say than, though Scripture be not clear in all points unnecessary, yet it is clear in those in which we now disagree; every child will see, that you beg that very thing which is in question. And what argument will you bring, to make us believe that the best, and the choicest Doctors that were in any Church, for these last thousand and two or three hundred years, could not see the true sense of a clear plain and evident text of Scripture which they read every day? And yet you must increase 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 Christ's days to their days, had understood those clear places just as you understand them now; that is in their true sense. Now, I pray, upon what record have you it related, that there did fall in the fourth, or fift, or sixth age, such a thick mist upon all the best seeing eyes of that unhappy age, (about which age also none of you can agreed;) that not one Doctor could, or would see himself to proceed against the known sense of all former Christianity, in the interpretation those texts, which so evidently stand for the doctrine of all former Christianity against them? Will you have us to believe this strangest wonder of all wonders, without any Record from Antiquity; only upon your saying that it was so. 7. There is yet an other convincing reason, why this clearness you speak of in Scriptures, to unfold unto us the undoubted sense of the Holy Ghost in all necessary Controversies, cometh to be of no service, for the infallible finding out the true sense by every private man and woman: to all which you use still to say: if you will be with us, you shall see what you do; We require your obedience to what we demonstrate to be Gods will for you to believe and do, as D. Ferne boasts Sect: 14. Hear we come to the point to see your demonstration: if you gull us here you undo us: Make us than see, that by clear demonstration of Scripture, we may see what God in all necessary points requireth of us to believe and to do: and make all of us men, and women, do this. How vastly you deceive us, I have showed all ready, Sect. 2. n. 13. which place I must needs entreat the reader to turn to, and read attentively, before he goeth further. There we have showed (and that by D. Ferns own confession in his Sect: 26.) that all things necessary are not contained expressly in Scripture: but some of them are only thence deducible. But tell me (great Doctor) be they deducible by all of us, whom you promise' so gloriously to make eye-witnesses of this demonstration? They be (saith he) deducible not all by every one that reads; but it is enough if done by the Pastors and guides which God appointed in his Church to this purpose. What? did you call us all to be blind folded by you, and not to see the demonstration: but to hear only this news of it; that it hath been seen to be a demonstrable deduction by your Ministers? we do not see your demonstration, but your gross cheat. Yet (my dear Brother) thou shalt see thyself gulled fare more. Every Minister hath not eyes (how wilt thou know whether thy Minister hath or no?) to see this Demonstrative deduction: for Dr. Ferne addeth that they must be Ministers useing the means that are needful (mark the word needful) for that purpose; such as is, 1. Attention. 2. diligence in the search of the Scripture. 3. Collation of places. 4. observing the connexion's. 5. also sincerity and impartiality in the collection or deduction they make. 6. also prayer and devotion for assistance in the work. Also, besides these six Rules, there be fourteen more to be added; as I shown in the place above cited: of which some be as impossible for the vulgar multitude to use (though this multitude make up the number of the believers) at it is for them to be cunning in Greek and Hebrew; for they (to know they have interpreted the Scripture right) must of necessity be cunning in both these languages. Neither do I say any more in this, than your own most learned Doctors have said before me; to which I add your most learned whitaker Lib. de Sacra Script: P. 5. 23. where he sayeth of those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek; that they do often err, and that avoidable: Saepe ac necessario hallucinantur. Now bid us poor people Come with you, and we shall see what we do. Now indeed we see what we do; for we clearly see we do we know not what; because we see we leave, by your instruction, the interpretations of all Counsels, and Fathers, seconded by the perpetual practice of all Churches, which God had upon the face of the Earth, for twelve hundred years together, as is confessed: and this we do, to follow, not this evidence which we are told we should see with our own eyes to be such; but to follow what some Ministers say they see to be evident, to wit, those few Ministers, who are perfectly, skilled in Greek and Hebrew; of whose perfect skill we have no knowledge of our own; and though we had, we do not perfectly know that they have used, in all points they teach us, these twenty Rules which they confess to be Needful: and we also do know that all these twenty Rules are confessed to be fallible; and we have little hope by twenty fallible means, to come to see an infallible truth established; for when we were boys at school, learning a little Arithmetic, we were taught, that naught times naught did makes nothing but naught. Mille licet Cyphris Cyphrarum millia jungas, Nil praeter Magnum conficies Nihilum. To Nothing join ten thousand Nothings more: Thou shalt found nothing but of Nothings store. Add not only twenty, but twenty thousand fallible Rules: you shall be never the nearer that infallible truth, by being so well provided of fallibilities. 8. I have (I hope) shown thee sufficiently, that thou canst not see assuredly, and upon thy own knowledge know evidently, which is the true sense of the Scripture. Now I will give thee a further reason thereof, delivered by one of thy own chief Doctors, Doctor jeremy Tailor in his discourse of the Liberty of Prophesying, Sect: 3. where he proveth the uncertainty of arguments deduced (as D. Ferne speaks) from Scripture, by the many senses of Scripture; when the Grammatical sense is found out. For there is in very many Scriptures a double sense, a Literal and a Spiritual; and both these senses are subdivided: for the Literal sense is either natural, or figurative; and the Spiritual sometimes allegorical, sometimes Tropological; sometimes there are divers literal senses in the same places: so he. Now it depends upon the secret intention of the Holy Ghost, to have used these words in some one, or two or more of these senses. How shall we found out so great a secret, and that so infallibly, as to be undoubtedly assured, of our own knowledge, that we have certainly discovered this secret? Twenty fallible Rules, though we should use them all, as well as a man could, would not bring us to this infallible assurance. Even your great Doctors (who have used them better than thou canst hope to do) have had two hundred several opinions about the true sense of these four words, This is my Body. Thou thinkest thyself to be assured infallibly, upon thy own knowledge, that these words be to be interpreted figuratively; because thou hast conferred this text with some other texts, for example with those texts which tell thee that Christ's words be spirit and life, and that The flesh profiteth nothing. Alas thou hast observed but one of these Twenty Rules, which is Conference of one text with another: This Rule is infinitely deceitful, as the same Doctor Tayler teacheth thee, who in his next Section saith; Another great pretence (to justify new Interpretations) is the conference of places; A thing of such indefinite capacity, that, if there be ambiguity of words, variety of senses, alteration of circumstances, or difference of stile amongst Divine writers, there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people, or may more easily deceive the unwary, or that may amuse the most intelligent observers. What shall than become or thee and me who are none of the most intelligent observers? And so this Rule alone leaveth us at a non plus, even though we had both Greek and Hebrew: For (as the same Doctor intimateth) it is a most pitiful argument to infer; this must infallibly be the true sense, because I can show that perhaps it may be the true sense. Again, when your Doctors bid me confer this text with other texts of the Bible: I ask, whether I must confer it only with other places of the same Book in which it is written? They will say, not; but I must confer 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 have a question to ask, which I am sure will pose you: how shall I, or any Doctor of them all, confer this text with the texts of all other Book of Scripture, seeing that no fewer than some twenty Books of Scripture have quite perished, and be not where to be found in the whole world? as I shown Sect: 1. n. 7. Thirdly, you say that by this conferring of places, what was obscure proveth clear: and you mark not, that by the very same means, what was clear groweth obscure. What more clear than what S. Paul said; If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. Gal: 5. Take this so clear a text, and confer it with that Act. 16: 3. He took Timothy, and circumcised him; and you will found difficulty how the former text can stand in full force. Do you think S. Paul would make Christ profit Timothy nothing. 9 Hence I infer, 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 not man knoweth by Scripture, which points are necessary even for himself or for all. Had God intended to make a Book our only judge or Rule, he would have given us such a book, as should clearly and distinctly have said; these points are necessary to be believed, these things are necessary to be done. But now, one man tells us one thing is necessary, an other man saith no: The Scripture saith neither Yea nor No. Therefore, to those who will follow Scripture only, no assurance at all can be had of the necessity of such points as the Scripture doth not affirm to be necessary: For if you have only human reason for this necessity, this is but a human motive, which is deceitful; and being thwarted with a contrary reason of as apparent probability, my faith now is turned into a doubt. The points which are necessary, you commonly say to be but few; and that the Scripture sets them down clearly, as it doth also set down clearly many other points not necessary. Whence the vast number of those not-necessary points clearly set down doth infinitely increase the difficulty of finding out these few which are necessary: seeing that they lie so scattered and intermingled in the numberless number of the not-necessary. For some of these necessary points are set down here, in the beginning of the Bible; some one, some two or three books after; some other hard by that, some other a huge way of; and so from Gen. to the Apoc. Yea, why not further than the Apoc. for it is a mere guests made at random, to conjecture that in those twenty books of Scripture, which be quite lost, no one necessary point should be set down plainly, which is not set down plainly in these books which we have. At lest you say this without Scripture; and therefore, by your own principles, you should not say it: for your part being affirmative, (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 we have;) you must prove what you say, and that by Scripture: For I am sure you cannot prove it by Tradition; and therefore neither in your, nor our principles, it can be proved. Again; the Bible, as it is now, maketh a Book so big, that the fare greater part of the world, taken up with so many necessary affairs, cannot in a very long space of time read over this book so often, and so exactly carry away all the clear texts thereof, as to be able to confer one place with an other: For before they come to the other, which is perhaps in the Apocalypse, that text, which they did read in Genesis, is out of their mind: or if that text be not, some other may be, even at a time in which they should have most observed it. Besides this, what am I the nearer if I spend all this labour in my English Translated Bible; of the right Translation of which I neither have, nor can have full assurance, if I be not a very great scholar; as hath been showed Sect. 5. Yea, though I be so great that one among one hundred thousand is not greater; (for I understand Greek and Hebrew most skilfully:) yet, for all this, I neither have, nor can have full assurance, that the Greek and Hebrew Copies which I use, be the true Copies of the true word of God; as hath been showed Section 5. God's wisdom directs him to the best means, to compass his intention: We even in our ordinary wisdom, if we intent to set forth a Book, which should end all necessary Controversies, would all do our best endeavour to comprise in half a dozen Chapters at the most, all these few fundamental points; for these points you teach to be but few: and we would not make those poor souls (which we dear loved) at the peril of their own damnation, to seek out, all the whole Bible over, these few points which are confessed not to be so easy to be found out, but by some choice Ministers observing all that long way, which is from the first of Genesis to the very last verse of the Apocalypses, not fewer than twenty Rules, and many of them very hard ones to observe at all times, in all passages of so long a journey. And yet there is, to the full, as great reason, why those twenty books more, which are lost; as all these which we now have, should be consulted: being God gave us all the whole written word for our guide. God did not proceed thus even in the old law in points of fare, and incomparable fare less concernment; to wit in points of mere Ceremony: For every little particular ceremony which he exacted is, with most minute exactness set down in the compass of not many leaves: Yet fare lesser would contain all points necessary to Salvation, if they be so few as you hold. 10. We than, by our own judgement, are notable to deduce demonstratively all those truths and verities, which are wholly necessary to our Salvation: But instead of doing this by our own selves, and upon our own knowledge, with demonstrative security; we are in plain terms told by the best Protestant Doctors, that this cannot be done by us even in all these necessary points; not nor done by all our ministers, without the use of many Rules, which the fare greater part of them cannot use. What than shall we do? Which way shall we turn ourselves? Is there no better way, than to trust those choice, but still fallible Ministers; using still only fallible Rules; and infallibly sure to contradict one an other? I will tell thee first what thy own Protestant prime Masters 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 Original Copies of the Bible that be to be had, may as safely be followed by thee, as any Ministers thou knowest. These men in the Preface to their great work, which I citted Sect. 4. n. 8. having first endeavoured to clear that controversy about the truth of the Copies of Gods true word which they give us; they than speak thus: The whole Controversy being about the true sense of the Scripture, delivered by translations every where received, we have ready at hand the judgement almost of that whole Church which is Catholic (or universal) as well in respect of its being in all places, as its being in all times; which Church unfoldeth to us the places in controversy. To whose judgement (mark this) he who will not submit himself, truly he showeth himself to be a man of no judgement, and he is scarce worth the name of a man, much less of a Christian. So they fol. 4. This is a different lesson from what D. Ferne taught thee. But it hath better authority, Catholic Antiquity being 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 not; He hath but one little book in all; It is Vincentius Lerinensis, who lived in the fifth age, he writeth thus: Do Heretics use the testimonies of Scripture? Yes indeed do they, and that most vehemently; you shall see them fly through all the sacred Booke●, the Books of Moses, the Books of Kings, the Psalms, the Apostles, the Gospels, the Prophets: And this whether they be among their own people, or others; both privately and publicly; both in their discourses and in their books; both in banquets, and in the streets: they scarce ever speak one word of their own which they do not set forth with the words of the Scripture. Read but the works of Paulus Samozatenus, of Priscillianus, Eunomius, jovinianus, and such like pestiferous fellows, you shall see infinite heaps of examples, and scarce one side of a leaf, which is not painted out with sentences of the new and the old Testament. And a little after; when now they shall begin not only to bring forth, but also to expound, and not only to cast out, but also to interpret those words, than profane Novelties are laid open, than you may see the hedges cut down, and those limits transferred which our fathers did put us; than you may see the doctrine of the Church torn in pieces etc. And by and by But some one will say what shall Catholiks do, and the sons of the Church? By what means shall they distinguish the truth contained in Scriptures from the falsity of their interpretations? They must exceedingly apply their care to interpret the divine Canon of Scripture, according to the traditions of the Universal Church, and the Rules of the Catholic doctrine: which practice I said in the beginning of this Book was delivered down unto us 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 having put the very objection which our adversaries use to make; that seeing the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and super abundantly sufficient in all respects; what need is there that the authority of the Church's interpretation should be joined to it? than he answers; Because forsooth all men do not in one and the self same sense take the sacred Scripture by reason of the great depth thereof. One man expounds it one way, one man an other way; in so much that as many senses may seem to be deducible from it, as there be men. For Novatianus expounds it one way, Photinus an other, Donatus an other: Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius an other; Apollinaris and Priscillianus, jovinianus and Pelagius, an other: last Celestius and Nestorius an other. And therefore multum necesse est, It is very much necessary, to avoid so great and so manifold Labyrinths of error, that the Line, by which we rule out the Interpretation of the Prophets and Apostles, be directed according to the Rules of the Church and the Catholic sense. So he: so I; say thou also so; and all our divisions will be ended: for than we should not, under pretence or seeing with our own eyes what we do, take the Scripture contrary to so many Counsels, and all authority of Church-Tradition; because we judge it aught to be expounded so in our private judgement, though differing from all Churches upon the face of the Earth. But I must have a Church, upon whose authority we 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 holdeth and teacheth itself 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 bid us still to doubts and Controversies about the Scriptures, and their several interpretations rely upon the Church, and take her doctrine for our warrant) do bid us rely upon 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 Herald. When this was so undisputably out of all question, among all such as were than counted Catholics than they thought it enough to say; Rely on the Church: without saying, Rely on the Roman Church. So we Catholics, speak to this very day, never adding the Roman, but for our adversary's sake among whom we live: just as English men say, The Parliament decided such a thing; meaning the Parliament of England: which all English in England perfectly understand without adding any other words: But the English (who live among French men) when in France they say, The Parliament decreet such a thing; they must of necessity add, the Parliament of England, to be rightly understood of the French men there; who otherwise might think they meant some French Parliaments. Those who have made themselves of a different Communion from Rome, will now in these days understand that pure old Catholic language still common to all us of the Roman Communion: The Church decreed this; Fellow the interpretation of the Church; rely on the interpretation of the Church, etc. when we express ourselves thus by this word Church, without adding the word Roman; we are known, by all who be of the true Church, only to mean the Roman Church, and those of her Communion: Yet even we in these strange new times to be understood by these outlandish (as I may say) and newfound people of our days, must needs add the word Roman; or else they will not understand us to speak of that Church, of which we are by all our own Church most perfectly understood to speak. And Antiquity by the name of the Church still meant the Roman Church; just as we do: and just as we speak among ourselves, so than spoke the holy grave Fathers, whose Catholic language was nothing understood by that forreignner, who, more bouldy than advisedly, said that, none of the ancient Christians believed the church of Rome to be a Guide or judge of all Controversies in Christianity, because Tertullian, Vincentius Lerinensis and others giving Rules to know Heretics, forgot this main and clearest Rule: whereas you see by the words I have cited, that Vincentius Lerinensis tells you as clearly as I do do, that to avoid heresy you must, in understanding the Scripture, follow the interpretation of the Church, as a secure guide and interpreter in all Controversies arising about the sense of Scriptures; showing it a note of heresy to do the contrary. The very self same is told you by all those Fathers whom I shall cite Sect: 21. Numb. 2.3.4. There is than no more mystery in saying that those ancient Fathers, being 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: than there is in the ordinary speech of every man in England, when, by the name of the Parliament, he means only to signify the English Parliament; though he addeth not the word English: and yet that acute University Man will not understand this so vulgar language. SECT: VIII. A TWELFTH ARGUMENT. Divers other necessary points not contained in, or decided by Scripture. 1. TO the former nineteen points all necessary, and none of them all contained in Scripture; I will add divers more. The Creed of S. Athanasius hath ever been admitted by all succeeding true believers, and your English Church doth profess to believe it, and used to read it in their Common Prayer. In this Creed you profess yourselves to believe several points no where contained in the Bible in plain terms: As that God the Father is not begotten; that God the Son 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 Son. And that he who will be saved, must believe this. For this is an Article of that Catholic faith, which faith without a man holdeth entirely and inviolably, without all doubt he shall perish eternally. All this is in that Creed professed by us; and yet not one of those several points contained in it, can be showed to be contained in Scripture, not not for the Substance of them in any such texts as clearly decide the matter. Note by the way, how you plainly contradict yourselves, who subscribe to the truth of all that hath been said of the necessity that there is to salvation, to believe all the foresaid particulars here expressed by S. Athanasius: and yet you will needs hold the Greek Church for a true Church, which holdeth flatly against S. Athanasius in this Article; though the holding of it entirely be necessary to Salvation. 2. To this point (for I let all these several points pass for only one) I might add, that in the same Book of Common Prayer you in an other Creed believe, that Christ is of one Substance with the Father; and that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son: For which words the Graecian Church holds us all Heretics; and yet your Doctors of the English Church will needs hold them a true Church. But that which I press is, that we are bound to give an infallible assent to this article of God the Sons being 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 not where clearly set down in Scripture, but an Arian Cobbler will easily put of all the texts you can bring; as I shown S. 1. n. 5. But not to stand contesting about the clearness of these Tects, let this point pass joined to the former. 3. For another point not contained in Scripture, I bring the Baptism of Children; which is wholly necessary to the Salvation of Children. The learned Layman saith L. 5. Tra. 2. C. 6. nu. 11. that it hath been by some observed that the third part of Mankind dyeth before the seventh year of their age be ended. The third part than of Mankind is concerned in this one point, of giving Lawful baptism to them when they are Children: and yet, a point so necessary to the Salvation of many, is not where plainly set down in Scripture. To this D. Ferne answers, S. 24. Baptism of Children, as to the practice of it, is not contained expressly in Scripture; (id est) it is not where commanded to be done, or said that they did do it: But the ground and necessity of it are sufficiently delivered in Scripture; and that is enough for the doing of it. And that the Arguments from Scripture, by Bellarmin and others alleged, do sufficiently show. furthermore, concerning Bellarmin, the Doctor tells us, that he (Lib. de Baptism c. 8.) saith that the Arguments for Childrens Baptism out of Scripture cannot be avoided; and that it is a thing evident in Scripture. But yet (saith D. Fern.) when he treateth of Traditions (L. 4. de Verbo Dei Cap. 4.) This thing of Childrens Baptism must be one of them, that it necessary and not contained in Scripture. This is not ingenuous, nor Conscionable. So D. Fern; but fare less conscionably: For Bellarmin L. 7. de Bapt. in all that eight Chapter hath no word in favour of the evidence of Scripture for Baptism of Children; Yea, almost at every text that he citeth, he showeth, that text to have no force out of our adversaries Mouth. Of one argument out of Scripture he saith indeed; that, as it cometh from us; (which words D. Ferne conceals) it is so manifest that it cannot be avoided; and that is, that Circumcision was so clear a figure of Baptism, that S. Paul called it Circumcision; But Circumcision was given to Infants, therefore Baptism may. But here Bellarmin may well mean that this argument, as it cometh from us, cannot be eluded; to wit, by that usual shift, by which the Anabaptists can easily elude it when it cometh from Lutherans and Calvinists: whom Bellarmin had showed to teach that the form of Baptism was only a Sermon; which agreeth not to Infants: This evasion cannot any way elude this Argument as it cometh from us. This is all can be convinced out of this place of Bellarmin. But there be other solid ways of avoiding all force of this argument, even as it cometh from us. For first, every Sacrament must not be received by all those, by whom the figure of that Sacrament might lawfully be taken; Sinners did lawfully eat Manna, but they cannot lawfully receive the Eucharist; of which Manna was a figure: So also Circumcision was necessary for the male-childrens of the jews only, and that not before the eight day; and Baptism is now necessary both for the male and female Children of all nations in the world, and that before either the eight, or second day, if there be danger of death: The consequence than holdeth not from the figure to the thing figured. Neither is that a necessary consequence which is drawn from baptising of whole families. For first, as we read that whole families were baptised, so we read that whole families believed. Himself believed and his whole family. Io. 4. v. 53. Will you evidently infer from hence, that the little Children, not yet of years of discretion, did believe? They than only believed who were capable: So will Anabaptists say, they only were baptised in these families who were capable of first believing, and answering for themselves. Secondly, in many families all the Children which are alive, are above seven years old, and of age to believe: There be many families of new married people, who as yet have no children; or those they had be dead: Many are barren, and will never have any. Now Mr. Doctor as these two chief places (brought by Bellarmin, or others) do afford you no clear principle, from which you can evidently deduce the necessity of Infant's Baptism; or that it is good and valid, and not to be iterated; or that their parents are obliged to procure it for their little children: so other less strong places will less help you to the evident inference of any of these points, which you hold necessarily to be believed. I am not satisfied by being told, other men cite texts which do prove this evidently: You must cite them, and show them to be evident. The best text, besides these, is this, Except a man be borne of water and the spirit; he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, Io: 3.5. but how many shifts the Anabaptists have, to avoid the force of this text, Bellarmine tells you; and you shall see one presently. 4. Much more ingenuous and Conscionable is your D. Tailor in his Defense of Episcopacy, S. 9 P. 100 where he saith; Baptism of Infants is of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried; and yet the Church hath founded this Rite upon the Tradition of the Apostles. And wise men do easily observe, that the Anabaptists can, by the same probability of Scripture enforce a necessity of Comunnicating Infants, upon us; as we do of baptising, upon them. For as we press them with that text; Except a man be borne of water and the Spirit; he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: so they press us for the necessity of Infant's Communion, by the text which followeth but three Chapters after the former: Verily Verily I say unto you, except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. D. Taylor addeth; And therefore a great Master of Geneva, in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to fly to Apostolical traditive ordination. Here is the very thing ingenuously confessed which we labour to prove; that we must trust the Church's Tradition for this point: the necessity of which is so great, that he addeth; They that deny this are, by the just Anathema of the Catholic Church, confidently condemned for heretics. The Pelagians were ever accounted Heretics, even in this respect, that they (as S. Austen witnesseth Heresi, 88) taught; Although Infants be not baptised, they shall possess an eternal and blessed life; though it be but of the kingdom of God. Those Protestants are fare boulder, who admit them even into the kingdom of heaven itself. The doctrine of the ancient Fathers is so manifestly against this doctrine, that Calvin himself saith; (Instit. lib 4. C. 15. n. 20. It was usual many ages since, even almost from the beginning of the Church, that in danger of death, Lay People might baptise. So he. And to say the contrary, were to cross all antiquity; as your Bilson confesseth in his Conference at Hampton Court. Hooker saith no less in his 5. Book of Eccl. Policy 62. For, as your Musculus confesseth; The Fathers denied Salvation to the Children who died without Baptism; though their parents were faithful, So he in Locus tit. de Baptism. 5. To these, I might add the Milevetan Council; in which S. Austen was present and subscribed, and in which (Can: 2.) it is defined; That whosoever denies Children newly borne to be baptised, or say they contract nothing of Sin from Adam, which may be cleansed by the Laver of Regeneration: Anathema. But that which I chiefly insist on, is, that the Fathers profess to believe the necessity of Baptism for Infants upon Tradition. So that here D. Ferne will see a point necessary to Salvation to come down to us by unwritten Tradition: which he stiffly denies, Sect. 24. Origen who lived just vpon 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 Baptism even to little ones. And the great S. Austen is witness of the Continuance of this Tradition in his Age; as also that this point aught not to be believed at all, but upon Tradition: (Note his words Mr. Doctor, they be these;) The custom of our Mother the Church, in baptising little ones, is not to be contemned: Neither is it by any means to be reputed superfluous: Neither aught it to be believed at all, without it were an Apostolical Tradition. lib. 10. de Gen: ad lit. C. 22. Note that he esteemeth the belief of this necessity, to be so weakly grounded in Scripture, that it aught not at all to be believed without it came down to us by Tradition. And again (contra Grescon: lib. 1. C. 33. speaking of this point, he saith; That nothing for certain can be alleged out of Canonical Scriptures in this point; Yet in this point, the truth of Scriptures (and consequently a sufficient ground for faith) is kept by us, when we do that which seemed good to the Catholic Church; which Church the Authority of the same Scriptures doth commend. Now join this place to these places which I have alleged in the last Sect: n. 1. to show that the Scripture did bid us still follow the Church: and you will see manifestly that we may, and, in this point, must, ground our faith upon what we have only from the Church; or else we can have no faith at all of this necessity of Baptism, as our adversaries have none at all of it: For Scripture they have not, and the Tradition of the Church they hold no sufficient ground of faith; which S. Austen in this necessary point taketh for the chief ground of his faith; and again (lib. 4. C. 24. adversus Donat. de Baptism. Parvulorum) speaking of this point; That which the Universal Church holdeth, and was not instituted by Counsels, but yet always held, is most rightly believed to be delivered down to us by no other than Apostolical Authority. If Apostolical Authority be not a sure ground for belief; upon what ground have we received all our writings as divine? This Authority secured S. Austen in the belief of a necessary point not contained in Scripture. The like authority may also as well secure us all in those other necessary points, which we have showed to be contained in no Scripture. 6. What I have said will be much confirmed by an other necessary point, which also is not contained in any Scripture. It is a damnable heresy to affirm that those who were baptised by Heretics, aught to be baptised again. This controversy was moved in the days 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 appears by his first Book of Epistles (Ep. 6.) and other places, he did really judge the Scripture to teach, that all those were to be rebaptised, who had been baptised by heretics. On this ground he held that opinion. And for the same opinion, saith Vincentius Lerinensis, there stood so great force of wit, such torrents of eloquence, so great a number of patrons, so great appearance of truth, so many Oracles of Scripture though misinterpreted. How come they to be overthrown? He tells you a little before; Than Pope Stephen of blessed memory, the Bishop of the Apostolic Sea, together with his fellow Bishops, yet more than any other, did resist them; esteeming it, as I think, a worthy thing, if he did surpass 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 aught to be innovated; but that to be retained which was delivered down to us. Hence, saith this holy Father, the end of the business was that; Antiquity kept possession. And he addeth, strange change of things. The Authors of this self same opinion are judged Catholics, and their followers Heretics. The Masters of it are absolved, and the disciples condemned. So he: For it was not a necessary point of belief, before the Church had declared this opinion to be contrary to true faith, because it was contrary to Tradition; now in a Council examined by the Church, and found to be full and strong enough to assure us of the Apostles authority in this point. And so S. Cyprian and others did hold the contrary opinion, and were not Heretics: but all those who, after this declaration, opposed this tradition thus examined, and proved for Apostolical, were, for that very opposition of such a Tradition adjudged heretics. Neither were they before adjudged to be Heretics for their opposing the Scripture as clear in that point. No such thing was ever so much as objected against them. Hence that great African Doctor S. Austen, speaking of this very point of Rebaptisation, writeth thus, De unitate Eccl. c. 22. This is neither openly nor evidently read (in Scripture) either by you or by me: Yet if there were any wise man, of whom our Saviour had given testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question; we should make no doubt (Mark this all you who oppose the infallibility of the Church) to perform what he should say; lest we should seem not so much to gainsay him, as to gainsay Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witness to his Church. Mark also this reason, and confer it with all those testimonies given by Scripture to the Church, which I cited the last Sect. n. 1. and than mark S. Austin's consequence, which is; Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church, doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony commends the Church. Go now, and tell S. Austen that seeing neither he nor you could found this point in Scripture, therefore it is not necessary to hold with the Church in this point, for which she hath only tradition: You shall see if he will not again tell you, as clearly as I do, that as you should oppose Christ himself, if you refused to obey some one man, whom Christ should bid you obey in points of belief; and you should not so much disobey the man, as you should disobey Christ authorising 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 authorised the Church, and invested her with this power in the Texts cited Sect. 7. n. 1. 7. Hear again S. Austen de Baptismo contra Donatistas', lib. 15: C. 23. The Apostles (in Scripture) have prescribed nothing concerning this thing; (the point I speak of) but this custom, which was opposite to S. Cyprian, aught to be believed to have taken is origin from their tradition. As there are many things (note that he speaks in a matter necessary to be believed) which the universal Church observeth; and for that reason (O excellent reason) are rightly believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, although they are not found in their writings. Give me leave here to ask; whether it be not damnable, to refuse the observation of that which, upon so good a reason, (as is the testimony of the universal Church,) is rightly believed to have been commanded by the Apostles? Sure I am that you cannot have the thousand part of so good a testimony, that such an one is your father; not, nor that such an one is your mother: And yet it is damnable to refuse to obey them. Tell me than, tell me; I say, tell me, why should it not be much more damnable, to refuse obedience in a point (for example, the fast of Lent) which the universal Church testifieth, that it is rightly believed to have been commanded by the Apostles. Whence M. Cartwright in his second Reply against Whitg: par. 1. saith. If S. Austin's judgement be a good judgement; than there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures. Whitakers and Reynolds words speak much to that effect. See also S. Austen lib. 2. contra Donat. C. 7. and my Sect: 21. n: 5. 8. Here I might show, 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 heretics by the Church, and called Quartadecimani, who would needs observe Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon, though it were not Sunday: Yet no clear Scripture was against them; but they were against the Church. So for the same reason Aërius is lifted for an Heretic; and one of his Heresies is related by S. Austen (in his Book of Heresy, Heresy 53.) to be this: He taught private opinions of his own, saying; That we must not pray or offer for the dead; and that the solemnly approved fasts were not to be kept; that every man was to fast when he pleased; that he might not some to be under 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 myself; and I will fast that day to show my Liberty; Saith the same Heretic in S. Epiphan: his Catalogue: Haer. 72. I might also add that S. Austen, in the same book (Haer. 84.) putteth down for heretics, the Heluidians; for affirming that the Virgin Mary had other Children after the birth of our Saviour: and there is no clear text of Scripture against them. Yea S. jerom swears hard to answer all the texts of Scripture which Helvidius brought: see his book against that Heretic: whose Heretical followers S. Epiphanius in his catalogue calleth Antidicomaritas. I might also add several such points; as to communicate fasting; and but once in the day: and such like points wholly neccessary for our observance; and whose transgression is damnable: yet, to be liberal, I will take all these last points specified in this Number, only for one. Now, for the people's sake, who are most capable of that point, I will add one more in a section apart; and so will make the former nineteen points to be just two dozen, by the addition of these four points explicated in this Section, and of that other point which followeth. I shall add 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 ARGUMENT. A four and twentith necessary point not contained in Scripture. 1. ALL things, say you, which are necessary either to be believed or done, for obtaining Salvation, are clearly put down in Scripture: I now, by a four and twentith instance, show this to be false. That is necessarily to be done to Salvation, which left undone causeth damnation; But the observation of the sunday, (commanding the abstaining from all servile works) if neglected, or left undone, bringeth damnation; therefore to observe in this manner the Sunday, is a thing necessary to salvation. And yet this point is so fare from being clearly put down in Scripture, that, standing merely to the sole judgement of Scripture, we can show fare clearer texts for still observing the Saturday; than for the lawfulness of working upon that day, and the unlawfulness of working upon the Sunday: for neither of these have so much as one clear text; but the still keeping of the Saturday (for all those who hold Scripture the only Rule of faith and necessary practices) hath many texts, wholly Unanswerable; if this main Controversy between us and the Sabbatharians be to be tried by Scripture as the only judge. And it is impossible for you, by Scripture only, to convince the Aethiopians, who are said to observe both the Saturday and the Sunday; grounding themselves also in the Apocryphal Recognitions of S. Clement lib. 7. C. 24. where the Saturday is commanded to be kept, as well as the sunday, see Bellar: lib: de Scrip: in Clem. 2. It is superfluous to cite the many texts, by which God commanded rest from all work upon the Saturday, which was the seventh day; because it was the day ou which our Lord rested. And it was not any one day in seven, but the seventh day of which (and not of any other among the seven days) it is said; And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in that (and not in any other) he had rested from all his work. Gen. 2. How comes this blessing given to no other day among the seven, but given to the seventh day only, to be lost? Who took a way the sanctification of it, given by God himself; and given for a reason, which is as obliging now as ever? Give me a text, which telleth us (and that clearly) that this Sanctification was ever taken away. If you contend, that a new Sanctification was given to the Sunday, because our Saviour did rest that day; let it be so, to the honour of his holy name: but where do you read, that, at the giving of this new Sanctification (for which also you have no clear text) the former sanctification given to the seventh day, on which God rested, was taken away from that day? Again, the day of our Saviour's Ascension to heaven was upon the thursday, and that may, exceeding properly, be called the final period of all his actions: what clear text of Scripture tells you, that any particular sanctification was given to the Sunday in honour of our Saviour's Resurrection, more than was given to the Thursday in the honour of his Ascension? 3. But standing to the new Scripture only, I will show that we have stronger texts, resting in the strength of the text only, (as you will have us,) for still sanctifying the seventh day or Saturday; than for Sunday. I will give you text for text; and let any reasonable man judge whether the text be not more clear for Saturday, than for Sunday. I have in the Revelations, that S. john was in Spirit upon our Lord's day; that is Sunday. What than? Is every day to be sanctified, by abstaining all the world over from all work, because S. john had a Revelation on that day; as also he had on many other days? O but hence it is clear that there was such a Day as our Lord's day: so it is. But how do you prove from hence; that the Sanctification given to Saturday was taken from that day? Or that there was given a Command to all the world not to work upon that day which was called our Lord's day? How prove you that by Scripture only; Or that it was not the day of the Resurrection, or Ascension, or Christmas day which S. john called our Lord's day? Now give us as good an answer (if you can) to the text I shall bring for still keeping the Saturday. We are still obliged to keep all those Commandments which our Saviour did bid us keep with his own mouth; But he did with his own mouth bid us keep the whole Decalogue, or those ten Commandments given to Moses, in the very sense which the jews understood them; Who did understand, that by Remembering to sanctify the Sabbath day, they were obliged to sanctify the Saturday. I prove what I have said out of the 10. of S. Matt: where we read that one came to our Saviour saying; what good shall I do, that I may have life everlasting? Our Saviour answered; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. And when that man replied to know what Commandments our Saviour meant? out dear Lord did clearly explicate himself to mean all the Commandments of the Decalogue given to Moses, those very Commandments which this man knew very well, as appears also by Mark 10. Luke 18. You see here the very Author of our new Law, with his own mouth, requiring no less the keeping of this Commandment, as necessary for our entrance into life everlasting, than the keeping of any other Commandment. 4. Give me your second text for the Sunday, and I will return a more clear one for the Saturday. Your best text is Act: 20 v. 7. And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to departed on the morrow. Hence (will you say) it appears, that the first Christians were accustomed to Communicate upon the first day of the week; which was Sunday. I answer first, that it is not clear out of the text that they used to do so; but that they did so that particular Sunday: of which a very good reason may be given out of the words following, telling us that, S Paul was ready to departed on the morrow. Wherhfore those first fervent Christians might all assemble themselves to communicate at the hands of so great an Apostle before his departure; and they being assembled, the Zealous S. Paul made them a Sermon: but you have not where that he preached every Sunday. But I have a clear text for his preaching every Saturday. For he disputed in the Synagogue every Sabbath and he exhorted the jews and the Greeks. Act. 18. Again no wonder they assembled to communicate that day before S. Paul's departure, because they were used than to Communicate every day, as many Doctors say, or wonderful frequently, as is strongly gathered by that text, Act. 2.46. and they continuing daily (mark the word daily) with one accord in the Temple, breaking bread from house to house. Thirdly how doth their commnicating upon Sunday take away the Sanctification which God himself gave to the seventh day; setting that day a part from all servile work? Again do you think they never worked on that day of their Communion, who communicated daily or exceeding frequently? Is their communicating once upon a Sunday enough to prove, that all the world must never more work on the Sunday? And that, from that day, it shall be ever lawful to work on the Saturday? 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 Saturday, is fare 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 we must now look after, if we will have life everlasting. Behold here that great Apostle of the new Law doth tell us, that even than when Circumcision was quite abolished and made nothing, yet the observation of the Commandments (of which the sanctifying the seventh day, or Saturday, was one) did still stand good, and in its full observance: so that we have now our Saviour himself, and three of the four Evangelists, and S. Paul, for the observation of the seventh day, as much as for the keeping of the other Commandments. 5. Let us hear your last text; for you have but three. It is 1. cor. 16. Now concerning the collections for the Saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye upon 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 weak place to abolish an old known and still observed Commandment, confirmed by Christ's mouth; and to bring in a new obligation upon all the world forever. I pray mark, that it is not so much as said, that these monies were to be gathered when the people did meet at the Church upon Sundays: but, Let every one lay up by himself in store; for which work some one day of the week was to be appointed; S. Paul thought fit 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 work the day before, and obliged them, and all others not to work that day, until the world's end? Neither this, nor any other place can be brought out of the whole Bible, from which this consequence can be evidently inferred. And now comes my turn, to give you a third and fare more evident text, for the still sanctifying the Sabbath or seventh day: For my text shall show, 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 upon Sundays 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 sabbath day. Hence our Saviour foretells clearly the destruction of jerusalem (which was to hap in the year of our Lord 73:) that is forty years after the Resurrection of Christ. Than, if ever, a nun would think the command for the observation of the Sabbath, or seventh day, to have been abolished; so that it could not be profaned: and yet our Savour did bid his Apostles, (for to them he spoke these words;) pray that this flight might not he upon the Sabbaoth or seventh day, to avoid the profanation of that day; on which indeed jerusalem was taken, and pillaged. And there was, besides a perpetual massacring, a perpetual pillaging, and carrying their goods to places of security; as also a perpetual flight of those jews which could fly, and carry away their goods if they could, or endeavouring to carry them or sweeting with incessant labour to hid them, by which actions the profanation might seem to be committed. Therefore all the places alleged before hand do not convince, that the obligation of not profaning the sabbaoth day was taken away: as also they convince no new obligation of not working upon the Sunday to be brought in. For both these things I ask for Scripture, and nothing but Scripture: for it is nothing to our purpose to bring reasons, why the sabbaoth might be taken away; and this obligation of not working upon the Sunday might be introduced: But you, who affirm not the possibility only of the fact, but the real fact of abolishing Saturday, and of instituting Sunday; you, I say, must prove both these things with clear texts, Or else your mere discourses and reasonings will not be half so good arguments, as our constant Tradition of the Church, which you absolutely deny to deliver down to us any necessary obligation, not clearly expressed in Scripture. Your own Doctor Taylor in his Defense of Episcopacy, p. 100: confesseth the plain truth. For that (saith he, speaking of the keeping of the Sunday) in the new Testament we have no precept; and nothing but the Example of the primitive disciples: at Geneva they were once about changing Sundays feast into a Thursday, to show their Christian Liberty. So he. Had the contrary been plainly set down, your so illuminated Brothers of Geneva should have seen it. Give me than infallible texts, and not fallible discourses concerning the abrogating of the saturday, 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 obvious. My difficulty is this; that we are bound under pain of damnation, to keep our Sunday in a manner, not only not expressed in any clear Scripture, but also against the usual manner of keeping the Sabbaoth, and all festival days, expressed in clear Scripture. For, according to clear Scripture we are to begin the Sabbaoth or feast on the Evening before, and to end it the next evening: as is clear out of the twentith three Chapter of Leviticus, where all the old sabbaoths and feasts, and the manner of keeping of them are put down; From Evening to Evening shall you celebrated your sabbaoths. It was than forbidden, under pain of damnation, to work on friday after the evening: in so much that a tailor, shoe maker, weaver etc. who should have continued working for any long time between sunsett and twelve a-clock at night, should have been damned for his labour: and yet at the next Evening he might lawfully have worked until mid night: But I hope there is no such thing held lawful on Sunday after the evening; neither is it unlawful to do any, though never so laborious work, upon saturday evening until mid night. Here than you have an other obligation under pain of damnation, which is not plainly put down in Scripture; but delivered unto us by the tradition of the same Church, which delivereth the obligation of fasting in Lent unto us. Wherhfore none of you all can show any ground, upon which any obligation of keeping the Sunday, and keeping of it in this manner (which I now specified) can be grounded solidly; but upon the very self same ground we will as solidly ground the obligation of keeping Lent with a fast of precept (as I shown 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, holdeth the obligation of keeping the Lords day, made plainly known unto us by Tradition only: And yet holdeth that in the Scripture only all necessary obligations are set down plainly: plain contradiction. SECT: X, A FOURTEENTH ARGUMENT. By the Texts which our adversaries bring to prove that Scripture contains, and decides all necessary Controversies, we prove the contrary. 1. All of you say, that all things which are necessary to be believed or done for obtaining salvation are clearly put down in Scripture: therefore if it be necessary to our salvation to believe Scripture to be by itself alone our only rule of faith, or to hold that by itself alone it decides all necessary controversyes; the Scripture must also be showed by you clearly to contain and determine all this: For else you press us to hold that which no clear Scripture bids us to hold; which thing you all account unreasonable in us. Your part is here affirmative; and in this prime point you contradict the practice of all the Church; against so great and so public Authority, you must bring the evidence of clear Scripture, according to your own principles: If we than can but show that all the texts you bring do not suffice to this evidence, you are condemned, even by your own principles. Let us than hear you Texts: and that out of D. Ferne: for he hath the chief of them. 2. The first text which is brought by D. Ferne labouring in his Sect. 23. to satisfy my doubt, is this; For in them (the Scriptures) Ye think ye have Salvation. joan. 5. v. 39 I pray mark what I say; and you shall see how weak this and other such like arguments are. In the seventeenth verse of this Chapter gins a discourse of our Saviour's to the jews; and when he comes to the 34. verse, he saith; These things I say unto you, that you may be saved. Now my answer is this: That which our Saviour said unto them, that they might be saved, is a stronger proof that that alone by itself was sufficient to salvation, without any thing else: than to say, The jews did think by such a thing to have salvation; Therefore that thing by itself alone doth (without doing any more) suffice to Salvation: For undoubtedly our Saviour's saying such a thing, is better than the jews thinking such a thing. This supposed, would you not count him mad who should say that those precedent verses, which our Saviour had than said when he spoke these words, These things I say unto you that you may be saved, did contain alone a clear expression of all particular necessary points distinctly putting them all down? How than doth it follow, that because the jews did think (and perhaps truly think) to found that which might save them in the Scripture, therefore the Scripture did contain alone a clear expression of all particular necessary points, distinctly putting them all down? Wherhfore, as you must not understand that short speech made by our Saviour to have sufficed to Salvation, by expressing distinctly all particular points necessary: but because it did suffice to bring them to the knowledge of the true Messiah, whom they acknowledging might, by his particular instruction, know distinctly all particular necessary points: so the Scripture did suffice to Salvation, by expressing clearly enough that jesus Christ was the true Saviour of the world; whom they could not but believe if they would believe Moses: For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me; saith our Lord in the same Chapter v. 46. believing than our Saviour they should from him (and his Church after him) receive full instruction in every particular necessary point. But D. Fern urgeth this place wonderful weakly; because (saith he) they might know all things necessary to salvation (by Scripture only,) therefore he bids them search the Scripture, and they should found 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 Saviour's being the true Messiah. For it is no Consequence, This one point is clear in Scripture; therefore all other necessary points are clear in Scripture. My second answer is, Go and search the Scriptures now and you shall finds Salvation in them; for they will clearly Sand you to the Church for your particular instruction in all points necessary; as I shown Sect. 7. n. 1. Thirdly search the Scriptures and you shall found Salvation in them; but not in them as expounded by every man for himself (for these very men found not Salvation by them as they understood them;) but you shall found Salvation by them as expounded by the public interpretation of the Church. And as it is no consequence, Christ did bid the jews Search those Scriptures which they had than, because in them, they should found clearly put down, that one point of his being the Messiah; therefore those Scriptures and all the new Testament (of which no one word was than written) are affirmed by Christ to contain all points now necessary, and to put all down clearly: so also it is no consequence, Christ bid us search the Scriptures; Therefore we are to attend to them alone, and not to attend also to the voice of his heavenly Father, bidding us hear him; nor to the voice of Christ himself testifying of himself; nor to the voice of his Miracles, which he calleth a testimony greater than john. Nor are we to attend to the voice of john, although he was sent on set purpose to bear witness of the light. Io. 1.7.8. And yet all these consequences be as Good as this your consequence: Christ biddeth us search the Scriptures, therefore we must attend to them alone, and take them alone to be of sufficient authority to ground faith in all points necessary; and not attend to the Church. I will give you a consequence, though most bad, yet to the full as good as this: S. Paul saith, If women will learn any thing let them as●…e their husbands at home. (1. Cor. 14: 35 Therefore women are to attend only to what their husbands teach them at home; and not to go to the Church to be instructed in points necessary by the Minister. But after all this I must tell you (M. Doctor) for a fourth answer, that you assume that which it is impossible for any of us all to prove; that is, that our Saviour did bid them search the Scriptures. S. john did writ in Greek, and the Greek word (Ereunate) as also the Latin Scrutamini, doth as commonly, and as properly signify You do search (in the indicative mode,) as, Do search (in the Imperative): and therefore the Translator of your Bible might, according to the Original, as well have put it, not as he did, but thus; you do search the Scriptures, because ye think ye have Salvation in them; of which notwithstanding they did miss with all their search. If we read (as we may) you do search; than this place evidently proveth, that the search of the Scriptures only doth not suffice to Salvation: and therefore it is as probable (to the very full) that this text maketh against you, as that it maketh for you. And this interpretation of mine is not only the interpretation of S. Cyrill lib. 3. in Io: c. 4. but also your learned Beza saith; I do assent to cyril expressly admonishing that these words (Ereunate) etc. aught rather to be taken in the Indicative mode, You do search the Scriptures. How often have Protestants heard us give this unavoideable answer; and yet they, being never able to answer it, will never give over the citeing of it, as if it were a main proof of this fundamental point of their Religion? an evident sign of their want of evident texts. Again, the knowledge of the only Rule of faith is necessary for all: but Christ did not bid all common people search the Scriptures; for at that time the Scriptures were not in the Syriake Language at all; which only Language the people of the jews could understand. See this proved Sect. 2. n. 11. 3. D. Ferns second Text is; They (the Scriptures) are able to make wise unto Salvation. He presseth it thus; Can that be said to be able to make a man wise to such a purpose and only do in part, and imperfectly, teaching him only some knowledges to that purpose? Also he saith after, v. 17. The man of God is throughly furnished, or perfected to every good work. I answer, that the short speech which our Saviour made, intending it (as I shown in the former Objection) to make those wise to Salvation, was truly able to do what he intended, and the perfectly; or else he had miss in the choice of a means sufficient to that end, which he clearly said he intended; to wit, that they might be saved: Yet you cannot say, that speech, by itself alone, sufficed to make them wise to Salvation; but it did enable them with sufficient principles, by following of which Salvation might be effectually obtained; and so that speech was able, not in part and imperfectly only, to work the effect, by giving some knowledge to that purpose; but that very knowledge which that short speech gave; was a knowledge effectual for the direction of all those jews; not by directing them in every particular, but by telling them clearly whence all particular directions were to be had, which any one following will soon prove a man of God perfect, throughly furnished to all good works. Is not all this true even of that short speech? Much more is it true of so many speeches made to us in Scripture for our Salvation, and able to bring us effectually to it, if we follow them, especially such speeches as bid us so often to follow the Church. See the many places I cited S. 7. n. 1. These Scriptures than so full of these speeches, and these divine writings than so full of these speeches, and these divine writings expounded, not by private, but by public exposition of the Church, do not in part only and imperfectly, work this effect, by teaching us some knowledges to that effect; but they teach us a great sum of such knowledges, as are able to effect the work, though not by giving us every particular point to be done, but by telling us whence every particular point might securely be had. Yet to give you fuller satisfaction; I say, it was fare from S. Paul's mind to say the Scriptures are able to make us wise to Salvation, as they are used by those, who take them as interpreted according to that sense, that every man shall in his Conscience judge to be true. The Scripture thus taken, breedeth infinite inconveniences, as I shown at large Sect. 7. whence appears that the Scriptures used so, are the cause of many men's damnation. S. Paul than did not speak of the Scriptures taken so (as you do;) but he said, they were able to make Timothy wise to Salvation; because he was indeed a man of God who did continued in the things which he learned and had been assured of; to wit, by the oral tradition of the Doctors of the Church, and by S. Paul himself: for so S. Paul teacheth me in the beginning of his former Chapter saying to Timothy; Thou therefore (my Son) be strong in the grace, that is in Christ jesus, and in the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses. And in the Chapter before that v. 13. Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me. Yea and in this third Chapter, But thou hast fully known my doctrine, Manner of life etc. All this doctrine he could, not have known by any Scripture, of which a small part was than written. Give me than a Timothy, a man so well preinstructed by Tradition, so fast a houlder of Traditions, and a man so knowing from whom 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 upon any private man's judgement, or upon his own; but to take them as interpreted by the Church, whom he will be sure never to contradict; she being the pillar and Ground of Truth, as that his great Master saith, all whose Doctrine he fully knew. But those Scriptures which are able to make such a man of God, such a Timothy, wise to Salvation, and throughly furnished or perfected to every good work, are not able to do this effect, if used in a manner contrary to that which I have showed they were used by him, and should be used by us. We do abuse them if we take them and discanon them (as I may say) by our private interpretations, contrary to the Tradition, and unanimous exposition of the Church. These men use Scriptures to their perdition as S. Peter said some did the hard places of S. Paul's Epistles: Whence you see that misinterpretations of hard places were made to the perdition of the Interpreters. Wonder not than to hear us 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 lead them securely: Can you found me a surer than the Church? There is no want of Infallibility in Scripture but there is great abundance of fallibility in our private judgement of discretion, which maketh us need a sure guide in the interpretation thereof. 4. Having now showed in what sense the text alleged did say, The Scripture was able to make a man wise to salvation; I shall easily show how weakly from these words S. Paul is said to have meant, That the Scripture by itself alone was sufficient for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good works. I than freely grant the Scripture sufficient for all this, but still in the same sense that I have explicated the Scripture to be able to make a man wise to salvation; to wit, as interpreted by the Church, or as understood by men well pre-instructed by Tradition, who will be sure in all doubts to have recourse to the Church; and esteem as much what tradition teacheth the Apostles to have said, as what their books tea●h them to have written: their words being of the same authority unwritten as written; and tradition being a more uncorrupt deliverer of their doctrine, than writing; which is subject to be so many ways corrupted, and altered, and of which we are only certified that it is Apostolical by the Tradition of the self same Church, which doth as well certify us that other doctrines be Apostolical, besides those written in this book. Here also I must tell you how M. Fisher did excellently silence D. White, when in their public conference he urged, this text, The Scripture is profitable: etc. For, said he, Although would be profitable to make the substance of a house, to make wainescot, stools, tables, and other furniture; yet hence doth not follow would alone is sufficient to build and furnish a house: So Scripture is profitable for all these ends, but alone it is not sufficient. Whence all the weight of your argument comes to this; that if it be so profitable as to make a man wise to Salvation, it must be sufficient by itself alone to do so: which I have already shown to be false; without you take the whole Canon of Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Church, or as understood by those who are preinstructed by Traditions, as Timothy was. 5. Indeed you say, this sufficiency belongs to the whole Scripture, though in proportion only to every book; and therefore the Apostle said, That Scriptures are able to make a man wise to Salvation. How they are able to do this, I have showed; 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 we now have, and to which you stretch these words; this place cannot possibly prove that this sufficiency belongs to the whole Scriptures we now have: But it is evident he did not speak these words of the whole Canon of the Scripture which we now have; for almost all the new Scripture was as than not written. How could that, which was not at all, have a being than able to make Timothy wise to Salvation? S. Paul spoke of the sufficiency (if you please) of all Scriptures which were than extant. You deny this sufficiency to them, and you say: It belongs to the whole Scripture, though in proportion to every book: therefore it belonged in proportion only to those books which were written than. Why did S. Paul than say of those books than extant, that they were able to make a man wise to Salvation? Now answer your own argument. Again; if every Book of Scripture contributeth its proportionable part, to make up a whole body of Books completely sufficient to this purpose; how will you do now, when no fewer than twenty Books of the Scripture are quite lost, as I have showed Sect. 1. n. 7. We have not any thing like a Text, by which we can prove that these 20. Books were not as requisite to make up this full sufficiency of the whole Canon, to decide all Controversies, as any other twenty which we have; especially if you except the four Ghospels. And yet the Original of one of these Ghospels is also quite lost; and we have no surer ground for that belief, by which we believe ourselves to have the true Copy of it, than the Tradition of the Church: if she be fallible in her Traditions, we cannot believe any thing in S. Matthews Gospel: as I shown sect. 6. 6. Whereas you object that, though the Scripture did contain more things plainly in itself, and show us from whence we may have the rest, that is from the Church: Yet thus the Scripture could not be said to make us perfect, for so the Law might be said to make us perfect, because it showeth us Christ, and was a Schoolmaster to him. Gal: 3. And john Baptist might have been said to have perfected his Disciples by showing them Christ. So you. I answer, that you all fight against this objection with every text you bring in this controversy against us: For as the two former, So all the following texts objected against us, speak of the old Testament, or Law; for In that (Christ said) the jews thought to found Salvation; of that he said, Search the Scriptures; of that S. Paul said, It was able to make a man wise to Salvation, it was profitable, so that by it the man of God is throughly furnished or perfected (mark that word) to every good work. And now behold you yourself come and infer for an absurdity, that the old Scripture should be able to do this. We freely acknowledge that the Law of itself could perfect no man, not nor justify any man, as S. Paul clearly saith in the place cited: but they were all to be justified by faith in Christ. The Law, as introducing to this, did sufficiently perfect all those, who were perfect under the Law: independently of this, it did not do so. As for S. john; you are clearly told 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 ways, to give knowledge of Salvation unto his people by the remission of their Sins. Can you show the Scripture doth more in this point than it saith S. john did? 7. Your third text is, You shall not add to the word which I speak unto you, nor take from it. Deut: 4.2. Therefore the Scripture is so perfect, and so sufficient, that it alone contains all necessaries; and therefore condemns the superadded Traditions. You have forgot M. Doctor your very last words; That the Law (chiefly contained in Deutronomy) could not make us perfect: and 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 put three sorts of Tradition that you allow there, and §. 13. Be not these additions to the written word? Thirdly you have forgot that the jews had at lest two undeniable Traditions, besides those which delivered the Scriptures and the true sense of the Scriptures unto them: For they knew only by tradition what remedy was to be used to free their female-childrens from original Sin; as also to free their male-childrens 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 having any Scripture expressing to them the knowledge of this remedy, or of their obligation to use it, Or that it was so necessary for the Salvation of their Children, whom they did believe to be in Original Sin, and by that debarred from Salvation, unless some remedy were applied. Some remedy surely was as necessary for the female, as Circumcision for the male: Show me this Remedy in Scripture. Secondly they truly believed some of those bloody Sacrifices to have been appointed unto them by God, for the expiation of their Sins; but they could not truly believe that any of those Sacrifices could expiate their Sins by its own virtue: They believed than that those Sacrifices had this expiative virtue from the merits of Christ: show me any text in which this was than written. It is ridiculous to say that this faith was not necessary to that Church, at lest so as to be believed by some among them. Fourthly, M. Doctor, you forget against whom you bring this testimony: If it belongs only to the jews; why do you bring it against Christians? If it belongs also to Christians; why do you not circumcise yourselves? You urge against us, Ye shall not add: We urge against you, ye shall not diminish. Fiftly M. Doctor you forget that you are to conclude thus; The whole Canon of Scripture is a sufficient direction for us: and you conclude, that the Law of Moses is a sufficient direction for us; which you and yours confess to be false. Sixtly you forget that a whole score of books are diminished from the Canon by being quite lost; half a score more you will take from us, and cast amongst the Apocrypha. Do you think that no part of this sufficiency is wanting to such a Canon as you now have! Give me 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 judgeth. Give us the Scriptures taken in the sense which the visible Church judgeth (for the judge of the sense must be visible;) and we will grant all. For than without any addition, and by only true interpretation, we will prove that we must take the Church for our infallible guide: and she will show us Scripture rightly by her interpreted, for the admitting of unwritten Tradition. In the middle of this your seavenfold forgetfulness I pray remember what pitiful texts you have put in the forefront to prove that, which, if not proved better, your Religion will prove most pitifully grounded. The sense of the words which you urge is literally this; Let no man presume by his private interpretations to deprave any Law either by restraining, or streaching the natural signification of the words in which it is delivered. For example; God in the 17. of Deutronomy v. 11.12. saith; Thou shalt not decline from the Sentence which they (that is the High Priests) shall show thee, to the right hand nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, even that man shall dye. God would not have this Law depraved by such an interpretation as you use to give; that the Sentence is to be followed of those judges which God appointed to tell you what was God's Law rightly understood, 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 Brothers unto Hell; for S. john testifieth to every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book (he speaks of the Revelations only:) If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this Book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City. But Luther took away all the words of the Book of this prophecy, when he said in his first Preface to the new Testament, that he received this book neither for Prophetical nor Apostolical: Therefore God shall take his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy City. The same shall be done to his Lutheran disciples. Thus you see I have concluded evidently what I said, let us hear you conclude; Nothing must be added to this book; therefore all the Scripture is sufficient to decide all controversies; though twenty whole books 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 certainty that the Apocalypse was the last book of Scripture; for your own Kemnitius holds S. john his Gospel written after that; and most hold his Epistles the very last part of Scripture. Now mark, that the very last verses, which were written in his last Epistle are. I had many things to writ (now when all the Scripture was written:) But I will not with ink and pen writ unto thee. But I trust I shall shortly see thee and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Now for God's sake, what text assures you (for all other assurances we by your own principles reject;) what text (I say) assures you, that those things which S. john had yet to writ, but did express them by Mouth only, were all of them things unnecessary. 9 Your fift text Gal. 1.8. Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach an other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you; let him be accursed. As I said before, so I say now again, if any man preach an other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. First M. Doctor you forget that, in the beginning and in other parts of your book, you will have our Church to be one and the same with yours in such fundamentals as constitute a Church: and will you now prove this Church, by the sentence of the Apostle to have been accursed, anathematised, and excommunicated, or cut of from the true Church? You must sweated to found God a true Church upon Earth, if ours stood excommunicated by S. Paul ever since it held Traditions. Secondly you forget that you bring this Curse upon your own head, for it is you who preach an other Gospel from that which S. Paul preached, and that which we received from him, To stand fast and hold the Traditions which we have learned whether by word or Epistle. 2. Thes. 2.15. And sure we are that the Epistles to the Thessallonians did not contain the whole Gospel: If they did, than found 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 me before many witnesses, the same commend thou unto faithful men, which shall be fit to teach others also. 2. Tim: 2.2. You will have us commend to other men, not those things which were only heard before many Witnesses by public Tradition, but only such as are written: You therefore gainsay S. Paul, and on you the Curse of his Excommunication falleth. Where you see, by the way, a good reason, why we could not hold you in our Communion, you being anathematised by S. Paul himself. We than, conformably to the doctrine of S. Paul, say that the Gospel which he preached unto them, and the Gospel which they had received (see his first Epistle to them Cap. 1. & 2.) was a Gospel, which is most truly expounded by us to contain both his unwritten and written doctrine: Yet in all probability very little of the Gospel had been, as than, delivered in writing unto the Galatians; or tell me 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 writ was the very Epistle to the Galatians, as is well proved by the Remish Testament in the Preface of the Epistle to the Romans. And you can bring nothings but conjectures to affirm that he had delivered at this time any written Gospel at all unto them. Again you most unskilfully say, that this text must be meant of the written Gospel only, for that which is written beareth (you mean, only) the name of Gospel. for first this very place proveth the contrary: Secondly many other places show the contrary, for in S. Matthew c. 4. v. 23. jesus went about all Gallilee preaching the Gospel: what Gospel was than written? And c. 9 v. 35. jesus went about all the Cities and Villages preaching the Gospel: what Gospel was than written? or written when our Saviour said; wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached. c. 26. v. 13. S. Mar: c. 1. v. 14. jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, saying repent and believe the Gospel. What written Gospel did they know? or S. Peter, to whom in the 10. Chapter Christ speaketh about leaving goods for the Gospel. And thus, I might run over the new Testament, where the word Gospel is so often taken for the doctrine delivered by word of mouth; and perhaps not thrice in all Scripture it is clearly taken for the written Gospel. And also To Evangelize is far more frequently taken for preaching the unwritten word, than the written. This text than most convincingly proveth that S. Paul commands them by no means to go against the doctrine rceeived by Tradition. As for S. Austin's authority, with which you back your interpretation, Bellarmin told you truly, that he did not expound this text, but did only cite it to prove that nothing was to be believed against Scripture: No nor besides Scripture interpreted truly by the public authority of the Church; as I said before: And this answer satisfieth what you bring out of S. jerom; although indeed he speaketh of those who bring not known and public tradition of the Church; but of those who device new things and give them out for old Traditions: which not being true Traditions delivered by the Church, must needs be of no authority; without they can prove their truth by Scripture, which they cannot prove by true Tradition. 10. It is therefore false which you say, that in the judgement of S. Aug: and S. jerom it is enough to incur the Anathema, if they teach any thing of faith besides that which is received from Scripture, in the sense you take this word Besides. It is also impossible to show that S. Paul there spoke of Scripture. Yea he speaks of that which they had received from him, who never writ any thing before that Epistle, as I said: neither do we teach any thing of faith besides that which hath authority from the Scripture, though not from the Scripture expounded as private men think fittest, but from Scripture rightly expounded by the Church, to which we add nothing but what Scripture bids us add. Wherhfore the authorities you cite are ill applied to us, for we speak nothing without authority and testimony of the Scripture taken in this manner, as it should ever be; neither add we any thing what, is not written; For it is written, Hold ye the Traditions. If you say, this is no true Tradition. I am by Scripture bidden to hear the Church before you. Note that it is a very good argument to say, it is nowhere written, therefore it is not to be admitted; if this argument be only used as the Fathers use it, that is, when it was notorious that such a thing was not delivered by tradition: For what is not delivered by Church Tradition, must be proved by Scripture. See S. 12. n. 6. You see what little need we have to interpret the words, besides what I have preached, to be the same, as if he had said, Contrary to what I preached. Yet because this is very true, it is justified by Bellarmive: and you, not going about to answer so much as one of the proofs, deserve no answer. Yet mark what what S. Paul saith Rom: 16. I desire you Brothers to mark them who Make dissensions and scandals (note the next word) contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. Who are contrary to what was delivered to the Roman Church, to which S. Paul did writ these words? who be they? mark them: avoid them. 11. Your sixth objection is no text, but an argument drawn from this text, To man's Testament no one adds. Gal: 3.15. Much less is it lawful to add to God's testament; say you. We answer, that we add nothing to God's testament: But with all reason we still stand to have it interpreted, not by any man's private authority. For what Commonwealth permitts The Testaments and Last wills of man to be so interpreted? Let us have God's testament both new and old, interpreted by that Public Authority impowered by God's commission to this end, and we require not more. Less than this cannot in reason be required: so that your jest of a will partly written parley nuncupatory is lost. Not wills worse made than those which concern many intricate matters belonging to very several persons, and yet prohibiting any Court in the world to interpret them, but do let the sense be judged by every one concerned in it. In so much that though Christ's, in four several places of his will, clearly tells us that, he leaveth us the unestimable legacy of his precious Body and blood; and that his flesh is truly meat &c: Yet by private interpretations it shall be lawful to tell us, that we must have only a figure and sign of his Body. Would any man admit of the figure or picture of a Horse or House, in place of a Horse or house given him by Legacy? Shall there be no Court in the world to prevent these inconveniences? Thus you would have Christ make his Testament. Who hath so little discourse as to think a Testament; left to no Courts interpretation in the world, to be a fit judge, by its own evidence, when twenty, or thirty leaves can be proved to be missing unto it? And yet to the whole testament, new and old, twenty whole books be missing, as I have proved Sect: 1. n. 7. and half a score more be most unjustly pulled out of the Canon by you, and cast among the Apocrypha. And yet you would have all us stake our souls upon the full assurance we have that this broken testament taken thus, and also taken as it is expounded by you, against Fathers, Counsels, and the constant judgement of the greater sort of the present Christian world, and the known judgement of all the Christian world for a thousand years together? what more unreasonable. With man's testament none deals thus, much less 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 we have the new testament made by unwritten words eight years before one word of it wsa written, and well towards eighty years before all of it was written to the end. Having then shown that the words Gospel and new Testament according to Scripture, do most properly signify the unwritten word of Christ: we may confidently say, that we add nothing to the Gospel of Christ, or new Testament: If you ask, how I know what was delivered by Christ's unwritten Gospel and new Testament? I easily answer; I know this by the testimony of the self same always visible Church, by whose testimony you know that such books contain Christ's written Gospel, 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 years, which passed between the passion of Christ and the finishing his written Gospel or new Testament. I know this by a better Testimony than all the world knew the Articles necessary to salvation before any one word of Scripture was written, which time containeth above two thousand years: for if the Tradition of that Church, in the Law of Nature, were sufficient to ground the infallible assurance of all the articles believed 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 me of that unwritten doctrine of Christ delivered fare more publicly by him and his Apostles, than that unwritten word of God was delivered in the Law of nature to some few Patriarches, in a manner very private in comparison of Christ's unwritten doctrine; as shall be said Sect: 16. n. 2. 13. Your Sixth and last text here objected is our Saviour's speech Matt. 15. taken from Isa. 29.13. Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men. Whence you infer that all things of worship or faith necessary to salvation which are not commanded or written, are to be condemned. Before I return answer, give me leave to tell you whose language you speak when you deliver this your own doctrines. S. Austen (contra Maximum l. 1.) Bringeth in this Arian Heretic speaking thus to the Catholics. If you bring any thing from the Scripture, it is necessary that we hear it: But these words which be besides Scripture, are in no case received of us, seeing our Lord doth admonish us saying, in vain they worship me teaching the Commandments of men. So that Heretic. Just 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 we be assured of them by men. For all precepts which were for those two thousand years and more, concerning worship or faith, necessary in those Ages to Salvation, before the first Scriptures were written, were truly the precepts and doctrine of God, and as such to be observed; though this obligation was notified only by the man of that Church. For example, the fall of Adam, and the promise made our future Redemption, was notified by Adam's Children, who delivered the same to their Children, and so downwards. So we read Gen: 9 That God said to No and his Sons, that it was not permitted to them to eat blood v. 4. This precept was obliging all the world upon the credit of the Tradition of so few. So likewise we read in the 17. of Genesis, that when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared unto him and made a Covenant with him and his seed, to make him the Father of the faithful, to bless all in his seed: And than him, and all his posterity, a most strict precept of Circumcision. All this Abraham only notified to his posterity: They all believed this promise and Covenant of God, and they all strictly observed this precept of Circumcision: And yet neither this precept, nor this Covenant, were written for those four hundred years and more which passed between the time of Abraham and Moses, the first Scripture writer. Was that unwritten Covenant the doctrine of man? Was Circumcision 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 Christ's time, among the Gentiles, and until the times of Moses among the jews. Well then, why should the unwritten doctrine and precepts of Christ, and his Apostles, be called the doctrine and precepts of men? You can say nothing, but that the testimony of men is not sufficient ground for us to hold this doctrine, and these precepts to be divine or Apostolical; whigh is apparently false: For the men of the Church of Christ, and the supreme Pastors and governors thereof, cannot be of less credit and authority, than 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 fare more private manner, to be notwithstanding prudently believed, and embraced for divine. Why than should not the testimony of the Church suffice to make the unwritten doctrine, of Christ and his Apostles to be held for divine? It is therefore no kind of proof to say; Christ reprehends human doctrines and precepts, therefore we must not embrace divine doctrines and precepts merely because they are not written. You embrace the doctrine of men, who tell us this doctrine of yours; which is neither written nor delivered by universal tradition. Again, were not all the precepts and doctrines of Christ believed as divine for those, fourscore years or there abouts, before the whole Canon of Scripture was finished? of all these Traditions see my Sect: 16. n. 1. 2. and the whole 19 Sect. Secondly, I pray how do you avoid the embracing doctrine of men, who hold the Church's authority to be mere human: and yet merely upon her authority you receive such, and such Copies to be the true Copies of the true Original word of God: see Sect. 4. n. 3. 4. &c Yea, upon the mere weak testimony of your own private Translatours, all you (who are not exceeding skilful in Greek) take your English Bible for the word of God; and again, upon the mere weak authority of your Ministers, you take that interpretation for true which they tell you to be so; though you cannot know it to be so, for want of skill in Languages, and for want of skill in conferring places, and for want of ability to use those twenty Rules which your own Doctors hold necessary for the knowing assuredly the true sense of God. Thus I might show you how in all those twenty four necessary points (which I have hitherto shown not contained in any part of the written word of God) you hold truly and properly the doctrine and precepts of men, whom you believe to have merely human authority. Thus you proceed as the jews and Pharisees did, not relying only upon the traditions they had from Moses; (for example, concerning the remedy against original Sin appliable to female Children:) but relying upon traditions devised by some ill interpreters of their Law; by Sammai, by killel, by Achiba and such other Rabbins: as S. jerom teacheth in Several places. 14. Whereas you add, that our Traditions are to be challenged of contrariety to the Scripture for the most part, you proceed in your usual manner to say bouldy what is for your turn, but never turn your hand or finger to prove it. M. Doctor, I will undertake to make good at any time, that there is incomparable more difficulty to show that one part of the written word is not contrary to some other, than to show that any one of our Traditions be fare from the lest contrariety to the word of God: see Sect. 23 n: 6. All Scholars 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 affirm the Scripture alone to be necessarily admitted by us, as our sole and only judge. In this, your part is affirmative, and so you must prove what you say. In this you contradict all visible Catholic Churches which were in the world at your Reformation: Against so public authority evidence of Scripture must be brought; or else you do most injuriously oppose so public an Authority, according to your own principles. Thirdly in this you deliver a point which (is true) is no less necessary than the true choice of the only Rule directing to true faith; Therefore, according to your own principles this point must be clearly contained to Sripture, in which you say all necessary points are clearly contained. But we have now at large heard every next you thought fit to bring for a thing of so great concernment; The answers given to every one show clearly, not any one of them to contain that point clearly: Whence I conclude, that what in such kind of matters, cannot be proved by clear texts, must not be believed, according to your own principles; therefore, even according to them, we are no● to believe that Scripture is by itself alone our sole and only Rule of faith, or that it clearly contains the plain decision of all necessary controversies; which it must do to be our judge in them all. Remember M. Doctor how you §. 13. tell the antiprelatical Party that they are bound to bring plain and express Scripture to demonstrate that Episcopacy is unlawful. It were well, more Authority were yielded to Tradition of the Churches of God. And §. 14 we thence received Bishops, whence we received the Christian faith. So you. Say so of all you received, and I need say not more. SECT: XI. A FIFTEENT ARGUMENT. Although Scripture only should be our judge, yet this judge would decide many points clearly against you. YOU cannot but give me leave to call that clearly decided against you by Scripture, for which I can bring, at the lest, as clear texts, as you bring for the decision of many necessary points, which you hold (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, opposite 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 belief of those divers points specified in my eight Sect: in which I have particularly examined all your chief texts for baptising children: if I also can bring as clear texts as you could bring in my nineth Section, for the lawfulness of working on Saturdays, and unlawfulness of working on Sundays; or as you could bring in the precedent Section to prove that the Scripture contains, and clearly decides all necessary Controversies: if I can do all this, than these texts of mine cannot but be allowed by you to be indeed clear; because you say, you can bring clear texts for all points necessary (as all the above mentioned points be;) but I will show that the texts that I shall here bring, for some prime points in which we believe contrary to you, be at the lest as clear as any of those Texts brought by you and affirmed by you to be very sufficiently clear wherefore my texts, being as clear as those which are acknowledged to be Sufficiently clear, must also be acknowledged to be sufficiently clear. Now than to my Texts. 2. What importeth more a dying Christian, than to have his Sin, forgiven him; and that upon the word of God? and yet you cry Superstition, Superstition, if a Priest be called to fray over him, and to anoint him with oil, to procure forgiveness of his Sins. But what faith your own Bible? Is any Man sick among you, let him call for the Elders (the Priests) of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil in the name of the Lord, and the payer of the faithful shall save the sick. And the Lord shall raise him up, and if he hath committed Sins they shall be forgiven him. james 5.14. Have you among all the texts which you cited, and I examined in the last Section, any one text but half so clear format you intended. to prove, as this text is to prove extreme-ynction to forgive Sins; and consequently to be a Sacrament, or visible sign (such an one as the act of anointing is) of invisible grace conferred thereby to forgive his Sins, for (saith the text) if he be in Sins, they shall be forgiven him. If your have but any one text half so clear for that prime fundamental point of yours, I pray bring if forth now whilst 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 us see what you can say against this text? some answer, that it relateth to the gift of healing in those days; which shifted it directly against the words of the text saying, if he hath committed Sins, they shall be forgiven. Again what Scripture have; you to prove that the elders in the days of S. james cured all infirm men with anointing them with oil? Lastly I am most earnest to know by what clearer text than this, you were forced to forsake the practice of this Sacrament used by all Catholic Churches upon earth, when you cast it of as Superstitious; Where is, I pray, your so much boasted-of evidence of Scripture against so public Authority? M. Doctor remember your own words cited in the end of my last Section. Remember that you §. 43. say that the universal 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 little after your first Reformation you (contrary to all the Churches both of East and west) denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; by what clearer text could you evidently demonstrate that those following texts could not be truly interpreted of a real 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 unworthily is guilty of the Body and blood of our Lord. This is the cup of the new testament which Cup (as is evident by the Greek text where the gender agreeth only with the cup) shall be shed for jou: that than in the Cup was the very same blood which was shed. Give me as clear texts as these are, to prove, that one man may not at the same time have two wives, or that he may Labour on the Saturday, but not on the Sunday & c? 4. Again, when you denied the priests of the Church to have power to forgive Sins, contradicting also herein all the Catholic Churches upon the earth; what clearer text did you bring against them all, to prove that they falsely interpreted to their purpose this text: He breathed upon them, and said, whose Sins so ever ye shall remit, they are remitted: and whose Sins so ever ye shall retain they are retained Io. 20.22. Against public authority you should bring evident demonstration of Scripture, according to your own principles: we now most earnestly call for this evidence in the three Sacraments here mentioned by me. We call at lest, for clearer places than these be, in case you say these be not clear enough to decide the controversy for us. And we call for such places to decide all those four and twenty necessary points which I have mentioned: which being necessary, must be showed to be decided rightly by clear Scripture; and consequently by clearer texts than any of these are; in case you deny these to be sufficiently clear: Give us those clearer texts, and we will confess ourselves Silenced. If you cannot do this; this little will serve to silence you. SECT: XII. A SIXTEENTH ARGUMENT. That the Holy Fathers never allowed the Scripture for the only Rule of faith. 1. IT is most unreasonable 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 deeply in the minds of all they instructed; and all their Disciples would have done the like to their Disciples: so that many of the Church, especially the most learned of the whole Church, would not be ignorant of this point; at lest I am sure, that you may sooner now be presumed ignorant of the only true Rule of faith; than they than. 2. First than, had the Holy Fathers ever allowed of the Scripture for the only Rule of faith, they neither would, nor could have held any men Heretics for holding that which was contrary to no clear Scripture: but they did hold many such to be Heretics, as I have showed Sect: 8. where I shown that S. Austen did hold on the one side, that Baptism of Children could not be proved by clear, Scripture; and yet he, in and with the Milevetan Council condemned those for heretics who did deny the necessity of Baptism for Children. See Sect: 8. n: 3. 4. 5. There also n: 6. He and Vicentius Lerinensis accounteth them heretics who held rebaptisation necessary to all baptised by heretics: and yet he held on the other side, that this point could not be cleared out of only Scripture; see them n: 7. In the next number I did show how Antiquity hold also the Quartadecimani for heretics, though the believing Easter aught to be always kept on the fourteenth day of the Moon be not against clear Scripture. There also I shown out of S. Epiphanius and also S. Austen (who expressly in the beginning of his Catalogue professeth to put down none but such as are true heretics) that Aërius was held by antiquity for an Heretic, because he denied prayer for the dead, and held that there was no fasting days of precept: in which points I am sure you will say that this Aërius held nothing contrary to Scripture. There also I shown out of S. Epiphanius and S. Austen, that the Antidicomarites or Helvidians were held heretics 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 heretics, not for contradicting Scripture; yet they were heretics for contradicting some Rule of faith: therefore there is some other Rule of faith besides Scripture; and consequently Scripture alone is not the only Rule of faith. 3. Secondly it was by holy Fathers noted to be peculiar to heretics to stand to Scripture only, and to refuse all other Rules: So the Macedonians and Eunomians, having no regard of what was taught to the contrary by the multitude and antiquity of Christians, denied the Holy Ghost to be glorified with the Father and the Son; because the Scripture did not where expressly say this. S. Basil de Sparke: Sanc: c. 25. and l. 1. contra Eunom: So the Pelagians (in S. Austen de Natura & gratia c. 39) were used to say; Let us believe that which we read, but let us believe it to be a wickedness to believe that which we do not read. So S. Austen L. 1. against Maximinus the Arian Bishop, bringeth him in saying: If thou bring forth any thing from those divine Scriptures which are common to us both, we must needs hear thee. But those speeches which are not in Scripture, be, by no means, received by us, seeing that our Lord admonisheth us and saith, without cause they worship me teaching the Commandments 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 Scriptures. Wherhfore the Council 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 etc. which are to be holden without all doubt. See Sect: 20. 4. Thirdly the Holy Fathers expressly refuse to dispute out of Scriptures only, upon this very cause, that they do not suffice to end and decide all controversies. So the most ancient Tertullian speaketh first in general of never disputing with heretics. C. 17. Out of Scriptures only, Because this Scripture-combat availeth to nothing; but to the making either one's stomach, or ones brains to turn. lib. de Praes. C. 17. And by and by he in particular saith of the Gnostikes, that which we may say of our adversaries. This heresy doth not receive some Scriptures; (you put ten books among the Apocryphas) some Scriptures they receive with additions and detractions ordered to their turn: (see what I said of your translations Sect. 5. and those Scriptures they receive in any manner entirely, they turn to their turn by new devised expositions (see how you do this Sect. 7. Than he concludes generally: we must not therefore appeal to scriptures, nor in our combat rely upon them, in which either no victory is to be obtained, or a very Uncertain 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 show you to the very eye; that, standing to Scripture alone, they are invincible by you: but also they some times force your prime Doctors to leave their standing on Scripture only, and force them to fly to Tradition. See D. Tailors plain confession hereof Sect. 1. n. 4. And your great Beza found this insisting upon Scripture only to breed such endless jarring that in his last book but one, he professeth himself to be weary of such combats and encounters, because he findeth controversies thereby made brawls; and therefore wishes that in some Common assembly of Churches all these striffes' at once were decided. The evidence of this point made your learned Sutcliffe in his review P. 42. to say, it is false that we will admit of no judge but Scripture; for we appeal still to a lawful general Council. But there I would ask, how we can rest upon the sentence given by a general Council, if that be not infallible; for still every man must be calling this Sentence to review made by his own weak judgement: as hath been fully declared Sect. i. n: 1. 2 3. 4. 5. Some of our adversaries think to shifted of the authority of Tertullian, as if it were delivered against those only who rejected great part of the Scriptures, and corrupted other parts; which, say they, we do not. I answer, that of your like proceed I have spoken enough in the places I cited jointly with Tertullia's words: But this your shift is clearly undone by Tertullias own words following, C. 45. We now hitherto have in general (mark this word) treated against all heresies, repelling them (all) upon certain just and necessary exceptions from Conferring out of Scriptures. So he. Yea the very drift of a great part of this his little book is, independently of all Scripture, to confute all heretics, by proving that true believers must be able to show by tradition the descent of their doctrine from the Apostles. But if indeed truth stands for us (saith he, C. 37.) who soever we be who walk in that Rule which the Church hath received from Christ, Christ from God, we proceed manifestly in our intent, defining that heretics aught not to be admitted to make their appeal to Scriptures whom we do prove without the Scriptures, not to have any right to the Scriptures. Note here first, that he speaks of such as would appeal to Scriptures; therefore they did receive them, Note Secondly, that without Scriptures Tertullian promisseth himself the surest Victory, by forcing them to show their visible succession, and to show their 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, us all walk. 6. Our adversaries use to allege some passages of Father's appealing in their disputes against heretics unto the Scriptures, chiefly S. Austen who disputing against the Donatists conceived himself 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 being manifest in Scripture, as he saith de unitate Ecclesiae, C. 7. 11. 15. & 17. But it is no good argument to say, The Fathers appealed to the Scriptures in some few points, in which they knew they had manifest advantages; 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 proof of some heretical Novelties; and professed they would not give ear to such Novelties without written texts: therefore we must not admit of any, though never so ancient, belief of the whole Church, delivered by Tradition from the Apostles, without some clear written text can be alleged for it. This is no consequence; for in points which are known not to be delivered by Tradition, yea not so much as pretending to it, is a good argument to say; Give me a clear text for this, or else with the same facility that you affirm it, I will deny it: as I said S. 10. n: 9 10. Do but note what I said there, and than join it to these places; and all places alleageable out of the Fathers will easily be solved. 7. All those Fathers which might he alleged (and part of them is alleged Sec: 8.) for holding Traditions in points necessary to Salvation, not where expressed in Scripture; as also all those who hold the Authority of the Church by itself to suffice to ground our faith, and to determine all our Controversies (whom we shall cite Sect: 21.) all these I say, clearly hold that Scripture is not the only Rule, guide and direction of all that is necessary to be believed, or done by us for obtaining Salvation. THE THIRD QUESTION. Whether the Church be the judge appointed by God to end all our Controversies? with a word of the Socinians concerning Reasons being our judge. 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 itself alone, our only Rule, or direction of faith; but those who are understanding Scholars will easily see, how, after the proof of that point, I have in a manner dispatched all this business: Because all Sectaries, making their standing to the sole judgement of Scripture, to be the only foundation of all and every one of their so several Sects; when now this foundation is showed not to serve the end they intent, but that we must yet have a judge giving us infallible assurance of many necessary verities of which the Scripture alone doth not assure us: hence followeth manifestly the utter overthrow of all these and all other imaginable Sects, by the apparent Necessity of holding the true Church of Christ to be this judge; she only being the judge, to which we are sent by Scripture itself, with an obligation of our being held for Publicans or Heathens unless we hear her. Neither is there any kind of probability now left of finding any other judge sufficient to direct us in all things necessary to Salvation, and to end all our Controversies, and sufficient to contain us all in unity of one interior faith, and exterior profession of the same, with all other conditions requisite in our judge. 2. Human Reason, so adored by the Socinians, cannot be this judge; 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 then likely to be true in the eyes of any rational man? What wit is there in thinking to be wiser than all wits? what reason to make Reason judge in things known to surpass Reason? Thirdly doth not reason persuade any man to think that it is fit for him to submit to the authority of all the Christians of all ages, and places, who ever had any thing like a Church, than to adhere to a few scattered self-conceited people, pretending to found out a wiser ground of Religion, than ever was acknowledged by any kind of people in the world, who had the shape of an Universal and perpetual Church? of which more Sect: 14. Fourthly how imprudently did the Apostle exhort all Idem sapere, to be of one opinion, to keep unity in faith, To speak one thing, to be perfect in one sense, and one judgement 1. Cor: 1. & 2. Cor: 13. if he knew it were Gods will that every one should follow his own judgement, which everyone hath as different almost from an other, as their faces are? Fiftly what an improportionable means is this to keep that unity in faith, and to adhere to what hath been evangelized or delivered unto us, though an Angel should come to persuade the contrary. For let but an abler Man than myself come, and show me, that I have not so good reason for what I believe as he hath, and as he (If we stand only to reason, without respect to authority) can bring to the contrary; I must (say they) follow what he proposeth: So that weak men must be weather cocks, Sixtly, is it not all reason, that what convincing motives make evidently credible to be revealed by God, that I should credit that not as the word of man, but receive it as the word of God, as truly it is; and so rely upon it as strongly as is fit to rely on the word of God? Seventhly, according to this unreasonable Ground, there must be allowed, all the world over, as great variety of believing more or less, as there is of understanding more, or less: and as great Contrariety of belief must be lawful, as these is contrariety in the judgements of one to an other, and of the same man in different occasions. Can any creature who is but like a rational man, believe 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 Captivity all understandings to the Obedience of Christ? 2. Cor: 10.5. If this wild Liberty be called Captivity; I am sure that, by as good a figure, you Socinians (who call yourselves Rational men) may as truly be called the most Irrational of all Christian men. You needs most pardon me if I judge so, for your own principle of following what my own Reason tells me, maketh me most really to think so, after mature consideration of the matter. SECT: XIII. It is declared what we understand when we seek whether the Church is to be our judge or no? 1. IT must still be carried in our minds, that we are in the search of the judge appointed us by Christ; and consequently. we must proceed as men do, who first seek after a general knowledge in gross, and than descend to particulars. So first we searched whether God had Given us any judge; than finding that he hath given us some infallible direction, we did see whether this were given sufficiently in any one Book of Scripture, or in any particular Number of Books, or in the whole Canon taken together. But we, not finding as yet what we sought, we cast an eye upon natural reason, which, if it were to be followed by us as our judge, this very judge of ours (that is our own Reason) told us she neither was, nor appeared like to that judge we sought for she being a judge not ending, but endlessly raising doubts in all points: still therefore we are in our general search. And we have only in gross got a hint of finding some infallible means, to guide us securely in all our doubts, in that blessed congregation of people which followed the instructions of Christ, and his disciples, still propagating the doctrine delivered to them from age to age until we come to our Age. Here, or no where, this infallible direction is to be had. But by what particular way this Congregation is to communicate, and impart this direction unto us, is not the thing we now seek at the first; but it is the very last thing we can seek for. For that being found, we are to follow that particular means, and by no means to stray one foot from it. We must seek that we may found; and after we have once found what we sought for, we must stand still firmly fixed in the faith we have found. Because by what we have found we are also taught to believe this particular, that we are to rest free from further enquiry; Because our God would not have us follow any other judges than he appoints: therefore he would have us seek after no other; but believe that no other was to be sought after; lest so we ● should be always seekers and never be Believers: as Turtullian discourseth admirably C. 7. the Prescript: 2. We do not therefore as yet search whether this particular means of directing us, be by the Decrees of the chief Pastor of this Church; or by the Counsels held without him, or held by him and defining together with him; for this search is yet a further work; though it be a work soon dispatched, for as much as concerns our purpose, after that we have once assuredly found out that this infallible means is to be found in this blessed congregation instituted by his disciples, and their followers with a visible succession in all ages from Christ's age this. Now than, this one thing we search. 〈◊〉 whether this blessed Congregation (which we always understand here, when we name the Church, as long as we speak of searching our Guide or judge in a more general manner) hath not some means or other appointed by God, by which she can infallibly guide us to the knowledge of the true faith? When we have found that she hath some such means; we shall readily pass on further, to see what means this is. Now let us be sure not to entangle ourselves with that further Search, or any thing belonging to it, until we have fully satisfied ourselves of this general verity, that this blessed Congregation hath in it some means appointed by God, to direct all to the knowledge of the only true faith. Neither yet do we begin 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 we only search is, whether this Congregation (wheresoever it is) hath not some infallible means appointed by God, to be followed by all, that all may come to be saved in it? 3. And we most groundedly say that this Church (still meaning, by this name, the Congregation we speak of) is our infallible judge: and consequently, this Church hath some infallible means to guide all to the truth in all points of faith, though not expressly contained in Scriptures, and to decide all our Controversies in Religion: for which I shall give my reasons in the ensuing Section. But before I begin it, I note in a word; that this Church, having some infallible means appointed by God to direct us in the only true faith, (without which faith eternal Salvation cannot be had) it must be a damnable Sin not to take pains, in a tolerable manner, to found it out; and to embrace it, when we have found it: for otherwise we should neglect the execution of what God hath appointed us to do, in a matter necessary to our Salvation; and we should also. Sin against that Charity, which every one oweth to his own Soul, if, having means offered us, to be infallibly guided in the choice of that faith necessary to Salvation, we should neither take ordinary pains to found it, nor to follow it, when we had found it. This lesson is so very necessary to many thousands, that it deserveth to be a thousand times over inculcated unto them. SECT: XIV. It is proved out of the old Testament that the Church is our infallible judge in all Controversies of Faith. 1. FOR more than two thousand years, before any word of the old Testament was written, God's Church had some infallible way to end all controversyes; for all that time there was no Scripture, and yet there were many points than necessary to be believed, in which men of various judgements might vary in their judgements: For example, about the belief of reward, and punishment of the life to come; about the immortality of the Soul; about the fall of Adam; the promise of a Redeemer; and afterwards of this Redeemers being to be the Son of Abraham; about the necessity of the Circumcision given unto him etc. The Church of that time was the only judge of all these, and such like Controversies: and as they, who opposed her known tradition, were accounted misbelievers; so those who believed them, are declared by S. Paul to have had the same Spirit of Faith that we. 2. Cor: 4.13. Shall not than Christ Church be as much enabled by God to pass an infallible decision, of what is to be held now by us in point of Faith? The like argument holdeth strong the jewish Church, which from the time of Moses, to the time of Christ, had some infallible means, besides Scripture, to end all Controversies, as appears by Deutr. 7.8. Where those words, An they shall show the sentence of judgement, and thou shalt do according to it? etc. And those other words: The Man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest, even that man shall die: Clearly intimate the infallibility of this judge's sentence. For God would never oblige all to follow an erring judgement, which defines often lies for truth: And oblige all to embrace those lies, under pain of death. Secondly the refusers to embrace a do not do presumptuously, as God saith those do who will not hearken to the Priests: He therefore ever saith the Truth. Thirdly according to the true translated Bibles it is said in the ninth verse, of the Priest, Who shall show thee the truth of the judgement. Which words prove that God would assist in declaring always the truth. Fourthly it had been a most murder to put a man to death for not following that which might be a Lie: God would never have enacted such a Law. Fiftly, joseph the jew L. 2. contra Apion: testifieth their High Priests to have been their judges of Controversies. And D. Whitaker de Sacra Scrip: Pag: 466. Acknowledging as much saith, It was not Lawful to appeal, for otherwise there would have been no end of contention. Shall Christ's Church, which is the mistress and Lady, want that which the jewish had, she being but the handmaid? Before I come to the texts, which speak particularly of Christ's Church, I appeal to any sober judgement, who shall ponder them with due reflection, to judge whether they be not, to the very full, as clear 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 shown to be clearly set down in no Scripture, though they affirm them all to have clear texts of Scripture for them? Whence again I ask, how you can deny these my Texts to be clear, which are in any sober judgement as clear, as those which you all hold (and must hold) to be clear? And particularly, I wish the texts I am now going to cite, were equally balanced 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 turn to those texts Sect. 10.) may soon see whether, even according to the judgement of Scripture, (their own only judge) the Church be not better proved to be our judge, than the Scripture alone is proved to be so. And I desire all to note, how unjustly we are dealt withal, who being advantaged by the peaceable possession of all public ecclesiastical authority, which any Catholic Church had in the world, at that time in which you began your Reformation (all which authority stood for the Churches being the infallible judge;) and yet no evidence of Scripture, half so good, being brought against this our authority, as we can bring for it; we notwithstanding were dispossessed of it, and condemned of the most usurpation that ever was, by those who hold, that against public authority evident demonstration of Scripture must be brought. Examine the texts I shall bring and than examine your weak evidences brought in my tenth Section. 3. Again, before I cite these texts, I must needs desire 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 always 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 subversion of saving faith; as D. Ferne acknowledgeth Sect. 20. This confession of theirs undoeth all Religion; because the texts I am going to allege speak as universally, and as fare from all limitation of the Churches being by God secured from all kind of error, fundamental, or not fundamental, as any texts speak of the Apostles or Prophets being secured from all kind of error fundamental or not fundamental: And you by Limiting these texts to the only securing of the Church from only fundamentall errors, do teach others in like manner to limit those texts by which the Prophets, or Apostles, are said to be secured from error, to only such a security, as secureth them from fundamental errors only; which would be a most damnable doctrine: For, thence would follow that, the fundamental points being very few, (as you say,) all that is written or said by the Apostles, or Prophets, which concerns not those few fundamental points might be false, as being delivered by men not secured from error in any points not fundamental. For my part, I take the most fundamental point of faith to be this; That there is a God speaking infallible truth in all that he say't, by what instrument so ever any one of his say, in any matter (whatsoever it be) is proposed by him, whether this instrument be the Church, as it was for the first two thousand years of the world, or the Prophets or Apostles raised up in his Church. And now let us proceed 〈◊〉 to our texts. 4. My first text is out of the second of Isa: v. 2.3. And it shall come to pass in the last days (so the Apostles called the time of the New Law) that the Mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of Mountains (behold its great visibility, so that) All Nations shall flow unto it (behold its vast extent) and say (witsh joy) Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of jacob: and He (note this word He) will teach us his ways (in this House or Church;) For out of Zion shall go forth the Law (as it did by the Apostles on whit-Sunday;) and the word of God from jerusalem (from whence the Churches first preachers began the diuulging of their doctrine:) And he shall judge among the Nations, (not in his person, for Christ went not out of jewry; but he shall judge among the Nations) by his Church's tribunal erected among all Nations, so conspicuously, that they all may flow to it: Will any man say His judgement is fallible? in this tribunal it is He who teacheh us his ways: dare you say that He teacheth us errors? Is any error, (though not fundamental) his way? Christ than, erecting a Church visible to the whole world, that the whole world might resort with joy unto it for necessary instruction; and intending himself to instruct them by it, and by it to judge among all Nations; had not complied with this intention of his, if he had not secured that Church from all error, by which be himself teacheth all the world his ways, and not superstitious errors. And had this his Church been Liable to pass false judgement, in deciding controversies about faith; the disgrace had redounded to God, who authorised that Tribunal, to be that very Court in which, to the joy of all, He judgeth among all Nations. 5. My Second text is out of the same Prophet C. 35. promising to us, at the coming of Christ, a way so direct (not only in itself) but so direct unto us, that fools cannot err by it. Is it not than infallible? But of this text I say not more here, because I have pondered it already in the very Preface, Num. 3. I only note that this way, being so direct to us 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 err; For fools can not err by it. What more infallible in order to us? 6. My third text is out of the same Prophet. C. 54. where first mention is made most gloriously of the vast extent of Christ's visible Church; Sing O barren etc. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the Curtains of thy habitations. Spare not, lengthen thy Cords, and strengthen 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 sworn that the waters of Noah should not more go over the Earth, So I have sworn that I would not be wroth with thee (as I am with all who admit superstitions and foul errors to reign over them.) Every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement thou shalt condemn. The tongues of all heretics be tongues that rise against the Church, in judging contrary to her definitions in matters of faith: but fear not (O Church of God) for every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement thou shall condemn: Yea their very rising in opposition of judgement unto thee, is their condemnation; because hence appeareth that the Church differeth in judgement from them, which is enough (in the opinion of S. Austen) to make us hold them heretics; For just in the end of his catalogue or Book of Heresies he saith, it is superfluous to set down what the Church (in particular) hath defined against them all: but (saith he) Scire sufficiat eam contra ista sentire, Let it suffice (for their condemnation of heresy) that she is contrary in her judgement to them all. And therefore it is not lawful to hold 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 jews were to unite themselves being to be baptised 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 jews converted could unite themselves, to be by it baptised, instructed, governed. To this visible Church thus saith our Lord; As for me this is my Covenant with them, saith our Lord: My spirit (free from all error) that is upon thee and my words (free from error great or little) which I have put in thy Mouth, (that Mouth by which Visibly she doth teach my ways to all Nations that flow unto thee, that Mouth by which I judge among all Nations, that Mouth which shall condemn every tongue that shall rise against it in judgement) My words (I say) which I have put in (this) thy Mouth, shall not departed out of thy Mouth (thus visibly teaching, judging etc.) nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed; nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed; saith the Lord, from hence forth and for ever. Behold here the Spirit of truth intaled upon the Church visible, and Gods words put in her Mouth, by which she teacheth all Nations in her first Age; And in the Mouth of her Seed, by which she teacheth all Nations in the second age; and in the Mouth of her seeds seed from thence forth and for ever, by which she teacheth all Nations in the third age, and in every other age thence forth following, to the end of the world. Found me than an Age, in which this everlasting visible Church shall teach any error, though never so little? If you can do this, than in that Age his Covenant was made void. 8. My fifth text shall be out of the very next Chapter (to wit Isa: 60. v. 10.) in which God by the Prophet triumpheth in the vast extent and glory of his Church visible, The Sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their Kings shall Minister unto thee, Thy gates shall be open continually (A poor glory if they admit in Idolatry, Superstition etc.) they shall not be shut day nor night, that man may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their 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 clearly 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 flourish; but eternally 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 submit to an Invisible Church; There must than ever be some visible Church on Earth, which all Nations, under 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 me, I pray, when this English Nation, by a Nationall Synod (as they call it) acknowledged 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 confess Nations should do well, and should further their Salvation, in refusing to serve all Churches than visible; if all those Churches did both err, and also father their Lies upon God the Father of truth; venting their 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 pass; For in every Age it must be true, that The nation and Kingdom which will not serve thee, shall perish. But you will say perhaps, for these 10. or 12. Ages her errors have eclipsed her? Read than the following Verses, I will make thee an everlasting excellency (an excellent Church indeed which fathereth her Lies and superstition vpon God himself. It followeth, but should not follow, if this were true; And thou shalt suck the breasts of Kings etc. yea, Thy Sun shall not more go down, neither shall thy Moon Withdraw itself: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light: How an everlasting light? an everlasting excellency, which ended with an Eclipse of some thirteen hunded years; if she failed with the third Age, as D. Hammond and others please to say? which third Age was before she sucked the breasts of Kings whence appears the falsity of their assertion. Again, how doth it follow; The days of thy Mourning shall be ended? when you make her to have had so sad a time of mourning as thirteen hundred or (at the lest) a thousand years, under the yoke of Popery? How truly than doth God in the next Chapter v. 7. promise' her Sons, That an everlasting joy shall be unto them: Where as the days of Popery are acknowledged to have covered the face of all Christendom four times as long as the day of her true joy? How than also is it said to her in the end of the next Chapter following, Thou shalt be called a City sought for, and not forsaken, if all this while she were the woman fled into the desert? Away, away with these false glosses; these words of Esay must needs be understood of a visible Church, which was not only sought for, but also inhabited, and not forsaken, nor left forlorn, nor made abandoned 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 urged severally, all having great force) shall be out of the Prophet Daniel C. 2. v. 44. In the days of those Kingdoms, the God of Heaven shall raise up a Kingdom, which shall not be dispersed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered to an other people. And than to signify the vast extent, the manifest visibility, and Perpetuity of this Kingdom (which is his Church, founded by Christ) it followeth, And it shall break in pieces and consume all these (Idolatrous) Kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Behold here, God promising the Kingdom raised by him, that kingdom of his only true Church, which visibly hath by its doctrine broke in pieces all Idolatrous kingdoms of the known world, and is so well secured of God's assistance, to preserve it in quality of a kingdom, that, even in this quality, it shall always continued, and stand for ever a glorious visible Kingdom. And thus literally is fulfilled that, Luke 1.33. And he shall reign in the house of jacob for ever. Whence I argue thus; No Church fallen into Heresy, schism, Idolatry, Superstition; yea not Church fallen so deep towards Hell, as to father gross, and intolerable errors upon God, delivering them as divine Verities, can be said to be God's Kingdom; or (being so foully fallen) to be his standing Kingdom; or permitting gross errors to reign in quality of divine verities, to be the house of jacob, in which he reigns for ever Therefore, to verify these of Scripture, there must be found, some ever visible Church upon Earth, a Church flourishing in quaiity of his standing Kingdom, not fallen into such errors as you say did reign; but a Church where he, and not any error may reign. This Kingdom, so secured from error, is that which I call Christ's visible, perpetual, and infallible Church, The House of our Lord established (so as to stand visibly for ever) in the top of all Mountains, and all Nations shall flow unto it, and say come, and let us go up to the Mountain of our Lord, and to the House of the God of jacob, in which he shall reign for ever, and he will teach us his ways and not gross errors of superstition, Idolatry, and there he shall judge among the Nations; Even He who cannot give a false judgement, and consequently infallible is his Tribunal erected here in his Church, to sand forth his Decrees, by which he governs, and reigns. If error be precedent in this his Tribunal, Error should reign, and not He: I pray mark how fitly all the above cited texts agreed with this interpretation, and how harmonically they explicate and confirm one an other. 10. It is also a thing most remarkable how, at the very first attentive reading of these texts, all these new upstart sects (and Socinianism as well as the rest, yea and so much the sooner because it never flourished in one whole Parish;) how, I say, all these new upstart sects, presently appear to be so exceedingly unlike to Gods only true Church, which is foretold to be of so vast extent, so glorious for the multitude, and magnificence of her professors, as Kings; yea all Kings, Princes, and chief Potentates of the Earth, so conspicuously visible in all Ages, and places; that there is no tolerable interpretation to be thought of, by which these and such like Texts can be applied to any one of these Congregations. Take Protestanisme, and allow it to contain all these new fangled Sects; and yet all the professors of it will not make the thirtieth part of Christendom, although Christendom be but the fifth part of the world. But take Protestanisme as it was for some twelve hundred years before Luther, and so down ward, in every one of those twelve Ages to Luther; and you will not found it to be the tenth thousand part of the world, even by its own account: Yea by true account it will be found not to have had one parish any where. How than do such kind of Religions agreed to these descriptions of the true Church in the Scripture? especially if to the former places you add divers 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 raise up (only) the tribes of jacob; I will, also give thee, for a light to Gentiles, that thou mayst be my Salvation unto the end of the Earth. King's shall see, and arise; Princes also shall worship. Behold these shall come from fare, and lo these from the North, and from the West, and these from the Land Sinam. Sing O Heaven, and be joyful O Earth, The Children which thou shalt have shall say again, The place is too straight for me: give place to me that I may devil; Kings shall be thy Nursing-fathers', and Queens thy nursing Mothers (They shall not be thy Heads, or Governors, but) They shall bow down to thee with their faces towards the Earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet (prostrating themselves to kiss the feet of thy Supreme Pastor.) Tell me now, of what Church speaks this Prophet? where was it. Read also his next Chapter; Kings shall walk in the brightness of thy rising. Their Kings shall Minister unto thee, And not Rule over thee, as thy chief Governors. And yet much more Chap: 62. particularly; All Kings shall see thy noble one, with that other eloquet expression of the Churches visible gloriousness, Pass ye, pass ye through the gates, and prepare a way for the people, and make the journey plain, and pick up the stones, and lift up the sign to the people: Behold 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 Gentiles shall adore in his sight. And Malachy 1.11. from the rising of the Sun 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 Christ's pure Body.) 11. These and divers such like passages be so clear of the vast extent, majesty, and glory of the Church, with its perpetuity in all ages, that divers of our adversaries, not finding any Church upon Earth, but the Roman, to which hey could be applied, and persuading themselves that the Roman Church was false; became so wicked, as to deny all Christian Religion, because they could not see their own Scriptures verified in it, as it is most fully showed 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 chief Pastor of Heidelbourg, Adam Nauserus, to turn Turk. This made your Alemanus to turn jew, 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 conclude, that Christianity cannot be maintained without such a Church, as is here described, to be found somewhere on earth; which Church cannot be found if the Roman Church be such a Church as you make her. But whether she be Christ's only true Church, and our judge, we shall see here after. Now I go on. SECT: XV. It is proved out of the new Testament, that the Church is our infallible judge in all Controversies of Faith. 1. TO my six texts out of the old Scripture I add six more out of the new. My seventh text than is Mat: 16.19. Upon this Rock I will build my Church, (that Church which Christ foretold 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 Catholic Church, and so though the gates of Hell had prevailed against her; yet they had not prevailed against the Catholic Church. Yet saith he, We acknowledge that Hell gates did not privaile against the Church of Rome to a subversion of the Faith in it, or a total 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 continued still in a general search after some infallible Church) to pass to that particular inquiry, whether this Church be the Roman or not, (of which afterwards:) yet because this prime objection may be best solved in this place; I answer, that neither D. Ferne, nor any other Doctor, can found out upon 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 Sun should never set &c: For by the Roman Church we do not understand the particular Diocese of Rome; but we understand all such Churches as are joined in Communion to the Roman, as members to their head. Had Hell gates privailed against all such Churches, where (I pray) had there upon Earth been found any one single Church against which Church, Hell had not more prevailed, than against the Roman? Name but one, and I am satisfied. But that one must be showed to have been perpetually conspicuous to which all nations might flow, having Kings and Potentates of the earth Ministers unto her; in so much that the Nations which would not serve her (as the Nations joined to the Roman Communion would not) should perish. That Church must have these and such other qualities, expressed by Scripture in my precedent Section. Knowing you could not find any Church upon Earth so qualified but the Roman, which taken (as we usually take it) comprehendeth the Churches of all Nations joined in Communion unto her, you are forced so to qualify your censure of her errors prevailing in her, that you say, they prevailed not to a total 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 upon record, that some considerable quantity of men in All Ages (sufficient to constitute such a Church, as we have seen Christ's 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 upon record (as I was saying) than you say you know not what: If it be upon record, begin to tell me who these men were in that second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth age after Popery, against whom these errors prevailed not; and I will trouble you with no further examination of your Records. You can as well eat a whole Millstone to breakfast, as prove any such thing by any Records. 5. But you say the Fathers interpreted this promise, of the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, of the not failing of the Church; and never of the not erring of it. Those who object this, mark not that the chief way of failing is to fail by erring. How did the Church fail in the Dominions of the Arians, was it not by erring? And so of all dominions corrupted by Heresy. So also the whole visible Church had failed, if the whole visible Church had proposed any error to be believed for a point of faith; for to do this is to propose ally as upheld by divine authority; which is to fall not less foully than he should fall who should teach, God to be an affirmer and confirmer of Lies. For whatsoever point any Church held as a point of their faith, they held it as a divine verity, affirmed and revealed by God: Therefore if in any age the visible Church held any Error for a point of faith, it did fail most miserably; And yet your Protestant Doctors generally teach, that the only visible Church did teach several errors as points of faith. So. D. Fern accusseth even the primitive Church of teaching the Millenary belief, and Infant's Communion, though most falsely; as our Doctors often have showed: Thus they throw dirt vpon Christ's unspotted spouse. And as the black Aethiopians painted their Gods black: So your foully erroneous Church would have all Churches to have been foully erroneous; as you would have even the purest Church to have been, had she proposed these two gross errors for divine verities, as you say she did. 7. Yet to make a show of some thing like a Church, D. Fern saith; the Gates of Hell may prevail, not to the overthrowing of the fundamentall Saving faith; but to Superstruction of hay, stubble and worse, I mean errors in belief and practice; Yet such as may still be convinced by the doctrine of saving faith, still preserved in the Church. With these superstructions you charge the Roman Church, yet adding; that she hath the fundamental faith in express terms delivered down in her, and such saving knowledge as was sufficient to discern the foundation from the superstructures. All this is confidently said by you; but still (like yourself) you end the matter, and offer no kind of proof: Neither do you add any one syllable to satisfy the great difficulties which occur in this confident assertion, against which I have some thing to say. First, to assume such Liberty to our private selves, of Limiting that which the Holy Ghost thought not fit 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 fundamental saving faith, but yet that they may superadd a vast multitude of their own private fancies. Secondly you cannot name a perpetual visible true Church, which Christ had upon Earth, against which this Error (for so you call it) did not prevail, of admitting for an infallible truth whatsoever was proposed by the Church. Of this error (if it be one) you can assign no beginning in the Roman Church, (nor in any other Catholic Church:) But this error is a fundamental error, not only because it layeth the foundation, upon which infinite errors must be built; but chiefly, because it admits of no other ground vpon which to found any divine faith; For it admits of Scripture itself upon this only ground, See Sect: 20. n. 5. If this ground be an Error, the foundation of all the faith that is in the Roman Church is an error, and an Error fundamental, as properly as you can prove any error to be fundamental: For it makes the foundation 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 fundamental? Wherhfore you must needs say that the gates of Hell prevailed against the Roman Church to the Overthrow of fundamental saving faith. And than you will never be able to find Christ a true visible Church, by which you received your doctrine, your Mission, your Ordination, your Succession from the Apostles: for these you had not from the Greek Church. Thirdly, as I just now urged, every Church, to which you dare affirm the name of Catholic to have agreed, did teach all the Articles she proposed to be believed as divine verities revealed by God: even the Greek Church did this. But now, as it is damnable, even in matters of smallest importance, to affirm with an Oath any Lie (because we should take God for a witness and assertor of our Lie;) so it is a most damnable thing to all those Churches, to propose errors even in matters of smallest importance for Articles of their faith, to be believed as divine verities, revealed, and affirmed, and confirmed by God. If the Roman Church, as well as all the rest, did this (as you must say she did) she was no Church, but a Synagog … of Satan, because she proposed Lies to be believe … equally to divine verities, and thus did make the Sp … of Truth, to be the Father of her lies: wherefore you must needs say the gates of Hell prevailed against her sufficiently, to bring her (and those who followed her doctrine) to hell. But when, not only the Roman, but also all other Churches for the last thousand years did this, where will you found Christ such a Church as Scriptures promise'? from which Church you did receive your doctrine, your mission, your ordination, your succession to the Apostles. Fourthly neither you, nor any of yours, can tell (with any certainty) which be those particular points by the belief of which the saving faith is preserved so, that, if all those points be held, this faith is held entirely; if they be not all held, she is lost. How blindly than do you proceed, when you affirm, that the Gates of Hell prevailed not to the overthrow of fundamentall saving faith; which is more than you can know, unless you can tell in the belief of which particular points, this fundamental faith consists. Do you think this was done by preserving still in her such knowledge as was sufficient to discern the foundation from the superstructure? If this be enough, than Arianism, or any other Heresy, preserving the Scriptures, and not having sufficient force to abolish the knowledge of principles, by which they may be reclaimed, may be said not to have erred in fundamental saving faith: for you say that in the Scripture all fundamental points are clearly set down. 8 Now give me leave to urge the force of my text God buildeth vpon a Rock (a full expression of greatest security) 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 prevail against it: without breach of which promise' this Church could not have erred so notoriously, as I have showed you affirm all Churches visible upon Earth, to have erred; And particularly the Roman Church uses to be styled by yours, Idolatrous, Superstitious, the Seat of Antichrist, the Synagogue of Satan, a Nest of Errors, covered with an universal Leprosy, overwhelmed with more than Cimmerian darkness, averted by apostasy from the whole Body of Christ. This is the character you give of the Roman Church: And than, when we press you with this and other clear Texts; you, for your own ends, say, the Roman Church erred not fundamentally: yet your famous French Brother john Daille, whose book of Schism hath been now twice or thrice published in England, in express terms chargeth the Roman Church With fundamentall errors overthrowing the foundations of Christianity. C. 7. And than in the next Chapter, he gins to show how our opinion of adoring the Eucharist is a fundamental error; in the proving whereof he laboureth even until his nineteenth Chapter, the title of which is, That there be very many other beliefs 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. saith of us; They made all the Kings and the people of the Earth drunk from the first to the last. Add now to this, that which D. Whitaker Controv: 4. Q. 5. c. 3. confesseth in these words; In times passed no Religion but the Papistical had place in the Church. Therefore, (say I) if this Papistical 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 upon the Earth. And indeed the very claim which this Church maketh to infallibility, and her conformably pressing all the world to submit to her definitions, and hold them for divine Oracles (if they be errors) is the very bane of Christendom, as D. Fern calls it Sect: 27. For upon this principle she may oblige all to hold your Church (which you will say is Christ's purest Church) not to be any Church at all, but a damnable Congregation of Heretics. How than 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, prevail? So much of this Text. 9 My eight Text, to prove the Church to be our infallible judge, secured by God from leading us into any error great or little is Mat: 18.17. He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Publican or Heathen: Therefore, merely for not hearing the Church, a man, according to the true judgement of God himself, is to be held (and consequently doth justly deserve to be held) as a Publican, or Heathen: But all men are obliged not to do that, by which so heavy a judgement may deservedly fall upon them: Therefore all men are obliged to hear the Church; the merely not hearing of her, deserving so heavy a judgement, even in the sight of God; who saith in the next verse, that the Church's judgement (condemning those who refuse to hear her) shall be made good, and approved of in Heaven. No man therefore is secure in conscience, or innocent in the sight of God, who refuseth to hear, or obey the Church. Hence followeth first, that this Church cannot err damnably, for so a man in conscience might be bound to follow a damnable error. Secondly, hence followeth that she cannot err in any small matter belonging to faith, for all men being bound to hear her, and follow what she teacheth; and it being impossible any man should in conscience be bound to hold the lest falsity as an article of faith revealed by God (for that were to hold God a revealer or affirmer of a Lie) 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 we follow God's Command: But no kind of Error Little or great can be incurred by following Gods Command; Therefore in hearing and obeying the Church we can be led into no kind of Error little or great. 10. Now if any one reply; that we are to hear the Church, so long as she swarveth not from God's word. My answer is; that to swerve from God's word, is to err: But this text proveth she cannot err: therefore this text proveth she cannot swarve from God's word. And indeed, if she could err, or swerve from God's word; the merely not hearing, or not obeying her, could not deserve that a man should be justly accounted by God as a publicam, or Heathen. See here. N. 19 Others reply that this text is to be understood, not of hearing this Church in matters of Faith and unbelief, but of matters of trespass between Brother and brother, which trespasses are also to be told to every particular Church and to several Prelates; and therefore this place maketh nothing for the authority of the universal Church. I answer; particular trespasses are to be referred to particular Prelates; and that the Church is not to be assembled in a general Councel for every private mans trespasses. Singular private men are to be condemned by they particular Prelates of their particular Churches, proceeding according to the known decrees and Orders of the universal Church. If any man, when they proceed thus, disobeyeth them, he in them disobeyeth the universal Church; according to whose known Laws, and Decrees, these Prelates clearly proceeded. And therefore he, merely for this only act of refractory disobedience to the Church, deserveth, by Gods own judgement, to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. So we see, that every man, who disobeyeth the particular judges, judging clearly according to the known Laws of the Commonwealth, disobeyeth the Commonwealth. And it is this refractory disobeying, 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 self 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 their duty in giving sentence according to the known Decrees, orders, and Canons of the universal Church, those who disobey the Prelates of particular Churches, must (by not less general a manner of speaking) be said to disobey the universal Church; as those, who disobey the judge, are said to disobey the Commonwealth. So that at last, this disobedience against the Church, is against Christ and God himself, according to that which God said to Samuel; lib. 1. c. 8. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me: and Christ to his disciples, the first Prelates of the Church; He that despiseth you, despiseth me. Luk 10. whence you did see Sect: 8. n: 6. how S. Austen taught us, that if there were a Man appointed by God to be heard by us (and known to be so commissioned) no body would dare to refuse obedience unto him in what he taught; lest so doing, he should be truly judged, not so much to have refused Obedience to this man, as to have refused it to God, who gave Commission to this man. Just so (as S. Austen also discourseth) being it is God who gave this Commission to the Church, obliging all to hear her, with so strict a command, that the Refusers are to be judged, by his express Order, as Publicans, and Heathens; he who refuseth to submit to this Church, for doing so, is truly judged not so much to disobey the Church, as to disobey God who gave the Commission to the Church: see Sect: 22. n: 5. And therefore Christ commanded the Lawful Successors of Moses to be obeyed, in what they commanded (to wit, either by public authority, or by the known doctrine or practice formerly ordered by public authority;) although these Successors of Moses were men, not only wicked in their lives, but also did (on their private authority) teach errors, and that publicly; Yet never authorised by any one public definition of the seat of Moses. And they were these never-authorized errors 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 doctrine, which was authorised by the public definition of that feat, Christ was so fare from bidding, even the common people, to take heed of it, that he said publicly, to the whole promiscuous Multitude, and also to his disciples; Upon the Chayer of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharises, All therefore what soever they bid you, observe, and do. Mat: 23. v. 1. Note those must ample words (All therefore what soever.) O! will you say, what if they bid us do against the Scripture; what most you do? I answer that, just as you must say concerning that voice, which came from Heaven, commanding (Mat: 27.) to hear our Saviour, Ipsum audite, was not to be eluded by the Pharises saying, hear him if he teach no falsity; but was a declaration from Heaven, that he, who was so universally 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 urging, If any man will not hear the Church &c, be words containing a declaration made by our Saviour's own Mouth, that the old and new Church so universally commanded to be heard, were secured from teaching any falsity. And I shall answer, before I end all your chief objections to the contrary, Sect: 23. 11. Now as the Synagogues authority was to be heard in all whatsoever they did bid in matter of doctrine, and not only in point of trespasses between Brother, and Brother; we cannot (without notably depressing the Authority of Christ's Church, and casting of it under the Synagogue) allow to the Synagogue a power to be universally heard in all whatsoever, and yet confine the Authority of Christ's Church to those narrow limits of being heard only in point of trespass between Brother and Brother; where as the Synagogue is but the Handmaid, the Church the Sovereign Lady, and hath a better Covenant established upon better promises. Hebr: 8.6. The force than of my text is this, If any one will not hear the Church, even in trespass 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 hear the Church in such trespasses which one Brother commits against all his Brothers, and against his Dearest Mother the Church; this being incomparably a crime more heinous, 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 own preservation, as every Commonwealth hath, and of necessity must have; especially so ample a Commonwealth, as was intended to be dilated over the whole face of the Earth, and to be established in a vast extent for ever. Wherhfore as our adversaries use to say, that every Kingdom or Commonwealth must needs have power to make Laws and statutes, of sufficient efficacy to keep of all foreign jurisdiction, by which it may be ruined, because as Suarez saith (lib 3. de Primate. Pont: C. 1. n: 4.) human nature cannot be destitute of necessary remedies to its own preservation; so we say God having erected a Kingdom to stand for ever, as Daniel called his Church (of which I spoke the last Sect: n. 9) he cannot but be supposed to have given this his Kingdom, or Church, that Ecclesiastical Power which was requisite to preserve it from all secular insurrections, against the Ecclesiastical or Spiritual power thereof; or else it might easily be quitted and cast of by them all. This Kingdom than, being to reign in the middle of all Nations, he gave it a Spiritual jurisdiction over all Nations, in so much, as he said to his Church; The Nation and Kingdom which will not serve thee, shall perish of which I speak more the last Sect. n. 8: Who so ever than broacheth any heresy, as a poisoned cup prepared to the ruin, not of one Brother's body; but of as many Brother's Souls as he can any way entice to drink thereof: if he still persistes in this malicious practice, and so, to the notorious trespassing of all his Brothers, 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 questionless to be proceeded against by the Church: to which if he submit not, he, most deservedly, in the highest degree, is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. And Note that all heretics are not only guilty of this Soul-Murthering crime of heresy: but by standing out against the Prelutes of the Church, in the maintaining of their Heresy, they fall into Schism; which Crime of its own Nature (as S. Thomas affirmeth) is the most heinous trespass against our Brothers, and against the most solemn band of fraternal Charity, that can be committed. If therefore trespasses against our Brothers belong to the Court of the Church, and she is here by God made the judge thereof, with that high prerogative of having her Sentence ratifyed in heaven: than doubtless those whom she condemneth are condemned persons, both in the sight of God and men. She therefore, under so great a penalty, being to be heard, is secured from all kind of error in her Sentence, or decree. And as the broaching of heresy, and the standing out in defence of it by Schism, is incomparably more destructive to out Brothers, and offensive to our Mother the Church, when this is done by a great multitude or a whole Nation; so, in this Case, the Crime more Nearly concerns the Court of the Church, and she is impowered to pass sentence against it; which being no less, but rather more just, than in the former Case, will not less, but rather more assuredly, be ratified in heaven. I note this for D. Ferns sake, who, under 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 inconsiderately use, to elude the force of this Text;) that this sentence of the Church consisteth only in an exterior excommunication, in which she may err, and the party (erroneously excommunicated) may be a just man in the sight of God. I answer; if we deceive not ourselves by putting a Cause different from that which concerneth the true understanding of this text; the matter will soon be cleared. This text speaketh of one who will not hear, nor submit to the Church, after she hath given sentence against him: Give me a man, who, in this case, doth not submit to the Church, and this very not submission of his, cannot but be that very crime, for which Christ himself holdeth him accountable as a Publican or Heathen; and affirmeth that this sentence shall be ratified in heaven: wherefore it is impossible this Censure should be unjust, if he be truly guilty of not hearing the Church. It is true that by false information, or some such way, a man may be judged 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 error in the mistake of the fact: and thus Clavae errante, by an error 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 adversaries, who would have a man be innocent in the sight of God, who professeth in many particulars not to conform to what the sentence of the Church commandeth all to conform; for example to adore the Sacred Eucharist etc. Every man who professeth this, professeth not to hear the sentence of the Church, which is still by severe Censures pressing this upon him. Wherhfore in pronouncing sentence here (where the fact of not hearing the Church is maintained as good and laudable,) there can be no error in the fact: for they confesse and profess 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 conformable consent of Primitive times, the pure ages of the Church. Wherhfore when the Church pronounceth these persons, so notoriously refractory, to be accounted as Publicans, or Heathens; her sentence shall be ratifyed in heaven; and either Scripture must be false, or those men guilty. 13. That all may clearly see what an empty boast this is, which D. Ferne, and others make of their having evidence of Scripture against what our Church teacheth; I challenge him, or any other, to show, if he can, by Scripture only (for that you all make your judge) that the texts which here I allege for the Church her being our infallible judge, cannot be interpreted truly, as our church saith they are to be interpreted. For to show this, it is not enough for you to device some different interpretation, in which it is possible for these texts to be taken: For it is no proof to say, This may be true true interpretation, Therefore it is so: Or, it seems probably to be so, therefore evidently this, and no other but this interpretation is true: But you must, (and that by evidence of Scripture only) show that these texts cannot be truly interpreted, as our Church interpreteth them; and you must prove by Scripture only, that the tradition, by which she hath received these interpretations, 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) she is grounded as well as those who received their doctrine from Scripture only. For the Tongues of the Apostles were as infallible as their pens; and what they said, and caused to be reduced to practise all the world over, is fare less subject, to be either counterfeited, or mistaken, than their writings. You also will never answer what I said, that these texts, which now I am bringing for this point, be as clear evidences out of Scripture for the Churches being our infallible judge, as those other texts brought by you, and examined here by me Sect: 10. be clear evidences to demonstrate that Scripture only is to be our judge; which point, if you cannot make more evident out of Scripture than I can make this point; it is manifest, that you stand out against all the Prelates of all the Churches under which you lived before your division, without convincing them by evidence of Scripture that you might and aught refuse submission to them. The Church than being in possession of her Authority over you, and not manifestly convinced by you with any evidence of Scripture (of the Evidence of which there is fare more reason she should be judge, than you:) you, for not hearing her, are by her just 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 judgements, 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 their faith upon the very pillar of truth? May they not, most groundedly, ground their faith upon the very ground of Truth it self? what do we say more? Now I pray, what possibility can there be for you to show by evident Scripture, that this text is not capable of this interpretation, which our Church gives unto it? In place of showing this (which only maketh to the purpose;) you go about to show that text may have other interpretations, therefore (you infer) this is not the true one: which is a pitiful argument. For what text was ever cited by S. Paul, or other Apostles, which might not have had some other interpretation put upon it? Thus in place of bringing evident Scripture against us, you still bring your own interpretations of it; as if Scripture (fallibly interpreted by you) were to be our judge. What text have you for that? If you say, Scripture interpreted truly, must be our judge; but you do interpret it truly; therefore Scripture, as you interpret it, must be our judge. What heretic will not say thus much for his damnable interpretations? Tell me than, what interpretation can be demonstrated to be the only true one, which is different from our interpretation: which saith thus; The Church being the pillar itself of truth, we may, without fear of ever erring, rely upon her? She being the very ground of truth itself; we are securely grounded, as long as we are grounded on her Authority. What have you in Scripture only, to prove this interpretation to be manifestly false; as you must prove it against so public authority? what (I say) have you out of Scripture on●y, to demonstrate this? Nothing: But, in place of bringing us evidence of Scripture, so vainly boasted of; you bring us, for your best answer, an interpretation of your own, which you say must be true, because perhaps it may be true; As if I should sufficiently prove that A. B. must be a thief, be accuse perhaps he may be so. To answer in the like form, I may as well say; this interpretation of yours must be false: because perhaps it may be false. But let us hear what your best interpretation is. You commonly say, there is a double Pillar, and a double Ground: One pillar, or ground which is principal, and that is the Scripture; an other pillar or ground subordinate 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 believed God and Moses, saith the Scripture, Ex: 14. v. 31. Moses was infinitely under God, and subordinate to him; as the Church is under Scripture and subordinate to it: and yet this did not hinder but that all the people did most truly believe Moses, and ground their faith on what he said; because they knew he had received what he taught, from God. So all the subordination the church hath to Scripture, doth not hinder, but that we may truly rely in our belief upon the Church as the people relied upon Moses; because we also know that what the Church teacheth, she hath received from God by Christ, and his Apostles. Again, the tradition or doctrine of our Church is as secure, as the tradition or doctrine of the Church in the Law of Nature was for all those two thousand years which were before all Scripture: but than men might (and all did) securely rely on that Church as the pillar and ground of truth, on which all their faith relied: Ergo they may now thus rely on Christ's Church. Again, what clear text have you to prove, that Christ's Church is less secured from falsity, than 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 upon 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 yourselves confess the Church might be, and was securely relied upon, in all points of faith; And no one Christian can, by any text, be proved to have than understood 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 than 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 universally, that she was secured from proposing any error to be believed, were it great or little: but yet she, immediately upon the writing of the Scripture (confirming this title unto her) became less universally a Pillar and ground of truth, and more subject to error than before? You, who will have nothing of moment held without clear Scripture: show but one single clear text of Scripture for this. Moore 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 God's sake mark how you handle Scripture against us. You say you will bring evident demonstration of Scripture, and now you bring your mere conjectures of S. Paul's inward and secret intention, known to God only. Let me than ask you. What Text tells you clearly that S. Paul had only an intention to set forth the Church's office, and not her authority? whereas, in lesser words, I think, it scarce possible more fully, and more emphatically, to set forth her infallible authority, than by terming her the Pillar and ground of the Truth; which words strike so strong upon our understandings, even at the first hearing of them, that the first consequence we can make from hence is; therefore upon this pillar of truth we may securely rely in our belief of truth; Therefore upon this ground of truth we may safely ground our belief. Concerning the office of this Church no man thinketh, until he be put in mind, or hath turned a while his understanding to the search of several interpretations. S. Paul than using words as sufficient to declare the infallible authority of the Church, as men in ordinary speech use to do, yea, using a most Expressive Metaphor, which cometh fully home to this intent; what do you but tell us your bore conjectures (and those most weakly grounded) when you tell us, you know his intention was not to declare the authority of the Church. Some prove this weak conjecture by an other weaker: for they say, to what purpose was it for S. Paul instructing Timothy, how to behave himself in the Church of God, to set forth unto 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 Timothy to behave himself irreprehensibly in the Church, because she was constituted the Public Oracle for all the world, that all in all ages might come to her for secure direction in their faith, and for assured decision of all their controversies (she being the Pillar and ground of truth) S. Paul thought fit to admonish Timothy, and all other Prelates in his person, so to behave themselves, as not, by their misdemeanour, to make men think it improbable that God should give a perpetual infallible assistance to such a Church, whose prime and first governor's (who should be the pattern of the rest) lived scandalously or less Godly. How much do, (not your multitude only) but even your greatest Doctors, think themselves to say against the Church of Rome, claiming this infallibility (yet improbably say you;) because her Prelates have been avaricious, cruel, lascivious, or otherwise scandalous? This indeed is a pitiful argument, for so it should be proved improbable that, God assisted infallibly wicked men to writ (without the lest error) some parts of the Holy Scripture. And yet we know David was both an Adulterer and murderer; Solomon was an Idolater, who went after Astoroth the Goddess of the Sidonians, and after Michom the abomination of the Amonites: 1. Kings 11. v. 5.7. Of divers books we know not the Authors, and so we cannot tell whether they were good or bad. Yet as pitiful an argument as this is, we know it troubleth weak Souls; and therefore you use it against us. Wherhfore, to take away all scandal from these little ones, it was very convenient that Bishops, especially those who first held that place in the Church (as Timothy did) should be blameless, continent, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour &c: For such good precepts as these were here given by S. Paul, as much making to his purpose; to maintain the credit of such a Church as might seem to all, fit to be that which indeed was constituted the Public 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, baptising them, &c: and 〈◊〉 I am with you always; even to the end of the world. The Apostles, in their own persons, were not to be here teaching and baptising until the end of the world: Therefore, not only according to S. Austin and S. Hierom upon this place, but also according to manifest reason, these words were spoken as a promise both to them and to their successors for ever, by whom they were for ever to be teaching all Nations, and baptising: and consequently this promise was made to the assembly of Teachers, Doctors, and Bishops of that visible Church, in which they were visibly to perform all that belonged to the instruction of all Nations unto the world's end. That Church which had no such visible being in all ages, 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 than, having no share in it, enviously labour to lessen it, by saying; that it is not to be understood that there should be equality of assistance in all ages, securing the Church at all times, from all error in every age, as she was secured in the first age, when she was governed by the Apostles; And after they had written the Scriptures, there was no further need of any other infallible Rule; a lesser assistance therefore might serve after ages. I answer that this is only to tell me what you think might be said: but where is your evidence of Scripture, to demonstrate that the assistance God promised was indeed extended to infallibility in the first age; but was not so in any other age? I ask 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 grain of mustardseed to be a vast tree; extending her branches from Sea to Sea, and still growing to a greater extent) in process of following ages, there must needs, in so huge a compass of the world, embracing men of different understandings, dictamen, principles, educations, instructions, humours, and wills; there must (I say) needs hap in the progress of many ages (still removed further, and further from Christ's time, and the days of his Apostles) a world of Doubts, debates, and controversies, some affirming such and such Books to belong to the true Canon of Scripture, others rejecting them as Apocryphas. Some affirming such and such Copies to be the only true uncorrupted Copies of those Books, others affirming those Copies to be corrupted, and others different from them to be the only true ones. And again after they had agreed upon the true Books, and the true Copies (though perhaps they might in that agreed in a fundamental error) yet they would be sure mainly to disagree about the true sense of those copies. Why than might not Christ, to secure his Church from erring in so important Controversies (undecidable 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 Apostles, not for their own sakes, but for the good of those whom they were to teach, and to secure them from error. Now the Christian people of after ages were incomparably more in number, and their very number made them incomparably more subject (in process of many ages still remoter from Christ) to be led into inextricable errors; wherefore surely they did exceedingly need this infallible assistance, given, as I said, for the people's sake. Those who had been instructed by the Apostles, before Scripture was written, converted and instructed thousands, who never had heard any Apostle preach: All these Believed upon the authority of the than present Church, and their faith was infallible; therefore that Church, which was than before Scripture, had an infallible assistance to secure her from proposing any error. What Scripture tells you she lost this assistance when Scripture was written? And that men could not rely upon her authority, when now, besides the help of tradition, she had also the help of Scripture, to rule herself by? See this more fully S. 16. n. 2. You say, this infallible assistance was less necessary for her after she had received the Scripture. I might say, it was more necessary; because in process of time heretics would arise, who would affirm the Scriptures to have been purposely written 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 heresy, into which all heretics have ever fallen, maketh the necessity of an infallible assistance greater after the writing of Scripture, than it was before. Again, what Scripture tells you that God is so sparing in his providing means for the direction of his Church, that, giving them Scripture, he will subtract his assistance formerly extended to infallibility, and not leave them, with their Bibles in their hands, to go which way every one in his private judgement shall think fittest, with out the former direction of a public, visible, and infallible guide? Had we not better have kept such a guide still? D. Ferne could not but acknowledge, that such a visible infallible judge, or Umpire of all Christendom, would (if to be had) be a ready means to compose all differences, and restore truth and Peace. S. 27. The Church was this infallible visible judge before Scripture was written; and it is also confessed, that such a judge would now, after we have the Scripture, be an exceeding benefit: why than do you say, God took away this inestimable gift from his Church with one hand, when he gave the Scripture with the other; there not being the lest text in Scripture for so important an assertion? I think any one would hold it most rash to say, that S. john the Evangelist, after he had writ the last words of the whole Canon or Scripture, presently lost his infallibility in teaching, instructing guiding, interpreting &c: Why than should the whole Church of Christ lose that infallibility which confessedly she 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 than can you say the infallible guidance of the Church is superfluous, after the writing of the Scripture? especially, being such an infallible guidance is even now confessed to be so ready a means to end all controversies; which among those who admit no such guides, are endless. 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 upon him, as the first Revealer thereof, many gross, and intolerable Errors, and superstitions, as you call those which you found in all Churches upon the face of the Earth, this last thousand years: Therefore these last thousand years he was not with his Church, or else her errors were not such as needed so sad a Reformation as yours was, to the disturbance of all Christendom. If her errors were tolerable, they should (to avoid so great mischiefs) have been tolerated: if they vere intolerable, how was Christ with her? Or what other Church can you name whose errors 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 error fundamental, or not fundamental: this will appear by that farther, and fuller explication made of this promise in S. john, who writ on purpose to explicate more fully some points, less fully set down by the former Evangelists. 17. My eleventh text than is out of S. john, where C. 14. v. 15. Our Saviour saith; 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 sand in my Name, he shall teach you all things, and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say unto you (fundamental or not-fundamental.) And C. 16. v. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you (the fundamentals be not many things, as you all confess;) How be it, when the spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth, not only fundamental, but also not-fundamental, which belong to those many things which I (who have told you things fundamental) have not yet told you. In these things this Spirit will guide you into all Truth. But all Truth excludeth all Errors, not only in fundamental, but also in not-fundamental points. You know not which points be fundamental, which not; which destructive of Salvation, which not; which curable, which incurable; Yet fear not: believe the Church in teaching these, or any other points; for she, guided by this Spirit of Truth, will guide you into all Truth: But you will say, How long shall her chief Pastors have this great privilege? For ever, saith the first part of my Text; by which words it is made evident that the promise was made, not only to them for themselves (they not being to live for ever teaching us these Truths;) but also for they Successors in the prime government of the Church, who were to guide the People into all Truth for ever; as I shall presently show farther out of S. Paul. I argue hence (just as I did before;) This assistance which was promised for ever, was ever, and in all ages, performed; therefore in those ten ages (which made the thousand years 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 hold to be our grossest errors; Therefore these be not errors, but truth. Here you see again clearly, why this great promise cannot belong to your Prelates or other Governors of your Church, as it is different from ours. First, because you had no visible governor's at all of your Church as distinct from ours. For Governors must needs be visibly chosen, have visible subjects, sand forth visible decrees etc. Name such governor's as these different from ours, if you can. You can name none but ours. With ours than only the Holy Ghost abided all these ages, guiding them into all Truth. Whence Secondly it followeth, that he cannot now be guiding your governor's into all truth; they being manifestly guided into opinions directly opposite to those doctrines which were, all these last thousand years, taught by all those who were governor's of the Church. If you could show governor's of Churches in all these last ten ages still teaching those points in which you differ from us, without teaching other notorious errors; than indeed you might have some colour to pled; that this Spirit of Truth might as truly have been said promised to the governor's of your Church, as to those of ours: But this promise, not being performed to them (there being no such persons to be found in those ages) was not doubtless promised to them; otherwise Christ's promise had not been performed. 18. My twelfth and last Text, showing clearly that this promised assistance was extended to infallibility, is. Ephes: 4. Whence appeareth that the end, and intention of Christ in giving the chief 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 us such chief Gouvernours, guides and instructors in belief, as were merely fallible, and who might lead us into circumvention of error, even than, when they were legally assembled together to deliver the Truth, from their highest Tribunal, in a general Council. For had all these our chief Gouvernours, even than, been liable to broach gross errors, vented for divine verities (and pressed upon all to be admitted as such) how had Christ obtained that end for which he gave us these our prime Gouvernours, guides and instructors? For he gave some Apostles (succeeding always in full Apostolical authority, as we see in S. Peter successors:) some Prophets (those saith S. Thom. 12. Rom. v. 6. Are called Prophets in the new Testament who expound the Prophetical say with that Spirit with which the Scripture was written:) and some Evangelists (that is Preachers of the Gospel; So Philippe is called an Evangelist Act: 21. v. 8. So S. Paul bad Timothy do the work of an Evangelist. Tim. 4. v. 5.) some Pastors and Teachers; whose offices are more known. But to what end did he give all these? It followeth; For the perfecting the Saints. How pitifully should they be perfected by obtruders of gross intolerable errors for divine verities? For the work of the ministry; how pitifully also had such men performed this work? For the edifying of the body of Christ: such Broachers of Errors had been fit to work her destruction. How long did God intent to give all these sorts of persons, of which some were to be endued with the plenitude of Apostolical authority, and consequently with an infallible authority; How long, I say, did God give such to his Church? Till we all come into the unity of the faith; which will not be until the last days of all: Wherhfore until the end of the world, the world shall be provided. But are we, by being thus provided, sufficiently secured from all Error? The next verse will tell you, that this was Gods chief intent; That we hence forth be no more childerens tossed to and from, and carried about With every wind of doctrine, by slight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. God's end than was so to provide us of a means, by which we might be so secured in our belief, that no man's craft or cunning might be able to toss us to and from; as we see now all they are, who hold themselves able to bring evidence of Scripture, against all those who for the last ten ages have been Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and teachers in Christ's visible Church. 19 To elude some of my texts, our adversaries use to say; we must indeed hear the Church, as long as she teace what is conformable to Scripture: and so long the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her; so long, and no longer, she is the pillar and ground of truth, and God is with her etc. I answer first, That in consequence to this the father of lies himself may be believed so long as he teacheth comformably to Scripture. Secondly who seethe not how ridiculous it is to say; we shall hear the truth from the Church as long as she 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 until it yields. Blasphemous is the sense which maketh Christ speak nonsense. As all by a voice from Heaven were bid to hear Christ, so all are bidden by Christ oh hear his Church: her governor's therefore shall never come by unanimous consent to propose lies for articles of faith. For if all should teach a lie (as every error against Scripture is a lie) with whom is that promise made good, that the spirit of truth should guide them into all truth. If we may be misled by all those guides which God gave his Church, to the end that we hence forth be no more children tossed to and from, and carried about &c: how short did God fall of his intent in falling upon such guides as being liable so to swerve from the Scripture, must needs leave us, yea make us tossed to and from. Read but over the texts I cited last Section out of the old testament, and you shall see how flatly this interpretation opposeth God's word, which shall never departed from the Church's mouth, nor her Seed, nor the Seed of her Seed etc. See also my answer above, n: 10. Thirdly, thus you will leave no Text to prove she shall never err in fundamentals: for you will still be answered; that so long as in them she teacheth conformably to Scripture, she shall not err in them; But if once in them she teacheth not conformably to Scripture, she shall err even in them; and so Christ shall have no Church. 20. Having now ended the complete dozen of texts brought partly out of the old Scriptures, manifestly promising infallibility to Christ's 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 examine carefully whether these texts be not clearer, and come not fare more home, than those texts which were the best D. Ferne brought to prove, that Scripture by itself is so our infallible judge. See those texts examined Sect. 10. See also if you have any thing near so good grounds out of Scripture for any one of those 24. points which I have showed to be necessary to salvation, and for which consequently you say you have clear Scripture. Confer these with the best you have for the keeping the Sunday, for baptising infants &c, Which I have here examined; and ask your own conscience, whether you can be able to give your own judge a reason why you did not hear his voice, speaking fare more home in these texts, than he did in those? Lastly, I again call upon our adversaries, to show by evidence of Scripture, if they can, that these twelve texts here cited by me, are not capable of that interpretation which we, conformably to our Church's doctrine, have given them. But still we note that they fall short of doing this, so long as they only show, that it is possible to invent some different interpretation of these texts, from that which we have given them: for so even the texts which the Apostles have interpreted out of the old Scripture, may be showed to have been capable of other interpretations, though the interpretation they gave them were very true: you must than show, and that by evident demonstration, that the interpretation which our Church giveth them, is not true; Or else vain is your boast, that you hear not our Church, because you have evident demonstration of Scripture against her; For no less can suffice against so public authority, even according to your own principles. SECT: XVI. The same is proved by several Reasons. 1. THe first reason, why the Church must needs be furnished with some infallible means besides the use of Scripture, (which use is not infallible though the Scriptures be infallible) is taken out of that which I touched upon (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 privileged 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 years (until the first writing of Scripture by Moses) was all that while infallible in proposing true traditions, and not so much as liable to propose false ones. This I prove, because all the faith which the true believing people had in those two thousand years was infallible, though it relied only on the proposal 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 sabbath, Gen. 2. the distinction between clean and unclean beasts and meats, Gen: 7. and Gen: 9 v. 3. That the soul is immortal; that the rewards and punishments of the next life lasted for ever; that they were, by the fall of Adam, conceived in original Sin; that such, and such remedies, were to be used to free themselves and their children from it; what repentance they were to use; how fast they were to stand to their traditions; how they were to accounted it a most damnable Sin to forsake them etc. This was the faith of all true believers in the world, which for two thousand years had no other ground than the revelation of God, as proposed by the tradition of the Church present to all believers in every age, in which these believers lived. And though their Tradition was inferior to ours, as I shown in the place now cited, yet the Church than, in every age, was infallible in propounding that which they had once received by Revelation: And the believers of each Age resting upon the infallible authority which their present Church had in propounding those divine verities, had the same spirit of faith, as S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 4. The misbelievers than had the same Spirit also which they have now in opposing the Church's tradition. This Spirit, before the flood, was in Cain, who, as Thargum Hierosolymitanum saith, protested to Abel that there was no justice, nor judge, nor other world than this, nor no reward for virtue, nor punishment for Sinn: And perhaps he used the argument which D. Ferne and many now use, that his part was negative, Abel's affirmative; and so Abel was bound to prove what he held: which because he could do only by Tradition, Cain (having the true misbelievers Spirit) scoffed at all Tradition: His Heresy made the world so corrupt, that few just men were left at the flood of Noë, although this heresy was strangely opposed by Enoch, above four hundred years before the flood; whence S. jude (v: 11.) having said Woe be to them for they have gone in the way of Cain; addeth (v: 14.) And Enoch also the seventh from Adam prophesied of these saying, behold our Lord cometh in his holy thousands to do judgement upon all, and to convince all that are amongst them of their deeds. After Noës' flood, these deniers of God's iudgement being extinguished; Nenrod was the second Archheretic, as josephus wittneseth l. 1. Antiq: C. 4. for he taught, That men were not beholding to God, but to themselves for temporall prosperity; and thus Heresies, by contempt of Tradition, again multiplied: Yet still God had a visible Church holding fast the above named traditions received from Adam as the keeping of the sabbath &c: And some five hundred years before God gave the first Scripture to the Children of Israel only, he did separate Abraham from all other Nations, giving afterwards unto him and his, the precept of Circumcision (Gen: 17.) which precept (though no Scripture could be then shown) was, for above four hundred years, observed by his posterity as a necessary precept. Upon tradition also they believed the Covenant God made to Abraham of making him the Father of Many Nations; and that the Messiah should be borne of his seed. Than after Moses his day's Scripture was written, but given only to the Children of Israel: Not other Nation being bound to submit to this Law. All other nations, as they had than several true believers among them, when Abraham was separated from them, so there is not the lest mention of their total decay in belief after that separation; all they than still believed what they had believed before, upon the same ground as they did before, neither were the Scriptures promulged among them. And thus true faith might be preserved among many who never heard of Scripture, until Christ's time; that is for an other two thousand years, and more. Just so true faith, even aften Christ's time, was preserved among many without any Scripture; as I shall by and by show. But to go on; we read that job and his friends (when or wheresoever they lived) lived not among the progeny of Abraham; and yet job was most eminent in virtue and true faith, and his friends (and probably many of his and their neighbours) believed in one God, held the resurrection of the flesh, and that God should judge all according to their works, and divers other points, relying still upon only Tradition. Why should the Tradition of Christ's Church be more fallible than theirs 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 fare greater reason why our Tradition should be credited more them theirs. Is not Christ's Church nobler than theirs? Did God give them any means fit to secure their Traditions from being falsified, than he gave his Church: Can Tradition be an infallible ground for above 4000 years before Christ, and can it not have been so ever since Christ for 1657. years. Add also to this, that the children of Israel, though they had the Scriptures, yet they had not all necessary points written in their Scripture, but did rely wholly upon the Tradition of their Church for the truth of them; as I shown Sect: 10. n: 7. 2. My second reason, to prove the Church is provided of some infallible means for the secure direction of her Children, is, that not only from the beginning of the world to Christ's preaching his new Gospel, the infallible faith of several true believers had no other ground but the infallibility of their respectively present Church, in proposing the Traditions she had received; but also the first true believers in Christ relied in their faith upon the infallibility of Christ's Church, not having any other infallible ground but her authority, affirming that she, 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 believing, even our own Protestant adversaries confess to have been infallible until the whole Canon of the Scripture was written, and divulged, which was some 70. or fourscore years after Christ's passion. Now how this manner of security relying vpon the church, which, from the beginning of the world unto the finishing of the last book of Scripture and publishing of the same, had been the common practice of true believers, did presently turn to be Popish, and unlawful, I cannot conceive: But I ā sure all our adversaries stoutly affirm that it is so; and here their part is affirmative, and affirmative of the unlawfulness of that which from the beginning of the world was ever lawful unto that day. Wherhfore to pled against so long a prescription (that the world was not capable of a longer) for introducing a new obligation of not believing upon a ground which had been, for above four thousand years, able to bear all the faith of the world, evidence of Scripture aught to be brought: What than more reasonable than to ask of them to cite at lest one single clear Text, commanding all the believers of Christ's Church to give over relying upon her authority, as now never to be any more infallible after the finishing and publishing of the last book of Scripture? Our adversaries cannot bring any such text affirming this clearly, without we will be pleased to take their fallible and ungrounded interpretations to be a ground sure enough to make the Texts reach home to the proof of what we demand: which cannot be allowed by us; because, by their own confession, their interpretation is fallible: And we must have an infallible ground to overthrew an infallible authority, standing sure even from the beginning of the world. Call than, 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 showed 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 upon the Church's authority, now grown fallible, though ever before infallible. Do but stand close to this, and their vain boast of demonstrating this by Scripture, will fall down dead before thy feet to be trampled upon by thee. Yea, not to condemn their own Brothers the Lutherans (who deny the Apocalypse or Revelations to be Scripture) they will tell thee that for divers ages this Book was not known to be certain Scripture, and yet perhaps this was the very last Book of Scripture, until the publishing of which the infallibility of the Church was to last. If this be so than, you must allow it probable that the infallibility of the Church lasteth until this very day, for any certainty we have of the contrary: For your Lutheran Brothers will say, that Book of the Apocalypse was never as yet sufficiently published to the Church to be Scripture; for if it were so, they neither could, nor would reject it. Secondly it seemeth inconceptible how the writing and publishing such a Scripture, as was at last written and published, should, without any distincter declaration than the Scripture, by little and little (that is, as people were pleased to copy it out) should make invalide the hitherto-infallible authority of this Church: there being in this Scripture twelve texts at the lest (as I have showed in the two former Sections) recommending to all, the authority of the Church; besides divers others bidding them hold still her Traditions, and inculcating this over and over again; as I shown 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 added to the former tradition: For example, we know by tradition there is such a place as the Indieses, where gold is to be found; but when our own fleets come to go thither, and fetch the gold from thence, and in testimony there-of stamp golden pieces with this inscription, Brought by our fleet from the Indieses; and when Acts of Parliament come to be set forth concerning the value of such, and such pieces: when I say this goulden-printed-testimony comes forth, is not the former tradition grown rather more, than become less credible? So when any of the former most credible traditions come to be now written in the golden letters of the Scriptures, and of such Scriptures as commanded Traditions to be held; and commanded again and again the Church to be heard, followed, obeyed, relied upon as the very pillar and ground of truth; is not her authority and the credit of her Traditions rather increased, than lessened, by this golden and divine writing? Again; it was wholly necessary that if after the finishing of the Canon, the Church was not longer to be infallible, that notice thereof, by some very public Decree, or Act, should have been given to all the people in the Church; that they might not go on, grounding their faith upon the infallible tradition of this Church, as they did before; lest so doing they should rely now, not upon the pillar and ground of truth, but upon a fallible authority. That this was done you can prove by no kind of testimony. 3. But I can prove, by a most grave testimony, that, long after the finishing of the Canon of Scripture, the faithful believers still held on their former manner of relying in their whole Faith wholly upon the infallible authority of the Church: just as I said before that, when Moses gave the Scripture to the jews, the faithful people among the Gentiles had not these Scriptures, but continued still to believe upon 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 years after Christ. This saint, in that unquestioned work of his against Valentinus. L. 3. C. 4. Where he showeth, in what manner we were all to believe the same things which now we do believe, although there were no Scripture at all; and he showeth this by showing how, even after the writing of Scripture, many whole Nations did believe, who had never seen the Scripture, by following (as an infallible Rule) that order of Tradition which had from hand to hand been delivered to the Prelates 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 us the Scriptures? Must we 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 unwritten word) many barbarous Nations do assent, who have believed 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, before which time all Nations believed merely on Tradition, as I said, and before which time, no one tradition of Christian faith could be ancient. Hence than S. Irenaeus proveth, that we might believe with divine faith, upon the sole account of, or merely relying upon, that very tradition, which the Apostles de facto left to those to whom they left the government of the Church; although the Apostles had never written any thing at any time. S. Irenaeus therefore did believe that the tradition de facto left by the Apostles, was a sufficient ground to vphould divine and infallible faith; and consequently that it was infallible: So that upon it merely, whole nations might believe: For, if he had not thought that they had believed merely upon tradition, but had only by it been recommended to take the Scripture for their ground; he could not hence have showed (to show which he brought this proof) in what Measure we had all been obliged to believe 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 belief to have had any kind of Relation to Scripture. And because the belief of these Nations had no such Relation, this example was to his purpose: which otherwise had not been So. Now what S. Irenaeus saith 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 than currant: A vast multitude of Nations understood not these languages, as I have showed Sect: 1. n. 9 neither did the Apostles take any care to procure the Scripture to be turned into the languages of every converted Nation which had a different tongue; For had they done So, divers of these translations would either have been for some ages extant, or at lest some memory of them; where as there is not the lest sign of any such thing. The Latin tongue was by the Romans imposed upon most of those many Nations, which were converted in the Apostles Age, and the Ages following: wherefore a man would think that in the first place, or among the very first, this language would have been chosen by the Apostles for publishing the Scriptures, if the Scriptures had been the only ground to be relied upon in faith: Yet for all this you will not grant our vulgar Edition (which you grant 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 their immediate Successors, or to have been approved by them: from hence than we manifestly gather, that the Apostles esteemed that very tradition, which they delivered to these to whom they committed the government of the Church, to be a most sufficient ground to support infallible faith: And consequently they held such traditions infallible, leaving them for the only ground of faith to the fare greater part of the Nations which they converted; to whom they delivered no Scripture at all in their own tongue, nor left any Command (that can be proved) that Scripture should be (presently after the finishing of the Canon) delivered to them in their own languages; for had this been done, some of their Translations would have been kept. If you say they had the Scriptures, though in Greek only. I answer, that those who understand not Greek, are never the nearer for having a Greek book. Why did not S. Peter and S. Paul (who writ in Greek even to the Romans themselves) at that time they stayed in the Latin Church, procure or order the Scriptures to be put in Latin; if, without grounding ourselves upon Scripture in every point of belief, no part of our belief, which is not so grounded, can be infallible. And hence clearly and orderly followeth. 4. My third reason, That no man now hath any infallible faith, but he who relieth upon the Tradition of the present Church, as an infallible ground. This I prove out of what hath been by me already demonstrated. First, for the most learned sort that be in the world, they cannot know, by any ground which is infallible, (except the Tradition of the Church be infallible,) which Books the Prophets or Apostles did writ, which not; as I have showed Sect. 3. Nor which be the true uncorrupted original Copies, which not; as I shown Sect: 4. and therefore they must rely in these two points, (upon which no less than all their faith doth rely,) upon the Tradition of the Church as infallible; for a fallible Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground to support an infallible faith: either than they have no such faith, or they must allow Tradition to be infallible. As for those who are not so learned as to understand Hebrew and Greek, or who have not means to know which Copies be uncorrupted in Greek or Hebrew; They must believe this but by mere human authority, if they refuse the Church's 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 understand not Greek, and Hebrew; either these men must rely upon the word of God, as conveyed unto them by such fallible men, as I have showed their Translators to be, Sect. 5. or, fare more wisely, they must rely upon the Tradition of the Church as infallible: And if they do not, their faith will ever be fallible, as I have showed. Again, it is not the bore letter of Scripture which can be a Rule or ground of faith unto us; but it is the sense of this letter interpreted according to the true mind of the holy Ghost: Now the private interpretation, which any particular Man's Wit, or learning, or Spirit can give to this bore letter, is fallible; even though he shall exactly observe those 20. Several Rules of which I spoke Sect. 7. n: 7: for theses Rules are all fallible; wherefore the bore letter, taken in the sense that we, by our private wit, learning, and Spirit imagine, and merely conjecture it to be taken, is not the infallible sense of the Holy Ghost; and therefore no ground of faith, even to those most learned men who are able to use exactly all those twenty Rules. See the place last cited. But as for all that vast multitude which cannot understand 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 being our adversaries own doctrine that, without the exact observance of all these 20. Rules, the infallible sense of the Holy Ghost cannot be infallibly known to any one, but only fallibly: after all that still fallible industry, it is a clear demonstration, that those who know not Greek and Hebrew, cannot know infallibly what the Scripture biddeth them do or believe; they not being able infallibly to know the sense of the bore letter, which sense (you say) is the only Rule and direction of faith, and the only infallible ground upon which all divine faith must rely. Wherhfore almost all mankind, who is unskilful in Greek and Hebrew, must first have not only the letter of the Scripture faithfully delivered unto them upon trust of the Translators; But Secondly, this must be done after that these Translators have made an unquestionable choice of sure uncorrupted Original Copies, (in which choice it is not possible for them to proceed, but very fallibly as I shown, Sect: 5.) Thirdly also they must have the sense of the letter delivered truly and assuredly unto them. I ask, by whom? You say, by your Ministers. Than (say I) you rely upon the wit, skill and Spirit of those Ministers. Is this proved infallible? No. How than is your faith infallible? As for us, we rely upon the unanimous tradition of those Governors 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 daily practice answerable thereunto: commanding them to deliver to all in their Churches (among whom were their future Successors) the same points both by word of Mouth, and by the answerable practice, just as they had received. In like manner their Successors successively were directed and commanded to proceed. No writing (as I shall show Sect: 19 n. 4.5.6. etc.) can, with so full assuredness, bring down to our age, what was taught and practised in the first age, as perpetual Tradition of the same doctrine, confirmed by the continuance of the same practice first received, and never able to be showed to have been altered or changed. Upon this Tradition we are sure that we believe as groundedly, at the lest, as all the true believers did for the first two thousand years before any Scripture was written: And as groundedly as all the Gentiles (for only jews had the Scripture) believed at any time after wards: And as groundedly as the jews believed still some things only upon Tradition; for example, what remedy was to be used to take away Original Sin from their female-childrens, or from their male-childrens dying before their Circumcision on the eight day: And again, as groundedly as those many Nations, converted by the Apostles successors, believed after the Scripture was finished; though they never had so much as seen Scripture; but wholly relied, in their whole belief, upon the ancient tradition received from them from whom the governor's of their Churches had originally received their governments and authority; to wit, from the Apostles; as I shown out of S. Irenaeus. Tradition than of these Governors of our Churches, delivered unanimously by them, maketh the points so delivered now as evidently credible, and as fit Objects of divine faith, as it made the points delivered than by their Governors or Pastors; Wherhfore we have as good reason now, to take what is thus proposed for truth revealed by God, to be indeed so; and consequently to be embraced with so firm and adhesion of understanding, and will; that the preaching of the contrary by an Angel from Heaven should not stagger our belief therein: And we have as good reason to proceed thus in our belief, as all those, I spoke of, had to proceed so in their belief. 5. My fourth reason hence deduced is, that Christ himself 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 sufficient ground to support its infallibility. Christ calleth these Miracles a testimony greater than john. Mark 5. Yea a testimony (in order to us) greater than his own word; If you will not believe me, believe my works. He calleth that a kind of sure knowledge which is grounded on the testimony of a miracle; So Matt: 9 v: 6. But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on Earth to forgive Sins, he saith to the man Sick of the palsy: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine house. You see Christ used the testimony of this one miracle, as sufficient to make them know the truth of his having power to forgive Sins. Miracles than ground a sure knowledge of faith, or an infallible assent to what they confirm: But the Tradition of the Church maketh that which it witnesseth to be as infallible, and as evidently credible in order to us, as this curing of the man sick of the palsy, 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 confess, that to be most true which I am going to say. I say than, that though a man had lived in the Country all his life, and never had seen London; yet be (merely upon the testimony of Tradition) would so fully believe that there is such a City as London, and that it is the Head Town of England: that neither I, not you can prudently conceive how the testimony of any one miracle (wrought on purpose to prove that there is such a City as London) should make it more evidently credible unto him, that there is such a City, without the Testimony of any Tradition; than Tradition hath made it without the Testimony of any miracle: whence you see Tradition wins belief as powerfully as any Miracle. True it is, this Tradition we spoke of is but human, and so be the motives of Credibility making it evidently credible that God, by his Apostles, affirmed such or such a point unto the first believers of the Church. But when it is once made to me as evidently credible that God hath revealed such and such verities, as it is credible by human tradition that there is such a City as London, than presently (by the grace of God) I conclude; that it being so credible that God hath said such, and such a thing, that I cannot in prudence not more doubt that he hath said it, than I can doubt there is such a City as London: I being thus assured, am by my duty to God bound to yield that submission of my understanding to this saying of God, which is fit to be yielded to the word of a God, which word cannot (without blasphemous impiety) be held subject to the lest fallibility. And therefore what by Tradition is made so evidently credible to me, to have been revealed by God to this Church; aught to be accepted by me, as the word of God. Whence I aught to accounted it blasphemous impiety to doubt of the trutht of it, and consequently I aught to hold it infallible, and as far from all possibility of being false as God's word is. And being that this very self same tradition tells me, that the same God who revealed by his Apostles so many other Verities to his Church, did also reveal, by the same Apostles, to the same Church, that this Church was to be heard as the Mistress of truth, with whom he would ever be present, suggesting her all truth and never permitting the gates of Hell to prevail against her; but that he placed her as a Pillar, and ground of truth; giving her such Pastors, as should secure her Children from being tossed to and from wi●h every wind of doctrine: being (I say) this very self same tradition, which made it evidently credible unto me, that God had revealed many other verities to his Church, had also (together with them,) revealed this verity, of her being infallible in proposing any point for divine faith; and being that I did see with my eyes, that she did propose her Traditions for verities received from God, it could not but be evidently credible unto me that God had revealed the infallibility of his Church, and consequently the questionless Truth of her Traditions. Wherhfore I yielded that submission of my understanding to this saying of God, which was fit to be yielded to the word of a God, which word I could not without blasphemous impiety suspect to be any way liable to fallibility. 6. Here, by the way, out of what hath been now said, we may easily clear two common difficulties. The first is, how we do commit no vicious circle in our faith: For though first we believe the Scripture to be God's word, because the Church, which is infallible, told us so: Yet, when again we are asked, why we first believed the Church to be infallible? we do not say (as our adversaries would needs make us say, whether we would or not) that we first believe our Church to be infallible, because the Scripture told us the Church was infallible; But we answer, that we first believe 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 just now declared, that even a miracle wrought purposely to confirm such a point maketh not that point more evidently credible. Tradition therefore is a ground able to support an infallible assent. Well than, I believe Christ to have been crucified because the Scripture saith so: I believe the Scripture, because the Church by her tradition, saith the Scripture to be God's word; I believe the Church, and her tradition, for its own credibility. If you ask me why I do so? I answer, because I will do prudently in a matter of so great consequence; that is, I will submit, and I will captivitate my understanding in such manner, as to yield all firm assent, which (by God his grace) I possibly can do, unto that, which the Church by her Tradition proposeth unto me as God's true word; upon which word my understanding shall be fixed so immovably, that no Angels words shall move me from it: see Sect: 23. n: 5 6. Hence you see to what my understanding cleaveth so fast; to wit, to Gods true word proposed by the Church, or her unanimous Tradition. Now if you ask me; why my will is so resolute in making choice of thus submitting, and thus captivating my understanding? I easily answer; because my understanding hath evidently Seen (I do not than go blindly to work, (as our adversaries conceive we all do Sect. 8:) Because my understanding hath evidently seen that, even according to all reason, prudence, and piety, it is most unreasonable, imprudent and impious, not to yield this submission of understanding to that which is evidently credible to be God's word; and that to the full as that which is confirmed by miracle: For what is affirmed by the Churches unanimous Tradition, is no less evidently credible than what is confirmed by miracle, (as I proved in the very last Number;) Therefore (and in many other respects) it is most unreasonable, most imprudent, and impious, not to yield all possible submission of understanding to that which is proposed as God's word, by the unanimous Tradition of the Church. It is madness not to believe what is made evidently credible, even than when heaven, is offered unto me if I will believe it, and when hell is infallibly to be my punishment, if I will not believe it. For so our Saviour himself said, when men had only Tradition to rely on (to wit, before any word of that new Scripture was written) He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16 v. 15.) And many were damned for not believing the Church, before either the old Scripture was written in the Law of Nature, and before the finishing of the new testament in the first seaventy years after Christ's passion; and after the finishing of it also, many were damned for not believing among those Nations to whom the faith, without any Scripture was so well proposed, that thousands of them were most true believers, merely grounding their whole faith upon the Church and her unanimous Tradition. 7. The Second difficulty (which may easily be cleared by what hath been here said) is, how the ignorant vulgar sort come to embrace our faith, and all the points of it, with an infallible assent, and that prudently? whence will appear that Tradition is the fittest deliverer of certain 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 fool, is so ignorant, but by such careful search, as all are bound to use in finding out the way to their last end (which is eternal Salvation;) he will presently found, that the unanimous Tradition of our present Church proposeth such and such points to be believed as being points reveled by Christ's Apostles to the Church, for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour, his having planted upon Earth an infallible Church for our direction &c: Than having found this to be the unanimous 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 believed for the first two thousand years, did believe all that they believed upon a weaker Tradition than this is, as I discoursed before: Secondly, he may also easily understand how true it is which I said n. 5. that no miracle can move a man so effectually to believe that there is such a place as London, as Tradition doth move him there unto: wherefore as miracles can beget an infallible assent, so also may Tradition. Thirdly, he can understand that the Church's Tradition is secured by God, from deceiving us; 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, under pain of damnation, exacted of them) might have been an error; and could not have been infallible, as he exacted their faith should be. Now all this being most true, and being also a real proposal of what is indeed revealed by God (which it is not when any false Church useth this argument) God can, and will concur with this ignorant man, as well as with any Doctor, to raise him by supernatural Grace to an infallible assent to the truth, which he embraced most prudently upon Reasons proportionable to his capacity; which Reasons do really make the verities which he believeth to be first evidently credible to him. His faith may then be truly infallible, though he knoweth not that it is infallible; for this knowledge is no way necessary even in learned men, as I shall say. Sect. 23. Now among our Sectaries ignorant men can never embrace the points of faith with an infallible assent. For they must embrace no point with such an assent but when the Scripture, not taken according to the bore letter, but taken as interpreted truly, tells them that such a point is true. But I ask how it can ever be made evidently credible to them that such a place of Scripture is truly interpreted in that sense but especially seeing that the greatest Protestant Doctors teach that the true sense cannot be found out but by observing perhaps twently Rules; of which they are by them plainly told, that they cannot observe divers, as I noted just now n: 4. whence it is clear they may and must despair of finding amongst you any true ground fit to support an infallible assent. This your own prime Doctors did easily see, and knew not how to deny. Hence Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura Q. 5. C. 9 Eightly because the unskilful know not rightly to use these means (of consulting the Hebrew and Greek Originals) they must go to those who are more skilful: So he. And your great Devine Baronus in Apodixi P. 47. The unlearned Laymen cannot have a certain and explicit and distinct knowledge of the Scriptures, and of the doctrine contained in the Scriptures, or that the Translated Bible agreeth with the Original edition. Yea they do not know but by the testimony of others, that the doctrine which is proposed to them to be believed, is contained in this Bible. And again P. 48. They only by human faith believe that the doctrine which is proposed to them is contained in the Bible. So he. You than, who are not perfectly skilled in Hebrew and Greek, are taught by your own Doctors, that it is impossible for you to believe, but upon trust and reliance on the authority of some more ski●full. Do you not know evidently these on whom you rely, to be fallible? Yes. Why than know evidently that your belief, amongst Protestants, can never rise to be infallible, nor so much as evidently credible, even to the ignorant; For they are sure that, as your Ministers say, such and such Protestant Doctrine is evidently by them deduced out of the word of God; so they are sure that a fare greater and learnedes number of the present age, and all the whole numberless number of those who lived these last ten ages before your Reformation, who were men most virtuous and most learned, did unanimously affirm the quite contrary doctrine to be conformable to Scripture rightly understood. 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 years, excepting only such Christians as were notorious Heretics, or some few others who make no number at all fit to appear in the view of so many millions of millions as these ordinary Laymen know to have most constantly embraced the Roman faith; and, with a vast multitude of Books, to have most learnedly maintained, the doctrine flatly contrary to yours, to be the more conformable to Scripture; in which they lived with fare more sanctity them now you do: why than should I now forsake that, which is also confirmed (as you acknowledge) by many great Counsels; and chose to venture my Soul with these new believers, whom I and every ignorant man knows to go to a Church every sunday, the very Walls of which Church be many year's elder than their Religion: If they will go with us the old beaten way, trodden by all Antiquity, and chalked out by an vninterrupted Tradition from the Apostles days to these, they (as ignorant as they are) may, as I said, easily come to see, First that, they shall have as sure ground for all their whole belief, as all true believers had the first two thousand years before the first Scripture was written. Secondly, they shall see they have as sure a ground as all true believers (the jews at the most excepted) had for those two thousand years following, before other Nations had the Scripture. Thirdly they shall see that they have as sure ground as all Christians are confessed to have had the first seventy years before the New Testament was finished, and divulged. Fourthly they shall see they have as sure ground as those many Nations had, who believed all that other Christians did, and believed it with as true a divine faith; though they never did see Scripture: as I said even now out of the most ancient Doctor S. Irenaeus. So that they see that the ground of their belief hath been a most sure ground of true divine infallible faith for above more than four thousand years, to wit, a good way downward after Christ's time. Fiftly, they see also that the last thousand years, which was just before your Reformation, all those vast multitudes, whom you confess to have followed Popery, to have still believed on the same ground relying on the present Church as infallible; Therefore from Christ's time to the Reformation they see only a wonderful short space of years, in which space you say all refused to rely in their belief upon 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 relied on the Church as infallible. Again (as simple as I am) I understand this evident argument, that in the thousand years just before your Reformation there were many Counsels, many learned, and many very holy men (for they say that than men generally rather lived better than now) Now these Counsels, these great numbers of learned and Holy men could not but see the truth of those matters which are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture; And even the Protestants themselves teach that all necessary matters are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture: I therefore neither have charity nor wit, if I say that they than could not see the truth, so manifestly clear in such points; wherefore upon good reason in those points I will agreed with the Roman Catholics: But now for those points which are not clear in Scripture, I will also not disagree from them; because, in things confessedly-not clear, you are likelier to misunderstand Scripture than they: And they (besides Scripture) give me that excellent sure ground of the Tradition of the Church, which hath been a sure ground for so many thousand years; and questionless is a surer ground than trusting you; I will than, 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 spoken by the way: now let us go on. 8. My fifth Reason for the infallibility of some means in the Church sufficient to ground divine faith, and yet differing from Scripture, is this: God hath given us some means sufficient to come to the faith necessary to Salvation (as hath been proved Quest: 1.) But this means is not the Scripture (as I have showed in the twelve first Sections;) Neither is it natural Reason (as I shown Sect: 13:) Therefore the means which now actually is given us by God, is the infallible direction of the Church; there being not the lest appearance of probability for any other means which God hath given us, though he might have given us other means, if he had pleased. 9, My sixth Reason is that, Whatsoever was held by the universal Church, was, without farther questioning, held for true; and the contrary to it was ever rejected as an error: two manifest Signs of infallibility; both which will appear sufficiently proved, when I shall come to cite the Father's authority for the infallibility of the Church. Sect. 20: 21: 22: and you know already S. Austin's saying in the End of his Book de Haeresibus, that though he tell you not, in particular, what the Church hath defined against every one of those several heresies, yet saith he; Sufficiet eam contra ista sentire, It is enough (to make us fly them as heresies) to know that the Church holdeth the contrary. Neither will you ever found any Catholic who ever had the boldness to say, that all the Church of his days did universally hold any thing that was an error: And their works were conformable; for never shall you read of any Catholic (much less of any Holy Father) who refused to conform himself to the universal belief and practice which was current in the whole Church of their times: your Luther and Calvin ●ad not their Spirit. Here I entreat you to read the Authorities which hereafter 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. etc. How close in all interpretation 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 Seventh Reason is that, without the Church be provided of some other infallible means to direct us to the truth, besides Scripture; there will never be any Unity and agreement in the Church, in necessary points of Religion. For I have already fully showed that Scripture alone (though submitted unto by all sides) doth not produce this 〈◊〉 even in necessary points: for I have numbered up. 24. such points not so much as contained in Scripture. Hence I frame this argument; under pain of damnation all are bound to agreed in this one thing, that all and every one interiorly giveth an infallible assent to all such points, as are necessary to be believed for the attaining 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 can never be brought to agreed in this one thing (that all and every one of them interiorly giveth an infallible assent to all such points, as are necessarily to be believed for attaining Salvation) without all and every one submit their assent to some other infallible Rule besides Scripture; for submitting to Scripture only doth not produce this union, as so long and so lamentable experience hath taught us: Neither can the Scripture alone suffice for this end, being it doth not so much as contain 24. of such points as are all necessary to Salvation; Therefore all can never be brought to agreed in that one thing (in which under pain of damnation they must agreed) without they all and every one interiorly give an infallible assent to some other Rule of faith than the Scripture: Not 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 under pain of damnation to follow this Rule, if this Rule could guide them into error: Because it is impossible God should damn men, for not following so foul an error as this is, which makes them father as many lies upon God as they believe errors to be divine verities. The Second reason is because 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 vpon a ground which is not infallible (as it is clear:) Therefore seeing that the ground, upon which their belief in these points must rely, is only the mere direction of the Church; it evidently followeth that her direction is infallible. Why I defer to answer the Objections against the infallibility of the Church, and some other things: I shall presently tell you. THE FOURT AND LAST QUESTION. Which is that Church which is the infallible judge in all Controversies? How she exerciseth her infallible judgement? and what submission is due there unto? 1. HITHERTO we have, only in general, declared the Church to be our judge, and to be provided of some infallible means (besides Scripture) to guide and direct us in faith: not intermeddling with other important, but more particular doubts; until we had gotten sufficient principles solidly established, to proceed to these particulars with more clear and distinct knowledge. By the Church, we have hitherto understood that blessed congregation of people which followed the doctrine of Christ and his disciples, still propogating the doctrine delivered to them from age to age, until we come to our Age. But, because there be a number of Congregations pretending to be this blessed Congregation; we must see in particular, in which of them we can find this infallible means to end all controversies, and to direct us securely in all points of faith. Secondly we must see, in what particular manner this particular blessed Congregation doth judge all Controversies; and how she directs us in particular in all our doubts of faith. When we have found these two things, we shall soon see the last thing we seek for, to wit, what particular submission is due from all, that they all may be securely directed in that faith which leadeth to eternal Salvation: the end for which we all were created; and consequently at which all our most serious endeavours aught to aim. 2. And because we now shall come to speak of the Roman Church, and to show how she in her general Counsels, proposing unto herself the word of God, as well written, as unwritten, doth issue forth her Definitions, Decrees, and Orders, by which she directeth us: we 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 required a more distinct knowledge of the questions to be handled here. Hear than we shall solve the objections against the infallibility of the Church, which our adversaries use to make against the Roman Church in particular; and therefore they were to be treated here. Hear also we must answer many things they bring against Counsels; and when we declare how Counsels propose to themselves God's word written, and unwritten, we must add somewhat more of Tradition than 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 general; sometimes they speak of the Roman Churches infallibility in particular; some times how infallible general Counsels are; some times how infallible the unwritten Traditions of the Church are (which merely rely on her authority:) we have thought good to place their testimonies after that we have treated of all these particulars: which are linked together with so necessary connexion one of an other; that the proof of the one, is the proof of the other. SECT: XVII. Whether the Roman Church be that Church which is our infallible judge? 1. BY the Roman Church, we do not understand the particular diocese of Rome: but we vndestand, that vastly extended Community of Christians which holdeth Comunion with the Church of Rome, submitting themselves to the Bishop of Rome as to their head; so that whatsoever he decreeth with a general Council, they embrace as the definition of the true Church, which they hold infallible. This is the flock of Christ adhering to the true shepherd appointed by him; as I shall show Sect: 20. n. 6. Wherhfore when you come now in particular to see into what we resolve our faith, when we say that we rely upon the Church as infallible; you shall find that it is resolved finally into the Authority of God proposing such and such things to us to be believed by this his Church: whose mind is made known unto us, partly by such traditions as universally go currant in her, and are most notoriously known, not only to be permitted, but also to be on all occasions unanimously taught by her Prelates; and partly by such definitions, and Decrees, as the Prelates of the Church, lawfully assembled by order of, and together with their head, do set forth; of which manner of government we shall speak in the next Sections. 2. We than constantly affirm, the Roman Church thus understood is our infallible judge in all our controversies of faith, and appointed by God to be so. The proof 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 old and new testament, I have brought most convincing testimonies, to prove that God hath appointed some Church upon Earth to be our infallible judge. The same I proved by Several reasons in the last Section. So that we do not, without full proof, suppose that God hath appointed some Church upon Earth to be our infallible judge. This than (upon good proof) supposed; we easily demonstrate this Church appointed by God for our judge, to be the Roman, and only the Roman Church: we do it thus. The Protestant Church, and all other Churches different from the Roman, do judge, do declare, and profess themselves to be fallible, even according to the infallible word of God: If than the Protestant Church, or any other Churches different from the Roman, be infallible in all that they judge, and in that they declare and profess to be true even according to the word of God, they doubtless are than infallible, and speak than the infallible truth, when they judge and declare and profess, that even according to the word of God, they are fallible: Therefore infallibly they are fallible. Hence again, it being thus proved that no Church different from the Roman is infallible: and it being formerly proved that God hath appointed some Church upon Earth to be our infallible judge: it demonstratively followeth, that the Roman Church must needs be this infallible judge; because no Church different from the Roman (that is, none but the Roman) can be this infallible Church; as my former argument proved. Some of our adversaries are pleased fond to mistake this argument, as if we argued thus; The Roman Church claimeth infallibility: Therefore she must needs have right to it. This argument we give our adversaries free leave to scoff at, as much as they please; it is nothing like ours: we put all the force of our argument in this; that the Church, truly appointed by God for infallible judge of Controversies, cannot possibly be any of those Churches which teach themselves not to be this infallible judge; because they teach themselves to be fallible. If than they be infallible in the doctrine they teach, they are infallible when they teach themselves to be fallible: Whence it followeth that infallibly they are fallible. The Church which is truly appointed by God to be infallible judge, must needs have this condition; that she doth own her infallibility: but this is fare from saying; that merely 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 judge, must be a Church judging, and holding, and professing herself to be infallible; and cannot be a Church which judgeth and professeth herself to be fallible: And another quite different thing to say; that such a Church is the infallible judge, because she tea●heth and professeth herself to be so. 3. Others have in exceeding plenty alleged other arguments which may be seen in them: this one being a Demonstration serveth my turn; and this one being put alone, I hope my Reader will more mark the force of it. SECT: XVIII. In what Court this infallible judge decideth our Controversies in faith. 1. OUR adversaries would make the world believe (as may be seen in D. Ferns Sect: 17) that they have a great advantage against us, when they put this question to us; for by putting it they conceive they put us at Variance with one another: because some will say, first, the Pope can infallibly by himself, out of a Council, decide all Controversies; others will say Secondly, that a Council can do this without a Pope. But I must tell them that thirdly, all and every one of us (without the lest disagreement) do and will unanimously say, that all those definitions declare an infallible truth, which are set forth by the Pope defining together with a general Council. Any one way of defining infallibly is enough, and is sufficient to end any Controversies Yield but to this one way, and we will press you not further. If you will not yield to the Pope defining jointly with a Council, we are sure enough that you will neither yield to Pope alone, nor Council alone. If God hath provided us of one way, which is a sure and infallible way to know any necessary point of faith, and to keep us all in settled unity, concerning all matters declared by this infallible authority (such as we all hold this Authority to be:) it is impossible that we should want necessary direction, or a sufficient means to maintain that unity which is necessary for the Church, or that guidance which is necessary for our Salvation. If their opinion be true who say, the definition of the Pope alone is sufficiently infallible to do this without a Council; these men furnish us with two means of necessary direction: for they do not destroy, but maintain the former; Because no man is so senseless as to hold the definitions of the Pope to be infallible without a Council, and to be fallible with one. So also no man is so senseless as to say, that Counsels definitions are infallible without a Pope; and that they are not infallible when Counsels define together with the Pope. But these men who say, counsels defining even without a Pope, are infallible, do also add a third means of infallible direction. The one means I speak of is allowed by every one: and this one means is sufficient for every one. You see than, this disagreement guieth you not the lest advantage to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church, as long as by this name we understand continually either this Church speaking by universal Tradition, or the Church representative, by which we understand the Bishop of Rome our Supreme Pastor defining with a Lawful general Council. The infallibility of the Church, thus understood, is a point of Catholic faith: the other be opinions of Catholic Divines, all who agreed in the exacting the belief of the infallibility of the Church taken in this sense as we still take it. 2. If you ask us than, not our opinions, but our belief: (I pray mark this distinction:) We all unanimously agreed, that the Supreme Bishop of the Church, or Pope, defining with a general Council, is the infallible judge of Controversies. And it cannot seem strange to any Christian that the same God, who gave an infallible assistance to Solomon (who proved an Idolater) that the Church might enjoy the benefit of his Books, should give either the supreme Pastor of the Church, or the Church Representative, for that particular time, his infallible assistance, that all the Church might enjoy so great a benefit as is the secure direction in all points of faith, and the perpetual preservation in unity of faith, not to be had sufficiently by any other means that is given unto us. Yea, who can choose but think it strange, that Christ, for the secure direction of all the first Christians converted only in the Apostles days, should give this infallibility to all, and every one of the Apostles; and that he should regard so little the secure direction of all that infinite number of Christians, who were to be converted after the Apostles times to the very end of the world, that for their sakes, and for the secure direction of their Souls, and their preservation in unity of faith, he would not give this infallibility so much as to one only man? Not nor to the Church representative in a full Council, even for that short time in which they are to pass their decrees concerning the most important affairs in Christendom? Especially seeing that on the one side, this gift of infallibility is given, not for their private sakes to whom it is given; but it is given for the universal good, and necessary direction, concord, and perpetual unity of the whole Church: And on the other side, that, even now after we have Scripture, the necessity of this infallibility is so great, that our adversaries with D. Ferne Sect. 17. do confess, That such a judge or umpire of Christendom (as a Council endued with infallibility) would (if to be had) be a ready means to compose all difference, and restore Truth ad Peace. Is it than strange that God should give so necessary a gift, or a gift so beneficial to his Church? 3. Having now, by all said in the former discourses, proved that the Church diffused, or universal, was furnished by God with some infallible means, besides Scripture, to direct all securely in faith, and to preserve them in unity, by the true decision of all their Controversies: we have found already enough to persuade any prudent Man, to seek after the particular manner by which this means is to be appliable, and serviceable unto him. Now this is easily understood by that manner of government which we had here in England, from the Conquest to our days; according to which, all the decrees, and ordinances, by which we were governed, or directed, were to be made by a Lawful King jointly with a Lawful Parliament. This Representative, and their Decrees, be called the Decrees of the Kingdom. Just so, the particular manner by which the Church diffused or universal is directed, and governed, is by a Lawful Pope, as supreme Pastor, jointly with a Lawful Council: and this assembly is called the Church representative, and their Decrees be called the Decrees of the Church. This way you shall found to have been very connatural to the Church: For it was impossible, that the Church universal, or diffused, should be assembled for the making the Decrees. And though Children and women belong to the Church; yet all easily see, that the Church government belongs not to them: neither is their Vote (in any man's opinion) required for the decision of Controversies in Faith: We say also, that the Laity hath no decisive voice in this point: they be sheep, and not Pastors. Every inferior Clergyman, is not a considerable Governor in the Church: This government than belongs to such as are Prelates Overseers, and Governors over the rest, Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock, to feed (or govern) the Church of God. Act: 20. v. 28. For not Lay-Magistrates, but only ecclesiastical, are said (Eph: 4.) To be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying the Body of Christ, that henceforth we may not be carried about with every wind of Doctrine etc. It was not to a Lay Magistrate, but to a Bishop, to whom Christ said: Feed my sheep. Io. 21. v. 15. It is worth the Readers knowledge to relate here (out of Rufinus. l. 10. and Caranza his Sum, just before the Council of Nice) how the first general Council was assembled in the days of the first Christian Emperor Constantine the Great. Rufinus than, having related how the heresy of Arius growing up to the ruin of Christendom, Constantine the Great, ex sententia Sacerdotum, by the advice or judgement of the Priests, did call together Episcopale Concilium a Council of Bishops, to judge of the Propositions, and Questions of Arius. Behold their power of judicature acknowledged by their calling, and coming and sitting: for thy were called, did come and fit, for no other end, but to end Controversies by their judgement. And than he telleth, how these Bishop's beginning to give up in Writing complaints against one an other to the Emperor; he, putting all those papers in his bosom, without ever opening or looking upon them, said to the Bishops; God hath appointed you Priests, and given you power even to judge of us also; and therefore we are rightly judged by you: but you (speaking of them as a whole Council) cannot be judged by men: wherefore expect only the judgement of God upon you; and that your complaints, whatsoever they be, may be reserved to the Examine of God. For you are given unto us by God, as Gods (that is judges in his place;) It is not convenient that men should judge the Gods: but he alone of whom it is written; (Psal: 82.) God standeth in the Congregation of the Gods. He judgeth among the Gods. Constantin having said this; he commanded all those papers to be burnt: And, when now the sentence of the Council, defining that the Son of God was Consubstantial 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 himself; 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. Behold here how the decrees of Counsels aught to be reverenced as divine. Hence S. Athanasius In Epist: ad Episcop: Affricanos, after this self same definition, said; The word of God by the Nicaean Council doth remain for ever and ever. Hence S. Horsmida C: Sic ille Dist: 58. saith We believe that in them (the Fathers of this Council) the holy Ghost did speak. Hence S. Cyrill (in the Council of Ephesus to: 1. Ep: 1.) speaketh thus of these Fathers of the Council of Nice; They; lest they should swerve 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 unblamble faith. So he; and Parenthesis also is his. His also be these words; How can it be doubted but that Christ did preside invisibly in that holy and great Council? Epist: ad Anastas: Alexandrinum. S. Leo (whom I shall cite by and by) saith, that what this Council defineth it did seal by the holy Ghost. S. Isidore, in the Preface to his collection of Canons, not only recommends what the first four Counsels have defined, but saith also of the decrees of other Counsels; that they stand firmly settled in all vigour, which the holy Fathers, full of the Holy Ghost, have established. Mark how common it is to asscribe the Decrees of the Counsels to the assistance of the Holy Ghost, to whom to ascribe any thing that might be an error, is a great Sacrilege. Also S. Leo Ep: 84. ad Anast: calleth the Canons of the holy Fathers made by the Spirit of God, consecrated by the reverence given to them by the whole world. And Ep: 73. he saith, the Council of Chalcedon was assembled by the holy Ghost, that their definitions were a Rule proceeding from divine inspiration. Hence S. Ambrose speaking of the Heretics condemned by a Council, Lib: defied ad Gratianum C. 9 They were not condemned by human industry, but by the authority (more than human) of those Fathers. For as S. Greg: Nazian: saith in his Oration to S. Athanasius; The Fathers of this Council were gathered by the holy Ghost. He had the same Spirit that the other S. Gregory the great had, who said; I do profess myself to reverence the first four Counsels as I reverence the four Books of the Gospel: And in the same manner I reverence the fifth Council. Whosoever is of an other mind let him be an Anathema. Lively Epist: Ep: 24. propefinem. And the very self same he saith again. Lib. 2. Indict: 11. Ep. 10. ad Sabinum. And justin the Emperor, before him, made this saying famous by inserting it into the Law Authenticarum Collatine: 9 de Eccl. tit: c. 1. We receive the doctrine of the said (four first) Counsels as we receive the Holy Scriptures. Unless perhaps john the second (Bishops of Rome) who lived and died in the days of this Emperor (A. 532.) Epist. ad Liberium Severinum &c, gave occasion to this saying, by these following words spoken of the first four Counsels; this is the ground of our faith; this is the most firm Rock of our belief. Behold how he relieth on the Counsels, as S. Paul seemeth to teach, when he calleth the church, the pillar and ground of the Truth. From this the Counsels 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 Council of Ephesus, saith; 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 Counsels of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Yet more fully spoke Pope Gelasius A. 490. Epist: 11. ad Episcopos Dardaniae, where giving a reason why, after the definition of a general Councel in any point of faith, that point aught never again to be questioned, not not so much as in an other Council; for, saith he, otherwise no constitution of the Church should be stable, if men cease not to rise up against the foundation of truth, Contra fundamentum veritatis se attollere: Calling thus the definitions of Counsels the very foundations of truth. 5. When thou shalt have read but this small part of authorities for the infallibility of the Church representative, or assembled in a genetal Council, 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 Counsels are called purposely to end all controversies in faith, by defining what is to be believed by all; that is, what is to be undoubtedly held as a divine truth revealed by God. All the Fathers, who assembled to define this, did assume an unquestionable authority to their assembly to do this: upon this authority they passed their votes, in order to make a definition of what was to be proposed to all men living than, and ever to live in the Church hereafter; even cursing and excommunicating all who should at any time believe contrary to what they defined: which had been a most Sacrilegious, and impious, and a most unjust and tyrannical act, and the most destructive to the Church that could be invented, if, by so great an authority, a precedent were given, and a wide gap opened to press errors, upon all the world present and to come, to be believed as divine verities revealed by God. The most bloody persecution of tyrants could never have been half so pernicious to the Church, as would have been to be compelled by general Counsels (that is by the unanimous consent of Christendom) to embrace that as a Divine Verity, which is, in real truth, a lie fathered upon God. Surely a practice so universal, so frequent, so pernicious, so notoriously public, would have been cried out upon over and over again by the most Zealous, and most learned ancient Fathers; who notwithstanding never opened their mouths against this proceeding of Counsels: For those proceed could not be justifiable, though those Counsels had defined nothing but truth at the present: but so, that they had been liable to define falsity; Because thus they did settle for ever a Court, which by way of course should perpetually be called and assembled, for the definition of matters of greatest moment, which definitions, under pain of excommunication were to be submitted unto by all the world: Now if these definitons could be errors, this was nothing else but to take the surest course they could invent, to circumvent all ages into incurable errors. And yet this was the proceeding of the purest antiquity; And this course they held the best to preserve purity of faith. And, as you have seen, the most holy Fathers reverenced with highest respect all the General Counsels, which had passed before, or in their days; leaving us example to show the like respect to all which have passed, or may pass in our days. For the authority given by God is equally given to other as lawful Counsels: to wit, the infallible authority of judging right by the assistance of the holy Ghost, so often insisted upon by the Fathers now cited. Whence it is that, if you read histories of all ages, you shall never meet with any man (held for Catholic) who ever opened his mouth, I do not say to cry down, but even in the lest degree to call in question the truth of any thing which he knew to be defined by a lawful general Council. What boldness them is it, after the authority of so great a Council, that they make new disputations and questions? saith S. Atha: Epist: ad Epict: And yet this boldness your Doctors allow, when they permit any one to review Counsels, to see whether they be conformable to God's word, as I shown Sect. 1. n. 4. But, as it is said in the Epistle of julius ad Diaconum Flaccillum etc. registered in S. Athanasius his Apologia 2; Every Synod hath an unviolable authority, and that judge is contumeliously dealt withal, whose judgement by others is again examined. There is extant in the Council of Chalcedon Act: 3. that excellent edict in which are these words expressly declaring that Counsels are to end Controversies: Let all profane Contention cease, for he is truly impious and sacrilegious who, after the judgement passed by so many Priests, reserveth any thing to be handled further by his own private judgement. And yet you will presume to reserve the final Review, and the approving or reproving all the Definitions of the Council, by your private judgement of discretion, if that lead you to conceive that you have clear Scripture on your side. He was the chief Bishop of the Church, and presided by his Legates in the Council of Chalcedon, who writ these following Words to the Emperor; (Leo Magnus Ep: 78. ad Leonem Augustum, C. 3.) Concerning the affairs which have been defined at Nice, and at Chalcedon, we dare not undertake a new treaty, questioning again those things, as if they were either doubtful or of weak strength: which so great an authority by the holy Ghost hath settled. What he dared not do, any Cobbler 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 undoing of all Counsels; for No Constitution of the Church should be stable, if men cease not to rise up against the Foundation of Truth; for so he called the definition of a general Council almost twelve hundred years ago. You, who make these definitions fallible, make them no definitions; for they never put a final end to the Controversy, they never do terminate any point: for after their determinations, as if they were no determinations, you call all to your private Review; and there, what you really think fit, your iudgment of discretion (with out any judgement and discretion) freely rejecteth and disbeleeveth. 6. I say not this rashly, for, as S. Bernard saith in a Sermon upon the Resurrection; What greater pride can there be, than that one man should prefer his judgement before a whole Congregation. It is fine doctrine, that you and I should sit down, and call to our examine the definitions and determinations of a general Council. Have we such assistance of the holy Ghost as Counsels have? Have we half the authority, or any thing like to the one quarter of the wit, or learning, or knowledge, or judiciousnes which they have? Let, I pray, us two rather sit down, and examine how true this is which I shall now say; Either the determinations of Counsels in points of Faith (for of these I always speak) be such as are evidently against clear Scripture; or else the texts, to which we think the Council to be contrary, be not clear and evident to the contrary; which, if they be not, it would be a shameless imprudence in you and me, to think we should surer hit right upon the meaning of obscure texts in Scripture, than a whole general Council (the greatest Authority in Christendom) hath done. But now if the places alleadgeable against the Counsels be evidently clear, do you think to persuade 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 general Counsels; who could use, and are to be judged to have used all the best Rules to understand Scripture as well as we two. God give us Humility, God give us Charity, God have Mercy on us in the bitter day of his judgement, if we pass so bitter a iudgement against the whole Church representative: And yet if you pass not this judgement, you will never pass this objection without being posed. SECT: XIX. This Court in deciding Controversies ruleth herself by the word of God written and unwritten: and why she ruleth herself by tradition. 1. IT was a very gross proceeding in Calvin L. 4. Inst. C. 1. Sect. 7. & C. 3. Sect. 2. So to propose our doctrine as if we taught, that our Church might define and determine what she thinks fit, without any relation to the word of God. Not less grossly did your Zanchius tom: 8. tract: de Scrip: Q. 3. Go about to persuade his reader, that we hold the authority of the Roman Church greater than that of Christ, and the Gospel: whereas we all hold, that every general Council is to examine controversies belonging to faith, according to the word of God. But, because all human learning, wit, and judgement would still be liable to error, we say; that Christ, of his goodness, hath obtained for his Church (thus lawfully assembled,) such an assistance of the holy Ghost, as shall ever preserve it from error. True it is, that in wit, and judgement, and learning, so great an assembly fare excels your private Ministers: But this assistance of the holy Ghost is an advantage surpassing all that is human: This assistance we have proved all the last question, and in the last Section we shown this assistance given to general Counsels. 2. Now to see what the Counsels on their part are to do; I must tell you, that their chief business is to examine the points in controversy; hearing all that occurreth for the one side and the other, and permitting several replies, if any remain, in due time to be made. After this diligence is used, they consider what seemeth most conformable to the word of God, and every one's vote is to pass upon this particular. But here I must tell you that by the word of God, all Counsels, and Orthodox believers, have ever understood, not only Gods written word contained in Scripture, but also his unwritten word made known to the Church by only Tradition; which Tradition also is, and was ever, accounted by the Church the very best and surest interpreter of the Scripture. The votes therefore of the fathers assembled in Council are demanded, not only of what they think to be conformable to God's word written in Scripture, but also how conformable such a point is, or is not, to that tradition, which they have all received from the Fathers of their Church, as delivered to them from their Fathers for God's word, by Tradition committed to their Forefathers as such, from the Apostles themselves. So for example, if in a Council there doth arise a question, whether we are to pray for the dead, or to adore the Sacrament, or to confess our sins to a Priest; the Council asketh the Prelates of Italy, Britain, Spain, Polonia, Greece, &c, What in each one of their respective Nations, so vastly different from one an other, hath been the ancient practice and belief amongst them? And whether at any time such a point was ever said to have been introduced among them as a novelty? Or contrary wise that no other beginning of that practice could be ever heard of than the first beginning of Christian Religion? Now when by the unanimous answer of all the Prelates of Italy, Spain, Britain, Polonia, Greece, &c, It is constantly avered that in all these so vastly distant Nations, Prayer for the dead, Adoration of the Sacrament, Auricular Confession, were ever, time out of mind, practised, and believed, and no time in any one of those Nations can be found, in which this practice and belief was held to be introduced as a novelty; but contrary wise they are, and ever were (as fare 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 than appear evidently credible unto the Council, that these doctrines and practices are Apostolical; whence accordingly they pass their votes to define them. So that when their votes are past and gathered, This only, and nothing but this, the Catholic Church doth do by the decrees of her Counsels; that what before they had received by only Tradition from their Ancestors, that no they leave consigned in authentical writing to all posterity. These be the very words of Vincentius Lerinensis advers: Hereses: neither could I device any fit for our doctrine. 3. If you ask, why the Church or Counsels esteem so much tradition? I answer first, Because in prudence, and piety, they cannot but esteem as much Gods unwritten word, as his written; seeing that the word of a true honest Man, is as much to be esteemed true, when it is only delivered by word of Mouth, as when it is delivered by writing. Your Ministers usually so confounded the business, that they make their Auditors even to startle, when they tell them, that we hold Tradition equal to Scripture; because first, they have deeply imprinted in their minds, that Tradition is nothing but an old tale set on foot by I know not whom: But if they meant to deal really, they should say what the Truth is; that we do indeed equalise Tradition to Scripture, and that we have all reason to do so. Why? What is Scripture? God's word written. What is Tradition? The same God's word notified, not by writing, but by the full report of the Catholic Church, I pray now, how do we wrong God, when we say of his word, what we say of the word of one, whom we most commend for Truth, that his word only spoken, and not written, is as sure, or true (and consequently as much to be esteemed, and credited) as any word of his that is written even with his own hand. Nay, I pray mark how you wrong God, who slight Tradition, which is nothing but the word of God unwritten. What wrong is it to an honest man, to slight all he saith unless he confirms it by writing? I know the best answer you have to justify yourselves is, That Scripture is assueredly known to us to be Gods own word: But as for our Traditions, you do not know, nor cannot believe that God doth own them for his own word. But give me leave to ask, whence are you assured that the Scripture is Gods own word? Your best, and indeed your only, assurance is, that all the Christian world saith so: See Sect: 20. n. 5. That than which makes you, with so great assurance, know Gods written word, is Tradition: But the same Tradition, which tells us that the Apostles delivered these points to us as divine verities in writing; tells us also, that the same Apostles delivered these and these points to us as divine verities by word of Mouth only. If the Tradition of the Church be a Liar in this last part, she may as well be a liar in the first part. When you believe Scripture, you trust to tradition, testifying that the Apostles gave such and such books to the Church of the first age to be believed as God's word: see two admirable places of S. Austen pressing this hard, which I cite presently n: 7. Again, when you believe that the Copies, which we have now of those books, be neither forged, nor corrupted Copies, but do truly agreed with the Originals given out by the Apostles; you again wholly trust to the traditions of all the after Churches that have been in every age from the Apostles to this very present Church. For it was as much in the power of the Church, in any one of these ages, to have thrust a false Copy into your hand, in place of a true one; as to thrust a false tradition into the Mouth of every Catholic 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 err in one faith? Among many events there is not every where one issue. The errors of the Churches (had there been any in the delivering of these Traditions) must needs have varied; (for though every man should agree to tell his child a lie, yet every one would not agreed in telling just the very self same lies:) 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 than any man say that they all erred who delivered (with such uniformity) This tradition? so he; holding it, as you see, impudence to say this tradition could be fallible. Is not this clearly to hold the Tradition of so many and so great Churches infallible? Behold here than plain Popery in the highest point proved and approved with in two hundred years after Christ. But more of Tertullia's opinion concerning traditios hereafter, S. 20. n: 4. and much hath been said, S. 12. n. 4. 5 4. My task now is, to show tradition doth convey and bring down God's word to us as sure, yea rather surer, by perpetual practice, and uniform doctrine, than by any writing. To show this, I brought many strong arguments Sect: 10. n. 13. and Sect: 16. n. 1. 2. In both which Sections I have said many things of traditions: and in the first place I solved the chief objections against them. But yet I will clear this, and one or two other doubts which trouble many. For clearing than of this doubt, let us take two traditions, one confessed by you to be a true one, the other to be proved by me to be not less true than the former, because it is testified by as good a tradition as the former; and therefore either the former is not proved Sufficiently by this testimony, or else the latter is. Yet the truth is (and my argument shall make it good) that both of them be made as credible to be God's 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 Baptising of children (of which I spoken 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 practices recommended by the Apostles to the primitive Church, and so from hand to hand came most undoubtedly delivered down to us. Hence, conformably to this tradition, every where the Christians baptised their little Children; every where they prayed for the faithful departed. Nothing more common to all men than to be borne, nothing more common than to dye, for every one who is borne: hence, as the daily custom is of being borne, so the daily custom in all the Church, is to baptise those who are newly borne: and as it is the daily custom for all that are born to die; so the daily custom was to pray for the dead. But yet prayer for the dead was, by more frequent practice, testified in this respect; because those who are borne, are baptised but once in their Lives: but those who are dead are many times, and that for many years after their death, prayed for by name; besides the daily prayers for all the faithful departed in general. Well now, let us suppose that both these traditions be called in question, whether they be faithful deliverers of the true word of God; or rather, in place of it, deliver some human invention; as you will say, Praying for the dead is; and the Anabaptists will say, that baptising of children is. Let us now further see, which of these two traditions cannot defend itself from forgery, as well as any Scripture questioned of being true Scripture: for example, the Apocalypse, or Revelation, which your Lutheran Brothers hold not to be true Scripture. How will you defend the Apocalyps? you can say no more than I have said Sect. 3. n. 12. for all our Canon in general; And the tradition upon which those Counsels received the Apocalypse had more contradiction, than ever prayer for the dead had. For the Apocalypse was not only rejected by the most ancient Heretics, the Marcionists, the Alogians, The Theodotians; but also by divers ancient Catholics (especially the Grecians; as S. Jerome testifieth Epist: ad Dardanum:) But Prayer for the dead was contradicted by no Catholic at all: amongst ancient Heretics, Aërius indeed did contradict it; but this is noted in him as a peculiar Heresy of his own invention, both by S. Austen (whose words I gave you Sect: 8. fine:) and S. Epiphanius Heresy 75. sayeth, this Aërius had an aërian wicked Spirit against the Church; and than he denounceth against him, that prayers do profit the dead. And the same Saint there saith, the Church doth this necessarily (this is his word) by The Tradition received from her Ancestors. And he not long after (Heresy 77.) doth profess, that every man falleth into strange inconveniences, if he will but once pass the bounds set him by the Holy Church, and leap over the hedges of traditions. He held therefore prayer for the dead suitable to the doctrine of the Church, and Tradition. And as for S. Austen (Chap: 1. de Cura pro Mortuis agenda) He saith, that the universal Church did shine with this custom of praying for the dead at the Altar. The greatest Doctors of the Church could not be ignorant of a Custom shining in the Church, not particular, but universal. And it is this shining of this Custom which I press, and not S. Austin's authority, otherwise than as a witness of this shining Tradition. He also Serm: 32. de Verbis Apostoli (which place Bede. 1. Thes: 4. almost a thousand years ago cited out of S. Austen) saith thus; By the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the wholesome sacrifice, and by the Alms which are given for their Souls, it is not to be doubted but the dead are helped: so that our Lord deals more mercifully with them, than their Sins 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 stand upon, which indeed did shine in the practice of the primitive Church. You shall not found one Liturgy, or Service book, used in the ancient Church, which is not witness of this tradition; though these books were found in every Parish of Christendom in which divine Service was almost daily Said. Tertullian (who lived within less than a hundred and fifty years after the Canon of Scripture was finished) doth number up this custom of prayer for the dead among the ancient traditions; De corona milit. C. 3. It is ordinary in Law (for proof of long possession) to found witnesses testifying what was done not only fifty, but also three or four score years ago: Wherhfore even two or three handings of this tradition by such aged hands, would reach down this practice from S. john the Evangelists time to Tertullian. And it is but a small allowance to a thing testified to be a tradition, to allow it three or four descents (can the authenticalnes of the Apocalypses be better proved, going upwards to the Apostles, than this? I am sure Baptism 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 customs began; No Man can be thought of, who could by human means (and such means as should not make a mighty Noise amongst those great reverencers of tradition) draw all the world, in so short a time after the Apostles, to follow customs as Apostolical which than, 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 Apostolical traditions. This man who broached this false doctrine should have been put in the Catalogues of heretics by S. Epiphanius and S. Austen: whereas they did not only not put him down for an heretics, but they both did put down Aërius for one, because he taught the contrary. Now if you speak of these Customs, going downward, until the Age in which they began to be denied by Anabaptists, or Protestants; Prayer for the dead hath come down with such a full stream, 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 public service books in all Parishes of all Countries can be as sure witnesses of this custom, as the Copies of Age after age can testify we have the true Copy of the Apocalypses. And so old Rituals will testify (though not so fully) Baptism of Children, by witnessing the Ceremonies observed in such Baptisms. And, as for prayer for the dead, the very stones cry out in all old monuments, for our prayers for those who lie interred under them. The ouldest foundations be those, which our greatest grand fathers made (as appeareth by the most ancient Records) for the obtaining prayers for their Souls: And this not in one Country, but there is not one Country which aboundeth not with such Monuments, and such Records; the very strongest proofs of assured antiquity and unquestionable tradition. 5. Thus, I hope, I have made good that, tradition shining in perpetual practice in all times, and all ages, is a surer relator and reporter, than a testimony in writing; which, if ancient, must also have the prime testimony (witnessing it to be uncorrupt) from tradition. And hence also you clearly see, that Scripture, true or false, can be not better known to be so than true tradition from false: for if Tradition could be false in any point so universally current; it might bear witness to a false Scripture, and deny due approbation to many true ones. 6. When than we are demanded, how we can know a true Tradition from a false one? We answer, first; that we can do this better than you can know true books, and true Copies of the true books of Scripture, from false: for, before you can do either of these, you must first know true Tradition from false; that hence you may, not coniecturally, but assuredly say. These be the true books of Scripture; these be the true Copies of these true Books; because true Tradition recommendeth them for such: These be false books, or false Copies of true books; because the Tradition which recommendeth these, is false. Tell me the means by which infallibly the true tradition in this point may be known from the false; and that very means I will assign to know, in other points, true Tradition from false. Secondly, I shall show, that we have better means to do this, than all the world had to know their true traditions from false, for the first two thousand years, before the time of Moses. Thirdly, I answer directly, by assigning this means; which is, when a doubt gins to be fare spread in the Church concerning any tradition, to call a general Council, and there, by the examination instituted by men most knowing of antiquity in general, and particularly well versed in the received, and approved old customs of their countries. For the countries of those in the Council being so fare distant, and so wholly independent one of an other, cannot possibly have all of them received, and that without any known opposition in any one of them, one and the very self same tradition, from any other hands but from those, from whom they received their whole faith, and this particular tradition for part of it. For, had the beginers and sowers of this tradition now questioned, been after the first Planters of our faith, there would in some country or other, be found out some author of this first tradition; there would be some fame good, or bad, of that man who was able to persuade a fancy of his own, to be Apostolical doctrine; and to be firmly held so by all the world, without opposition in any part thereof, even though this tradition (as you say of most of our traditions) had a direct opposition to the ancient doctrine of the Apostles. Which doctrine, when our traditions were held for Apostolical, was too too fresh to be so soon forsaken, and that so easily, and so generally, with out any opposition. Now when them the gravest Prelates from all parts of the world assembled, having instituted an exact process of the true antiquity and universality of the tradition questioned; and in this process found an unanimous consent of all kind of testimonies from all corners of the world; it is now iuridically and notoriously made evident, that such a point hath come down to us by a true tradition; and for that very reason is a true object of faith, being the word of God delivered by as faithful a messenger, as the very Copies of Scripture are. And thus, when it was grown doubtful in the Church, whether such and such books were part of the true Canon of Scripture; the tradition which recommended these books was examined in the third Council of Carthage, in which S. Austen was present, and there (as I shown Sect. 3. n. 12.) all the books of our Canon (so different from yours) were found to be recommended to the Church by a true and authentical tradition: and therefore we embrace them as the word of God; Tradition being as credible a relatour of God's word delivered by the Apostles to the Church, as any writing. 7. Whence again you need not wonder to see that by us and by the Fathers cited in the next Section numb: 4. Tradition is equalised to Scripture, for this is nothing else but to hold that the word of God delivered by tradition is as sure a messenger as any writing can be, and is to be believed, as much as the word of God delivered by writing and such a writing as hath no surer witness of being Authentical than tradition. Hence S. Austen (de utilit. Credendi C. 14.) disputing with an Heretic, who would first have him to believe Scripture before Catholic Tradition, maketh the heretic speak thus: believe this writing. Than he replies; But every writing if it be new and unheard of, recommnded by a few, no other reason cofirmlng it; we do not believe the writing, but we believe those who bring forth this writing: wherefore if you (Lutherans, Calvinists, etc.) bring forth this writing, you being so few and so unknown (for where were you these last thousand years before Luther?) I have no mind to believe you. Now because the heretic knew not how to press S. Austen to give first credit to this writing or Scripture, by saying that all of his religion said it was the word of God; without pressing him with the testimony of all the Christian world by universal tradition: S. Austen prevents him, by telling him; well you will sand me to the multitude and fame (of Church tradition;) but I pray rather admonish me to seek out the chief leaders of this Multitude, and to seek them out most diligently and most laboriously, that from these, (governors of the churches) rather then from you, I may learn some thing of these writings: for if these men had not been, I should never have known that there had been at all any thing to be learned (concerning these Scriptures truly in my mind this, not only authority, but this most pressing reason of S. Austen, convinceth that the Governors of this multitude of all true believers (especially assembled in one Council together) be the best guides God hath given us upon earth, both to know which is Scripture, of the true word of God written; and which Tradition, or the true word of God unwritten: and also to know most assuredly, how this word of God is rightly understood. Wherhfore presently the same S. Austen (Cap: 15.) doth admonish, us for the avoiding of all errors, as the easiest means thereunto, willingly to obey the precepts of that Catholic Church, precepts made by her with so great an authority. And than in his Sixteenth Chapter he clearly tells us that, God having given us this Authority, we aught not to despair of an infallible means to know the truth; because this Authority is that very infallible means confirmed by miracles, and by the miraculous multitude following it so extremely against all human interest. Thus than he discourseth; For if the divine providence of God doth nor preside in human affairs, in vain would solicitude be about Religion: But if both the very outward beauty of all things, and our inward Conscience doth both publicly and privately exhort us to seek out and serve God, we are not to despair that there is some authority appointed by the same God, on which Authority we relying, as on an assured step, may be lifted up to God. This Authority moveth us by two ways, partly by Miracles, partly by the multitude of its followers. Behold here an authority appointed by God, an authority, on which we may most securely rely, and not only not get a fall (slipping into errors) by leaning upon it confidently; but an authority, on which we relying, as on an assured step, may be lifted up to God, who with miracles hath confirmed this authority to be most secure. Whence presently S. Aug: tells us how those miracles have drawn so great a multitude. But whether this multitude were Catholics, or Protestants, you shall know them by their fruits, for they had a Temperance extended to fasting with bread and water, and not only daily fasts, but fasts continued for many days. A Chastity disdaining the having wife or children; a patience sleyghting crosses and slames; a Liberality reaching forth to the distributing out to the poor their whole patrimonies. These things we see still daily among Catholics; and though, (as S. Austen addeth) but few do these things, yet all people praise them, approve them, love them: none accounted them superstitious in those days. When we see than so great hope from God, so great profit, and fruit, shall we doubt to betake ourselves to the lap of that Church which even by the confession of mankind from the Apostolic seat (so antiquity useth to call the seat of the Bishop of Rome) by succession of Bishops hath obtained the top of authority; heretics in vain barking round about it, but condemned partly by the iudgement of the people (vpon traditon,) partly by the gravity of Counsels, partly by the majesty of Miracles; to which church not to give the first place is truly a thing either of greatest Impiety, or of headlong Arrogancy. So he. So I. So we all. 8. I have put down the place more fully because D. Ferne Sect. 30. would disprove our Tenets by the deep Silence of them in Antiquity, and particularly in S. Austen, Whom I shall show also presently (Sect. 21. n. 5.6.) in a dozen places of his works to hold dictinctly this infallibility of the Church in her traditions and doctrine. Well than, she being as infallible in delivering the unwritten word of God, as in delivering the written word; the Prelates assembled in her Counsels have as much reason to rule themselves, and their subjects by the one, as by the other. By a writing only we 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 less known by only Tradition than our statute Laws 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 years; and than partly by Tradition, partly by writing, it was governed for above two thousand Years more; to wit, for the second two thousand years from Moses until Christ's time. See Sect: 16. n. 1. Now from the preaching of Christ unto the finishing of the Canon, and the diuulging of the same in such languages as all Nations understood, very many years passed, and all the true believers in Christ's Church were governed by Tradition only; See Sect: 16. n. 2. And whereas some of our adversaries obscurely answer; That the word of God was in substance before Christ's Church, which (say they) was begotten by it. We reply clearly to them thus: When (say we) You speak of the word of God, which was before Scripture, and which begot the Church, you speak of the unwritten word of God; This unwritten word is that very thing which we call Tradition. And indeed when you speak of such a word, as must be sufficient for an exterior and infallible direction for so many Millions (as were to be directed by it in the way of Salvation before the Scripture was all written, and divulged in such languages that might make it fit to direct all Nations) you must of necessity put this word of God outwardly expressed by some means or other, expressing it in such a manner, as might be able to produce this effect of guiding whole Millions in the way of Salvation, by an infallible belief of all that God hath said by that word. Now (I pray) found me out any word of God, any where existent before Scripture, in a manner fit for the end I now speak of, except this word be granted to have wholly existed in the Oral Tradition of the Church of those times. You all say, God's word revealed is the ground of all faith. All these million of the true believers in those ages bade true faith; therefore they had God's word revealed, and revealed in a sufficient manner to ground divine faith. But they had God's word revealed by Oral Tradition only; Therefore God's word, revealed by oral Tradition only, is a sufficient ground to ground divine faith; which it could not be, were it not infallible, in what it delivereth for God's word; and what is thus delivered (by being so delivered) is a fit Object of divine faith, such as they all had in those ages. 9 This than is the first Reason why the Church in her Counsels directs herself as well by the unwritten, as by the written word of God, because the one is as truly in itself the word of God, and as sufficiently notified to us to be so by Tradition, as the Scripture is notified to be so by writing: for which cause holy Fathers still taught those things which we know by Tradition only, to be believed and held equally to those things which we know by Scripture. See Sect: 20. n. 4. A second reason why this Church not only doth, but of necessity must direct and govern herself not by Scripture only, but also by unwritten Traditions, is because Scripture only doth not deliver down unto us all points necessary for the whole Church, and all the members thereof: as I have at large showed Quest: 2. naming no fewer than four and twenty of those necessary points. All these points being wholly necessary, and errors being no where more dangerours than in points wholly necessary, there doth arise an unavoidable necessity to grant, that the first Church planted by the Apostles, received her necessary direction and infallible instruction in these points by Tradition only; for manifest it is, that they at the first received from the Apostles all complete instruction in necessary points: And Again it is not less manifest, that they received no such complete instruction in Scripture concerning those twenty four points, for than we should be able to find this instruction in Scriptures, which we not being able to do, we must perforce grant that they received this instruction by tradition expressed in no kind of Scripture, but such as commanded in general all men to hold the Traditions delivered to them. 2. Thess: 2. And that though an angel from heaven should teach the contrary or besides what they received, they should accounted him Anathema, Gal: 8. And again Have thou the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me 2. Ti: 1.13. And yet again c. 2. The things which thou hast heard (he saith not read) of me by many witnesses, these commend to faithful men which shall be fit to teach others also. Now as the first Age received their necessary instruction by being sent to no other rule of faith in these necessary points than the Tradition of the Church, and by this only were most completely instructed in divine faith; so now this present Church in all points not clearly expressed in Scripture, and also in that prime point of rightly interpreting the Scripture itself, hath recourse to Tradition as to an infallible Rule, able to make all that it teacheth a fit Object of divine and infallible faith. 10. A third Reason why Counsels may and aught to propose Tradition to themselves for an infallible Rule of faith, is this; Because that Rule must needs be infallible by which only we can be assured what the Apostles both by writing, and out of writing did teach to the Church: For in their doctrine written and unwritten, all things belonging to faith are contained; that therefore which infallibly teacheth us this, and is also the only thing which teacheth us this, must needs be the infallible Rule of faith: But Tradition is the only thing which teacheth us this; to wit, what the Apostles did teach us both by writing and by word of mouth without writing; which this Tradition performeth by millions of true believers of the first age, all taken a part (as witnesses use to be to find out how well they all agreed in their testimony) and placed in several 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 their posterity, all constantly agreeing in the testification of the very self same points, all affirming them to have been delivered publicly in Churches, and greatest assemblies every where all their country over; and that so very exceeding often, and by so very many and by so very divers persons of all kind of conditions, that it is more possible for all men in the world to fall into a fit of dancing just for a quarter of an hour at one and the self same time, without ever agreeing to do so before hand; than it is possible for all these millions of men in so different places, and of so different judgments by nature, and so contrary in their humours, inclinations and proceed, to conspire thus in one and the same story containing so many particulars, without that thing had been really and notoriously true, which so many millions, taken in so different circumstances, all testified unanimously to be true. If this doth not make it evidently 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 unto us. Neither have we any thing else but this Tradition which maketh it evidently credible to us 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. Wherhfore either by such a testimony as this, or by no testimony at all, we may be induced to believe infallibly that the Apostles did teach such and such things by word of mouth, and also did writ such and such books. And it is most preposterous to believe for this testimony this last part, and not to believe the first part; yea this is plain contradiction in him who understands what he doth: for on the one side he saith, The testimony of Tradition sufficeth to make a thing a fit Object of divine faith, so that upon this testimony only I may build that infallible assent, by which I believe these and these books to have been delivered by the Apostles; and yct I will not believe that the Apostles delivered by word of Mouth the doctrine of praying for the dead, of baptising infants &c, because this self same testimony of tradition sufficeth not to make a thing a fit object of faith, to which before I said it did suffice. How than come I now to say it doth not suffice, and to contradict myself with the same breath? I end with Doctor Ferns own words §. 2. It is impossible that all the Christian Churches which began in and about the Apostolical times, and so succeeded through all Nations and ages, should be either deceived in what they unanimously witnessed, or agreed all of them to deceive those who followed them. SECT: XX. That the Fathers teacheth these Traditions, and the definitions of the Counsels or Church to be infallible. 1. WE must first correct the error of some apprehensions, who do not conceive suck Authorities of Fathers to speak home to our purpose, unless they say plainly the Church is infallible. The Fathers did conceive themselves in their writings to speak to men capable so fare 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 found a clear place that saith the Apostles were infallible; Yet we have evident principles from whence we deduce that verity. Note that we now vulgarly use this word infallible, because no word more fully, and briefly expresseth our mind. The thing meant by this word, was, by most equivalent expressions, set down to the very full by Antiquity. 2. I will show this clearly by what I have already shown Antiquity to affirm concerning the infallibility of Counsels, in the last Section but one. There you shall see Constantine praised by Antiquity for reverenting the sentence of the first Council as if it had been spoken by Gods own mouth, and punishing the gainsayers of it as Violatours of a divine Law. Is not this a full acknowledgement of infallibility? As also when S. Athanasius calleth this definition the word of God. Is not the like fully acknowledgement which was showed there to be made by S. Hormisda believing the Hoy Ghost to have spoken in the Fathers of that Council, and by S. Cyrill affirming them to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost that they should not swerve from truth having the Holy Ghost speaking in them; and calling their definitions, The Rule of pure faith, which nothing can be but what is infallible. The same is spoken equivalently when he saith again, that Christ did preside invisibly in that Council in which the Ambassadors of the Bishop of Rome presided visibly. The same is done by S. Leo affirming that to be settled by the holy Ghost which was defined by the Council, and calling the Canons thereof, made by the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God using also the like speeches of the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, terming them a Rule proceeding from divine inspiration. Is not this to acknowledge such a Rule infallible? What more hath been written of the Apostles doctrine? Divers other such like say I have there given you, out of the Holy Fathers, affirming Lawful Counsels 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 their definitions as to the very Ghospels themselves, which is to express infallibility in a superlative degree: In which degree also I may place the say of those Fathers, who called the Definitions of Counsels, The ground of our faith, The Rock of our belief, Rules of faith, the very Foundations of truth. All superlative expressions of Infallibility, And yet men will please to wonder at the deep silence of Fathers, concerning this point in which they could never content themselves to speak in a vulgar manner, but always in such a high strain of veneration, that the true believers might be not only instructed to believe, but also taught to reverence this infallibility, as the communication of the Spirit of divine truth, as indeed it is; Concerning Counsels than what we said in that Section containing all this here recapitulated shall suffice. Remember also what Vincentius Lerinensis C. 4. saith All those who will not be accounted Heeetikes must conform themselves to the decrees of general Counsels. Let us now see what they say of the infallibility of Tradition, taking Tradition as it contains what is not written in Scripture, and yet is necessary to be believed or practised. 3. This Tradition the Fathers acknowledge infallible and several ways; some of them I have sufficiently insinuated Sect: 12. where I shown that the Fathers refused to stand to Scripture only, as to the only, Rule of faith, because all necessary Principles for convincing of Heretics could not be deduced sufficiently from thence: And consequently they did hold that there was some other Rule of faith, containing those principles, to wit Tradition, which could not be this other Rule of faith, nor furnish them sufficiently with such principles, except she, in delivering of them, were infallible. There also I shown that the Fathers held divers points necessarily to be believed or practised, for which they professed, themselves to have no Scripture, but only Tradition: Therefore they held this to be a sufficient ground of faith. There also I shown that they held divers points to be damnable errors, which they know to be contrary to no written Rule, therefore they thought is was sufficient to hold them for damnable Heresies, only because they were contrary to the unwritten Rule of faith, which we call Tradition, which if it were a fallible Rule, it might be gainsaid without falling into the damnable Sin of Heresy, of which Sin the gainsayers of it are, for this only reason accused by the Fathers. I have also Sect: 16. n. 3. showed, how manifestly S. Ireneus teacheth the unwritten Rule of Tradition (and such Tradition as was really in the Church than existent) to be a sufficient Rule, and ground for divine faith and consequently to be infallible. In the very last Sect: n. 3. I gave you Tertullias plain words condemning them who say the Church can err 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 unanswerable argument of S. Austin's for the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions; whose authority he teacheth to be appointed by God that there may be some sufficient authority upon which, men relying, as upon a well assured step, may be lifted up to God; and he holdeth it a headlong arrogancy not to rely upon it: which had been most inconsiderately spoken, had it been only fallible, All this is already dispached; let us now proceed to the full confusion of these who complain of so deep silence in this point of Infallibility, And because D. Ferne Sect: 24. saith, the authorities cited by Bellarmin come not home, I will begin with some authorities taken out of him, which I shall show to reach abundantly home to our purpose. 4. S. Denis Disciple to S. Paul C. 1. Eccl: Herarch: saith; Those our first Captains of Preestly function (to wit the Apostles) did deliver to us the chiefest and supersubstantial points partly in written, partly in unwritten institutions. So that, part of the chiefest, and consequently part of the necessary and fundamental points, were delivered to us in unwritten Traditions only. If therefore this Tradition be only a fallible Rule, we have no infallible Rule to rely upon in all points necessary; because part of them must rely upon unwritten Traditions only. S. justin in the end of his second Apology for the Christians, among these unwritten Traditions placeth some things made necessary by Apostolical precepts; As the consecrating of Wine mingled with water; and that is is lawful to no body (though never so contrite for his Sins) to receive the Eucharist before baptism. Is not this necessary? and yet what Scripture have you for it and where found you in clear Scripture that the Apostles were baptised before they communicated in the last supper of our Lord? There followeth the Authority of S. Ireneus, which I have showed to reach so home, that the whole faith of whole Nations may be divine, and infallible by relying only upon traditions, even long after the finishing of the Canon of Scripture S. Chr: upon 2. Th: 2. It is manifest that the Apostles did not deliver us all things in writing but many things without any writing: and these be Worthy of the very self same faith. Good M. Doctor is that, which is fallible, worthy of the same faith which that which is infallible is worthy of? He held than Tradition as infallible as Scripture; of which I have given you a clear reason Sect: 9 num: 3. Theophilact and Oecumenius upon the same place of S. Paul deliver just the same doctrine. Of S. Epiphanius I have spoken already. And Bellarmin recounts how angry Brentius is him for saying; that it is by Apostolical tradition known to be unlawful to marry after a vow of Virginity. It is necessary to avoid, that which is damnable. Wherhfore to all who have made such vows, the knowledge of this point is necessary Tradition therefore delivereth some necessary points: Hear S. Epiphanius his words (Heresy. 61.) It behoveth us also to use tradition because all things cannot be had out of Scripture. The Apostles delivered some things in writings, some things by Tradition; As S. Paul saith, according as I have delivered unto you. And in an other place. So I teach, so I have delivered to the Churches. The Holy Apostles of God than have delivered that it is a Sin to marry after Virginity decreed; to wit, by vow. Besides what I have cited out of Turtullian already, he is much to be insisted upon in his Book de Prescrip: where C. 19 he very distinctly notes; that first of all, before ever you enter into dispute with Heretics out of the Scripture, you must dispute these following points: From whom, by whom, when and to whom that discipline was delivered by which we were made Christians? and there assuredly will be found the truth of Scriptures the truth of their interpretation, and the truth of all Christian Traditions. Mark here how the first ground, upon which we are to stand, as upon a ground most advantageous for gaining the victory against error, and purchasing triumph to truth, is Tradition; For by that alone, and no possible way but by that, we assuredly know from whom (to wit from Christ sending his Apostles) by whom (to wit by the Apostles) When (in the time of their preaching) to whom (to wit to the Churches founded by them) this discipline by which we were made Christians was delivered. From the Tradition than of these Churches as you take the letter of Scripture, we take also the Soul and interpretation of it conserved in the daily answerable practice first instituted by those Apostles, and thence by Tradition (as surely as by any writing) delivered down by successive practice of all such Churches; to which Churches Tertullian, in his next words, distinctly expresseth himself to sand us, for the foresaid end. And thus all things being driven to their first Source and Origin) will be discovered that only Tradition, is in which all these Mysteries of our faith are contained; upon this ground, saith he, I will prescribe, That what the Apostles have preached aught nor to be proved any other way but by those Churches, which the Apostles themselves have founded either by preaching to them by word of mouth, or by Epistle. And if this be so, it is evident that all doctrine, agreeing with the doctrine of these Apostolical and Mother Churches, is suitable to truth, and to be embraced without all doubt (so infallible doth this Tradition make it.) And thus Tertullian goeth on still pressing his adversary, independently of all Scripture, merely by the tradition of this present Church, showing her pedigree from the primitive Church: And this way, and only this way, he prescribeth that we aught to show 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 we in this Church (whose pedigree we can draw from the Apostles) do pray for the dead? pray to Saints? worship the Eucharist &c, the very ask of this Question, why do you do it? proveth that we do it. And because we every where do it in the Church, the observation of these practices is to stand good, because, we are Habentes observationem inveteratam quae praeveniendo, statum fecit. Hanc si nulla Scriptura determinavit, certe consuetudo roboravit; quae sine dubio etc. we have an observation which by prevention, having got along standing prescription, hath settled itself. And though no Scripture hath determinately appointed this observance, yet custom hath given it strength: which custom without all doubt came from Tradition; For how can a thing be in practice (so universally) if it were not at first delivered by Tradition? Now if you say, that even for such practices, delivered by Tradition, the Sripture must be alleged, all his whole following discourse is framed against this objection, and he mustereth up a number of things, than observed by the Church (that is in the first two hundred years) without any proof of Scripture, by the mere and sole title of Tradition. Thus much is very home M. Doctor; as also that among those most primitive obsevances he placeth, Offering for the dead, and the even wearing out our forehead with making the Sign of the Cross at all kind of works we begin: And though a man may be saved who doth not practise these things, yet they being Apostolical institutions, how can a man be saved who contemns them? It was not in vain saith S. Chrisostome hom: in Ep: ad Philip: and again hom: 69. ad populum. It was not in vain decreed by the Apostles, That in the celebration of those most dreadful Mysteries, memory should be made of those who are dead: They knew well that much benefit and profit did hence redound unto them. See if you be safe who condemn that for superstitious, which the Apostles decreed as most beneficial to the Souls; of which I have spoken more Se.: 19 n: 4. And of S. Austin's authority Sect: 12. n: 3. 4. 5. (and you must observe how he speaks of that which on the one side he held wholly necessary, as Infant's baptism, not Rebaptising Heretics, and yet no where set down in scripture:) which is to come further home than D. Ferne could wish. To these I add Origen: Prefat: in Lib: Periarch: That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church: And in our understanding Scripture, we must not believe otherwise then the Church of God hath by succession delivered unto us. Wherhfore if all the world understood those words, This is my Body, concerning a most real corporal presence, we must not believe otherwise, again because, the public practice of the Church doth understand S. james (when he bids the Priests to be called for to anoint the sick with oil, to obtain forgiveness of their Sins) to speak of a true Sacrament he clearly teacheth by this her practice, that the Scripture should not be understood otherwise. The authorities therefore of the Fathers, come homo to our purpose when so often they inculcate this verity. 5. So also do those Fathers who profess themselves to receive such and such Books for Canonical upon Tradition. The very same Rufinus (who alone is found to deliver the whole Canon just as you do) in the words immediately going before the naming those Canonical Books, speaketh thus in Enarratione Symboli: It seemeth good distinctly to set down in this place which be the volumes of the new and old Testament, which are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost (mark the ground why) according to the Tradition of our Ancestors, as we have received them out of the Monuments of our fore fathers. Note that he here doth not only take the Canonical books for Tradition which most Protestants will say they themselves do, but he taketh than to be Canonical for tradition; and upon this ground he saith, They were believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. See also what I said of the Council of Carthage and others Sect: 3. upon this ground S. Athanasius (in fine Synopsis) receiveth the Gospel of S. Matthew, and rejecteth the Gospel of S. Thomas. Upon this ground Tertullian S. Heirome, S. Aug: S. Leo, do admit such books to be, and to deny others to be Canonical. Upon this ground S. Austen receiveth the Acts of the Apostles. See his words Sect: 22. fine Hence also Eusebius saith in Histor: Eccl: Lib. 3. Such Scriptures by Tradition are held for true, genvine and manifestly allowed by the opinion of all, and that hence, as by an evident note or mark they be distinguished from others. Behold the most perspicuous note or mark by which Scriptures could infallibly be known. If this Rule be fallible, we have no infallibility of the Scriptures being or not being canonical Writings. None of the Holy Fathers can be showed to have let fall one word insinuating, that by the light discovered in such or such books, they were assured, and that infallibly, of their being Canonical; of which I spoke Sect: 3. SECT: XXI. That the Fathers teach in general the Church to be infallible. 1. BESIDES those manifold authorities which I have cited out of the Fathers, clearly teaching the church infallible in her Traditions (by which and by her answerable practice, she makes known to her Children her belief) and besides those other Authorities teaching that this Church, in her Representative or General Counsels, doth with the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, set forth her Canons, or Rules for belief and practice; there be several other authorities in which the Fathers, in very full expressions, declare their belief of the Church's infallibility: for when soever the Fathers speak of the Churches being to be followed by us in all things most securely, as being a certain guide or Rule; or when they use any such kind of speech they either mean the Church representative in a Lawful Council, or the Church Universal, delivering such or such a point by tradition shining with conformable practice. Whence my Reader will observe how the Fathers (whose speeches of the Church in general I am going to cite) when they use such general speeches, do confirm, by their authority, what I have said of the infallibility of the Church Representative in Counsels, or of the like infallibility of the Church Universal in her Traditions. And on the other side all those manifold authorities, by which infallibility of Counsels and Traditions have been already confirmed by me, do also confirm this general proposition. That the Church is infallible: that is, the Church as well universal, speaking by Tradition; as Representative, speaking by a General Council. 2. Of this infallibility in general thus S. Cyprian de unitate Eccl: The Church is the sponse of Christ which cannot play the Adulteress. And Again Epist: 55. The Church never departeth from what she once hath known. And S. Hierome thus, Lib. 3. in Ruffinum. C. 8. fine In Her is the Rule or Square of Truth. And thus also Rufinus (in Enarrat: Symbol:) explicating those words; I believe the Holy Catholic Church: she therefore is the Holy Church not having spot or wrinkle, words spoken of Christ's visible Church on Earth as appears as well by the words going before, which are; In this Church there is one faith, one Baptism; as by the words following, Many others have gathered Churches together as Martion, Valentinus, Arius &c. But those Churches be not without spot and wrinkle. Had Christ's only Church upon Earth been so foul, (as you must of necessity say it was for a full thousand years, before your Reformation) she had notoriously played the adultress and been indeed the whore of Babylon, as you at every occasion call the only Church Christ than had, or as pure as any he than had. This Church also had interiorly departed from what she received, she had played the Mistress of misrule and not been the Rule and square of Truth, lastly she had not been without most hideous spots, and fare greater deformities than wrinkles. See how you have painted her out above in my Sect: 15. n. 8. How differently S. Ireveus, 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 wellspring of Truth, The dwelling place of faith. You, who make the Church dwelling in Error so many ages join error, and most intolerable error, to gather with the Spirit of truth. How was this Spirit of truth in a Church imposing lies (as you say) for divine verities and exacting of all, under pain of excommunication, to submit to her proceed here in? And yet you can find Christ no better Church for the last thousand years. There be four Fathers for whose testimonies divers of our adversaries use to call, in so much that they accounted their deep silence our condemnation, because those Fathers have treated expressly against Heretics, and undertaken how to direct others in the true faith; and therefore doubtless, 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 upon this direction. See his words cited Sect. 7. As for the second, who is Tertullian he lived before the Church had or could have any general Council, by reason of the universal persecution under those Heathenish Emperors: and so Tertullian doth not indeed speak of the Church representative in Counsels; Yet he speaks home of the infallibility of the Church universal, declaring her doctrine by her Tradition, and her practice conformable to her Tradition and in all thus declared Tertullian holds her infallible; as I have already shown the last Sect: n: 4. 3. The third Father is S. Epiphanius, who how clearly he speaketh of the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions, we have seen in the same number: I add here further an admirable saying of this father of the Church's infallibility: for having showed Heresy. 49. how all Heresies seek to go by new found by ways, he calleth the following of the Church that kings high way of which Moses spoke (Mystically by the King of Edom) saying; that he would pass by that right on to the Land of Promise, neither declining at the right hand nor the left, neither on this side not on that, but we will go on straight in the King's high way. For the King's high way is the Holy Church of God, the Road of Truth. But every one of these Heresies leaving this Kings high way decline either on the right hand or on the left to error. But you O servants of God, you Sons of the Church of God, who have known the sure Rule, and do go on in the way of truth, go on clearfully, and be not called back by their words and clamours, for their ways be erroneous. So he Here you have, that all Heresies agreed in this, that they leave the infallible direction of the Church, and become Heretics by choosing out ways on their own head, erroneous ways, which in the Church never could have been met with all, she being the King's high way, the beaten Road of Truth, the sure Rule, the way of truth. What more clear? To take the Church's direction as infallible, is the very bane of Christendom with Doctor Ferne; with others it is the most intolerable error in Popery, making all the errors incurable: and yet this ancient holy Father who (as S. Austen in his Book of Heresies saith) is the most learned man that had written of Heresies reprehendeth all and every one of these Heresies, for erring, by refusing to follow the Church, as a sure Rule, and as the King's highway, and as a known Road of truth. Now if your censuring the Church for teaching herself to be this sure Rule and plain high way of Truth, were just, S. Epiphanius did himself err most misserably, in imputing the denial of this to them all as an error, of which every one of those Heresies stood guilty. It is therefore most false which a certain university man (of whom I shall speak more in the next Chapter) over rashly affirmeth, that neither S. Epiphanius, nor S. Austen in their Catalogues of Heretics, branded any one as guilty for gainsaying this infallible guidance of the Church. For you see S. Epiphanius brands all Heresies with this foul mark, saying; That every of these Heresies leaving this Kings high way (of the Church the sure Rule, and plain Road of Truth) declines either on the right hand, or on the left. And the same Father ending his Books of Heresies saith, 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 than to the Church he applieth the next verse, My Dove, my undefiled is but one, One is this Virgin, this chaste one, this spouse, the holy city of God, the faith, the foundation of truth the firm Rock against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. And than going to give an abridgement of the faith of the Catholic 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 Calm Coasts of Truth, to wit, the doctrine of the Church And mark how secure from errors he thinks himself here; for now (saith he) being free of all fear and trouble and tediousness, and being in an excellent posture by reason of the firm tranquillity and security here breathing, how did we rejoice in spirit being received in a Serene Haven? We have passed many evels in our navigation, through the foresaid Seas (of Heresies) but now having in sight the City (of the Church) let us make haste to this Holy jerusalem, and Virgin of Christ, and Spouse and secure foundation and Rock, our Reverend Mother, most seasonably saying; Let us ascend unto the mountain of our Lord, and into the House of the God of jacob, and she will teach us our ways (and not errors for how free she is from them he farther expresseth.) Let us speak to her these words which her spouse did; Come my spouse from Libanus, because thou art all fair, and there is not any spot in thee: (this he saith of the visible Church on earth teaching us on earth her ways, for presently he flieth to her thus;) to the end that being placed in thee, we may rest from those troublesome businesses of the foregoing Heresies, in the our Holy Mother the Church and in thy Holy Doctrine, and that we may be refreshed in the truth with the Holy and only faith of God. And having spoken so full of this perfect security from error in the Church. he tells us whence it proceeds; to wit, from the special assistance of God, and that she is not like thy Concubine Queens, but that she is Queen, as the true Spouse having for her dowry from Christ the receiving the Holy Ghost. And then having spent good part of this Abridgement in showing, by the gross errors among Gentiles and Heretics, that their faith was like the Concubines, which have no such dowry from Christ, he returneth to declare in divers particular points the faith of this Chaste Virgin the Church, in which nevertheless he spendeth but a leaf and a half according to my Book. 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 read that book, for if he had, he should have found that he speaketh of no one point of any true Christian faith at all, until, he cometh to these three last leaves except it be of the admirable praises of the Church and of her infallibility, or most safe certain, and secure direction: which is the prime point of Popish doctrine. But who soever shall come to answer that place of D. Ferne, will tell him how many other Popish points make up the other leaf and leaf following: all which points are put down by S. Epiphanius as Traditions necessary to be delivered here by him. 4. S. Epiphanius was most wrongfully accused by that university man of silence, concerning this point of infallibility (which he so much extolleth, where as he should have put it for one of the Heresies if he had been one of your Religion:) so also is S. Austen not less wronged, who is the fourth Father whose silence of this infallibility they object; And first say they, he calleth no man Heretic for denying of it, whereas all Heretics mentioned by him in his books of Heresy, could not but deny it according to us, or else they had not been Heretics. A strange argument you say, because, all Heretics denied this; therefore he should have at lest noted this in some one of them. I contrariwise say, because every one of these Heretics denied this therefore it had been ridiculous to express it concerning any one of them as if he had been singular in that one which is common to all, and every one (for example Were it not ridiculous in the Catalogue of Canonical Books, put down in the front of the Bible, to say of some particular Books, for example, of the book Liviticus or the book of judges) this book is the true word of God. And would not such an addition, make men think, that the being the true word of God, was less common to other books, or that there were some special doubt of these two books. Just so it would be ridiculous to say such Heretics held the Church fallible, a thing common to all Heretics. 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 said Every one of these Heresies do this; there never being any special doubt concerning any one single Heresy, whether it did do that or not, which all Heresies, must needs do; In so much that to give you a Catalogue of Hertickes, is the self same thing that it is to give up a List of such men, who, teaching a doctrine, differing from the Church to be true; must needs teach her doctrine to be false: and consequently that she did err, and is fallible; and therefore a judge not to be submitted unto in those her errors. Neither did S. Austen omit to note this, if you omit not to note well what he saith. First in the beginning, He putteth down the Epistle of Quod vult Deus entreating him to writ this book that he might know what Heresies there have been? what they did hold contrary to the Catholic Church? And also what on the contrary the Catholic Church hath declared against them? These two questions S. Austen taketh special notice of in his Preface to his book, repeating them in the words in which they were proposed by Quod vult Deur. And than he gins to satisfy his first question by telling him what every Heresy hath held contrary to the Catholic 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 errors, and being mistress of errors cannot be infallible in deciding all points truly. A little skill in Aequipollentibus (to which those arrive who have passed the bridge) would have made an university man see a thing so clear. Especially being the second Question maketh the first yet more clear, by acknowledging that it is the part of the Church to declare her meaning against heretics, which is to acknowledge her the judge in these matters: for this question was to know quid contra teneat Ecclesia quantum instructioni satis est subdi, that as much as was necessary for instruction might be told him concerning the contrary, judgement of the Church. S. Austen cometh not to touch in the lest word this second demand, until the end of his Book, and than he cuts him of thus; It is superuously demanded (what you expected to be told by me) what the Catholic Church judgeth against all these seeing that for this end (of having as much instruction as it is necessary) it is sufficient to know that the Catholic Church is of a contrary judgement to all these. Therefore every Christian Catholic aught not to believe these things. Behold here the judgement of the Church, so much esteemed, that we have as much as is sufficient for our instruction to avoid any opinion, when we do but know that the Church judgeth the contrary: and to desire to know more, is superfluous; for this alone is enough to make any Christian Catholic not to be of a judgement contrary to the judgement of the Church. Can any Pope in those our days have spoken more Papistically? If you were to make a Catalogue of gross errors, and errors incurable, you would put this down in capital letters. 5. Let this than be the first authority of S. Austen for the infallibility of the Church; that we have enough to disbeleeve any opinion, when she bids us disbeleeve it: whence it evidently followeth, that we have sufficient to believe any thing, because she bids us believe it; her authority being as well assured for the one, as for the other. A Second very full place I gave you Sect: 19 n. 7. Thirdly it is notorious that S. Austen often professeth (see his words which I cite presently) that Baptism given by Heretics is to be held of infallible validity: and this, not because it is set down in any Scripture (for he confesseth it is clearly set down in no Scripture;) but because the Church in a Plenary Council hath declared it to be so; as he often urgeth in the beginning of his fourth Book de Baptisms and there, Chap. 4. he holdeth the validity of the baptism given by Heretics to be a point revealed by the Holy Ghost; to wit, when the Apostles delivered this Tradition first to the Church; as he intimateth there Chap. 6. This Revelation, made by the Holy Ghost of this point, did than grow to oblige all to assent unto it, when it was notified to the Church by a Plenary Council after S. Cyprians days; as the same S. also teaches. Fourthly he accounteth it also to have proceeded from the Holy Ghost, that we are obliged to communicate before we eat any thing which will of the holy Ghost is not notified to us by any Scripture; but the Church is of sufficient authority to notify this will of the Holy Ghost, and to make it obligatory. His words are; It is manifest that when the Disciples received the Body and blood of our Lord, they did not receive fasting: Must we therefore calumniate the universal Church for all ways receiving fasting? For hence it is that it hath pleased the Holy Ghost that, in the honour of so great a Sacrament; the Body of our Lord should enter into the Mouth of a Christian before external meats. For this cause this custom is kept through the whole world. Epist: 118. ad januarium. Fiftly S. Austen Lib. 7. de Baptismo C. 53. treating of a question in which nothing was yet defined by the Church, saith: It is not safe for us rashly to deliver our opinion in this matter, which is not determined by any Council; but let our care be (saith be) to affirm that to be (securae vocis) a thing to be spoken securely which in the government of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ is confirmed by the confession of the Universal Church. No danger of error in this speech; For I ask you, were you not (without fear of being led into error) securely to rely upon the testimony of that party whom Christ should bid you believe? you dare not but say, Yes. Read than Sixtly S. Austen, and mark how fully he tells you that; what the Church tells you, is told by one, upon whose testimony Christ did bid you rely: and mark how he inferreth from hence that; as not to hear such a person, whom Christ did bid you hear in such a controversy, were rather to reject Christ, than to reject such a person; so not to hear the Church, whom he did bid 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 than he writeth de Vnitate fidei C. 19 Let now an Heretic say unto me, how do you admit of me into your Communion? (he speaketh of such an one as was baptised by Heretics) than he replieth: I readily answer you. I admit of you as that Church admits of you, to which Church our Saviour giveth testimony. Do you know better, how you aught to be admitted of, than our Saviour? Here perhaps you will say) read unto me than (out of Scripture) in what manner Christ hath commanded those to be admitted of, who desire to pass from Heretics to the Church? This clearly and manifestly (set down in Scripture) neither I do read nor you. Now than, seeing that in the Scripture we found not that any who passed from the Heretics to the Church, were admitted of, either as I say (without being rebaptised) or as you say (by first rebaptising of them) I am of opinion, that if there should have been some wise man, to whom our Lord jesus Christ giveth testimony and this (wise) man were consulted by us, we aught by no means to doubt of doing that, which he should say, lest that we should be judged not so much to be refractory to this (wise) man as to be refractory to Christ our Lord, by whose testimony he was commended (to be heard.) But Christ doth give testimony to his Church. If than thou wilt not (be admitted of as she admiteth of thee) thou dost most perniciously resist not me, or any man, who will this admit of thee, but thou dost most perniciously resist our Saviour himself, contrary to thy Salvation (that is damnably) being that thou wilt not believe that thou oughtest to be admitted of in such a manner, as that Church doth admit of thee, which Church he, by his testimony, doth commend, he (I say) whom you yourselves confess that it is a wicked thing not to believe. So he; and no Papist could speak more clearly, to declare the damnable Sin of being refractory to the Church, even when she hath no other Scripture for what she bids, than that Scripture which bids us hear and obey her. To which purpose Seventhly lib. 6. 1. contra Gr●scon. cap. 33. speaking of the very self same point in which the Churches infallible authority without other Scripture is to be wholly relied upon, to wit, that Baptism given by Heretics is true Baptism. Therefore although truly concerning this thing no example can be brought out of the canonical Scriptures, yet even in this very thing the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us, when we 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 deceived 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 doubtfulness doth demonstrate to us. Behold here S. Austen, in a necessary point of faith (which after the Scriptures perused is still obscure) freeth us from all fear of erring; if, even in such a point, we rely on the Church as infallible. Hence Eightly on the psal: 57 he writheth thus: It may be that a man may lie, but it cannot be that Truth can lie. From the Month of Truth I acknowledged Christ Truth it selfe. From the mouth of Truth I acknowledged the Church partaker of truth. Behold that to a man subject to lie, he opposeth first Christ Truth itself by essence; secondly he opposeth the Church Truth by Participation of his truth; both of them infallible or not subject to lie, as man is. Ninethly having delivered the doctrine of the Church concerning baptising Children (which point as I shown Sect: 8. n. 5. he held not to be clearly set down in Scripture) he accounteth himself by the Church's authority alone so infallibly grounded in this point, that he breaketh forth into these words, Serm: 14. de verbis Apostol: cap. 18. The Authority of our Mother the Church hath this. This is made good by the grounded Rule of truth. Against this strength, against this insuperable wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed. A place so convincing, that those great defenders of your cause in the famous Conference of Ratisbon, were forced to answer to it thus; In this point we freely descent from Austen. In Protocall: Monach: edit: 2. Pag. 367. But let them take what the same S. Austen tenthly saith Ep: ad januar: 118. cap. 5. If the whole Church through the world practise any thing, it is most insolent madness to dispute whether that aught to be practised or no. So he. Now this by no means could be true without the Church were infallible. For a wise man may with modesty dispute against that, which may well be an error. Eleventhly because the enemies of the infallibility of the Church use to fright the defenders thereof with a fond fear of being misled blindly by her Prelates, who may (say they even in Council err; S. Austin answereth for us thus, Epist: 166. in fine. In so much as he maketh, his people secure from ill Governors, beast for them the Chair of wholesome doctrine should be forsaken, in which even the evil are constrained to deliver true things. For they are not their own things which they say; but Gods, who hath placed the doctrine of verity in the Chair of unity whence he saith, Do what they say, but according to their works do 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 we could wish, but chiefly because he proveth unanswerably what he saith. And therefore this authotity is not answered with out answering the arguments which he presseth like a Master Disputant, demonstrating clearly why at the very writing of this, he refused to be a Manichaean, and why every one, both infidels and Christians, aught to refuse the same. I will put his golden discourse at large, adding a short paraphrasis, to put my reader it mind of such reflections as deserve to be made of so admirable words. This place is lib. contra Epist: Fundamenti cap. 4. The Epistle of M … (which the Manicheans would have pass for Gospel) beginneth thus. Manichaeus the Apostle of jesus Christ by the providence of God the Father. I ask therefore (lay 8. Aug.) who this Manicheus is? you will answer the Apostle of Christ: I do not believe it. Perhaps you will read the Gospel unto me endeavouring thence to prove it. And what if you did light upon one who did not believe the Gospel? what would you do than, if such an one should say unto you, I do not believe you. (this is his argument to prove why an Infidel hath no reason to be a Manichean, because you manicheans (you Lutherans and Calvinists) who deny the authority of the Church, by taking away her infallibility, leave no infallible authority upon which, any man can safely rely in admitting the Gospel for the undoubted word of God. Wherhfore S. Austen tells them, that they destroying this ground, leave him no infallible ground to believe the Gospel more than infidels do believe it. Wherhfore he addeth; But I would not (because now you have left me no sufficient, that is, no infallible, ground for it) But I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me there unto. 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 upon it alone he buildeth the belief of this article; The Scripture is the word of God: I say, he buildeth the belief of this vpon this ground alone, because he tells us, if it were not for this ground, he would not believe this fundamental point whence appeareth the weakness of our adversaries best answer; which as that S. Austen only telleth us here; what occasionally moved him, when he was a Manichean, first to believe the Gospel; so that the sense (say they) is this; I, when I was a Manichean, would not have believed the Gospel, had it not been that the Church's authority had first occasionally moved me thereunto. But I pray reflect how clear it is by S. Austin's words that he gives an absolute universal reason, why, at the very writing of this discourse, he received the Gospel for God's true word, so moved thereunto by the authority of the Church that were it not for her authority, he would not believe the Gospel to be the word of God. If he should only have told the Manicheans, what he had done at his first conversion occasionally upon a ground; which ground now he himself thought unsufficient, for such an infallible assent, he had given them no kind of satisfaction; Neither could he have urged them still (as he doth) that he, in rejecting Manicheans must needs rely (as upon sure ground) on the same authority upon which he first relying was most groundedly induced to give credit to the Scripture. The truth than is, that S. Austen told them; that neither infidels could believe them (they only citing Gospel;) nor Catholics could believe them, because they only cited that Gospel against the Church, which he himself with all Catholics believed only to be true Gospel for the authority of the Church. Whence it followeth in him; Why should not I (now at the writing of these) obey them (the Prelates of the Church) saying unto me, Do not obey Manicheus to whom I obeyed, saying believe the Gospel. (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, believe the Catholics; they admonish me to give no credit to you. Wherhfore believing them I cannot but disbeleeve you. But if you say do not believe the Catholics; than you do not take a right course to force me, by the Gospel, to believe Manicheus; (I pray mark his reason) Because I believed the Gospel itself, the Catholics preaching it unto me. But if you say (to me) you have rightly believed the Catholics praising the Gospel, but you have not rightly believed them dispraising Manicheus; do you think me so very a fool that, no reason being rendered for it, I will believe what you list, and disbeleeve what you list; except you do not only bid me believe what you will, but you also, most manifestly and evidently, make me know itt. If you be (as you will say) going to give me such a reason as shall make it manifestly and evidently known to me that the Catholics erred, in the bidding me not believe Manicheus, but that they erred not in the bidding me receive the Gospel, what than? Dimitte Evangelium. Bid Farewell to the Gospel. (why?) Because if you hold yourself to the Gospel (upon a ground that cannot deceive you) I (for my part) will hold myself to those, through whose teaching I have believed the Gospel, and at their command I will not believe thee. Behold S. Austen te l them, that even now, he will not believe them, because even now he believeth the Gospel at their teaching by whose command he is not to believe you. I pray what had this answer been to the purpose if S. Austen had thought the Catholics now to be believed witht assent less than infallible? For if he had thought they could have misled him in bidding him believe the Gospel, he might have thought they could also misled him in bidding him not believe Manicheus. But you will say he thought they might bring manifest and evident demonstrations for this hast, because he insinuateth that if they did so, he would believe them, even when they said he had reason to believe the Church praising the Gospel, but not to believe it dispraising Manicheus. Whereas from that which we hold infallible, no reason shall remove us. I answer, that he who saith to a man of an other Religion, I do not mean to pass to your Religion except you can show me, by manifest and evident demonstration that my Religion is false; doth he, by this saying intimate that he doth not give infallible assent to the Religion he is now of? For one may say to an Atheist. I will dye for my belief in the Scripture, except you evidently can demonstrate that the Scripture is false, and cannot be God's word. In these speeches a man's meaning is, that until you can show me that you have done this (which I am sure you cannot show me) you have no reason to found fault with me for not passing over unto you. I prove this to be so here if I may but suppose (a thing most true) that S. Austen did, with an infallible assent believe the Gospel. For I pray observe if he speaketh not of his intending to forsake his belief in the very Gospel itself, if the Manicheans can show by Scripture that any doctrine contrary to the belief of the Church can be true. So impossible did he hold it to show the Church fallible in any one point. For even thus he saith; If perhaps in the Gospel thou shalt be able to found any place that is manifest to prove Manicheus a true Apostle, than indeed you shall weaken unto me the authority of the Catholics bidding me not believe thee (by showing their authority is fallible.) Be pleased to reflect attentively on what followeth; This Authority (of the Catholics) being weakened, now I cannot so much as believe the Gospel. The word (now) showeth that at the very writing of this, he professeth that if the Catholics authority could, but in any one single point, be showed fallible, he cannot now believe the Gospel; because saith he, by those Catholics, I had believed the Gospel, whom you now have in one point shown fallible. Here some of our adversaries catch hold on those words because by those Catholics, I had believed; whereas, say they, If he had meant their authority had been the Cause of his belief, he should not have used the particles, Per, by, or throuh, but the particle Propter for. A weak objection; for how often in Scripture doth this particle, By, express the true Cause upon which, and only which men believed infallibly, as all did first by or through the preaching of Christ. So. Io. 17. v. 20. Christ prayeth, not only for his Apostles, but also for them which should believe in him by or through their words. And S. Paul 2. Thes: 2.15. would have us stand fast and hold The Traditions which have been taught us 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 lie, we might have strong consolation. Hebr: 6.18. Weaker than this is an other cavel that; S. Austen could not esteem the Church infallible, because for a clear place in Scripture he would have denied her infallibility: For according to this fond cavilling reason he should have also esteemed the Scripture fallible, because he likewise saith; the Catholics authority being weakened, now I cannot so much as believe the Gospel. The truth than is that he speaketh with an Heretic denying the Church's infallibility, and disputing against it out of Scripture; Wherhfore he speaketh just with him, as we use to speak with you, doing the like; that is, he telleth him only what should happen if his impossibilities were showed to be realities. And first he saith, that unless his open falsities can be demonstrated out of the true word of God, (which is one impossibility) he would not believe them. Secondly he, even after the performance of this impossibility tells him, he hath yet an other answer, to wit, that he will neither believe him speaking that, which he could show to be clear Gospel, neither would he believe the Church any more, because she had taught him to believe that to be Gods true word, which notwithstanding did bear clear witness to that, which she taught to be a Lie: whence he, seeing her in one point fallible, would never rely on her so as to believe the Scripture upon her authority, as than he did. You shall see how clearly he saith this; Wherhfore (saith he) if in the Gospel no manifest place be found concerning the Apostleship of Manicheus, I will rather believe the Catholics than thee: but if thou shalt read me out of the Gospel any place manifestly for Manicheus, I will neither believe them, nor thee. I will not believe them, because they have lied unto me concerning thee (this one Lie showing their Church to be fallible;) Neither will I believe thee (even citing clear Scripture, as thou callest it) because thou citest to me that Scripture to which I gave credit by those who have lied unto me. Which words be perfect nonsense without you say the Scripture in S. Austin's opinion loseth (in order to us) her infallibility, if the Catholic Church can tell one lie: For in that case S. Austen saith, he would forsake both Church and Scripture also, if any clear place in Scripture should say Manicheus was a true Apostle. And he saith that for that cause, and upon that ground be would forsake Scripture, because it was that Scripture, which he only held to be so, by the authority of the Catholic Church, which now he had taken in one lie. But for all this, saith he, God for bid I should not believe the Gospel for thou canst not bring any thing to make me believe either the Church, or that which is commended for God's word by the Church to be contrary to truth. For even believing the Gospel I do not found how I can believe thee, there being in the Gospel nothing for thee. And than he showeth, how clearly he finds the Acts of the Apostles to be against them: Which book (saith he) it is necessary for me to believe if I do believe the Gospel. Note first how he speaketh of the belief he had now at the very writing of these saying, that he must believe this Book which is a Book rejected by the Manicheans. Whence it is manifest that he speaketh of himself as now a Catholic and such a Catholic as received only such books for Gods true word, as the Church recommended to him for such; holding also her recommendation so sure, that she could not fail in recommending any one book for God's word, which was not of necessity to be held so, merely upon her recommendation; For thus he proveth that it was than necessary for him to believe this Book (of the Acts of the Apostles which the Manicheans held to be no Scripture) if he believeth the Gospel, Because the Catholic Authority (of the Church) doth in like manner commend both Scriptures unto me, to wit as well the Acts, as the four Ghospels; for indeed it is proper to those who believe the Church fallible to believe her only when they think fitting: whereas those who with S. Austen believe her infallible, must needs speak as he doth, that being the Church proposeth this to be believed, as well as that, it is necessary for me to believe this on her Authority as well as that. SECT: XXII. That all which the Fathers say of the infallibility of the Church in her Traditions or Counsels, or in general terms, is meant by them particularly of the Roman Church, as we understand the Roman Church. 1. I Must now take away from our adversaries their last shift, which is that although S. Austen and so many other Fathers speak so often of the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church, and of the Counsels, of the Church, and of the Church's authority in general; yet, say they, what is this to the Roman Church, more than to the English which is a part of the Catholic as well as the Roman; she only being a part and not the whole Catholic Church? I answer, that when we say the Church is infallible, we speak, as Antiquity useth to speak of the Church: that is, we speak of it, as of a flock adhering to their true Head-Pastour; and consequently we speak of the Church of Rome in this sense, as she is a Church Catholic, that is universally comprehending all the sheep of Christ, living in any nation though never so fare from Rome, yet joined in communion to the Bishop of Rome, as to her Head-Pastour: For thus the Roman Church, as comprehending all Churches united to her Communion, cannot be showed in any time since Christ, to have differed in doctrine from what the universal Church ever taught, or practised: If therefore the universal Church, following Tradition be, by the guidance of the same Tradition infallibly conducted, according to the opinion of the Fathers; the Roman Church, ever, treading the very self same steps, must needs have proceeded as infallibly. Again, if the Church representative be infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, as I have proved, the self same must needs be true of the Roman Church, who ever was joined in Communion and unity of Doctrine with every lawful general Council which hath been from Christ's time to this. For it is so notorious, that our adversaries cannot deny it, that the Bishop of Rome either by himself, or by his Legates in his name, hath presided in every such Council, and subscribed unto it in the very first and chief place, or at lest he did sand his confirmation and ratification of all the acts thereof. Her doctrine hath than always agreed with all Lawful Counsels: If their decrees be infallible Rules, as I have proved, than the Roman Churches doctrine, ever ruled by them, is infallible. And the same Fathers who say the doctrine agreeing with Counsels is infallible, also by manifest consequence say, that the doctrine of the Roman Church is infallible. This being so notorious, no wonder if the Fathers many times promiscuously speak in the same manner of the Roman Church, and of the Church in general, and take the one for the other, making no distinction at all. And this they do both for the reasons before said, as also because by the very name of the Church they understood the flock of Christ governed by S. Peter, and his Successors as their Lawful Pastor appointed by Christ. And, just as the Apostle tells us, that Christ did purchas a Church unto himself by his blood; So S. Chrysostom: Lib. 2. de Sacerd: ask, why Christ did shed his blood? answers, That he might purchase unto himself his sheep, the charge of which he committed both to Peter and his successors. Hence you see that with him the Church universal, is one, and the self same thing, that the flock of Christ's sheep, governed by S. Peter's successor the Bishop of Rome so S. Cyprian tells us Epist: 69. that the Church is a people united to their Priest, and a flock adhering to their shepherd. Hence Venerable Bede lib. 2. Hist. Eccl. cap. 2. saith Pope Greg: governed the Church in the days of Mauritius the Emperor. And S. Gregory lib. 4. Dial. c. 40. saith the Church, refused Lau●ence to be her governor when Symmachus was chosen Pope. He used the style of S. Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who saith 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 universal Church: And S. Hierome Epist: 58. ad Damasum. If any one be joined to the Chair of S. Peter Meus est, he is of my Religion. And Again Ep: 57 to the same Pope he speaketh thus; To thy Holiness, that is, to the Chair of S. Peter I am joined in Communion; upon this Rock (so he calleth S. Peter's Chair) I know the Church is built. He is profane, whosoever he is, who eateth the Lamb out of this house. He who is not in the Ark of Noë shall perish in the deluge. And S Leo Ep: 84. add Anastic. 11. showeth distinctly, how in the church there is such subordination of the people to their Bishops, and of these to their higher Bishops: and of all higher Bishops to the Bishop of Rome; that by them the charge of the universal church might be referred to that one chair of Peter, so nothing any where should disagree from their head. S. Hierome again 1. ad Tim 13. saith, 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, praiseth his Brother Satyrus for his care in choosing a Catholic Bishop by this Rule, that he inquired whether they agreed with the Catholic Bishops, that is, with the Roman Church: So he, taking the Catholic and the Roman for all one. Hence S. Cyprian calleth the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop of the Catholic Church. We know Cornelius to have been elected by Almighty God and Christ our Lord, the Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church: Neither are we ignorant that there aught to be one God, one Christ our Lord, one Holy Ghost, one Bishop in the Catholic Church. So he lib. 3. Ep: 11. And Again de Vnitate Ecclesiae: Doth he confided himself to be in the Church, who forsaketh the Chair of Peter; upon which the Church is founded? Whence it is evident that by the Church he meant the multitude of believers adhering to the Chair of the Bishop of Rome. So also the most ancient Pope Anacletus, not fourscoare years after our Saviour's death, spoke thus, in the end of his first Epistle registered among the Decretals and Counsels, The Apostles by the command of our Saviour have appointed that the greater and harder questions should always be referred to the Apostolical seat, upon which Christ hath built the universal Church, he himself saying, Thou art Peter (that is a Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church. So he Hence I have the very ground why the Fathers promiscuously by the name of the Church, universally understood the Roman Church, upon whose seat the universal was built. And this ground is made good by a world of Fathers in Coccius where he treats of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. 2. That which is for my present intent, is to show that the Fathers, and why the Fathers, do take the name of the Church promiscuously for the Roman Church, though they do not name her by that name; because it was so notorious that by the name of the Church they meant no other thing than Christ's flock under their true Shepherd the Bishop of Rome: And when it is once notoriously known to the hearers what is meant by such a word, the use of it is sufficiently determinate. So here in England when with one an other we say the Parliament did decree or examine such a thing, we are known notoriously to speak of the English Parliament; Though the word Parliament be as indifferent to signify the French Parliament, especially if spoken by French to French in the middle 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 Counsels, must needs be spoken of no other Church than of such an one as did not disclaim 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 being so, I have given you a most evident reason thereof Sect: 17. 3. This note showeth that the Fathers must needs have, in those say of theirs concerning infallibility, understood the Roman Church and could understand no other differing from her. But indeed (as I have said) their very vulgar phrase of Catholic Church, was known than to be applied to the Roman, taken in the sense we spoke of. Hence that old Arian jocundus said to King Theodorick; If you put Armogastes (a Catholic) to death, the Romans (that is the Catholics) will proclaim him a Martyr, as witnesseth Victor Vti: de Persec: V and: lib. 1. Hence also Ricemer, an other Arian, did writ unto the Gennenses. If he be a Catholic, he is a Roman And S. Greg: of Tours lib. 1. de gloria Martyr: cap. 25. telling how Theodegesilus an Arian King of Portugal said such a Miracle was a trick of the Romans; he add this Parenthesis, For they call the men of our Religion Romans. So he This than was the vulgar old stile, Thus spoke Antiquity, If he be one of Christ's sheep he is one of S. Peter's Successors flock, as I shown out of S. chrysostom; If he be of the Catholic Church, he is one of the people united to this chief Priest as I shown out of S. Cyprian. If mention be made of one to whom the Charge of Governing the Church is given, the Bishop of Rome is understood in the vulgar language of the primitive Church, as I shown out of Bede, S. Gregor, S. Irineus. If a S. Hierome would tell you, who were of his Church or Communion, he understands every one joined to the Chair of S. Peter; For upon this Rock he knoweth the Church is built. If a S. Leo speaketh of one who hath the charge of the universal Church, he meaneth the Bishop who fitteth in the Chair 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 pick out among Schismatics a Bishop who is a true member of the Catholic Church, he will do it by ask, whether he agrees with the Catholic Bishop: And he will tell you that in plain terms by that name he means the Roman Church. And if a S. Cyprian be to speak of a Cornelius Bishop of the Roman Church, he will explicate himself in current language, by calling him Bishop of the Catholic Church, he being notoriously known to be that one Bishop which must be at all times in the Church, and no man can confided that he is in the Catholic Church who forsaketh the Chair of S. Peter. You need not than wonder to hear me say that by those who are in the Catholic Church, we mean those who have not forsaken, but cleave fast to the Chair of S. Peter, for on this Apostolical seat Christ hath built the universal Church as the most ancient Anacletus hath told you. Hence a S. Austen (Epist: 162.) will tell Cecilian, that he needs not fear the conspiring multitude of African Bishops as long as he communicated with Melchiades the Pope. Hence Optatus l. 2. contra Permenian: will thrust the Donatists out of the number of Catholics, because they communicated not with the Roman Church: and he himself will adhere to Sericius the Pope to whom all the world was united. All the world than were Papists; and those counted Heretics who refused to be so. And in this sense not to be a Papist, that is not to be one united in Communion to the Pope, was the self same as not to be Catholic; for all the Catholic world was united to the Pope or Head-pastour of Christ's flock. 4. Besides all this, you must know, that the Fathers did not always forget to express 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. Austin's words at large to prove that God hath left some such authority unto us; that by it, as by a well assured step we may be lifted up to God: and hence he concludeth that no man should doubt to betake himself to the lap of the Roman church for this church you will found his words evidently to describe. Read them and you cannot deny it. Again Psal. in Partem Donati he speaketh thus of S. Peter's Chair. She is that Rock which the proud gates of Hell cannot vanquish. And S. Cyprian Ep: 55. n. 6. They are so bold as to carry letters from profane Schismatics to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church whence Priestly unity rose, not considering the Romans to be them, whose faith (the Apostle being the Commender thereof) was praised, to whom misbelief cannot have access. And S. Hierom Apologia adver: Ruff. L. 3. cap. 4. Know you that the Roman faith commended by the Apostles mouth, will receive no such deceits, nor can possibly be changed though an Angel taught otherwise. Our adversaries commonly receive the sixth general 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 Apostolical Church of Christ hath vigorously held and still! defendeth; which Church shall never be proved to have erred from the Path of Apostolical Tradition: (And that you may know this was to hold true for ever, the Council addeth) according to the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour, I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail, Here you have the very phrase we now use of impossibility of erring grounded in the divine promise. What is this called but Infallibility? The same divine promise is just so applied to S. Peter's Successors by S. Leo. Serm: 3. in Anniver: suae Assum: If we will speak with Antiquity, here is Aperta promissio a manifest promise that the Pastor of the Church S. Peter's Successor proceeding as Universal Pastor, or defining in a Council neither shall nor can fail, for which promise D. Fern Sect: 27. calleth so earnestly. 5. By this time my Reader will see how exceeding little reason our adversaries have to take for a strong argument against infallibility the deep silence of Antiquity (as they speak) in this point; whereas I in a very short time, with my small reading, have been able so to weary out my Reader with the plentiful Authorities of Antiquity, that he will easily remember hereafter what just indignation aught to be conceived against this gross falsity. SECT: XXIII. Some things very necessary for the easier answering our adversaries objections. I. BEfore I begin any one of our adversaries Objections I must (to take away all prejudice) entreat my Reader in the whole reading of this next Section to note, First how infallibly all the Christian world, except some few Socinians) affirm themselves to believe all things contained in those Books which they hold canonical Scripture. and yet I will undertake that any judicious man in the world, who with a calm sober, and disinterressed mind shall attentively ponder on the one side what they object against the infallibility of the Church and than on the other side, all those exceeding many places of Scripture which seem so manifestly contrary to one an other, that the greatest wits that ever yet were could never clear them so, but still the difficulty which remains is so very great that no full satisfaction would ever be received if men's wills were bend as resolutely to receive no answer but a manifest one against the infallibility of scripture as the wills of Protestants are bend to reject all we can say in answer to their objections against infallibility of the Church, unless our answers be more manifestly evident than the Noone-sunn-shine: Wherhfore in this matter due respect to divine authority maketh us always so fare submit our understandings, by force of our will, that, if the contrary be not (as I may say) more than evident, we are resolved to yield no assent unto it. Any man who should ponder this on the one side, and than with due attention consider on the other side how very few the objections against the infallibility of the Church be, in comparison of the objections against the infallibility of Scripture, and with how much sweat and labour these be scarce solved at last? where as the others be answered so that nothing like evidence can be brought against them, especially if men would come to look upon these objections, as upon 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 unanswerable 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 found it even impossible for him in his conscience to deny that the objections against the infallibility of the Church be anywise either so many in Number or soinsuperable to human capacity as the objections be which may be made against the infallibility of Scripture. 2. And because this observation and note is of great moment to make the Protestant reader see, that it is more his own prejudice against the Churchs' infallibility, which stands in his light, than any solid reason; I will allege an objection or two, which poor weak human reason, moveth against the divine infallibility of all that is contained in undoubted Scripture. We need not go fare to found these objections. Even in the first Chapter of the first Gospel I found a difficulty so great, that though I have (as I fully think) most carefully sought satisfaction concerning it, in thirty or more of the best interpreters, yet I could found no answer half so satisfactory, as I, with my poor ability, hope to give to the very strongest objection that I could ever yet see made against the infallibility of the Church, taking the Church in the sense 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 fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying a way into Babylon are fourteen generations: and from the carrying a way into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. This is the infallible Text. Now take your fingers, and count with as great infallibility, as you can count, fourteen names set down in fair print before your eyes. In the first fourteen you will found Abraham to be the first and David to be the last. These you must not count over again in the second fourteen. So that Solomon is the first of the second fourteen, and jechonias is the last; and as David was not to be counted in the second fourteen, because he was already once counted in the first, so also jechonias must not be counted once more in the third fourteen, because he hath been once before counted in the second fourteen; whence it followeth that the first in the third fourteen is Salathiel the Son of jechonias, and the last must needs be Christ himself, so that you must found twelve more generations between Salathiel the first and Christ the last, or else (saith human reason) infallibly you have not fourteen generations as S. Matthew saith, you have. It is a small labour for you to see whether you have twelve more, or no? Lay every several finger upon every several name, and if you have ten fingers two names must remain untouched, or else you will not have twelve. I touched my thumb upon the name of Salathiel, whom I have proved to be the first of the last fourteen, than I touched the name of Zorobabel with my forefinger, and thus having touched all my ten fingers at the ten follawing names, I could not possibly see any more names to touch but the name of joseph. When reason told me that seemed to the very eye to be a demonstration that Salathiel, who was the first of this last fourteen having but eleven more following him to Christ, could not (with Christ) make up the last fourteen. How than, if this be infallibly true, cometh that also to be infallibly true which S. Matthew saith contrary to this, calling these last thirteen generations as clearly fourteen as he called the former. 3. Again S. Luke setting down the genealogy of Christ saith cap. 3. v. 35: 36. Salah which was the soon of Cainan which (Cainan) was the Son of Arphaxad. And all the Greek Copies of the new testament read thus, conformable to all the Greek Copies of the old testament Gen: 11. v. 12. Yet if you turn to this place in Genesis, translated faithfully by our vulgar, and your own Bible, you shall not find that Cainan was the Son of Arphaxad, as S Luke saith, but you shall find these words; And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begot Salah where as this Salah, was the Son of Cainan according to S. Luke and not the Son of Arphaxad. If you say this Salah was Arphaxads Son because Arphaxad was his grandfather I pray note that Arphaxad is said to have begot him, when he was five and thirty years old, whereas if you mark, even that Chapter of Genesis, you shall see no one there mentioned who had a Son before thirty years old; for as in those days they lived very long, so it was long before they used than to marry. Again there is yet a fare greater difficulty that the Greek Copy of the old testament, which S. Luke followed, readeth thus; And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Cainan, so that, if Arphaxad were Grand father to Salah because he begot his, father Cainan, when he himself was five and thirty years old (in which year of his age your Bible and ours say he begat Salah) thus Salah his grand child and Cainan his Father must be born the same year, which, saith reason, is infallibly false. Now if you say Cainan is to be omitted according to some greek Copies in the old testament yet what will you say to all the Copies of the new testament which most unanimously put him down. Hear venerable Bede professeth himself to admire that which his dulness cannot understand. And indeed I think no man understands it. And Reason is more gravelled and quite non-plussed at an other contradiction, which seemeth to her unavoidable. Turn in your Bible to the 2. King's cap. 8. v. 26. There you read Two and twenty years old was Ahazia when he began to reign and he reigned one year in jerusalem, and his Mother's name was Athaliath. Now turn 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 years old was Ahazia when he began to reign and he reigned one year in jerusalem his Mother's name was Athaliath. Against the infallibility than of Scripture reason conceiveth herself to have this infallible demonstration: No one is infallible in speech who speaketh two things quite contrary one to an other; but these two speeches be quite contrary, when of the same man one affirmeth. He began to reign when he was two and twenty year old and an other affirms that he was forty two years old; Therefore the Scripture is not infallible in speech. 4. Here by the way reflect (dear reader) how demonstratively false it is which our adversaries say, that by the only knowledge of Scripture a man may clearly be instructed in all fundamental or necessary points: now I ask, whether any point be with you more fundamental or more necessary than this; The Scripture is infallible? But this point is so fare from being 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 than any place of Scripture makes the contrary evident; For reason, left to herself, will sooner shifted of any place you can cite for the evidence of the Scriptures infallibility, than you shall be able to shif of the places cited. I do not put the answer to those three places, that the reader may, by his own experience, see how true it is that all that concerns necessary points is not clear in Scripture; for what point more necessary than that the Scripture is infallible, and what point hath such unanswerable difficulty as these be? If you could but bring half so clear a demonstration against the infallibility of the Church, how would you triumph? All that could be said by us would never satisfy you. And yet here you must be satisfied, or grant Scripture in itself not to be infallible. What fondness than, for incomparable weaker objections, to stand out so perniciously against the infallibility of the Church. Note this and you will soon note your own preposterous dealing. 5. Secondly I must set down here a note which, according to good method, some might have expected in the beginning of this question of infallibility; But had it been put down there, it might have been subject to have been forgotten before we should have come to make chief use of it, which is to be done in this next Section. This second note than is this, that my Reader must be made capable of what kind of infallibility we speak, when we say; the Church, in her traditions, and definitions, is infallible; or that these traditions and definitions deliver infallible verities unto us. This point is learnedly declared by our learned Country man Bacon in analysi fidei Disp: 3. cap. 7. citing divers solid Divines for this doctrine. We say than, that our act of faith, by which we believe the Church, proposing any thing to us 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 error: so that the understanding, which is informed, or made knowing by this act, aught to adhere so strongly to what such an Act affirmeth to be true, that though an Angel from heaven should say the contrary, this understanding would never be brought to assent to him. So firm adhesion floweth from an act secured so well from error by the causes which did produce it, I say with great reflection that this understanding by this act is so affected that the party would not be brought by the preaching of an Angel to believe the contrary, and I did not say that it could not be brought. For though the nature of evident knowledge showing 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 believeth, as long as this act remaineth unretracted. This firmness of adhesion springeth from the great value and esteem which we put (deservedly) upon the causes moving him to this assent. And this is the true reason why you will by no means be brought to doubt of the infallibility of the Scripture by any strong objection that your natural reason maketh, when she suggesteth such objections as I just now framed Mere pertinaciousnes also and a false fancy of the value of the causes by which even Heretics pretend to be moved to their errors, maketh many rather lose their lives, than forsake to stick close to what they imagine to be God's word: shall not than a prudent esteem, solidly grounded concerning the divine authority moving to the belief of these and these points, be able to make a man adhere so closely to them as I said? when than my understanding hath Motives, though not wholly infallible, yet such as 'cause a most prudent assent that God hath said such a thing; and this is made so evidently credible unto me, that in prudence I cannot think it to be otherwise, and Heaven, is also by most highly valuable promises, offered me, if I will assent to this with that respect which is due to God's word, and Hell on the contrary is threatened unto me by most truly formidable menaces, if I will not assent to this verity as to a Verity affirmed by God; am I not rather stark mad, than imprudent only if I will not bend my understanding by force of my will to adhere with all its power, to this verity, as to a Verity affirmed by God, and esteem it as such a Verity aught to be esteemed. Wherhfore, as it is a blasphemous inpiety to suspect that the very lest danger of falsity can be in a thing affirmed by God; so, because the reasons I alleged make me carry myself so towards that (which is thus proposed to me to believe) as towards a Verity teveled by God, the self same reasons do make me consequently more willing to deny any natural evidence, that I can have, then to give way to the entertainment 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 upon is this, such an infallibility of adhesion as this act is, cannot be liable, or any way subject to uncertainty, not more than the infallibility of that man whom God had fully resolved so to guide, and direct, in all that he should say or writ, that he would never permit him to say or writ, the lest falsity, although this Man never knew nor suspected himself to have this privilege. Just so, though, we neither feel, nor by evidence know the infallibility of our assent, our act of assent will be infallible, if God really concur unto it by such principles as are no way liable to error. All the difficulty than in proving this our assent to be infallible, consisteth in this, whether or not we can prove that God concurreth to this assent by such principles as are no way liable to error? To prove this we must prove that our assent hath for its object not only an apparent Revelation, but also a revelation certainly true, and not only true casually (by our hitting by chance upon such an object as is truly revealed by God) but it must be of such a nature that it cannot, in these circumstances guide me to assent to any thing but that which cannot but be truly revealed. This than I prove thus. Although there might be imagined such circumstances in which God could let me have all the motives which so powerfully move to believe 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 permit (in the circumstances in which men now live) any falsity to be commended to our belief by so powerful motives as these be to wit miracles, full report of million and millions teaching uniformly the same points to have been delivered down to them, by millions attesting that they received them as delivered from the Apostles, and thus going up until we come to them who testify that with their own ears they heard all these points delivered by them and did see them work worlds of miracles in confirmation of them, that they did hear those simple men resute all Philosophers, speak all languages, tell the very secrets of the heart, foretell things to come without ever missing etc. supposing I say that the divine Providence is resolved never to let any falsity cloak herself with these powerful 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 holdeth good whether I be or be not assured, that the divine Providence is resolved never to permit any falsity to be thus recommended to us. For it is not our knowing that no falsity will ever be permitted by God to be thus recommended to us, which is the cause why no falsity can be thus recommended: but it is merely the extrinsecall will of God, determining to provide so for our sure guidance to that end, for which he created us, that hence he comes to resolve not to permit at any time, any falsity to be so powerfully recommended unto us as it should be by these Motives of Credibility which he setteth a part for his peculiar use of delivering the Verities of our faith unto us as we set the use of our Scales a part for ratifying only such things as we intent to acknowledge for our own true deeds. 7. If you ask of me, how I can prove that God hath resolved never to permit any falsity to be recommended by those motives, by which the Verities of our faith are recommended? I answer that first, the motives, which rencommended 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 City as London to those who never came near London by a hundred miles. How much than would it misbeseeme the divine verity and Goodness to concur to the making of a falsity so credible as it is credible to all men that there is such a City as London? But Secondly it would far more misbeseeme him to make not less assured offers of Heaven to those who would believe a Lie thus recommended, and threaten Hell unto them without they would embrace such a Lie, even for a verity revealed by God, which threats were as certaintly to be feared as London is certaintly to be believed to be in England by those who have not seen London. Thirdly it is evident that God can impose an obligation upon man to follow the true Religion as a means necessary to obtain his Salvation, which … gion may propose some Verities to be believed as divine and as things revealed by God: Now supposing our nature and present condition, (I may boldly say) either that belief which is recommended by such motives as ours are, must be this true Religion, or you cannot assign unto me any other kind of belief, recommended by any other kind of motives, which can make it seem so credible to me as our Religion, It is impossible that a mere lie should be so much more credible than God's true word, as our religion is absolutely more credible then any false belief; for this would breed a notable disparagement and disesteem of the divine Authority, making it of less credit than a Lie. How can that God, who hath a serious will to oblige us to embrace that belief as divine, which is the only true way appointed by him to lead us to heaven, have a will also directly destructive of this will? that is, how can he have a will to permit the Lies, opposite to what he would have us believe, to be in all reason made more credible by the motives which recommend them, than those Verities are which according to reason he would have us embrace, not only for Verities, but for Verities affirmed by him; that is, for infallible Verities? So that you see at last we have brought it to a plain contradiction to say, that (supposing our nature and the present circumstances appointed de facto, by the divine providence) our Religion recommended by the foresaid motives should be false in this present state, whatsoever it might have been in some other state, which God could have chosen if he would have had no providence concerning us: to which providence I confess nothing could oblige him. 8. Supoosing than no more than what is evident both by Scripture and reason, that God is resolved to have a providence over us, and to bring us to the end for which he made us by the belief of several 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 belief these verities (which he would have us believe) by such motives, as no lie can come recommended by him as long as he still intends to use this providence towards us. The acts than of our faith are infallible, because really (whether the party who believeth knoweth it or not) these acts proceed from such causes as are uncapable (in these present circumstances) of recommending any thing that is false: But they still recommend that which is attested not by any apparent, but by a most true revelation made by Christ's Apostles to the Church; which Church also is, by the like motives, recommended, as infallible, and we evidently, by our very senses, know what this Church certainly teacheth: whereas, though all which the Scripture saith be infallible, yet we have not only not infallibility, but even no very probable certainty of our understanding the Scripture in the true sense in many necessary points, except it be by the instruction of the Church; as hath fully been showed Sect: 7. 9 Now besides these exterior principles of our assent, by which I say we believe with an infallible belief the articles of our faith, we must here note that the assent itself is never produced (even by those who have the Habit of true faith) unless it be by the supernatural illumination of God, elevating us to all that hath immediate relation to the Supernatural state of Heavenly glory, whence S. Paul teacheth us that in order to attain this high state we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves but our sufficiency is from God 2. Cor: 3.5. Every time that a true believer exerciseth an act of true faith, God, of his infinite goodness, affordeth this supernatural light infusing it unto the understanding to elevate it, and enable it, to produce the supernatural act of faith. Yet when man hath not this supernatural assistance in his act, he cannot tell, be he never so learned. This all may know, that God doth never give this supernatural help to believe any thing, which is not really delivered by a true revelation made to the Apostles, otherwise he might be said to give supernatural aid to believe a Lie. 10. Out of all this discourse, that appeareth to be true, which we most desire to be noted, that our acts of faith may be most truly infallible and are proved to be so, because they proceed from Causes so determining to that only which is true, that they cannot determine our assent to any falsity and that all this happeneth thus although we cannot evidently know when we believe infallibly. SECT: XXIIII. Twenty Objections of an University 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 University man to a work of john Daille, set forth to excuse the reformed Churches from Schisms, twenty objections urged with so great confidence against the infallibility of the Church that at the end of his Preface he promiseth to turn Papist if such objections be punctually answered; but with all he would have yet one argument more solved. I shall endeavour to give him a little more large satisfaction than he requireth, For I will also return him answer to all that concerns this point either in this or any other part of his Preface. 2. First than P. 22. he would overthrew all we have said of the Churches being our judge in Controversies because so little is said against Heretics, for denying this, by S. Epiphanius and S. Austen, to which I have abundantly answered Sect: 2. As also he would have us condemned by the silence of Tertullian, which I have answered Sect: 20. n. 9 fine and by the like silence of Vincent Lerinen which I have answered Sect: 7. What you add of Optatus and S. Austen, who found against their adversaries no judge upon earth (as yond say) but Scripture, you must note that they spoke as they did, not because the faithful people were not provided of an other infallible judge but because those contentious fellows against whom they spoke did (as Optatus intimateth) make no account of the Churches contrary judgement as the jews make no account of our new testament: Wherhfore as, when Doctors or Father's dispute against jews, they do not stand pressing them with the authority of the new testament, though they themselves hold it of infallible authority (because the know the jews scoff at such authorities) so S. Austen here, and formerly cited by you, as also Optatus, did not stand pressing their adversaries with the Authority of the Church, which they themselves held infallible because they knew those Heretics would as much scoff at them as the jews would scoff at those who should press the Authority of the new testament, and as you use to scoff at us if we only cite the Council of Trent against you. Wherhfore you see that I, who so clearly hold the Church our infallible judge, do not take any text of the Council of Trent for my argument to prove this, though I hold that Council infallible. 3. Again you object S. Paul's making no mention of this judge 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 judge; nor doth he warn them to take great heed of the Bishops of that city who in time would usurp a judicative authority which should be the bane of Christendom, as D. Ferne speaks, and make all their errors incurable, as you both speak, which news would have been worth all the rest of his Epistle, in the judgement of those who pass their judgement with that profane Liberty that you do here. The truth is that this judgement seat concerned not more the Romans, than 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 than, which not more concerned the Romans than all the world was not in reason to be intimated to them in particular. What you add next of the deep silence of the Fathers and Historians about this point, must needs turn to confounded your ignorance when you shall have read all I said Sect: 18. 19 20. 21. 22. Your ensving discourse (for as much as concerns our doctrine of infallibility) hath had its full answer in my last Section, by which you will see that when any thing is believed, which is not truly revealed, the Act of faith can never be infallible, and so no act of faith concerning Protestantisme can be infallible. Neither are we infallible because the Acts of our faith are infallible, not more than all those who believed Christ himself or his Apostles were infallible. They are indeed infallibly guided but if they leave of being thus guided, and will be come guides, they will soon bewray their own fallibility. What next concerns infallibility, be your twenty Objections put by way of questions, as some of them indeed are. 4. OBjection 1. You ask whether there be any infallible judge upon Earth! I have given you a full answer Quest: 1. 5. OB: 2. whether the Church be that judge? and why not rather some of those ten 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 years to teach the Church that which no one parish of the Church can ever be proved to have held. The very citing Scripture for ten several judges (as you say Chilling: doth) showeth clearly how infinitely short of solid proof all other judge's Commissions fall in comparison of what we have alleged for the Church's Authority in this point through the whole third Question. 6. OB: 3. whether the Roman Church be this judge? Yes. See all my proofs 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 practical duty of any Catholic. School speculations (or Divines private opinions) have nothing to do with necessary faith. 8. OB: 5. Here your questions turn to objections, which contain in general the difficulties concerning those persons who aught to have their free votes in a Council. Concerning this point I have said something. Sect: 18. n. 3. by which the Laics and inferior Clergy are sufficiently excluded, though these Clergy men's votes as Consultive, or for advice sake be most laudably demanded. when they be eminent divines; And, for the comfort of the weaker, their subscriptions may be of very good use and service to overwhelm Heretics by such authority as they use to fear most, who slight any mention of more than human authority in Counsels. And because amongst all these inferior Clergy men you think the Chor-episcopi to be most regarded, I will easily satisfy you concerning their small right to pass a decisive voice in general Counsels, If you have either the Counsels or the Sum of them by Carranza you shall found in the decrees of Pope Damasus, as ancient as he his, how being 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 their institution was wicked, and too too bad, and contrary to the Sacred Canons and the Peace of the whole Church. And therefore he defined that all was vain and voided that they had done in the Episcopal 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 seem necessary for the peculiar care thy had over the poor, and though by Ordination they were only Priests they presumed at last to exercise many things belonging to Bishops to consecrated subdeacons', and deacons' etc. But their ambition was soon kerbed by the Church; And Bishops were severely forbidden to lay any part of their Episcopal function upon them. I say than that only Bishops have right in a general Council. For of thee Prelates only it was said; He that will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a publican or Heathen. To them only it was said Go and teach all Nations, and Lo I am with you until the end of the world. To them all those special promises of divine assistance were made which I urged Sect: 15. n: 17. None of these are directed to Laikes or inferior Clergy men, who succeeded the disciples and not the Apostles. 9 OB: 6. Whether these Bishops assembled (with their Head and chief Pastor) be so absolutely infallible that they cannot determine falsely in point of faith let them do what they will? I answer, that, as I shown Sect: 19 n. 1. 2. they are to regulate themselves according to Scripture and tradition, discussing carefully what hath been revealed to the Church by these means, concerning the points which they treat of. See the place I cited and you will see how notoriously manifest their proceed must needs be; but they must be the judges, and not we, that they have done their duty in regulating themselves according to those two infallible rules yet we are secured that they have done their duty both by the notorious publicity of the fact and by their subscriptions to the legal carriage of all that essentially concerns the Being of a true Council; and also by seeing no considerable part of the Church diffused, refuse their decrees. Fear not you to do, what you see all the Church do, with so universal a consent: neither will I press you to consent, until you first see this general consent go before you. Were there any notorious neglect of legal proceeding to the introducing of error, the whole Church representative and diffusive, would never be permitted by God, to submit cheerfully thereunto. I might ask how shall I know the Scripture writers did their duty in obeying divine inspiration? If they did not: a dieu all faith. 10. OB: 7. How shall I know when they determine aright? what is required to a Synodical Constitution? Must all concur in the vote, or will the mayor part serve the turn? I answer you shall know all these things to have been done as they should be, by seeing that all have subscribed to the Council as proceeding legally in her Constitutions, which also you may stay to see accepted by the Church for lawful decrees. When you see this done, without any considerable contradiction, I hope you will think you may prudently submit, and cannot but imprudently stand out any longer. And for your particular we will condescend to you to stand out so long. When you are to be so leading a man of whole Provinces, that your submission would be required before any of theirs, it will be a longer work to tell you all belonging to your duty. What belongs to you at present I have told you in order to practice. The constant practice of the Church hath sufficiently informed the leading men Governors of the Church how they are to proceed in doing that which so many ages have practised before them. 11. OB: 8. What makes a general Council; must all the Bishops of the world be called? I answer that makes a general Council which hath, ever since the primitive Church, served to make all the general Counsels which have been made. Look on the first Council in the Apostles time and you will found not all the Apostles but only Peter, james, john, Paul, and Barnaby present. See Baron: An: 51. And yet their Decrees sent to all Churches did bear this preface. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. In the four first Counsels (which your English Church admitteth) the fourth part of the Bishops was never present, and in the Counsels kept in the East few Bishops appeared from the west, and to the Counsels kept in the west few Bishops came commonly from the East. The practice of the Church (the best interpreter of divine Laws) teace that it sufficeth that all who can conveniently he called and summoned do appear, and that such a competent number appear and set in Council as those (who are assembled together with their head) judge sufficient on the one side; and on the other side that those who be not present, knowing well enough (as we see by experience of the appearance made in Parliament how all men know how great or little it is) those I say knowing how great or little the appearance of Bishops is in the Council, say nothing against it, but silently consent to permit them to proceed as a sufficient Representative of the Church and accordingly admit of their Decrees when they are made. 12. OB: 9 Whether it be a Lawful Council if all come not who are called. I have made my answer already that it is sufficient that a sufficient 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 general Council? The Pope, or Christian Kings and Emperors? And how shall I be assured which of them must? I answer that it is evident out of Scripture that there is no divine Institution by which either Emperors Or Kings be assured to be still found in the world; or that (when they have that dignity) they be, by divine institution, invested with a power to call Counsels. We seek for this divine institution. This we will not admit until it can be showed in Scripture or tradition. The fact of calling showeth not divine institution. Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church we can show divine institution. Act. 20.28. Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God. And 4. Ephe: Not Lay magistrates but only ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the Body of Christ, that hence forth we may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine: etc. Thirdly the Emperor 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 than it can or aught to be able to Move; the Imperial power which neither can nor aught to move further than it reigneth, cannot consequently command any further than his territory at the uttermost. The Power of the chief Pastor of the universal Church is coextended to the universal Church. All Bishops of the universal Church being to be moved must be moved by such a power as this is. If Emperors called counsels; it was not by any Ecclesiastical calling (such an one as the Pope called them by at the very self same time) but the Emperor's calling, was only political, proceeding from a temporal power, subserving to the Ecclesiastical, and not able to force them by censure in case of refusing to come, as the Ecclesiastical power could, which power inplored the Imperial assistance to concur with her, only for the more effectual execution. Perhaps sometimes Emperors might venture to call dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastor, which they presumed would be easily obtained in so just necessities as than seemed to press for a speedy remedy. If Emperors or Kings were present in Council, it was only by their presence and good Countenance to honour, encourage and further the proceed of the Council, and not to pass their vote in points of belief. 14. OB: 11. How fare be the Counsels determinations 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 their having been done so, or not done so, either in Scripture of Tradition; Wherhfore concerning matters of fact the Church rules herself by no former revelation, and she pretends to no new Revelations, but only to declare clearly what she 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 unto you. Things of fact are said and testified only by men therefore not objects of faith. 15. OB: 12. Whether in these matters of faith the Church be infallible in fundamentals only? I answer that in all the Authorities which I cited for the infallibility of the Church out of Scripture Sect: 14. n. 3. etc. and 15. I shown that they are groundlessly restrained to only fundamentals in the sense you mean. The same was proved by my Reason's Sect: 16. 16. OB: 13. How shall I infallibly know what points are fundamental what not? I answer This question may pose those who will be restraining the general promises of infallible assistance made to the Church to fundamental points only; that is unto they themselves know not what. But to us Catholics all is fundamental which is made appear to be proposed to us by the Church as a Verity revealed by God, whether it be in a matter more or less importing of its own nature. 17. OB: 14. How shall I know in time of Schism, when there be two Popes or more, which of these is S. Peter's true Successor? I answer that this question, as explicated by you, is put very unskilfully. For you pass from arguing against the infallibility of a Pope, as defining with a Council, to argue against those Divines who deliver not the Church's belief, but their private opinion to be that the Pope should beheld infallible out of a Council; concerning which opinion, I have showed it all ready to be impertinent to our purpose. Your Objection against us, should be put thus. The Church (with us) is held to be the Pope defining with a Council, But in time of schisms, where there be more pretended Popes, we do not assuredly know that he who defines with the Council is the true Pope, or Successor of S. Peter. And than I answer thus, If before the calling and meeting of the Council there be more than one pretending to be Popes, that he shall ever be esteemed the right Pope, to whom the Prelates of the Church shall unanimously obey when he calleth them to meet in a general Councel, and in this Council 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 Lawful Council. What you say of Popes not defining in such a Council, is not our Case. Put me a Pope defining with a Lawful Council, and than prove him fallible if you can. Whether the Pope's definitions out of a Council be fallible or infallible, maketh nothing to this purpose. Only this is evident, if they be infallible out of a Council, they be infallible in a Council in all opinions. I add with Bellarm: lib. 2. de Concilijs cap. 19 that Although a Council with out a Pope cannot define any article of faith, yet in time of Schism, it can judge which is true Pope, and provide the Church of a true Pastor, if she had none; who thus provided by the Counsels authority; may dissolve the Council 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 Counsels called by the Pope. In that meeting in which the Pope was to be chosen, or declared the undoubted Pope, the Prelates of the Church might, and aught to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves. 18. OB: 15. Suppose all agreed on the Pope and a general Council meet, how shall I be sure that he, who is accounted Pope, is so indeed? for Simony makes him none; and that he was not simonical is impossible for me to know? and than you labour to prove that Sixtus Quintus was notoriously Simoniacal which maketh nothing to our purpose: Neither followeth it from hence that those, who, being made Cardinals 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 Cardinal To that which is pertinent, I answer, that though he, whose election to the Popedom is simonical, may be deposed, as having obtained that dignity unlawfully yet, as all jurists say The Crown once obtained supplieth all defects, So I may fare better say, that this defect being only against Ecclesiastical Laws, may be supplied so, that of an illegal Pope, he may be after ward made a Lawful 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 Council, and permitting him, as their head, to preside, and as supreme Pastor to define in the Council. Lastly by the Churches, admission of the Council I know the Council, and consequently the Pope was as legal as is necessary. 19 OB: 16. How shall I know that those Bishops who with the Pope make up the Council be Bishops indeed. For no Bishops, no Council. Now if he, who ordained them, when he gave orders did not intent to give them those orders (and whether he did or no God only knows) than they be no Bishops. I answer that If they be Bishops I am bound to admit their decrees, and as he should sinne damnably, who would not honour such a man held by all men to be his true Father, because it is impossible for him to know that his Mother did not lie when she said so, or to know whether it be not the devil in his Father's shape, so I should sinne damnably in not acknowledging, by due Obedience these to be true Fathers of God's people who are esteemed so by all the world upon fare better ground than such a man is esteemed your Father For first those who ordain Bishops or Priests be for the most part men most eminent in the Church. How is it than morally possible, that many such men should just bappen, in so many several places of the world, just to be the Ordeyners of just such Bishhops, as should be in the Church just at that time, (which commonly is not above once in a hundred years) when a Council is called. Again there be more than three thousand Bishops at a time in the Church (as witnesseth Alb: Ros: Rubric: ff. de statu omnium) out of which number we see that it is very rare for more than three hundred to be assembled at a Council, which is but every tenth Bishop, now morally impossible is it that just every tenth Bishop should hap just to be that Bishop who goeth to the Council from this part of the world (where in an age no one Bishop was ever heard of to be thus invalidly ordained) and that just at the same time there should come from an other part of the world (where such an abominable ordination is as unheard of as in this part) an other Bishop, whose ill hap it was to be thus ordained And thus from a third, fourth fifth sixth part of the world, just such Bishops should come in a number sufficient to make the number of other true Bishops unsufficient for a true Council. Surely this is a thing fare more morally impossible than that the Common wealth of England should ever hap 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 john. This I prove evidently: because to confer holy orders or baptise without a due intention, is not only a Sin most abominable and damnable, but it is such a Sin as bringeth with it neither pleasure nor proffitt nor any thing which may the lest entice any ordinary man (much) less Bishops and Priests to commit a sin so hideous: and so unprofitable wherefore from Christ's time to this I do not think that the most knowing man upon earth doth know to produce six examples of the committing of this sin. But on the other side no man knoweth so little, but he hath knowledge enough to tell him, with out any rash judgement, that it is an ordinary thing in every County and City of England to found divers known Bastards, and that the number of the unkown is ten times as great. And again the name of john is the most common of all names; wherefore considering the nature of things, it is fare from all impossibility that many of these Bastards should be called by this name And their Bastardisme not being known, the election may fall upon them in this County; and what happeneth in this County may happen in an other, and so in all at once. Weaker fare than this is your argument And yet how secure would all men think England from all misery, if we were all fully assured that no misery should fall upon this Nation until we did chance to have a free Parliament, consisting of three hundred men, of which every one should be a Bastard and every one called john? It is great want of solidity in judgement in so many sharp witted men▪ to esteem so much such a weak argument. And this is true prescinding from all special providence of almighty God over his Church; but the lest thought of that providence maketh this light objection vanish into smoke, and together with it the next Objection. For how easily could God put itt efficaciously in the minds of true Bishops to meet in a sufficient number and when I see the Church Universal admit such a Council 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 etc. Here you discourse just as before and the same answer answereth you to the full. Yet for a further answer to both I will show how wise your argument is by framing just an other like to it thus. O Christians how do you infallibly know that in these Sixtenne ages since the Age of writing of the Bible the Devil in some one Age did not entice as many men as were sufficient to corrupt the Bible for I cannot see but that the Devil might easily make so many promises fare more enticing than any ordinary motive which should move men to baptise a child in a false form or with want of due intention with such promises than the devil might entice those who did writ out the Bible, to writ false, just 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 pass for the only true ones; And how know we infallibly that this might not have been done much after that age in which the devil incited the Tyrants to force all Christians to give up their Bibles to be burnt, by which means the true Copies growing scarce, false ones might possibly be brought into common use by the malice of the devil as hath been said. And this exemple defeateth also your next objection. Doth the divine Providence Sleep in this manner? 21. OB: 18. How shall we know certainly that these are the determinations of the Council? false Canons may be foisted in and false Copies may be vented. I answer that what hath, or hath not been decreed by a Council, may as well, and fare better be known certainly, than what hath been decreed by one of our Parliaments, For Counsels be so much more notified to all, because they be the Parliaments not of one, but of all Catholic nations and so their deeds are more public. Now how intolerable a caveller were he in a Commonwealth, who should pled the not obliging of Parliamentary decrees, by reason of the impossibility to know for certain what was decreed? and which were the true Copies of the true decrees? You would petswade us that we cannot be sure of that of which we see by daily experience we may be made as sure as we would wish. The decrees of Counsels are publicly read, in the Council publicly subscribed, and sealed by the Council The Original of these subscriptions carefully preserved, the Copies first set forth before divers witnesses are conferred with the Original with a public testimony (as you may see at the end of any Bull) that it Agreeth with the Original. Those, who in great Number were present, at the making of the decrees do own them; no one in the Church disclaims from them and in case any should satisfaction would presently be given. Our very adversaries writ against us for decreeing such and such things, The fact is never denied, but ever defended. If in any press, a false Copy should be set forth you will have prohibition after prohibition, and penalty added to penalty, until those Copies be suppressed; and all books would be noting, and notifying this forgery: As we see in our Church by daily experience in matters of less consequence, as in setting forth the decrees of Cardinals, the Decisions of that Roman Court called the Rota, or any other thing of this nature. These evidences make every one know these decrees with an unquestionable credibility, which, when we have, we are sufficiently furnished (for as much as concerns the proposing of the object to embrace with our will these decrees as proceeding from the Holy Ghost, and teaching Verities revealed by God, upon which we immovably fix our understanding, and we are resolved by our will to fix it so firmly, because (by God's Grace) we have a will to proceed prudently in so important an affair as the salvation of our Soul to which Heaven is offered if she will submit to believe what God thus reveeleth; And Hell is threatened if she will not thus submit. And this offer and threats be as prudently to be regarded as certain, as English men prudently believe that there is such a cytty as London. Nothing than which is not most rational is required of us it being most manifestly made credible, that this is the true command of God Mad therefore is that Soul, which will not submit. See what I said in the former Section from the fifth number to the end. And also what I fully expressed Sect: 16. n: 6. For that which you add of forging a Canon of the Council of Nice I doubt not but you may twenty times have met with a satisfactory answer there unto. See Baronius or Spondan: An: 419. n. 13. Tell me do forged Scriptures make the true Books of Scripture to Become fallible? 22. OB: 19 How shall I be assured of the meaning of the true decrees when I now know them? For learned men have been of contrary opinions about the meaning of them. I answer, that to ease your tender Conscience, we will permit you not to give your assent to any thing, of which you are not in Conscience manifestly persuaded that this, and only this, is the true meaning of such a Council: so that you be ready prepared in mind and heart to submit to the true meaning, when you shall come manifestly to know it. To more than this we press no body: only let not people feign that they do not know what they know, or easily may know if they will: you must observe that Counsels use to be assembled against such and such known opinions of Sectaries: against these they frame their decrees so clearly, that the Sectaries themselves cannot found impudence enough to deny their opinions to be clearly condemned, and the contrary clearly defined: Wherhfore we see by experience they never so much as offer to do this; But all their forces are bend to cry down and vilify the authority, by which they were condemned. Some other passages in Counsels may be found to be of an ambiguous sense, and until those passages be by public authority, further declared, we hold no man an Heretic for not taking them in the sense which some men are most inclined to conceive them to be spoken. Hence appeareth the great benefit it is to have a living judge, to whom all that is doubtful may be referred and a clear declaration procured, as it is expressly noted in the very end of the Council of Trent. 23. OB: 20. What necessity of an infallible judge at all? I answer first, who assured you that God would give no prerogative to his Church which is not precisely necessary for her very preservation? D. Fern professeth such a judge would be of singular benefit for the keeping of unity in the Church, and the ending all Controversies. See what I said Sect: 18. n. 2. I have also shown the great necessity of this judge Sect: 1. n. 4. etc. True it is during the most bloody persecution of the first 300. years the Christian world could not enjoy this benefit: But I pray note what S. Isidor saith Praefat: in suam Canonum collectionem; where having observed what I now said of the persecutions hindering the keeping of Counsels, he addeth that hence Christianity was torn in to divers Heresies, because licence was not given to the Bishops to meet in Counsels until the time of the foresaid Emperor (Constantine:) And yet for the first three hundred year's Tradition of all points necessary could not but be so fresh as to make a fare less necessity of Counsels than afterwards 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 wholly impertinent to this purpose. For it concerns not any article defined by our Church, but private opinions of some private divines in our Church, whose opinions (though never so erroneous) aught not to hinder your conversion if you were in earnest. Yet even in this I hope to give you satisfaction. Your objection than is P. 16. out of D. Taylor, endeavouring to prove our inconsistency with civil government, because some of our Divines teach, that that which one or two or some few of our Doctors say is lawful, may, in our judgements, be done without mortal sin: But not only one, but many of our Doctors say 'tis lawful to murder or depose a supreme Magistrate that is guilty of Heresy, or suspected of it: therefore Cavete Principes Conclusionem, say you; but according to truer Logic you should say Cavete Principes Heresim. I answer first, this objection maketh nothing against our faith, but against private opinions of private Divines, which opinions he who will practise must expect public execution, which is so terrible, that it secures Princes more than any preachers frighting them with fear of Sinne. Secondly I do nothing doubt but even those Divines would so limit, and restrain their lose opinion to such peculiar circumstances, as would presently clear, even their opinion from being the lest inconsistent with the present government, besides our cheerful willingness to take any oath, and enter into any Bond, obliging us to the loss of all that in this world can be lost, if ever we so much as attempt the putting this opinion in practice, which cheerful willingness I am sure you will found in any Roman Catholic friend you have or can have in England. But I dare boldly say, that those very Doctors never intended to speak of the lawfulness of murdering an Heretical King, or Governor in a Country where that which they call Heresy, did already over whelm the whole Nation. I say nothing of their other many Restrictions. 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 their Brothers, have fare more lose principles than these are, uttered even by their prime Apostles of their Reformation. You own the Wiccleffians for Brothers: they all believe that every Magistrate doth truly for feitt his authority by sinning. You own Luther for your prime Patriarch, and Calvin for his second: the first is notoriously known to have preached rebellion, and to have said that the Gospel is not Gospel except it he divulged with timults: and Calvin speaks thus cap. 6. in Daniel. v. 22.25. Earthly Princes do bereave themselves of authority, when they erect themselves against God, and, we must rather spit in their faces than obey them. See Beza de jure Magistratuum in subditos; to say nothing of a world of others which might be cited whom you hold not to have erred fundamentally in true Religion, and consequently these their errors not to be damnable. And The author of the end to Controversies hath lately in his Preface showed in particular how in every place but England your new Reform was brought in by rebellion. And D. Ferne. §. 16. saith Those Churches had but tumultuary Reformations. 26. Having now complied with your desire I might claim the performance of your promise, but I know God's grace must rather be earnestly begged, than you earnestly pressed. Lay prejudice a side, with other human respects, and pray humbly to know the truth: and than by God's grace, that may be done without which you will be eternally undone. THE LAST SECTION. The Roman Church having been proved to be our infallible judge, all under pain of damnation are bound to submit to her judgement. I. IN my first Question I proved (n. 1.) that there must be some certain and assured means to end all controversies or doubts which either be or can be in Religion. And (n. 3.) I proved that all must needs agreed in this, that our understanding must be bound, under pain of damnation, to submit itself to that infallible judge or Rule appointed by God to decide all necessary controversies. Now, because all faith essentially consisteth in the inward understanding (which is the very seat of true or false faith) God, who looketh in to our interior Soul, exacteth to see in that a ready embracing of that faith without which no Salvation is to be had: And therefore, as I said, he should not seriously desire our Salvation unless he desired that we interiorly should yield, full assent to this one, and only saving faith, of which faith the Apostle said that with out it it was impossible to please God, and S. Mark, He who doth not believe shall be damned. A false faith, taking the belief of a lie for a divine verity can help to save no body. All than, to please God, and to be saved must have true faith which essentially consisting in the interior judgement, God would have this judgement readily to submit to the direction, or determination of that infallible judge which was appointed by him as the only means to bring us assuredly to this one true faith. I earnestly in treat the Reader to read the proof of all this in the place above cited And Sect. 16. n. 10. 2. All this interior submission of understanding, to-be due even to all that is said in the Bible, and that even under pain of damnation, will easily be granted by any Sectary, holding the Bible to be that only Rule and direction which God hath given every one, as the only means to bring him assuredly to the true faith: We Catholics do no less readily than they, submit to the Bible as to God's word: but from the beginning to the ending of the second Question, we have brought a world of evident and most convincing reasons; proving that the Scripture, by itself alone, cannot be the only means appointed us by God to bring us to the assured knowledge of the true Faith necessary to Salvation; neither can it by itself alone, end and decide all controversies about such matters of belief and practice as are wholly necessary to Salvation; This I have showed in above four and twenty particular points: Whence it followeth that God hath appointed some other means for our certain and assured guidance in all these things. This other means I have proved, through all my third question, to be the infallible direction of the Church, and than I passed to show at large (through all my fourth Question) that this Church, whose direction is infallible is the Roman Church, taking the Roman Church as containing all that whole flock of Christ's sheep adhering to the Bishop of Rome, as to their head Pastor, in what place of the world so ever they live. I have showed the Traditions of this Church to be infallible. I have showed the decrees or definitions set forth in any lawful General Council 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 than supposed; I do not see how our very adversaries (convinced of the former points) can deny that all submission, interior, and exterior, must of necessity be yielded to this Church, whose directions be infallible, and secured by the assistance of the Holy Ghost from all kind of error: for, on the one side, there cannot be imagined the lest fear of falling into any error, by following our guide, who is proved to be secured from leading into error, and on the other side, this security from error, 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 their Salvation by it; and this direction being also the only safe and secure means which he hath given us to this end; it is manifest that we sin damnably if we refuse to follow it. First because it is a damnable Sin not to submit to that order of government which the divine providence hath by his wisdom and also his Sovereign Authority appointed unto all for their direction: For (as we at large showed out of S. Austen Sect: 21. n. 5.) if God should give a man Commission to direct us in such points, unto which he would have all to conform, he who should refuse to submit to the direction of this man, should be guilty of damnable disobedience, not so much towards this man, as towards God who gave that Commission to this man: so God (according to what hath been proved) having given Commission to the Church to decide and determine all our Controversies in faith, and to direct us in all things necessary to Salvation, as well in belief, as practice; to stand out against the Church, and not to submit to this order appointed by God, is a most damnable sin of refractory disobedience. 4. Secondly we have no stricter obligation imposed by the Law of Charity towards our own selves, than to procure that last end for which we were cracted, to wit the eternal Salvation of our own Souls: We 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) believeth not, shall be damned. Mark. 16. v. 16. He than, who will not take pains and care to see himself securely settled in this true faith (so wholly necessary to Salvation) is damnably guilty of uncharitableness towards his own Soul; whose greatest and eternal good he neglecteth to procure, by neglecting to procure the only means of true faith, by which it can only be attained. And let no body say this Means is too hard to be procured by me; for I am no scholar but a poor ignorant creature. This will not excuse you for God knew well enough, that the far greater part of those, whom he created for eternal Salvation and obliged to work the same with fear and trembling, and for whom he did, shedding the Last drop of his blood so to purchase a greater plenty of graces for them; this God, I say, knew well enough that the greater part of those, for which he did and suffered so much, were poor ignorant people: and therefore he had been no earnest Lover of Souls, if he had not ordained some means so easy, even to the ignorant, that they thereby, might effectually be brought to that true faith, which he so rigorously exacteth of all under pain of damnation. This means, and this only means, I have proved at large to be the infallible guidance and direction of the Church, whose traditions and decrees in all points necessary are so inculcated by every preacher and Catechist of this Church, that it is impossible for any one, desirous of instruction, to live in ignorance of them; impossible to live according to them and not to be saved. For this Commandment 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 up for us to heaven, and bring it down unto us, that we may hear it, and do it. Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldest say who shall go over the sea for us and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it. But the word is very nigh unto thee. Deutr: 30.11. We exact not the knowledge of Greek, and Hebrew, and the use of near twenty Rules more as I have showed our adversaries to do Sect: 7. n. 6. But we exact only the following this so know direction of the Church A way so direct that no fool can err in it. And we having so groundedly seen that this is the direction given us by God to follow, we do not proceed blindly by following it with all submission, but no blindness is greater than in an unkown way, through which of nececessity we must pass at our eternal peril if we miss to refuse the following of an infallible guide provided for us and offered to us in this passage and rather to yield ourselves over to a confessed fallible direction. What greater blindness? 5. D. Ferne indeed and Protestant's discourse otherwise of the submission due to the Church; but it is upon the false supposition that She is fallible, without they mean to discourse only of their own Church, and than they may truly suppose her as fallible as they please: and she being so fallible they most unreasonably are still exacting of us even by most rigorous sequestration of all our estates, ad by what other penalties they think fit, to leave that Church which we so groundedly hold to be the only infallible guide appointed us by God himself, as the only means to direct us securely to our eternal Salvation and to yield exterior conformity to their own new moulded Church, which they all confess and profess to be fallible: which is to say, you must be undone in your estate, without you conform yourselves to that new reformation of ours, which perhaps is true. For we do not challenge infallible truth to what we teach, we being fallible men, and our interpretations of God's word being only fallible; Yet infallibly we will undo you, if you will not follow us: and yet if you do follow us perhaps you may be undone eternally; for we cannot say that our Church is infallible in what she teacheth contrary to yours. She may therefore deceive you to embrace a for a divine Verity: For you must be forced to embrace 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 Heretical and which as such were rejected by almost all visible Christianity for this last thousand years, and which will perhaps shortly be rejected by us. For it is ordinary with us (I speak what truly Protestant's may speak) to reject that to day which yesterday we cried up for a divine Verity. 6. Now all this being so truly spoken I do not see what needs more to be spoken to vindicate and justify our most just Recusancy in refusing to submit to so preposterous proceed of men when they, providing us no better security enforce us to refuse due submission to that infallible direction of the Holy Catholic Church most orderly appointed by God to bring us securely to that end for which he made us, to which God of his infinite mercy vouch safe to bring us all. 7. And thus having ended what I had to say of this most important matter I must crave my Readers pardon for enlarging myself so fusely For I am wholly of the mind of that dear friend of S. Austen called Nebridius, who was used to say: That in a great Question, he hated a short Answer Aug: to: 1. Epist: 23. ad Bonif: Wherhfore in this Question of Questions brevity might well be accounted hateful. FINIS.