Licenced and Published by Authority, Septemb. 28. 1663.   

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE Holy Scripture ASSERTED, And the Pretended INFALLIBILITY OF The Church of ROME REFUTED: In Answer to TWO PAPERS and TWO TREATISES OF Father JOHNSON a ROMANIST, about the GROUND thereof.  
By JOHN SHERMAN, D. D.  
WHERETO ARE PREFIXED A Commendatory Epistle from the late Bishop of NORWICH: AND, A Letter of Approbation from Dr. Tho. Pierce, wherein is given a Specimen of Mr. Cressy's Misadventures against his SERMON.  
LONDON, Printed by E. Cotes, for Henry Eversden, at the Greyhound in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1664.   

To his Worthy Friend, Mr. Samuel Tofte, entrusted with the publication of the following Work; which the Author lived to Print, but not to Publish.  
SIR,  
HAving received, with your Letter, the learned Book you sent with it, I hasten to pay you my thanks for both; and in answer to the former, have done to the latter what you desired. You (I doubt not) will commend me for complying so soon with so great a Stranger; But I have need of saying something to excuse my Easiness to myself. And the All I have to say, is entirely this: That notwithstanding you are a Gentleman I never yet saw, nor till your Letter came to me, had ever heard of; yet Dr. Sherman was a person, whom having never seen, I had heard of often. I often heard he had been one, who suffered many things and well, for his King and Country; one in whom Learning and Religion had for many years met, and had equal shares. To which I add, that he was one of those Cambridge-men, of whom (before I was admitted into that University) I should for many years together have had a very great Envy, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Diod. Sic. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thucyd. l 5.  but for my Reverence, and my Love, which were extremely much greater. For methinks I stand affected towards Oxford and Cambridge as Thucydides did to Athens and Poloponnesus, whereof the first was an unkind Mother, and the second a loving Nurse. Thence was he fitted (more than others) for an Impartial Historian of the War between both, because his Gratitude to the one, was as prevalent with him, as his natural Affection unto the other.  
Growing thus kind to Dr. Sherman, and somewhat yet the kinder to him (at least the apt to express it this way) because he is not here in Being to thank me for it, I read as much of his Discourses in Confutation of Father Johnson, as would consist with my greater, though less acceptable, Employments. Perhaps I read what I could read with as much eagerness and delight since I saw it printed, as the most excellent Bishop Hall by a written Copy. And I am hearty glad to see that extant in 63. which such an exemplary Prelate so much commended to the public in 54. He hath commended it indeed to so good a purpose, and the work itself will so deservedly commend itself to All Readers, (All I ●an who have the skill to compare and grasp it, as well as the patience to read it through,) that should I say, how much I think it to be an acute and a solid piece, I should consider myself too much, and the Book too little.  
Nothing pleaseth me more than the Condition of the Subject, on which the Challenge of the Jesuit drew forth his Answer. For the point of Infallibility must needs be one of the two Pillars, (whereof the Pope's pretended Headship or Universal Pastorship is the other,) wherewith the Trumperies superstructed must stand or fall. That as 'twas skilfully contrived by Father Johnson, to spend his strength in securing that saving Error, [The Church of Rome cannot err,] as giving excellent security to whatsoever other Errors his Church can own; and under which, as an Asylum, the grossest Follies they can get by do live in safety; so 'twas as happily resolved by Dr. Sherman (upon so good an Occasion given) to show the Feebleness and defects even of that which does hold up the Papal Grandeur; and cannot choose but be acknowledged even by men of both sides, to be their first or their second most Helpful Engine.  
This does bring into my mind, what I was told some years ago by Mr. Patrick Carew (when newly come out of Italy, wherein from his childhood he had been bred,) That having first been convinced by the little Treatise, which had been penned on that point by his brother Falkland, That his belous Roman Church was not unerrable; He could not hinder his own Discovery, how very grievously she had erred. Nor by consequence could he hinder his own Conversion from a Church still pretending to a privilege of not being able to be deceived, as soon as he found 'twas even That, that had most deceived him. And truly, had I been blessed but with a little of that leisure which some enjoy, whereby to have written some Reply to Serenus Cress●, who pretending to confute, has escaped my Sermon, and only fought like a Parthian, by certain dexterous Tergiversations, though unlike a Parthian in point of mischief; neither denying, nor disproving, but still evading my Citations, and taking very great care to obscure his own; as well by making both the Greek and the Latin Fathers to hold their peace in Greek and Latin, and only speak in such English as He affords them, as by concealing both the Pages and the Editions of his Authors, for fear a Protestant should have leisure and patience too, whereby to bring them to a strict and a speedy Trial: I say, had I time to Refute his Book, which until the other day I had not time enough to Read, (nor then quite through,) I should not enlarge on any point with greater contentment to my Self, or greater hope of convincing both Him and His, than That on which he hopes most to guard his obstinacy by.  
For (that I may touch on that Subject which the Reverend Dr. Sherman hath largely handled, so as to add to his Thoughts what I find uppermost in mine own,) when the Romanists contend for the Church of Rome's being Infallible, they mean by the Roman, the whole Church Catholic; and by the whole Church Catholic, they 
* Father Johason, p. 350.  mean as many as own the Pope for their Sovereign Pastor. This is called (by a plainer phrase,) 
* Father Cressy, p. 95.  The present Visible Church, to which (for all the General Councils) the last Recourse is to be had. But why rather to the present than to the Primitive Church? or why to the present Church Visible, rather than to the four first General Councils? Even because (saith 
* Ibid.  Mr. Cressy) Universal Experience doth demonstrate it impossible, that any Writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed, and therefore not impartial or indifferent. Thus still there is something, not only fallible, but false, whereby a Romanist is to judge where to find Infallibility; (for wheresoever That is, the last Recourse is to be made;) Because an Experience as universal as that whereof Mr. Cressy speaks, doth also demonstrate it as impossible, That any present Church Visible (much less that His) should put an end to a Debate between multitudes of persons, whose Interest and Bias is multifariously divided as well as They. Men must equally agree (which they never will) first what is to be meant by the present Visible Church; and after That, that she is Infallible; before she can possibly put an end to all their Dissensions in their Debates.  
But what does he mean by the present Church Visible? Does he mean all the Churches that do submit unto the Pope as their Sovereign Pastor, either IN or OUT of a General. Council? If the first, he must mean either a written or speaking Council. If the former, Then he should not have distinguished it from the present Church Visible, as here he does. Then there needed no more than One, but That (by all means) must be a standing General Council, from the beginning of the Church till the Day of Judgement. And then the Church was never able to make her Members the better for her Infallibility, or to prove she had such a privilege, by being able to put an End to a Debate between Multitudes of different Interest and Judgement in several Nations, either before the Nicaene Council, which was the first that was General; or since the Council held at Trent, which they avow to be the last. But if he means only a speaking Council, than he confesses that at present there is no such present Visible Church, as can Infallibly put an end to the Debate above mentioned; even because there is no such General Council. Which being so; where is the boasted Infallibility? How shall we find or comprehend it? or how is any Creature the wiser for it? And if he means (what was said in the second Branch of my first Dilemma,) All the Churches that own the Pope as their Sovereign Pastor, not in, but OUT of a General Council, Then the Pope in his Conclave, or College of Cardinals, (which, by the way, is a Conventicle, though not a Council, not Concilium, but Conciliabulum,) must be the sole, proper speaking Judge, who can end such a Debate as before we spoke of; so that in Him, as in her Head the present Visible Church does entirely lodge; at least in respect of her Infallible Judgement; which none but the Pope (out of a Council) can have or utter. But thus the Romanists Absurdities will be more shameful than before. For the Pope may be an Heretic, if not an Heathen. Pope Marcellinus was the first, and Pope Liberius the second. And there is no better arguing than to the Aptitude from the Act. Nay, in some of the 30 Schisms which 
a Onuphr. in Chro. p. 50.  Onuphrius reckons up in the Church of Rome, (before the word Protestant was ever heard of,) when two or three Popes did sit at once, 'twas even impossible to determine, which Pope was the true, and which the false. The Councils of 
b Concil. Constantiense praecipuè congregatum extinguendi schismatis Causâ, quis esset verus Pontifex, vix agnoscebat. v. Hist. Concil. à Paulo V Edit. To. 4. p. 127.  Constance and 
c Statim illud in Controversiam venit, Num Synodus Pisana in Illos potuerit animadvertere, cùm eorum alteruter verus esset Pontifex, sed uter is esset non constaret. ibid. p. Seqq.  Pisa (whereof the former, by the way, was a General Council, in the Catalogue set forth by Pope Paulus Quintus,) were utterly at a Loss in their Debates of this matter. From whence it follows avoidable, that Mr. Cressy must not dare to avow this last notion of The present Visible Church; as well because it is not That, to which he dares say the last Recourse is to be had, as because she can too easily declare her sense in another way, than as she was ever represented by her Pastors out of all Nations, that is to say, by a General Council, which yet the present visible Church can never do, saith Mr. Cressy, chap. 9 p. 95. But when I say, he must not dare to avow this last notion of the present visible Church, to which he gives the last Recourse, and to which he ascribes Infallibility: I mean, he must not for the future, not but that for the present he dares to do it; Because he tells us expressly, p. 97. (and as dogmatically too, as without all proof,) That the present Superiors living and speaking must conclude all Controversies, their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers, their Testimony of Tradition, must more than put to silence all contradiction of particular persons, or Churches; it must also subdue their minds to an Assent, and this under the penalty of an Anathema, or cutting off from the body of Christ.  
This is said by Mr. Cressy concerning the living and speaking Judges of his Church, Judges for the time being in every Age. Quite forgetting what he had said not long before, (p. 95.) That Reason, Inspiration, and Examples of Primitive Fathers, must jointly make up the only Guide, which He affirms to be Infallible. For, unless they all concur (as he had said before that, p. 93.) together with the present visible Governors (to whom he there gives a judging determining power) That which we take to be Reason, and Inspiration, and the sense of the Primitive Church, may deceive and misguide us. Now besides that this saying destroys the former, where no less was ascribed to the present visible Superiors living and speaking, than here is attributed to all four Requisites in conjunction; we know that Reason may be deceived, Inspiration be counterfeit by some unclean spirit, (which fallible Reason must be the Judge of) primitive Fathers subject to Error, and present Superiors much more than Primitive: And, many fallible Guides can never make up one Infallible, any more than many Planets can make one Sun, or many Acts of finite knowledge one true omniscience. For as Mr. Cressy does confess, that Infallibility and Omniscience, are incommunicable Attributes of God Himself, (p. 98.) so he implies a contradiction, when he saith they are communicable to any creature, such as is his present visible Church. And another Contradiction as bad, or worse, when he saith that a man, although of much Ignorance, may in a sort be Omniscient within his sphere, (p. 99) which is as if he should have said, That a man may be able to have a knowledge of all things, because he may so know them All, as to be Ignorant of some. But then, with the help of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meanest man is as omniscient, as is his Roman Catholic Church; because (within his determinate sphere) he must needs have a knowledge of All he knows; and of more than she knows the Roman Church hath no knowledge. So again when he would show how a creature may be Infallible, though he had said that God Himself is incommunicably such, (p. 98.) he has no better a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than an implicit explication of an Affirmative by a Negative. The immutable God can preserve mutable creatures from actual mutation; [ibid.] thereby implying, that the Immutable cannot communicate his incommunicable Attribute of Immutability to any creature, even because he cannot possibly perfect a creature into Himself. But from actual mutation he can preserve any Creature, as well an Ignorant single man, as a whole Church Catholic. Thus by endeavouring to uphold, Mr. Cressy does throughly destroy his Doctrine: All he saith coming to this, That however God only is undeceivable, yet he is able to preserve his deceivable creatures from being actually deceived. Sed quid hoc ad Iphicli Boves? The Question is not, Whether God can preserve a Church from being actually in error, (for so he can, and often does, particular Members of his Church,) But whether de facto he hath granted an Inerrability, or an Impossibility of erring, unto that which they call the Roman Catholic Church. Not whether the Church can be actually false in her opinions, but whether or no she is Infallible, or exempted by God from the passive power of giving false Judgement in points of Faith. Will Mr. Cressy so confound an Adjective in Bilis, with a participle derived from the passive preterperfect Tense, as either to argue à non actu ad non potentiam, or else to pass over from the one unto the other? Will he argue that Adam before his fall was Impeccable, because he yet was preserved from actual sin? or, that the Church was Infallible in the Apostles own Times, because she was not erroneous until she was? He cannot sure be so destitute either of Logic or Grammar skill. I think it rather his skill to dissemble both; as finding no other way to dispute a whole Chapter for such a Doctrine, unless he either beggs or forsakes the Question.  
But now to give him more Advantage than he is mindful to give himself, when he allows so great a privilege to the present Governors of the Church in every Age, whom he will have to be the living and speaking Judges, to whom (without contradiction) all particular Churches as well as persons, 
Ubi supra. p. 97.  must meekly yield up their Assent; Let us allow it to be his meaning, not that These are undeceivable, but that God doth still preserve them from being actually deceived. Was not Pope Hildebrand himself the supreme speaking Judge, when yet the 
* Imperial. Statut. apud Goldast. Tom. 1. p. 74.  Council at Worms did set him out as a Brand of Hell? 
Conc. Constantien. A. D. 1414. Seff. 11. Edit. Bin. To. 7. 1036. Notoriè criminosus de homicidio, veneficio, pertin●x Haereticus, Simoniacus, contra Articulum de Resurrectione mortuorum dogmatizavit.— Et paulò superius,— cum Uxore fratris sui & cum sanctis moniatibus Incestum commisit p. 1035.  Was not John the 23. the supreme speaking Judge of Mr Cressy's then present visible Church, when yet he openly denied the Immortality of the soul, and for That (with other crimes) was condemned by the Council then held at Constance? Were not John the 22. and Anastasius the 2. the supreme speaking Judges in their several Times, who yet were both stigmatised for the Crime of Heresy? Let Mr Cressy now speak like an honest man, Were such superiors as these, then living and speaking, to conclude all controversies, to Interpret Scripture and the Fathers, to put to silence all particular Churches, to subdue men's minds to an Assent, and this under the penalty of their being cut off from the body of Christ? Let him read his own dictates, p. 97. It will but little mend the matter, to say, The Pope is but one, and that He spoke of All Superiors: Because, besides that they may All have their Byasses and Errors as well as He, in case they are all consulted with, (as they never are) 'Tis very evident that the Pope (like the Sun among the Stars) is more than All in all Cases. The greatest part of those Councils which they are pleased to call General, have been indeed little better than the mere properties of their Popes: which that I may not seem to say as one that loves to speak sharply, but rather as compelled by their own Accounts of them, I shall here give an Instance in one or two.  
In the last Lateran Council under Julius the 2. 
A brief Account of the last Lateran Council.  and Leo the 10. The Holy Scriptures (at the first Session) are humbly laid down at his Holinesses Feet; And, an Oath being administered, are formally touched by the Officials. The Pope (in that Session) is called The Prince of all the world; and (in the next) The Priest and King to be adored by all the People, as being most like to God Himself. Accordingly (in the 3d) The Kingdom of France by Pope Julius is subjected to an Interdict, and the Mart held at Lions transferred to Geneva. The pragmatic Sanction is rescinded in the fourth, for the improving of the Trade of Ecclesiastical Hucksters, the buying and selling of Church-preferments. The Pope is asserted as God's Lieutenant upon Earth, though not of equal merits. (A very signal Condescension! and to be kept in everlasting Remembrance! God is meekly acknowledged to be superior to the Pope.) In the fifth Session, Julius dies, 
Ne sleveris Fi●ia Zion (ut Ep sco●●us M●d usiensis affatur Papam, q●ia Ecce ve●●t Leo de Tribu Juda, Radix David. ●cce Tibi suscitavit Deus Salvatorem etc. Te, Leo B●atissime, Salvatorem expectamus, Te Liberatorem v●nturum speravimus. Concil. Lateran. ult. Sess. 6. Bin. To. 9 p. 74.  (another great Condescension!) And Leo his Successor is saluted, as no less than the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David, the Saviour and Deliverer that was to come. (A pretty clinch, but a blasphemous compliment, and unworthy a Bishop's mouth.) In the eighth and ninth Sessions, This Lion Roars; first against them that shall violate his Decrees in the present Council, to whom he threatens such a Sentence of Excommunication, as none but Himself could absolve them from. Next against the Emperor, Kings, and Princes, whom he chargeth not to hinder such as were coming to the Council under the penalty of incurring God's Displeasure and his own In the last of those two Sessions, 
Divinae Maj statis tuae conspectus, vutilanti cujus fulgore imbecilles oculi mei caligant, etc. Et paulo post, In Te uno legitimo Christi & Dei Vicario, p●opheticum illud debuerit ●u●sus impleri, Adorabunt cum omnes Reges Terrae, omnes Gentes servient ci. Ibid. Sess. 9 p. 114, 116.  Antonius Puccius tells Leo, how his Eyes are darkened by the rutilant Brightness of his Divine Majesty.— in him alone as the Vicar of God and of Christ, That saying of the Prophet ought again to have its completion, All the Kings of the Earth shall come and worship, All the Nations under Heaven shall do him service. In a word, throughout the whole Council, nothing is carried by counsel or consultation of Assessors, (for Assistants I cannot call them,) nothing by suffrages or votes from them that make it wear, the name of a General Council; But, the supreme present Judge (to use the phrase of Mr. Cressy) as an Infallible Dictator, ordained All. This is constantly the Preface to each Decree in That Council, Leo Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, approbante Concilio, etc.  
So again in their last and best beloved General Council, 
Of the Council at Trent.  All the Fathers do but prepare convenient matter for Decrees, whereunto the Pope's Fiat does give the life. Their two and twenty years' contrivances do end at last in 
a Humiliter petimus nomine dicti Concilii oecumenici Tridemini, ut Sanctitas vestra dignetur confirmare omnia & singula, etc. Edit. Bin. Tom. 9 p. 442.  meek Petition, That his Holiness will vouchsafe to confirm what they had done; that is, to inform the lifeless matters they had prepared; which could not have the nature and force of Articles or Decrees, until the Pope had breathed on them the Breath of Life. So a little before That, 
b Si in his recipiendis aliqua Difficult as ariatur, aut aliqua incideri●t quae Declarationem aut Finitionem postulent,— confidit sancta Synodu● Pon ificem curaturum— etc. viderit expedire— etc. Si necessarium judicaverit, etc. Si ei visum fuerit, etc. Ibid. p. 434.  The General Council doth humbly hope, That if any Difficulty arise in the receiving of the Canons, or if any things Doubtful shall require a Definition, or Declaration, His Holiness will provide for the Necessities of the Provinces, for the Glory of God, and the Tranquillity of the Church, either by calling a General Council, if He shall judge it to be needful, or by committing the Business to such as He shall think fit to do it, or by what way soever He shall judge more commodious. All, upon the matter, both is, and must be, as He pleaseth; and when the Council is dissolved, He is himself Tantamount to a General Council. Indeed much more. For the Council did but propose, But He 
c Apostolicâ Auctoritate declaramus & definimus p. 444.  declares and defines by Apostolical Authority. He 
d Fidem sine ullâ Dubitatione haberi mandamus atque decernimus p. 443.  commands and decree's by somewhat more than Apostolical, That Faith without any Doubting be had by all to his Creed; and all under the penalty of being cut off from the Body of Christ; notwithstanding some part of his Creed is. 
* Vide Concil. Trident. Edit. Bin. excus. Genev. A. D. 1612. Tom. 9 Sess. 4. p. 354.  This, That Apocryphal writings and mere Traditions concerning Faith as well as Manners are by all to be received with as much Reverence and affection, as things proceeding from God the Holy Ghost, or from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Now if a Council (as the Lateran) does only Read a Decree in Fieri, And a Pope (as the Tenth Leo) by saying Placet, does make it one in Facto esse; If a Council cannot be currant, unless it be called by the Pope, and by the Pope presided in; yea if nothing done in it, can pass for currant, until the Pope hath approved of it, or until he hath made it become Authentic by an Act of his Will, or by a word of his Mouth; Mr. Cressy and Father Johnson who do so earnestly contend for a subcoelestial Infallibility, cannot choose but believe (if at all they believe as well as plead it) That its real Inhaerence is in the Pope, and only said to be in the Council, because it does more become the Error, and set it off to the People with better Grace. The Reason of what I say, is very cogent in itself; and that it may be so to others, I thus endeavour to make it plain. They say that Councils are not good or currant, unless approved of by the Pope. Nor does he give his Approbation until the Council is at an end. His Approbation is after; and not before it. From whence 'tis natural to Infer, That he approves not of the Council, because Infallibly good, and therefore currant; (it would not then need his Approbation:) But the Council is good and currant, because He approves it. And why should That be said, unless because He is Infallible with them that say it? Thus (I say) it is to Them, not Thus in itself. For then there would follow this other Absurdity, That if The Council hath erred, it is because the Pope hath not approved it. For let him but approve, and It hath not erred, because it hath every thing required to its Infallibility. If not, let them speak; for I argue only ad homines, and (out of very great charity) try to make them ashamed with their own Devices.  
Now (to speak a gross Truth,) The Approbation of a Council, when a Council hath done with its Consultations, cannot possibly have the virtue to effect that such a Council shall not have erred. For if it hath erred, it is erroneous, though He approves it. If not, it is orthodox, though He rejects it. The Emperors who called the first and truest General Councils, did either not care for, or not expect his Approbation. Yet Those were the Councils, either not erring at all, or at least the least erring of any other.  
But let us yield Mr. Cressy yet more Advantage, and suppose him only to mean, what once he saith, (for he saith so many things, that he seems to have many, and those contradictory, meanings,) 
* Ch. 9 p. 95. Sect. 7.  A Church represented by her Pastors out of All Nations, which Pastors out of All Nations make a 
* Concilia Generalia dicuntur ea, quibus interesse possunt & debent Episcopi totius Orbis, (nisi legitimè impediantur) & quibus nemo rectè praesidet nisi Summus Pontifex, aut alius ejus nomine. Ind enim dicuntur Oecumenica, id est, Orbis Totius Terrae Concilia. Bellarm. Controu. Tom. 1. l. 1. de Concil. c. 4. p. 1096.  General Council; And that This only is the Church, to which he ascribes Infallibility. To which I answer, by two Degrees. First, by observing that he takes for granted what is false. For there was never such a Council, as to which All Nations did send their Pastors, and by consequence The Church was never so Represented; and by consequence never Infallible, if She can only be Infallible when so Represented, to wit, by the Pastors of All Nations that have Christian Churches in them. For, the first four General Councils were not such in that sense; And only were called Ecumenical, not for Bellarmine's Reason, but because they consisted of all the Pastors who were sent from Those Nations which made up all the Roman Empire, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Bin. To. 3. p. 50.  whose Emperors by a figure were called the Masters of the world. Beyond the limits of the Empire, None of those, or after- Councils, did ever reach. None went thither out of Persia, India, the Inmost Arabia, and Aethiopia, wherein the Churches were never subject to the Roman Empire; Nor yet out of Britain, France, and Spain, when being parted from the Empire, They became the Peculiar of other Princes. And as the Empire grew scanty, so the Councils in proportion did grow less General. Whose Greatness is to be measured not by the number of the Bishops, but by the multitude of the Churches, and by the Greatness of the Regions from which they come. But since the Bishops of Rome, with other Rights of the Roman Empire, have invaded This also, of calling and praesiding in General Councils, they have been only called General, for being a Confluence of Pastors out of all the Papal Empire. And therefore, according to Mr Cressy, They could not possibly be Infallible, because not such, as to which All Nations did send their Pastors.  
Next I answer by observing, that the learned'st Romanists cannot agree about the Nature or Number of General Councils. For, first as to the Nature, The General Councils of the Romanists are 
* Quaedam sunt ab Apostolicâ sede app obata, atque ab Eccl●siâ universâ recepta, quaedam omni●o reprobata quaedam partim reprobata partim approbata, quaedam nec approbata, nec reprobata. Bellarm. ubi supra. p. 1097.  thus divided by themselves! Some (say they) are approved by the Sea Apostolical and received by the Catholic Church. ² Some are absolutely reprobated. ³ Some are reprobated in part, and in part approved. ⁴ Some are neither reprobated, nor approved, Now since each of these sorts is said by Romanists to be General, and General Councils in the general are also said by the same to be Infallible; What do they but say in effect and substance, The Church represented in General Councils is either absolutely Infallible, as in the first species of General Councils) or altogether fallible, (as in the second;) or partly Infallible, and partly fallible, (as in the third); or neither fallible, nor infallible, (as in the fourth.) If General Councils cannot err, Why do they reprobate, or doubt any of them? If they have sufficient reason both to reprobate some, and to doubt of others, Why do they call 
a p. 1105, 1107, 1109. Et inde constat, locutum esse Bellarminum ex sententiâ suâ, quia sic claudit Partitionem. Quod membrum postremum in Conciliis particularibus potissimum locum habet. p. 1097. Ergo membra priora in Generalibus, ut & postremum aliquatenùs, etiamsi non potissia ùm.  General Councils? or, if General Councils can be doubted of at all, and that by Them, by what Infallible Token shall they know, either that the Councils are truly General and Genuine; or at least, that being such, they are Infallible? Of Bellarmine's 18 General Councils, which are his first and best species, he proves the Approvedness and validity by the Pope's praesiding in, or approving of them. His General proof is but this, [They are approved of by the Pope, and received by Papists.] And what is this but to beg the Question? The first 8 Councils he proves to be such, by the 
b Dist. 16. Can. sancta octo. apud Gratian. p. 60, 61.  Decree of the Pope. The Nine that follow he proves to be approved, Because the Pope presided in them. And the last was confirmed by Plus Quartus. So that a Council's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from the Pope, and depends upon his Pleasure. But now of those 18. there is a very great difference. For the first four only were received and revered by Gregory the Great, as were the four 
c Gratian. Decret. par. 1. Dist. 5. Hac spectat Epist. Vigilii Papae ad Eu●ychium, apud Concil. Edit. Bin. To. 8. p. 593.  Gospels of Jesus Christ. Which Reverence would have been due to the other fourteen, had they been of as great Authority; as they needs must have been, had all been equally Infallible, in their opinion who own them All. And yet the later Councils had been more valid than the former, if 'tis not 
d A●sque Romani Pontificis Authoritate Synodum aliquibus congregare non licet. Ibid. Dist. 17.  lawful to call a Council, without the Authority of the Pope, as Marcellus his Decretal affirms it is not. Secondly for the number of their approved General Councils, I see not how it can be agreed. For besides that the 
e Concil. Florent. Sess. 5, & 6.  Greeks receive no more than the first seven, The 
f Magdeburg. Cent. 8. c. 9 & Cent. 9 c. 9  Lutherans but six, The Eutychians in Africa no more than three, The Nestorians in the East no more than two, and the Polonian Trinitarians no more than one, (which Difference is acknowledged by Bellarmine Himself,): I say, besides This, I wonder when Bellarmine will be ever agreed with Pope Paul the fifth. The former rejecting the Council at Constance from the number of the Approved, which yet the 
g V Concil. Gen. a Paulo V Edit. Tom. 4.  Later does admit of with equal Reverence. It was reprobated indeed by a worse than itself, to wit the Council at Florence next following after; But for decreeing that a Council was above the Pope, for which it ought to have been approved. And abating those things which consist not with the Haughtiness (but the just Dignity) of the Popes, It is as generally received as any other. Yet we need no better Argument to prove such a Council above a Pope, and the gross fallibility of both together, than an Historical Account of That one Council, as we find it set down by Pope Paul the fifth. The Third at Constantinople, which is commonly reckoned the sixth General Council, was by the 14th at Toledo, Can. 7. esteemed the Fifth. Implying the former under Vigilius, not to have been one of the General Councils, which yet with other Councils does pass for such without Question. And so much for the number of general Councils.  
Last of all, let Mr. Cressy be allowed to mean at the most Advantage, That his General Councils are said to be Infallible, not because they cannot, but do not err; for so he most improperly, but yet most kindly help's out himself, 
Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. Sozomen. l. 1. c. 23. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19  chap. 9 p. 98. But does he not think it was an Error in the first Council of Nice, (as in the third of Constantinople) to assent to Paphnutius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and patronising the marriage of Priests, as both Socrates, and Sozomen, & the Roman 
* Dist. 32. Can. Nicen. V Concil. Constantin. III. Can. 13. Concil. Elib. can. 36.  Decree do alike affirm? At least the Council of Eliberis (which was contemporary with That) Mr. Cressy will say was in an Error, for declaring it unlawful, to paint in the windows or walls of Churches, 
Concil. Nicen. 2. Act 4. Concil. Constant. quartum decrevit cundem Imaginum cultum Edit. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1046.  what is the object of Adoration. And so much the rather will he believe it to be an Error, because the second Nicene general Council, decreed that Images are to be worshipped, and denounced an Anathema to all that doubt the Truth of it. Does he not think it was an Error in the Council of Chalcedon, 
Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. Can 28. Qui Canon genuinus est, non obstante B●nii subterfugio Pudendo.  to Decree unto the Bishop of Constantinople, even in Causes Ecclesiastical, an equality of privileges with the Bishop of Rome? Or does he not think it was an Error in the 
* Concil. Constantinop III. Act. 13. Vide Notas in vitam Honor. Edit Bin. Tom. 4 p. 572.  sixth General Council, to condemn Pope Honorius as a Monothelite, and to decree that his Name should be razed out of the Church's Diptyches; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Concil. Florent. definite. Edit. Bin. To. 8. p. 854.  seeing another General Council, since held at Florence, hath defined the Pope to be the Highpriest over all the world, the Successor of St. Peter, Christ's Lieutenant, The Head of the Church, The Father and Teacher of all Christians, and one to whom in St. Peter our Lord Jesus Christ did deliver a full Power, as well to GOVERN, as to feed the Universal Church? And did accordingly exauctorate the Council at Constance, for seating a Council above a Pope? Or is it not thought by Mr Cressy, that This Florentine Council was in an Error, in Granting the Roman Church a Power of adding to the Creed, which the General Council of Chalcedon had forbidden to be done under the Penalty of a Curse? as was 
* ibid. Sess. 5. p. 593.  observed and urged by Pope Vigilius Himself, to Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople? Let Mr. Cressy but compare the sixth General Council (whose famous Canons were made in Trullo,) with the Tridentine Canons, and the General practice of his Church. And sure I am, He will acknowledge that the one or the other hath foully erred. It was decreed in the sixth, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Conc. Constant. III. Can. 13. To. 5. p. 326. Edit. Bin. To. 5. p. 326.  That married men without scruple should be admitted into the Priesthood, and this without any condition of abstaining thence-forwards from cohabitation, lest men should seem to offer Contumely unto God's holy Institution Yea (which is most to be observed) This was a Canon made professedly 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ibid. p. 325, 326.  against the Canon of the Church of Rome, whereunto is confronted the ancient Canon, which is there said to be of Apostolical Perfection. Here the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is condemned by a Council, which is owned to be General by the same Church of Rome. The Church of Rome is also condemned by the same 
c Ibid. p. 338.  General Council (in its 55 Canon,) and commanded to conform to the 65 Canon of the Apostles (from which they had scandalously departed) under two great Poenalties therein expressed. To all which if I shall add, How the 8th General Council made a peremptory Decree, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Constant. IV. Act. 9 Can. 3 Edit. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 977.  That the Image of Christ is to be worshipped as the Gospel of God, That whosoever adore's it not, shall never see his Face at his second coming, (never at least by their Goodwill,) That the Pictures of Angels and all the Saints are in like manner to be adored, And that all who think otherwise are to be Anathematised; I hope Mr. Cressy and Father Johnson are not such Lovers of Idolatry and Contradiction, as not to know and to acknowledge the Fallibility of their Church in a general Council. And as, on the one side, Their steadfast Belief That She cannot err, is enough to confirm them in all their Errors; So, to convince them on the other side of that one Error, will make them ready both to see, and renounce the Rest. That it may seem to be a vain, or a needless Thing, for any man to be lavish of Time, or Labour, in a particular Ventilation of other controverted Points, whilst This of Infallibility remain's untouched, or undecided. For if we show them the Absurdities of Bread and Wine being transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ; or of being so transmuted into Human Flesh and Blood, as to retain both the Colour, Touch and Taste, and all other Adjuncts of Bread and Wine; or of its so beginning now to be (in the Act of Consecration) the numerical Body of a crucified Jesus, as to have been the very same under Pontius Pilate, as well as in the Virgin's Womb; or of its beginning to be as often, and of as many several Ages, as the Priests at their Altars shall please to make it; or of its being the same Body, whether eaten by a Christian, or by a Dog: They will defend themselves with This, That though 'tis absurd and impossible, yet it is necessarily true, because 'tis taught by That Church which cannot deceive or be deceived. Whereas, if once we can convince them that she is able to be deceived, who had taught them to believe she is undeceivable, (and that in matters of greatest moment,) They cannot choose but disapprove and forsake her too, as the greatest Deceiver in all the world.  
Thus I have done what you desired, if not as amply, or as well, yet at least as my Time (or my want of Time rather) would give me leave. Had I the Tithe of that Leisure I once enjoyed, I might have long ago replied to Mr. Cressy's whole Book, which I can hardly now say I have wholly read. Nor indeed do I intent to consider more of it then here I have; partly because I am informed that the whole is undertaken by other men; partly, becaule I am prohibited both by mine Enemies and my Friends, (though in several senses, and to several ends); but chief, because I am forbidden by less-dispensable Employments. For although I must confess, I think the Task very easy, and such as hath nothing in it of difficult, besides the length, which Mr. Cressy's Misadventures would make unavoidable, upon so many and ample subjects, (so as his strength doth chief lie in the number and nature of his Infirmities, which nakedly to observe, were to write a Just Volume) yet supposing a Camel already loaded with the maximum quod sic that his back will bear, the Addition of a Feather may serve to break it. Some may think me Insufficient, others Indulgent to my Ease, (and I am as careless, as they unkind.) But I have Witnesses to my Comfort, both within, and without me, And God above is my Witness too, That I have little or no Time either to read or write Books, but what I rob Nature of, even by stealing it from my Sleep. Which being as needful as the Oil whereby the Lamp is kept burning, my Light of Life cannot choose but be very Dim, and by many such Night-works would be extinguished I know, there are who would teach me, how to live without sleeping, (as Hierocles his Scholar taught his Horse a Thing like it;) But they must pardon mye Refusal to put such a Trick into frequent practice, the very learning of which is enough to kill me. Yet Sir, you see I was resolved to watch a Night in His Service, in whom The vigilant D● Sherman is fallen asleep. And now it would be high Time to bid you hearty Good Night, but that I see it begins to be Bright Morning. And the same Gallicinium which calls up others to their Labour, does more significantly bid me make haste to rest  
Your Real Servant and Fellow-servant in our one great Master JESUS CHRIST, Tho. Pierce. M. C. Sept. 7. 1663.   

To the Reader.  
READER,  
WHo can do that for us as to tell us what every Scholar should do? It is easy to know what they should do Morally; they should mind the good of the Church, not dicendo pluraliter: but the question or quest is, what they should do in way of Scholastical employment, as such.  
It is true, in Nature, Vnumquodque est propter suam operationem, Every thing is for its proper Operation; but what then shall they do who are good for nothing? Shall they do nothing? No. It is yet, it may be, good for them to do Optimum quod sic. Only engage in Controversies they should not.  
Neither did I ever intent to dip a pen in that ink, which is for those who can dip their pen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in understanding, as he said; such as have for it a body, books, an head, an heart too: I think I can do the less, because I think so, — possunt quia posse videntur.  
The Case therefore is thus,  
A paper was brought by a Roman Catholic to a Lady then in Norwich, for an Answer; She sent for me then there, wished me to Peruse it and Answer it; I shrunk my shoulders; she urged; I took it or undertook it, returned soon a short Answer; He replied, I rejoined: He than sent me a Treatise; I sent an Answer to it; He sent another Treatise; I began an answer to that: but before I had done, He had done in the Poet's phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
This the Narrative.  
And now have I more work, to satisfy some Demands. And the first is, Why I was somewhat long in answering the second Treatise?  
To this I can say, First, that it might have been longer ere I had Answered the first, because a Treatise; Then length is answerable to length. And also I do freely Confess that as I have too much of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which unfits me for Speech; so have I too little of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which should fit me for Expedition: Neither could I ever closely apply myself to this vast and voluminous Learning which others pretend to; but have been a rambler (if not at my Book yet) from my Book, upon the saddle, the seat of Health as he called it. And besides, I have had other work in the Church. Moreover, though others upon the 5. of November did preach, yet I was a good while in durance for preaching upon the 5. of November.  
A second demand is this, why I should publish the papers? To this may I say with St. Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it seemed, an Answer was looked for; the party from whom it came, dead; the cause public; the first paper an Interpretative Challenge; some of his party have vaunted of a Conquest; some have wished the Papers abroad; I had power over my own papers, which could not go out without his; It is somewhat ingenuous to give some account of our time out of the College, though those who took our places should also in reason have taken these pains. And lastly, advised I was hereunto by two Bishops of Famous memory, who saw part of the papers. One of them the late Bishop of Norwich; whose Life indeed was not so short as his Style: But since his Style was so smooth and sweet that he might be said to have written his own Life in it, What use might he have been of now, if God had pleased? The other the late Bishop of Exeter, who was: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; who wanted nothing to make us happy now, but life; who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the former of these gave me his Letter for my Encouragement.  
A third Question then, why so long ere they came out. To this may be Answered, that though they might have come out sooner, they were, it seems, reserved for better times. Sunt haec Trajani tempora, in Tacitus' sense. A Discourse of Faith, keeps now some time with the Defender of the Faith. And very good time it is for others who have been true to their King, to show that they have not been false to Religion; and that they have not leered, as some have suspected them, towards the Vatican. And yet also this is not very probable, Ex natura rei: for if Kings would think upon it, there might be no Popes; since if Popes could well help it, there should be no Kings.  
But this also can I affirm, that the Tract of years, since it was done, hath not altered or swollen the Book by one word in the body of it; though somewhat might have been mended and somewhat might have been added.  
And if yet great exception be taken at the Book, because it is so great; I must say, that I know who could have prevented this: For if my Adversary would have spared the Debate about the Faith of the Canon, he needed not to have blotted so much paper about the Question in Effect, such as this, whether the Objectum quod might be the Objectum quo, or the Medium of its own Knowledge. And yet it may be, he hath gotten nothing by it; since the Church without Scripture, signifies little.  
Me thinks if the understanding in its assent were a natural Subject to the will, it would not be improper for me to say, that I would believe much for Peace, in reverence to that of Saint Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but since the understanding looks for Divine Conviction in this Act, we must have it, as to Faith Divine from God, either in the Proposition, or in the Conclusion.  
And therefore I desire to study Truth impartially, neither rejecting all that is said, lest I reject that which is true; nor receiving all that is said, lest I receive that which is false; and I should be Disposed rather to like the matter for truth, than truth for the matter of it: Because otherwise, we love truth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not upon its own account, as such.  
So that if this their Infallibility (pretended) were either proved or quitted, we might rejoice in more hope of Peace to Christendom. If it were sufficiently proved, we should presently yield; if it were quitted, they might possibly yield. And I would the Pope would turn Patriarch again but until it be Proved, and thank God for the Nicene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and no more.  
To my Adversary, if I have showed myself at all uncivil, I am very sorry for it: and what unhandsome Reflections there are made by him (if any) upon me, I put up upon good account. If the pen at any time makes a disorderly sally out unto a perstriction of the person, it is a Liberty which I had rather give than take. And his Papers are as well, and as whole printed as mine, and I am glad that they are printed in the same character, which is not usual.  
And if I have made in mine any blots (as very likely I have) about Isidor Clarius, or any other Author, or Matter, I am very ready to acknowledge it; it being not in my way to pretend to infallibility; nor my mind to affect the Reputation of him that was denominated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
It is enough to me to have given any hints to others for better use. If I have found any smooth stone out of the Brook of Scripture, Let some able Pastor of the Church throw it at that Roman Goliath; and let it sink into his Head; and let Saint Jerom's Sword cut off not his Head, but his Headship. My inability yet will do me this good, that it doth strongly prove their Infallibility not to be good; which such a Puny of the Church can go near to discompose and ruffle.  
Towards an Epistle this sufficient; since I think myself not worthy to give any advice. Only by my experience I may remind thee, that it is time for us to knit the vein again of the Spouse of Christ, in the breach whereof our Adversaries do so much triumph. This Ulysses would have, believe it thou canst not serve God more, nor the Roman better.  
— Scissura domestica turbat  
Rem populi, titubatque foris quod dissidet intus.  
And I wish that by the light of this conflict thou mightst see that the Roman and the Sectary are both upon the Extremes; and that the Church of England, as to Religion and Government, goes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
So then, Reader, since my Adversary hath also appealed unto thee, unto thee let him go. As he in his Rhetoric's. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Thy servant in Christ, our good Master Sh.   

A Letter to his friend.  
WORTHY SIR,  
I Have with much eagerness and delight run over your solemical discourse, in answer to an interpretative kind of Challenge made by a confident, but close adversary; whose wit I cannot but commend, as in hiding his name, so in picking out so fit a time for the scattering of his insinuating papers; when our so lamentable distractions yield him so favourable an advantage; So have we known ill neighbours take opportunity of their pilfering, when the house is on fire: So did the crafty Amalekite fall upon the hind most of Israel, when they were faint, feeble, and tired with their travel. Although herein he hath made a good amends, and merited our thanks, in that his bold intimations have drawn you forth into the light, and fetched from you this your abundantly satisfactory Answer for his full Conviction, and the settling of unstable minds in this busy Controversy. Certainly, there is not a greater Imposture in all Rome, then in the name and plea of the Church; as our Learned Bishop Morton hath long since laid it out, or that wins more of weak and injudicious souls: For what a short cut is here of all controversies in Religion? what a sure-seeming refuge for the soul? what a present and sensible Eviction of all gainsayers? The Catholic Church cannot err; The Roman Church is the Catholic; The Dictates of that Church are as evident as infallible; The Scriptures are ambiguous; The Church is clear and conspicuous; we know where Rome stands; In the communion of that only is salvation; Out of that Ark we drown; within it is perfect safety: May this be made good, Who would trouble his heart or his head with any further disquisition of truth? Who need to care for any other spiritual privilege, then to be free of Rome? O easy security of our Faith! O cheap charter of assured Salvation! Whiles these plausible impostors go thus about to flatter their ignorant, and credulous Clients into a dangerous, if not deadly, misbelief, putting this broken reed into their hands; you have thus seasonably discovered, and checked their fraud, and clearly shown to these simple and mis-taught souls, how unsafe it is for them to trust to so crazy and perilous a supportation, which must needs in stead of easing, wound them. I shall therefore hereupon expect much good issue from this your well bestowed labour: Why should not this your so convictive discourse work effectually upon an ingenuous adversary, to win him to the acknowledgement of so well-manifested a truth? and settle those wavering minds, which seemed to be a little shaken with so strongly-confident suggestions, and prevent the danger of seducement in those poor souls, whose simplicity exposeth them to the subtle temptations of misguidance into error. Such blessing of success I wish to your learned, and charitable work, and to yourself, (who have ever approved yourself so well deserving and pious a son of the Church of England) some better encouragement than these times have yet afforded either to you, or to  
Higham, April 8. 1654. Your unfeignedly devoted friend, and fellow-labourer in the work of the Lord, JOS. HALL., B. N.   

POSITION.  
IT is not sufficient (to make one a Catholic in point of faith) that he believe the same things which the Catholic Church believeth, unless the Catholic Church be also the Ground of his belief: for whosoever doth believe any point upon no other Ground, but only because it seems to his private Judgement to be contained in Scripture, or to be in itself true, yea though he should believe in this manner every thing which the Church believeth, yet he would not be a Catholic, and so may be damned for want of faith.  
And the Reason is, because seeing that faith is, to believe a thing because God revealeth it, and that there is no infallible way (without a Miracle) whereby God his Revelation cometh to us, but only by the Church's Proposition; it followeth, that we cannot believe any thing certainly upon the Motive of God his Revelation, unless our belief be likewise grounded upon the Church's Proposition.  
Wherefore the faith of a Catholic must consist in submitting his understanding, and adhering to the Church, and in believing every thing because she proposeth it: for all other persuasions of our own discourse are resolved at last into our particular Judgements, or else into the Judgements of other particular Men; and so cannot breed in us Catholic and divine faith; but only Opinion, or humane belief.   

ANSWER.  
THe Paper may be resolved into a Supposition, and a Reason, and a Conclusion. To these in order.  
First, The Supposition, It is not sufficient to make one a Catholic, that he believe the same things that a Catholic doth believe, unless the Catholic Church be the Ground also of his belief, etc. (as in the Amplification of it.)  
This Supposition is indeed the main Position of the Pontificians, and that which is formally Constitutive of them in that Denomination; so that the Answer to it is not made as to a private Opinion, or the Opinion of a private Man, but as to the General Tenet of their Church, in the matter of it.  
In the Terms, the word Catholic is to be distinguished: for if they mean thereby such an one as they account a Catholic, viz. one subject to the Church of Rome upon its own Authority, It is very true, that None is such a Catholic; but he that shall render his belief to them in all things upon this their Proposal; and so whatsoever is the Material Object of their faith, yet the Formal Object is the Definition of the Church of Rome. But if there be a true Sense, upon ancient Account also, of a Catholic who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church; then there may be (in a true sense) a Catholic now, who doth not make the Church the last Resolutive of faith: For where the Scripture was acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners also, there the Authority of the Church was not the Determinative thereof: And that it was, will be made good, if it be desired, by several Testimonies.  
But secondly, give it, suppose it, that None is a Catholic in a right sense, but he that believeth what the Church believeth, because the Church believeth it; yet the Roman will not gain his purpose thereby, unless we would grant this Supposition also, That the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, which indeed is meant in the Paper, though wisely not expressed. But this supposition (that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church) is not to be yielded, neither in regard of Comprehension, for that makes a contradiction; nor in regard of Dominion neither, for other Churches have not submitted themselves to their Authority: this needs no disproof from us, till it hath a proof from them.  
And thirdly, If we should stand up to all that their Church (in particular) doth propose, and if we should assent to it upon their Account, we might be damned, not for our want of faith, but for Excess of faith in the Object Material, and for the Error of faith in the Formal Object: For we should believe more than is true, if we should believe whatsoever they believe, and somewhat also destructive of Articles in the Apostles Creed. And we should also believe upon the wrong Inductive, which is not the Authority of their Church (as we may see now in the Answer to the Reason.)  
The Reason hath in it somewhat true, somewhat false: True, that faith is, to believe a thing because God revealeth it: False, that there is no Infallible way (without a Miracle) of his Revelation coming to us, but by their Church (which they suppose to be the Church) its Proposition. For if the question be This, how shall we come to know whether the Church of Rome be the right Church, upon the Authority whereof we must ground our faith? Wherein shall we terminate our belief hereof? In the Authority of the Church of Rome, or not? We are to believe that (they say) which God hath revealed; but the Cause of our belief must be, because the Church proposeth it. So then, we must believe the Church of Rome upon her own testimony; and we must resolve all into this, that the Church of Rome is the right Church, although it be neither a Revelation, nor a natural Principle, such as this, that The Whole is greater than the Part; which indeed gave the Occasion of that Check which was given to Rome, Greater is the Authority of the world, then of a City, Orbis, quam Urbis. [S. Jerom. in Ep. ad Evagrium.] Wherefore, if the faith of a Catholic must consist in submitting his understanding, and adhering to the Church, and in believing every thing because she proposeth it, (as is said in the Conclusion) yet it is not necessary that this Church should be the Church of Rome: For this (in proportion) would be to resolve our Persuasions into the Judgement of particular Men, because a Particular Church; which (according to the Paper) makes no Catholic faith, but an Opinion, or humane belief.   

REPLY.  
IN the Paper received, the Position which I gave, It is not sufficient, etc. is disliked, because it makes the Catholic Church the Ground of our belief; but in truth I find no reason given for such dislike, or any thing said against it, but what to me seems very strange, and is this: If there be a true sense, upon ancient account also, of a Catholic, who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church, etc.  
To which I answer, that I would fain know, what Catholic upon ancient Account, did not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church; or indeed, how can I account him a Catholic (without a palpable Contradiction) that doth not believe the Catholic Church?  
S. Iren. (l. 3. c. 4.) saith, We ought not to seek among others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church, seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her (as into a rich Treasure-house, or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept) all things which are of truth; that every man that will, may take out of her the drink of life. For this is the Entrance of life, but all the rest are Thiefs and Robbers: for which cause they are verily to be avoided. But those things which are of the Church, are with great diligence to be loved, and the tradition of truth is to be received.  
And the said Iren. (l. 1. c. 3.) telleth us, that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith, and that which they preached.  
S. Cypr. (Ep. ad Cornel.) avoucheth, that the Church always holdeth that which she first knew. See also his Ep. 69. ad Florentium.  
And S. Aug. had so great an Estimation of the Church, that he sticked not to say (cont. Ep. Manich. quam vocant Fundamentum, c. 5.) I would not believe the Gospel, except the Authority of the Church did move me thereunto. Moreover, disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Heretics (l. 1. cont. Cresc.) he useth this discourse, Although of this (that the baptism of Heretics is true baptism) there be no certain Example brought forth out of the Canonical Scriptures, yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures, when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church, which the Authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend: That because the Scripture can not deceive, whosoever doth fear lest that he be deceived through the Obscurity of this question, may ask Counsel touching it of the Church, whom without any doubt the Scripture itself doth show.  
The same S. Aug. (l. 4. de Trin. c. 6.) saith, No lover of peace will be against the Church.  
And (Ep. 118. c. 5.) he plainly terms it, Most insolent madness, to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth.  
I will insist no longer upon the Testimony of the Fathers (of which I might pour a whole shower against you) lest I receive the ordinary Answer, that this their Opinion was one of their Navi, Spots, or Blemishes, and therefore shall be rejected; but will ●●ge your own Authors and Protestants, to whom perhaps you will give more Credit.  
Calvin (upon Esay) expounding the words of the 59 Chap. My Spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy Mouth, shall not departed from thy Mouth, and from the Mouth of thy Seed and of thy Seeds Seed, saith our Lord, from henceforward and for ever, saith, He promiseth that the Church shall never be deprived of this inestimable good, but that it shall always be governed by the holy Ghost, and supported with heavenly doctrine.  
Again soon after, The Promise is such, that the Lord will so assist the Church and have such care of her, that he will never suffer her to be deprived of true doctrine.  
And his Scholar Beza (de haeret. à Civili Magistratu puniendis p. 69.) confesseth, that the Promise of our Saviour of the Assistance of the holy Ghost, was not made only to the Apostles, but rather to the whole Church.  
D. Saravia (in defence. tract. de div. Ministr. gradib. p. 8.) saith, The holy Spirit which beareth rule in the Church, is the true Interpreter of Scriptures: from him therefore is to be fetched the true Interpretation: and since he cannot be contrary to himself, who ruled the Primitive Church, and governed the same by Bishops, those now to reject, is not, certes consonant to Verity.  
Our Lutheran Adversaries of Wittenberg (Harm. of Confess. Sect. 10. p. 332, 333. Confess. Witten. Art. 30. not only confess the Church, to have Authority to bear witness of the holy Scripture, and to interpret the same; but also affirm, that She hath received from her husband Christ a certain Rule (to wit, the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching) confirmed by Miracles from heaven, according unto the which she is bound to interpret those places of Scripture which seem to be obscure, and to judge of doctrines.  
Field also (l. 4. c. 19, & 20. Sect. The Second) acknowledgeth in the Church a Rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles, according unto which he will have the Scriptures expounded.  
And we cannot doubt, but that she hath followed this Rule, having such Assistance from God's holy Spirit.  
Furthermore, the same Dr. Field (in the Epistle to his Treatise of the Church) professeth thus, Seeing the controversies of Religion are grown in number so many and in Nature so Intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them; What remaineth for Men desirous of Satisfaction in things of such Consequence, but diligently to search out, which among all the Societies of Men in the World, is that blessed Company of holy Ones, that household of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, that so they may embrace her Communion, follow her directions, and rest in her Judgement?  
For brevity, I will omit many other of our Adversaries, who are of the same Mind, and will now press harder upon you.  
Surely, if we believe the Creed, the Church is holy; if the Scripture, She is the Spouse of our Saviour without spot or wrinkle: which Eulogies, and, indeed, glorious titles would nothing well become her, if she can teach us that which is false.  
This Scripture also gives us these known doctrines and directions, That the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth (1 Tim. 3. v. 15, etc.) That the Church is built upon a Rock, and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against her (Matth. 16. v. 18.) He that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican (Matth. 18. v. 17.) He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me (Luke 10. v. 16.) Lo, I am with you even to the Consummation of the World (Matth. 28. v. 20.) I will ask the father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you, the Spirit of truth (Jo. 14. v. 16.) And again, yet many things I have to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now: but when the Spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth (Jo. 16. v. 12, 13.) (to omit many other the like passages is Scripture.)  
Now this Church, whose Authority is thus warranted, did precede the Scripture, which for a great part thereof was written but upon Emergent Occasions (as Field, Hook. Covel, and other our Adversaries have confessed) which Occasions had they not been, perhaps we never had known this Scripture.  
Suppose then we had lived in those times, when there had been no such Scripture; (as many did, some part thereof being not written above sixty years after our Saviour's Ascension) Ought we not then to have believed the Church's tradition and preached word? This Church was called the Pillar and Ground of Truth, before the words were seen in writing: and the like I might say by the other places before cited, which are now in the Scripture, but were delivered by word of mouth to the Church, before ever they were written; by all which places the Authority of the Church is commended to us, and we referred to the said Church, as a Guide in all our doubts: And all these words of God were no less to be believed and obeyed before they were written then since.  
Even the Scripture itself is believed upon the Tradition and Authority of the Church (being part of the Credenda it proposeth) nor could we at this day have known which books were true (now Canonical) which Spurious, but by the Church's decision and Proposal (as the said learned Mr. Hooker, and other our Adversaries do acknowledge.)  
Again, who doth not ground his belief upon the Church, upon what doth he ground it, but upon his own fancy, or private Interpretation of Scripture, the true Source and Nurse of all Heresy? And such as these may indeed be found upon ancient Account, as Helvidius, Vigilantius, and the rest of Heretics, as the Catholic Church did then account them.  
Now to that which is insinuated, That the Scripture was sometime acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners, it is answered, that it is so now; but this doth no way hinder the Churches being the Ground of our Belief: for the Church is both the Ground of our believing the Scripture, and also the Interpreter of Scripture (as is above confessed by our Adversaries) and not private Spirit, which I can esteem no better than a fantastical, if not a fanatical Opinion; and is Diametrically opposite to the words of the second of St. Peter, (1.20.) No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation.  
And all this spoken here, and in the Position, etc. of the Church, is meant of such a Church, as does truly deserve the name of Catholic; and so it will appear, that all the discourse in this paper I received of the Roman Church, considered as a Particular Church, or any other Particular Church, is but Impertinent and Extravagant.  
Now also I must assure the Answerer, that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome the formal Object of their Faith (as he doth impose upon them) for they acknowledge that to be the Revelation of God, or the authority of God revealing, which causes their Belief to the Supernatural and Divine, and not (only) Natural and Humane; as is the Belief that there is such a City as Rome, or that there is a William the Conqueror, etc. which kind of faith is All that Heretics have, and All such as do not ground their Belief upon the Authority of the Church.  
I cannot also but observe in the received paper, that it is improperly enough called Excess of faith (as it is there opposed to want of faith) to believe more than Necessary: for the Number of things believed does not alter the Nature of faith itself.  
And lastly, I must tax him of false alleging the words in the Reason, thus, there is no infallible way (without a Miracle) of his (God) Revelation coming to us, but by their Church, whereas in the Paper delivered, it is the Church (abstracting from all Particular Churches, and meaning the true Church, which soever it is.)  
And this is done, but to make way for that needless Excursion which there follows.   

THE rejoinder.  
SIR,  
THere is no great reason for me to rejoin:  
First, because you wave the Application of your Discourse, as to the Roman Church; which is not ordinary for those of your Profession when they speak highly of the Catholic Church.  
Secondly, Because I may let you alone to answer the first paper with your second, as to the main of it.  
Thirdly, Because the greatest part of it hath one fault, not to conclude contradictorily.  
Yet in Christian respects to Truth and You, I shall endeavour meekly some return to your Reply, and (to differ as little as may be from you) I shall mostly follow your own Order.  
In the beginning you dislike my dislike of the ground of Faith without giving you any Reason.  
Answer, I intended my answer as near as I could guess to the design of your paper for the Roman Church; by Obedience to the Bishop whereof Bellarmine in his Catechism Englished, p. 65. 6, 7. doth describe the Catholic Church. You will excuse me then if I took the course to make my answer compendiously sufficient to that drift, if you will hold with Papists herein. And if you would confess, you meant the Roman Church by the Catholic, than I have given you such a Reason against your Position as you will say nothing to. And you may consider that you directed your paper as to a Protestant, who is not contradistinguished to a Catholic, but to a Papist; if you be a Papist why do you dissemble it to me? If you be not, why do we dispute? And this Apology may be enough also to refute all your Objections against me, of impertinencies, and excursions, and untrue Allegations, if you will take notice also of my Parenthesis.  
And now my Reason intimated in a promise shall be made good in performance. And since you will in the question about the Catholic Church abstract from the Roman and all other particulars, I shall give some account of Catholics, who did not make the authority of the Catholic Church the ground and cause of their Belief, whereby only God his Revelation cometh to us infallibly (as you express yourself in your first paper,) but this Prerogative they ascribed to the Holy Scripture to be it, wherein and whereby we are infallibly assured of God's Will, as to what we should believe and do in order to salvation. That the authority of the Catholic Church is of use towards Faith, we deny not; but the cause and ground of Faith, and that whereby we are infallibly ascertaind of the mind of God, is not the Proposition of the Church, but the Word of God. And such being the state of the question betwixt us, I shall, for your shower of authorities you say you could power out against me, give you or show you a cloud of witnesses (as the Apostle speaks Hebr. 12.1.) against you. Your shower could not wet me through, but this cloud may direct you home.  
This Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Church and Scriptures (as you may see by the 8.19, 20, 21. Articles, and therefore it is not my Opinion) will appear not to be new, but agreeable to ancient Catholics, in your own esteem.  
The first shall be Saint Irenaeus. Have you appealed to Saint Irenaeus? unto Saint Irenaeus shall you go. He in his third book first chapter; first words thus; We have not known the disposing of our salvation by any other than those by whom the Gospel came to us, which then indeed they preached, afterwards delivered it to us in the Scriptures, by the Will of God, to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith. So he. Now that which is delivered in Scripture by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of Faith, is the ground and cause of our Faith. And such is the Gospel, according to this Testimony.  
The next for us is Clemens Alexandrinus, in the seventh of his Stromata, towards the end, in the 757. p. of the Greek and Latin Edition. He which is to be believed by himself, reasonably is worthy to be believed by the Lord's Scripture and Voice, working by the Lord, inwardly to the benefit of men. So he. Then according to him, the Holy Scripture is not worthy to be believed by men, but men are worthy of belief by it. And therefore that must ground our Faith, because it is it whereby we believe others. And therefore he saith in the following words, Surely we use it as the Criterium for finding out of things. And therefore points are to be decided and determined by authority of it; which is his chief discourse against Heretics even to the end of that book. And if you please to peruse and consider it, you shall find there that in his judgement the Catholic Church (which he also there commends) doth not conserve itself in that denomination by its own authority, but by the Rule of Scripture. Now that which rules the whole rules the parts; the Scripture rules the whole, then us.  
So Origen upon Saint Matthew, Hom. 25. We ought not therefore for confirmation of Doctrine to swear our own apprehensions, and to bring into witness those which every one of us doth understand and think to be according to Truth, unless he shall show them to be holy out of that which is contained in the Divine Scriptures, as in the certain Temples of God; what can be more to our purpose? Then the Scripture is the Ground of Doctrines: then of Faith.  
As for Athanasius, we need not his words, knowing his practice of holding the equality of the Divine Nature, in the second Person, the Son of God, against all the World. Yet he speaks, as he did, if you will look upon him about the Incarnation of the Word, at the latter end: But then having taken occasion by these, if thou wilt read the Divine Books, and wilt apply thy mind to them, shalt learn out of them more plainly and more perfectly, the truth of what we have said. So he. Now where the Truth is learned more plainly and perfectly, there is the ground of Truth. In the Divine writings is the truth of those things more plainly and more perfectly learned.  
After the same manner doth Tertullian bring in his suffrage in his Book of Prescriptions, a little after the beginning of it, thus, Do we prove the Faith by the Persons, or prove the Persons by the Faith? And again, Faith consists in the rule. You have the Law, and Salvation, by the observation of it. And soon after, To know nothing against the rule, is to know all things. And again, That which we are, the Scriptures were from the beginning, we are of them before it was otherwise, before they were corrupted by you. So he, besides other passages wherein he witnesseth for us.  
Saint Ambrose giveth us also his voice, in his first Book to Gratian, chap. 4. in the beginning, thus, But I will not that you believe an Argument, O holy Emperor, and our disputation; let us ask the Scripture, let us ask the Apostles, let us ask the Prophets. Then we are to be determined in our Belief by the Scriptures.  
Saint Cyprian also, (who for order of time should have been put before) gives his verdict for us, in the beginning of his sixth Sermon, concerning the Lord's Prayer, thus, The Evangelical Precepts, most beloved Brethren, are nothing else but the Divine Magisteries, the foundations of building, our Hope, the firmaments of corroborating our Faith, the nutriments of cheering our heart, the Gubernacles of directing our journey, the safegards of obtaining Salvation, which, while they do instruct, the Docile minds of Believers upon Earth, bring them to the Kingdom of Heaven. So the Father. Where you see the Scriptures are asserted immediately to be the Ground and Firmament of Faith.  
Yea, neither doth Saint Austin seem to speak only for your cause. In the seventh Tome, in the third Chapter of the Unity of the Church, against the Epistle of Petilianus, in the beginning he hath these words, But as I began to say, let us not hear these things I say, these things thou sayest, but let us hear these things the Lord saith. There are certainly the Books of the Lord, whose authority we both consent unto, we both believe, we both are obedient to; there let us seek our Church, there let us discuss our cause. And soon after, Let those things be taken out of your way, which against one another we recite not out of the Divine Canonical books, but otherwise. And soon after, Some may ask why I would have these things taken out of the way, since if they brought forth, your Communion is invincible; (he answers) because I would not have the Church demonstrated by Humane Documents, but by Divine Oracles: and so to the end of the Chapter, which he concludes thus; therefore let us seek it (the Church) in the Holy Canonical Scriptures.  
I have now made good my words, to give you Catholic Testimonies on our side. Amongst which Saint Augustine's authority gives advantage to plant Arguments upon: thus:  
If in businesses of dispute we must hear what the Lord saith, not what man saith, than the Scripture is the ground, not humane authority.  
But let us not hear what I say or thou sayest (saith the Father) but what the Lord saith. Again, Where we must seek the Church, there we must resolve our Faith. But we must seek the Church in the Scriptures, as the Father saith. If the Church is to be proved by the Scriptures, than the Scriptures are the ground of Faith, because they are the ground of the Church: there is no resolution of Faith but in that which is indemonstrable; therefore not in the Church, because that is demonstrated by the Scriptures, as he saith. Again, Divine Oracles are the ground of Faith: the Scriptures are the Divine Oracles, as he saith, as the Scripture saith, as Saint Ignatius saith, in his Epistle to the Church of S●●yrna. Indeed the proper object of Faith Catholic is the Word of God, not the Word of Man. And proportionable the cause of this Faith, must be divine authority, not any authority of Man. As demonstrative reason makes Science, so humane authority make Opinion: but Faith is an assent to that which is spoken by God as true, because he speaketh it: therefore the authority of the Church is not a mean apt to beget Faith, because it is of another kind, and cannot exceed the nature of humane authority, although it be the highest in the kind, if it be represented in a lawful General Council. Yet even General Councils have erred, and therefore they cannot he the Ground of Faith. This is the prerogative of the Canonical books, as the Father and all Antiquity calleth them: but never did we hear of a Canonical Church. The Scripture is the Canon, is the rule, not the Church. The Church witnesseth Truth. The Church keepeth Truth. The Church defendeth Truth. The Church Representative in a Council, determineth Controversies authoritatively, not infallibly, and therefore binds not unto Faith, but to Peace: not to Faith in the Conscience, but to Peace in the Church; not affirmatively, that we should say it is true, because they say it; but negatively, that we should not rashly oppose it, as false, because they define it as true. Hitherto we go for the honour of the Church Catholic, not Roman. And now I have given you some reason of our Faith.  
It follows now in your Reply; or indeed how can I account him a Catholic (without a palpable contradiction) that doth not believe the Catholic Curch.  
Answ. I say so too. But what from thence? To profess a belief that there is a Catholic Church (whereof part is triumphant in Heaven, part on Earth expectant) and to profess myself to belong to the Catholic Church, is not inclusive of your sense, that the Catholic Church is the ground of our belief. We believe the Catholic Church grounded in the Scripture, or built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone, as Saint Paul speaks, Ephes. 2.20.  
Secondly, This is not to your purpose, because the Catholic Church, as it is an object of Belief, must be considered as invisible; whereas you intent the Church as visible, whose proposals we must receive and submit our understanding unto. For the Invisible Church, or Church as Invisible, cannot order us in our Belief, because, as such, it is not known to us.  
I come now to your Testimonies.  
And your first witness is Saint Irenaeus.  
Answ. We yield all to Saint Irenaus, nothing to you. We say, we ought not to seek amongst others the truth, which we may easily take and receive from the Church, etc. Yes, because the Church is serviceable to the truth, by way of Ministry to deliver the Word of Truth, to keep the Word of Truth, to uphold the Word of Truth. And so we acknowledge the Church to be a sufficient Treasury of Truth, because we have therein the Scriptures. But the Treasury doth not make the Money true nor currant: for it is possible that there may be false Money in the Treasury. Therefore we must not take it to be lawful, because it cometh out from thence: and so the Scripture is not made true to us, or the sense of it evidently credible to us, because it is in the Church. But we must look whose Image and Superscription the Doctrine hath, and whether it be right coin or not; and it may seem to be of the right stamp and yet not. Therefore saith Origen in his 34. Hom. upon Matth. All Money, 1. Every word that hath the Royal stamp of God, and the Image of his Word upon it, is lawful. Therefore we must bring it to the Word for trial. We confess we may take out of her the drink of Life; yes, but as out of a cistern, such water as cometh from the Fountain, the Scripture: and we drink out of the Scripture the Water of Life, as Tertullian in his Prescriptions. We deny not this to be the entrance of Life, because we have here the means of grace administered.  
And all without the Church we say are thiefs and robbers, and they ought to be avoided. Yes, All without the bosom of the Catholic Church, which would break her Peace, and rob her Treasury, are as thiefs and robbers, and aught to be avoided. We grant that those things which are of the Church, as being true from Scripture, in points of faith; or not repugnant to Scripture in things of Discipline, are with great diligence to be loved. And we allow it, that the tradition of Truth is to be received. Yes, thus, the tradition of Scripture, the word of Truth, or the Truth delivered in writing; for so Tradition not seldom signifieth. Or tradition of Truth, which is according to Scripture, as the Apostles Creed. Not that whatsoever is delivered should be Truth, (as you would have it) but whatsoever Truth is delivered, should be received. This is all that place as seemeth to me will afford.  
Your second Testimony from the same Father, may itself answer the Objection of the former, and may confirm my answer. Only let me add that he speaketh of the Church then purer than now. If you will have more said to this, you may find it in Saint Cyprians authority, which you produce next.  
The Church (Catholic) always holdeth, (not maketh) that which she first knew. Where? in Scripture. Where else? And where the Church holds that which it thus knew, we hold with it, and are beholden to the Church for holding it forth to us. The Church may inform us of it; but it doth not certify it to us: therefore doth not infallibly convey it (the Truth) to us: therefore is not the ground of Faith. The Office of the Church is as a Candlestick to hold the Light of the Word of Truth. And moreover, though is did always hold that which it knew, might it not also hold somewhat which she did not know? Though it did hold that which was true, might it not hold that which was false in other things? As the Church of Rome holds many things which are true (wherein we differ not) and also many things false, wherein she exceeds the Catholic Faith, as in regard of Object. Now put case therefore that that ancient Church near the Apostles times did not hold any point false, but did hold Every point true: yet even from hence nothing will be inferred sufficiently to your purpose, unless you can prove that it was appointed by God to be the ground of Faith by an impossibility of error in any particular. Such is to be the ground of our Faith: which is wanting in the Church, not privatively, as if it had been ever promised; but Negatively, because not promised to the Church after the Apostles times. If it were possible that the Church might not err, yet this would not make us rest our Faith in it. Faith hath no sure footing in such contingencies of Truth; unless you prove a non-possibility of erring, you do nothing.  
But we come now to the signal testimony of this kind, that of Saint Austin, I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church did move me.  
To which I answer, First, if the testimonies of the other Fathers be defective in clearness or fullness as to this matter, the testimony of one single Father (though excellent) will not amount to the Verdict of the whole Church: and you have no Fathers yet for you, for any thing I see.  
Secondly, Take this passage by itself, and it seems to speak high, but consider it with the tenor of his discourse in the whole chapter, and it is like you will begin to think that it comes out from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his adversary.  
Thirdly, you will be pleased to give me leave to use a Criticism, which admitted according to the reasonableness of it, will somewhat change the property of this suffrage. It appeareth by compare of places in African writers, that (as is observed) their manner was to express the tense more than past by the imperfect; and also that he in other places must so be understood. And if so here, than it must refer to him as when he was a Manichee; he was moved then, as such, by the authority of the Church to the embracing of the Gospel. And so we grant that the authority of the Church doth move to believe the Scriptures. But this cometh not to the case in hand, which is intended for particular points of faith, whether we should ground our faith of them in the Scripture, and not in the proposal of the Church. Neither is this an universal way (as is pretended) of coming to the belief of the Scriptures by the commendation of the Church: for some have been added to the Church immediately from the word, as in the second of the Acts, at the preaching of Saint Peter; as is noted.  
And yet fourthly, mark the terms. It is not said I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Church did cause me, but unless the authority of the Church did move me. And thus this Testimony doth very well agree with our Opinion. The authority of the Church might move him, although he did ground his Faith in the Gospel. And this is illustrated by the Samaritans believing Christ through the testimony of the woman; but when they came to Christ and saw him, They said unto the woman, we believe no more for thy saying, for we have heard and seen that he indeed is the Saviour of the world, the Christ, John 4.42. So Saint Austin might be moved by the voice of the Church to give an ear to the Truth of the Gospel and yet was settled in the Belief of it from its self by the Spirit of God. When he did believe the immediate cause of his Divine Faith was from the Gospel by the Spirit of God; although before he did believe, he was moved to think well of the Gospel by the authority of the Church; So he did not belive the Gospel by the authority of the Church, as a Theological principle, but as an outward mean and help thereunto. For the authority of the Church could not by its testimony of the Gospel make it properly credible, because the testimony of the Church is to be made true by it. And if it be not true in itself, than the testimony is false. So that before we know whether the Gospel be true, we know not whether the testimony of the Church be true. As also we cannot tell how to believe that the Church should always give a true testimony (as you suppose) in every point, but by the Scripture. And therefore there is no ground or rest for Faith, but in the Scripture. Since, if we believe the Church because the Scripture gives testimony of it, and then the Scripture because the Church gives testimony thereof, we must first believe the Scripture before we believe the Church. Therefore we must terminate our Faith in the Scripture, and if we do believe it, believe it for itself; it being the first credible.  
Fifthly, Look to the end of that chapter, and there, after he had disputed subtly, he doth conclude soberly, But God forbidden that I should not believe the Gospel, and then concludes against his Adversary from thence, (as the rule of the difference betwixt them) for, Believing that (saith he) I do not find how to believe you, etc. And that the Scripture is the Rule he went by, you may see in his 32. chapter against Cresconius, whether let me if you please refer you for brevity. None can overcome S. Austin, but S. Austin.  
And therefore I need not say any thing to the second testimony, which is taken out of him against Cresconius. Yet observe, Although of this there is no example certainly brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures, yet also we keep the Truth of the Holy Scriptures, in this when we do that which hath pleased the whole Church, saith he, Namely in that which is not a ruled case in Scripture, as the question was about the Truth of the Baptism of Heretics; It seems then, if it had been determined in Scripture there had been an end of it, that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive, saith he: And this property absolute belongs to it, not to humanity. Whosoever doth fear to be deceived by the obscurity of the Question, may ask counsel touching it of the Church, whom without doubt the Scripture itself, doth show, saith he. First here is an obscure question about practice: so are not all points. Some are clear in Scripture, and yet the Propsition is universal, that we must believe every thing by the proposal of the Church, as if we must believe nothing but what the Church defineth: and whatsoever it doth define, that we must believe.  
Secondly, We should ask counsel only, which doth not suppose an absolute determination.  
Thirdly, (which Church) the Scripture doth without doubt show; then the Church is to be proved by Scripture again. And without doubt doth show, but doth not show to be always without doubt, and infallible.  
Fourthly, he afterwards goeth about to prove it against him by testimonies out of Scripture.  
But, behold, yet again in a third Testimony of Saint Austin, No peaceable man will be against the Church.  
Answer, Saint Austin is again welcome, I say so too, and shall anon end with the whole Sentence.  
And yet once more in a fourth Testimony, Saint Austin. It is of most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth.  
We answer, We say so too, in things of indifferency, which every particular Church hath power in for itself, and the Catholic Church for all. And yet all Catholic practices are not now observed by the Church of Rome; as for one, Infant Communion. But according to the Father, if the Authority of the Scripture doth prescribe, which of these is to be done, it is not to be doubted that we should do so as we read. In such things then which are defined by Scripture, we know what we should do intuitively to Scripture, without ask counsel of the Church. As certainly I may believe that Jesus is the Christ, that he that believeth shall be saved, immediately out of Scripture, and not upon the Church's proposal.  
And now I have delivered you from your fear of my rejecting the Fathers. Surely we should love the Fathers though they were our Enemies, and we have no reason to fear them when they are our Friends. Therefore, if you please to give me leave so far, let me say as Nilus the Archbishop of Thessalonica (as the Book bears title) said, (in his first Book about the Primacy of the Pope, or the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches) It is very unreasonable that you who have not the Fathers for your examples, should of yourselves understand that which is better, and we who have the Fathers should not.  
Afterwards, in your Reply, you come to upbraid me with Devotion to modern men. But this Belief of yours concerning me is not well grounded: we delight not ourselves in being Servants to Men in matters of Faith. What is true we like in any, what is not true, we do not like in any. In Divine writings we take all, for there we consider not so much what is said, as who saith: in Humane Writings we pick, for we consider not who speaketh, but what is said agreeable to the Scriptures. Therefore with them we deal, as Saint Austin with Saint Cyprians authority, in the forenamed chapter against Cresc. What we find in them which is agreeable to the Canonical Scripture, we receive with commendation, what doth not, with their leaves we leave.  
But to make as short work with them as I can, I answer, first, as many testimonies and more clear might be found in them against you, I hope if those testimonies be for you, let one be set against the other. And if you say I should be moved by them, because they are ours I answer. Secondly, If they agree with the sense of the Fathers, you cannot condemn them: if they do not agree, we do. Thirdly, It is possible to be Even with you in the same kind, by a retaliation of Pontificians against you: But Fourthly, I could find in my heart not to say a word to them, that you might see I do not give them that respect, as to the Fathers. And yet, take the strength of all their authorities together, and make of them an accumulative argument (as we may speak) yet they do not conclude your cause. Calvin and his Scholar, in their say, affirm no more than that which we acknowledge (not from them) that the Church shall by the assistance of the Spirit, be sufficiently furnished with necessary Doctrine unto Salvation, but those of the Church invisible may be saved, though the Church visible be not Infallible, and by consequence not the ground of Faith.  
As for Doctor Saravia's passage, I answer, it doth not come up close to your purpose. The H. G. which beareth rule in the Church (objectively) is the true Interpreter of Scripture: and thus it is not for you. And if you understand the Church (objectively) yet first the matter he seems to speak to, is of Discipline about Government of the Church, depending upon Primitive Example: but we are upon points of Faith. Secondly, He cannot be contrary to himself, when he acts as he did formerly in the time of the Apostles: but whether he doth so act now is a question, yea no question. Thirdly, If you will with him, and from him, draw the Government of the Church to be proportionably Episcopal, with all my heart. I reject them that reject it.  
And your Adversaries of Wittenberg confess nothing for you. The rule (they speak of) namely Prophetical, and Apostolical preaching, etc. it is the Word of God written, according to which she is bound to interpret those places which are obscure, and to judge of Doctrines, according to the rule which she hath received, so as her Interpretations are to be agreeable to the analogy of Faith, and her judgements of Doctrines to be made according to the Law of the Word: namely, harder places are to be expounded by those which are more plain, and Controversies to be decided by that rule. And all this makes nothing for you. For thus the Scripture is the Rule ruling, and the Church is but the Rule ruled. And thus we follow the Church as the Church follows the rule, as Saint Paul saith, Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 11. v. 1.  
Or if those Lutherans mean by a certain rule any rule distinguished from Scripture; it is to be understood of some general heads of Christian Doctrine, in proportion whereunto, doubtful places and Doctrines were to be judged. But those heads were to be gathered out of Scripture. And so all is resolved towards belief in Scripture, but I think no man can see how they should say such a rule, which was not Scripture, was confirmed by miracles. So for them.  
And for Doctor Field, if you will go through the twentieth chapter of the fourth Book, you shall find nothing in him contrary to this Doctrine. For he saith plainly, that though the Canonical Books are received by way of Tradition, yet the Scriptures have not their authority from the approbation of the Church, but they win credit of themselves, and yield satisfaction to all men of their Divine Truth: whence we judge that the Church which receiveth them is led by the Spirit of God. Observe, not because the Church is led by the Spirit of God, therefore doth he say she receiveth them, but because she receiveth them, therefore we judge she is led by the Spirit of God. And as for his Rule of Faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles, what is he like to mean but the Apostles Creed, which he saith there, was delivered in the Church as a Rule of her Faith? But even this binds not by authority of the Church, or upon Virtue of Tradition, but by proportion to Scripture, where it is found in particulars of matter, though not in form of a Creed. We confess also that we should search out the true Church, as the same Doctor saith. We confess that the Catholic Church is the Household of Faith, the Spouse of Christ, the Church of the Living God; and that we should embrace her Communion, and rest in her judgement. Yes, but how? Not ultimately, not absolutely, not in what so ever she saith, because she saith it: but in what so ever she saith from the Lord. For although she doth go by an infallible Rule, yet are we not sure she goeth by it infallibly. Therefore, though we rest in her judgements as to Peace, yet can we not rest in her judgements as to Truth: because our understandings are not free to assent to what man will; as being bound to assent to that only which is grounded in the Word of God in matters of Faith.  
And now might I Vie with you in number of Pontificians against you. See Durand in his Prologue upon the Sentences, where he hath more to our purpose then is necessary to be Transcribed. Read him yourself: Gerson also in his Sermon concerning Errors against Faith and Manners about the Precept, Thou shalt not kill; saith thus, More freely, more purely, more truly, more speedily is Truth found out, and Error reproved, if the Divine Law alone be constituted as Judge; according to the consideration of Aristotle; He which makes the Law the Judge, makes God: but he that adds Man, adds a Beast. Panormitanus also upon the 5. of the Decret. concerning alms in chap. qualiter & quando, The saying of any Saint established with the Authorities of the New or Old Testament is preferred before a Papal Constitution, even in decision of Causes. Also Ferus upon the 1 Epistle of Saint John, 2. chapter in the 52.3. page of the Antuerpe Edition, thus; The Holy Ghost doth teach 'tis by the means of the Holy Scripture and Word. Again, The Holy Scripture is given to us as a certain sure Rule of Christian Doctrine. And again in the same page, For if having the Holy Scripture as a most certain Rule of Christian Doctrine set before our Eyes, we notwithstanding, teach things so unlike, what would be done, if the Scriptures were taken away? And if you say now that there is added to those places Tradition, in the Roman Edition after the Trent Council, as is noted; You will get nothing by that, but shame to the Pontificians.  
And now, I think, I am not much behind hand with you in Testimonies about the Question.  
But then afterwards you press harder upon me. So you say; but I do not yet feel the weight of any thing you say. I believe the Creed, and that the Church is Holy. And I do not believe, but know that from hence nothing is coming to your cause. The Catholic Church makes not itself the ground of Faith, but is grounded in it as before. And how were the first Members of the Catholic Church made Christians, but by the Word of God? And from the Holiness of it doth not follow infallibility by the Roman distinction which saith that the Pope may err, as to his own person, but not in matters of Faith as to the Church.  
I believe that the Church is the Spouse of Christ, and that she is without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, as to that part which is in Heaven, and that the other part of the Church as invisible which is not yet in Heaven shall be without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, when it cometh up to Heaven. But I do not believe that that Text is meant of the Church visible. For all here glorious, or none: not all glorious here, therefore none. For you find it in the Text, that it is to be presented as a glorious Church, namely as in the whole. But you will not say, that every Member of the visible Church is here glorious without spot, without wrinkle or any such thing.  
If you do say so, you contradict Bellarmin in his third Book of the Militant Church, the second chapter, who there includes in his Definition of the Church visible, even Reprobates wicked and ungodly men; and requires there no internal virtue for the constitution of a Member of the Church, but only an external profession of Faith, and communion of Sacraments. And besides you know glory, which is a perfection of Grace, doth not belong to the way, but the Country in Heaven. And besides, if you will not believe me in such an Exposition, believe your Estius, who with 
* In his Retractations, p. 9 Ed. Frob. but this Quotation not added in my copy to him.  Saint Austin, understands it, upon good Reason of the Church invisible; as you may see in Estius Comment upon the place. And here by the way we have another Testimony of your own against you, if you account your Argument from this Text sufficient to your cause. And we have St. Augustine's authority to boot, as Estius quotes him. And moreover Holiness is no formal principle of our direction, especially in points of Faith. It is Holy because it follows, and as it follows the Rule, and so should we in faith and manners. And therefore if it were to be understood of the Visible Church (as it is not) yet you conclude nothing for your turn upon this consideration.  
To hasten, the next Text is formerly urged, the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Yet squeeze it, and press it, and make the best use of it you can, it will not afford your inference you would make from it.  
For first, some, and also very reasonably, will refer this Expression not to the Church, but to the Mystery of Godliness which follows; and so they make it as an Hebrew form of setting out some high point and grand Doctrine; and than it goes thus: A Pillar and Ground of Truth, and without Controversy, a great Mystery of Godliness is this, (namely) God manifested in the flesh, etc. If so, your interest in it is sunk, and indeed the copulative, [And] (and without Controversy) doth not seem so well and so close to knit else. But it being given, not granted, that that Criticism is not sufficient, what of all that? For Saint Irenaeus, as before, gives this Eulogy to the Scripture. The Scripture gives it to the Church. Now to which doth this property belong first and absolutely? To the Scripture or to the Church? Not to the Church, for the Church hath it from the Scripture. Now that which hath it first, hath its absolutely, and independently upon that which follows: therefore the Scripture is the absolute Pillar and ground of Truth. Then there Faith hath sure footing; there it sits down, there it rests; on that Ground, upon that Pillar. The Church than hath this Title but subordinately; and what it saith cannot bind, but conditionately to that which is the absolute Ground and Pillar of Truth For the Truth is the Pillar and Ground of the Church, as Saint Chysostome saith upon the place.  
Take it then of the Catholic Church (not Roman) The Text doth more set out the Office of the Church, than the authority. It doth hold, it doth propose, it doth uphold the Truth; but this doth not convince or evince, that whatsoever the Church doth hold, we should also hold, and upon that account also; as if God had appointed the Church infallibly to convey to us whatsoever Truth; and nothing but Truth. And therefore may we and ought we to search the Scriptures, as our Saviour speaks, John 5.39. and by them examine whatsoever the Church saith, as those of Beraea did, that which was said by Saint Paul, and they commended for it.  
And therefore we cannot believe the Definitions of the Church upon its own word. Nay, can we also say, that God doth now give unto the Church such assistance, as then, which was noted before? and therefore we distinguish times, not thinking there should be as much said of the Church now, as when it included the Apostles; and therefore supposing that the Church then did hold all that was true, and nothing contrary: yet we cannot say it of the Church now, and therefore is not the cause of Faith, under whose authority it must also pass, beside the Divine Revelation to make it Catholic. For the Church is conserved by the Truth, as Estius also upon the place, than thus; where the ground of the Catholic Church is, there is the ground of Catholic Faith: The Scripture is the ground of the Catholic Church, unless it be conserved by some other principle then by which it is constituted. And it is conserved by the Truth, saith he, and thy word is Truth, saith our Saviour, John 17.17. And whereas he says, that the Truth sustaineth the Church, and the Church sustaineth the Truth, and so one is the cause of the other; we answer, this is not available for you. For in the same kind of cause it cannot be, for than we are in a circle, but the Truth sustains the Church, so as to continue it in its principles: the Church sustains the Truth but by way of ministry, which doth not make it to be a principle of Faith, no not to us.  
Neither do the other Texts speak for you as you would have them. If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, it doth not follow that than Catholic Faith must be built upon the proposals of the Church. Nothing shall prevail to the Condemnation of those, who belong to the Church of God, as invisible, and nothing shall prevail, not the Gates of Hell, against the Church visible, so as somewhere or other there shall not be some who shall profess the Christian Doctrine and Worship sufficiently to salvation.  
The next Text speaks towards Excommunication, which comes little into the question: for the authority of the Church may proceed to Censure, although we be not bound, upon peril of want of Faith to submit our understandings to the definitions of the Church. As to the authority we may submit, so as to endure the censure, though we do not submit our judgements, as to believe the definitions.  
As to the next place of Scripture, Luke 10.16. We say first, this seems not to be rightly applied to the business we are about, for this was directed not to the Governors of the Church, but to the seventy Disciples or Elders, which were sent by Christ to preach the Word. Secondly, If you do extend it to the Representative Church, yet doth it not command subjection of judgement always, to whatsoever is said; but not to despise them, as is intimated by what follows, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. We may differ without despising. And Thirdly, If you will from hence argue, that whatsoever was determined in a Council, was also determined by Christ, than Honorius was by Christ determined an Heretic, as you may see in the practics of the sixth Ecumenical Synod, as Nilus in his second Book. And if you say that the Church cannot err in a General Council, then resolve Nilus the reason why the Pope doth not hear a General Council; for if that General Council did not err, (as by your argument it must not) than the Pope did err. As for the other places of Holy Scripture, which you produce, of Christ's being with his Church to the end of the world, and of his promise of leading his Church into all truth: We answer together.  
First, Though the promise be extendible to the end of the world, yet it is not necessary to understand it, so, as that there shall always be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles, which is hard to affirm, since we cannot say that there is such necessity for such assistance, or such dispositions in the Governors of the Church to receive such assistance.  
Secondly, The Promise is made good by a sufficient direction of the Church to their end of happiness, although not without possibility of error. For every simple error doth not deprive the Church of Salvation, and then it may also recover itself from error, by more perusal of the Scriptures. But if it may at all err, it hath not the property of a ground of Faith, nor a just capacity of an Infallible communication of all things which are to be believed.  
You go on. Now this Church, whose Authority is thus warranted, did precede the Scriptures.  
Answ. Warranted, as a Church, but not as so, not as Infallible.  
Did precede the Scriptures, which for a great part were written upon emergent occasions, as you say.  
Answ. As for the writing of Scriptures, and the emergent occasions, you may be further referred to Doctor Field, whom you made use of against me. Whatsoever the occasion was, the end was to make what was written a sufficient rule of Faith and Manners. And as for your objection and inference upon it: We answer with a distinction; the Scripture is considerable two ways, either in respect to the substance of Doctrine; or secondarily in respect to the manner of delivery by writing: in the first regard the Scripture did precede the Church; for the Church was begotten by it, which to them was as certain as the written to us. And if you could make your Traditions, of proper name, equally certain, you would say somewhat. And as for Scripture, that which is written doth bind, though it doth not properly bind, as written.  
You say that the Church was called the Pillar and ground of Truth before it was written, and so you say might be said of other passages.  
We answer, As that place expressed it doth not appear to us that it was so called, since first we find it in terms, in Saint Paul's Epistle. But if so, or other like were used before; the answer before will serve.  
By all which places the authority of the Church is commended to us, and we are referred to the Church as a Guide in all our Doubts. So you say, and so we say, Where is the Adversary? How doth this conclude contradictorily? We confess that the Authority of the Church is commended to us in Scripture; but not directly in every place you name; nor in any is it so commended to us as to ground our Faith. We confess we are referred to the Ministers for Direction; and to the Governors for jurisdiction, yet are not the Latter Masters of our Faith, unto whom we should be bound in a blind Obedience of Universal assent or practice. We take their advice, but we are not by them determined in our Faith. We may believe what they say, but not because they say it. As it is drawn from Scripture, so it draweth us. If they make it probable that it is so, because they say it: yet it hath not the certainty of Faith without the Word of God. I should be very tender of incompliance with the judgement of the whole Church: but yet I must have for my warrant of Faith, the Lord saith, And although there be no appeal from a General Council, yet have they no infallible judgement. You proceed, even the Scripture itself is believed upon the Tradition and authority of the Church.  
Answer, This was touched before in the case of Saint Austin, and it is in effect answered, as before, by Doctor Field.  
Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church: but we do not take them to be Canonical by Tradition from the Church. The authority of the Church moves me as to the Negative not to descent: but assent is settled to them as such in the way of Faith, because they are such. In thy Light we shall see Light, as the Psalmist speaks, Psalm 36.9. or by thy Light; so by Scripture we see Scripture.  
Next follows the Expostulation, which may be put into this discourse; Either we ground our belief upon the Church, or upon our own fancy and private Interpretation of Scripture, etc.  
Answer, We deny your disjunction. We ground our belief, neither upon the authority of the Church as you; nor upon fancy, neither as some have done who have been better friends to Romans, than they have been to us, as Doctor Whitaker told Campian upon a like imputation of Anabaptastical fancies.  
We differ from you, because we allow to private Christians a judgement of discretion, or discerning, which sure is commended in that precept, Prove all things, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians 5.21. We differ from those who magnify their private interpretations, because we say they should be directed by their Ministers, and ordered by the Bishops, the Pastors of the Church, chief, when they are assembled in a General Council, wherein is the highest power of Oyer and Terminer as we may speak, of hearing and ending differences in the Church; yet we cannot say that we are absolutely bound unto their Canons, we having the judgement of private discretion, and they not the judgement of Infallibility. And if you cannot say that they are absolutely without any doubt, but true; without doubt we can say that we should not absolutely believe them. Every possible defect of certainty in the Object excludes Faith; the certainty whereof admits no falsity. Therefore can we not presently yield or assent to whatsoever is by them defined, because they may err. As it was said of the Milesians, they were not fools, but they could do foolish things: So though they be learned men, though great Divines, yet may they possibly propose that which is not so. They reason points by the Scripture: which was wont as is noted) to be laid in the middle, (when they were in Council,) but since they go to discourse from Scripture in things doubtful, and do not see all Conclusions in principles of Scripture by way of Intelligence; it is possible for them not rightly to apply some principles of Scripture to some particular cases. Therefore since they have not a power not to err, we have a power to suspend our Faith; nay we cannot give it without evidence of Truth. Yet since they have a power to order us, we have a Duty not. to oppose or disturb. And thus this Doctrine makes way for Faith, not for Heresy; since we may differ from the Opinions of the Church, even defined, and yet not be Heretics; because the formality of the Heretic hath itself in the will, and wilful blindness is more apt to make Heretics then a sober disquisition, which would know what it doth believe. For Belief is not divided against Knowledge, but Science.  
Whereas you say afterwards in your Reply, that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners, and the Church the ground of our belief nevertheless;  
I answer, I am very glad you confess that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners. But this confession will destroy your Position, that the Church is the ground of our belief, in your sense. For if that be our Rule Ruling, than our belief is to be ruled by that. For as Clemens Alexandrinus in the 7. of his Stromata, saith in this matter, That Principle which needs another Principle, is not a Principle: so that Rule which needs another Rule, how is it a Rule? Is it an adequate Rule or not? If so, then where are your Traditions? If not, how a Rule of Faith and Manners? Is it sufficient or not? If sufficient, then what necessity of your Proposal of the Church, especially for things necessary which are plain? If not sufficient: then how a Rule of Faith and Manners? And if both the Scripture and the Church be both Grounds of belief, than either coordinate or subordinate. Not coordinate, for then the voice of the Church must be equal to the Word of God, without the Word of God: and who then will be guilty of the fanatical Spirit? If subordinate, than the principal ground makes the rest of Faith. And when I know God's Revelation in Scripture, what need I go to the Church for authority or Interpretation? And besides where there is need of Interpretation, although it doth belong to the Church to interpret, yet cannot we ground a belief in that interpretation, unless it did appear that the Church doth interpret infallibly: But this is not yet proved; & therefore your reason is not valid. And if you say the Church cannot err, because it goeth by the expositions of the ancient Fathers, do but consider how hardly we can settle and fix belief therein. For who hath read them all? yea, how few know them all? and who knows whether he that doth know them and hath read them all, doth give us a right account of them? who can exactly distinguish betwixt those which are true, and those which are false? who can accurately discern of the true Fathers, which pieces are true, which are foisted in? who can perfectly judge all their idioms of speech? who can reconcile the differences betwixt one and another? yea, who can compose the differences betwixt themselves?  
And that Text which you produce of Saint Peter, will do you no good, for we do not magnify private interpretations. We say private men should advise with the Church: but are we sure that she hath hit the right sense?  
But as for the Text, it is impertinently produced, if it be rightly interpreted, No Prophecy of Scripture is of private Declaration; and to this effect the Syriack: No Prophetical solution is of private writing, was not written by a private spirit, for so it best agrees with that which follows in the last verse: for Prophecy was not brought to us at any time by the will of Man, etc. And after the same manner doth Cajetan comment upon the place; he toucheth the difference between Sciences written, and Prophecies written, in this regard, that a Learned Man teacheth and writeth according to his own Interpretation, those things which do appear in the light of his Agent intellect; but the Prophet doth say and write those things which appear under the light of Divine Revelation, not according to the interpretation of his own judgement. So he. So then the Text relates to those who wrote Scripture, not to those who should interpret it, being written. And besides, when private Mendoza interpret Scripture for themselves, they are not to interpret it by private means, but by itself, comparing place with place, and discerning the sense of that which is obscure, by that which is more plain. And if it be a passage that is very obscure, and there be no other passage more clear to illustrate it; it is not like to be a point, without the belief whereof there is no Salvation: Well said the Greek Nilus, to accuse the Scripture is all one, as if one should accuse God, but God is without blame.  
It follows in your Reply, and all this spoken here, and in the position, etc. of the Church, is meant of such a Church as doth truly deserve the name of Catholic.  
Answ. This I said enough to at the beginning. But you seem to be very loath to own the Church of Rome, and to avouch her, and yet you would seem to manage the point, which they make much of, as they: as if you had some mind to be a true Catholic abstractedly from Rome, and so indeed you may be in the ancient sense, as they used it for those who were Orthodoxal. Yet for what Church you reserve those great titles, and what Church, in your esteem, doth deserve the name of Catholic, I know not. You are very close in this. But let me now at least conclude, that if the Catholic Church be not the ground of Faith in your sense, surely the Roman is not.  
And now all that I have to do, is to justify two expressions of mine, which you are pleased to carp at.  
The one is, that I said the Pontificians do hold the proposal of the Church of Rome to be the formal object of their faith. You say that you must assure the answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome (in its proposal) to be the formal object of their Faith (as he doth impose upon them) for that they acknowledge to be the Revelation of God, or the authority of God revealing, which causes their Belief to be supernatural or Divine, etc.  
Answ, I am glad my expression gave you occasion thus to express yourself. See how you now differ from yourself. Before, the ground of Believing was the authority of the Church: now the authority of God revealing the cause of their belief. Before, you concluded, Faith consisted in submitting the understanding, and adhering to the Church, and in believing every thing, because she proposeth it: now it is the authority of God revealing, which causes their faith to be Divine. As for the term, thus; the formal object is such, under which, and in respect whereunto, any thing proceedeth; if then God's Revelation cometh not to us under the Proposal of the Church, or as proposed by the Church, than the cause is lost; if it doth, then grant me my term, and affirm with me that the Pontificians hold so. If not, they are better than you. And what means else their implicit faith, unless we are to believe every thing as the Church believeth it (and because the Church proposeth it as you said) and if we be to believe every thing as the Church believe it, then is the Church the formal object of their faith; since they are also bound not to doubt, but simply to obey, as Bellarmine tells us in his fourth Book of the Roman Bishop, 5. chap.  
The other term you find fault with is, excess of faith, You tax it as improperly spoken: But surely it will pass without any Grain of Salt or of allowance, if we consider that Faith may be compared as to a particular object, and so there is not an Excess of Faith as to that: but than it may be compared as to many objects, and so, though we do not more believe one thing than we should, if we should indeed believe it, yet may we believe more than we should If we believe those things which are not at all to be believed. And thus, if we should believe whatsoever the Church of Rome proposeth, we might be destroyed for excess of Faith. The Church of Rome is peccant in excess of Faith by believing more points than it should believe, and this is the reason why our Divinity is in negatives, as to differences with them, because their Divinity in differences to us, is in additions.  
SIR, If you will excuse me for being so long, I shall now conclude with the whole conclusion of Saint Austin, whereof you gave me but part. Against Reason no Sober Man will go, against Scriptures not Christian, (than Christians should go by Scriptures) against the Church no Peacemaker.   

The Roman Catholick's first Treatise. How in these times in which there be so many Religious, the true Religion may certainly be found out.  
The Preface.  
THE Roman Catholics have often foretold, that by permitting freely to all sorts of people whatsoever, the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother Tongue, multitudes of New Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberless Number; and as for the People's Manners, they would daily grow worse and worse. How true this is, let the world judge. That than which now mainly imports, is to distinguish the true Religion from so many false ones. This is my Aim. To effect this, I did write a short Paper, showing the Catholic Church so to teach the infallible way to Salvation (which is to be obtained only in the true faith) that we cannot have as things stand, any other Assurance to ground our faith upon securely. I did never deny, that when by the Infallible Authority of the Church we are secured that the Scriptures be the word of God we cannot believe such things as are clearly contained in the Scripture: for so I should deny that I could not believe that to be infallibly true, which upon an Infallible ground I believed to be Gods own word. But I did, and still do maintain, that no man can have Infallible ground to believe the Scriptures now, but he who first believeth that which the Church teacheth to be infallibly true: Whence it will follow, that his faith must needs now at the first be grounded upon the Revelation of God's truth, made by God to us by his Church, and not by his written word.  
The Papers I did write to this Effect have been answered by some truly Learned Scholar; so that I hope so worthy a Man will not reject such a Reply, as may seem to be as clear a Demonstration as any wise Man can hope for in this Matter. And such a Demonstration I hope (by God's grace) to make, whilst I endeavour to make good the Title prefixed to this Paper which Title I now add, to show that my chief drift is to guide a Soul redeemed by Christ's blood, to that happy eternity, to which we cannot attain, unless in all doubtful Controversies of faith we follow the Catholic Church as an Infallible Judge in all those Controversies; we being obliged under pain of damnation not to  this Judge. And whilst I demonstrate this, I do demonstrate my former Position, That the Infallible Authority of the Catholic Church is the Ground of our faith. And also going on with this Demonstration, I will leave nothing of Concernment unanswered in the Reply made; and thus I will conclude contradictorily to the said Reply, which (a little after the beginning) denyeth, The Authority of the Catholic Church to be the Ground of faith, and that whereby we are infallibly ascertained of the mind of God. I answer not the Reply just in the Order that my Answer was returned; for so I should be overlong. I use this way of a little Treatise to prove my Title; for thus all will be more clear and less tedious. In the Conclusion I show all the parts of the Reply to have been fully answered in this Discourse.   

The Proof of the Title.  
St. Anselme hath a very fit Similitude to express how much a Contentious Spirit in disputing doth blind the understanding from seeing the Manifest Truth. He sayeth, that a little before Sunrising two men in the fields did fall into a hot debate concerning that place of the Heavens in which the Sun was that day to rise, the one pointing out one part of the Heavens, the other another. They passed so far in their Contention, that falling together by the Ears, they both pulled out one another's Eyes, and so when the Sun by and by after did rise, neither of them both could see a thing so clear as was the place of the Sun rising. To our purpose; Because Zeal in Religion is accounted laudable, and also because prejudice, caused by Education in such or such a Religion, is a thing exceedingly swaying us to our own side, we are commonly apt to grow into so hot a debate in disputations about Religion, that I may freely say, This Passion hindereth many thousands from seeing that clear Sunshine of Truth, which men of mean Capacity would clearly behold, if setting all passion and prejudice aside, they did with a Calm and humble Mind beg of God to give them this grace of seeking Truth with all sincerity: for than he who should seek, should find.  
This is proved manifestly and very comfortably for the vulgar sort of less learned people (who make the greatest Number of Souls in the world) by those clear words of the Prophet Esay (c. 35.) Say to the faint-hearted, Take courage and fear not, behold God himself will come and save you: then shall the Eyes of the blind be opened, and the Ears of the deaf shall be opened, 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. By this place it is evidently proved, that the way which our Saviour at his coming would teach us, should be not only in itself, but (as the Prophet saith) should be to us a direct way, so that fools cannot err by it. Let there arise never so many Controversies in Religion, let there spring up never so many Sects, yet the Promise of God will stand, that our Saviour at his coming should show us A holy way, which should be unto us so direct a way that fools cannot err by it. What Holy way is this? I say, It is the Holy Catholic Church, which even by this place is proved Infallible, A way so direct unto us, that fools cannot err by it. But even wise men might err by it, and by following it most faithfully, if this way could be fallible, and lead Men into Errors, and those damnable.  
To our Purpose then; All Christians of whatsoever Religion they be, agree in this, That there must be One Judge of all Controversies and 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 have as many Religions as there be Private and different Judgements. For if you in private, without all fault may follow your own Judgement (even after reading of Scripture,) and believe that to be true which out of Scriptures you think truest, why may not I, though I judge quite contrary to you, believe that also to be truest which I think to be true according to the Scriptures? Whence you see that Christ should have left a very Miserable Church, and should have gathered together a most heart-disunited sort of People, if after their reading of Scriptures, he had left them no other Judge but their own private Judgement. What Lawmaker was ever so Inconsiderate, as to leave only a Book of Laws to his Commonwealth, without any living Judge, to whose Judgement All were to submit? True it is, that to submit exteriorly to temporal Judges, is sufficient, they being able and only to judge of the Exterior Man. But God who searcheth the Reins and the Heart, and who looketh most upon the Mind (which is the Seat of True or false belief) doth chief (exact, that those of his Church, be of One faith Interiorly, or else they be not of One faith, for faith essentially consisteth in the Interior Judgement. He hath all reason to exact they be of One faith, for he could not seriously desire their Salvation, without he required of them to do that, which is so wholly Necessary to Salvation, that without it no man is saved: For without faith it is Impossible to please God (Heb. 11.6.) that is, It is impossible to please him without true faith; for he is not pleased with false faith. But without we please God, it is impossible to be saved; therefore without true faith (which consisteth in the Interior Judgement) it is Impossible to be saved. And St. Paul (Ephes. 4.5.) teacheth us, that there is but one faith, one baptism, and one God. There being but One faith, and it being impossible to please God without this One faith, and all things necessary to please God being under Precept and of most strict Obligation, it followeth, that it is a Precept and a strict Obligation to have this faith, which chief and Essentially consisteth in the Interior Judgement. This I press so hard, because my Adversary hath a doctrine which I take to be exceedingly pernicious: for he saith, (Pag. 26. Answ. 5.) We say, They should be directed by their Ministers, and ordered by Bishops, the Pastors of the Church, chief when they are assembled in a General Council, wherein is the highest power of hearing and ending differences in the Church. Yet we cannot say, that we are absolutely bound to their Canons, we having the Judgement of private discretion, and they not the Judgement of Infallibility; and therefore since they have not a power not to err, we have a power to suspend our faith, etc. By these and many other words used to this Effect, you see here this Judgement of Private discretion left free in the Interior, to hold what a Private person thinketh fit after perusal of the Scripture, although a whole General Council thinketh, and most unanimously defineth the Contrary, even after they have heard and most diligently weighed and pondered the same places of Scripture. Good God Is that thy Promise of a Holy way, that shall be to us a direct way, that fools cannot err by it? Yea, is not the wisest Man in the world most likely to err in this way, by which he may in his Interior Judgement go quite Contrary to all Christendom? I know indeed that All who are not Roman Catholics must say this: for if the Church in a General Council be fallible, than we cannot ground one 〈◊〉 upon that Counsels definition. But even by this desperate Consequence, it is evident that God would give his Church a● Infallible assistance, so to make good his Promise of leaving to them a Holy way, which should be unto them a direct way, so that fools cannot err by it. For any Man of mean Capacity cannot err, if he will submit his judgement to the Catholic Church; whereas any Man of never so great a Judgement, cannot but be highly suspected of Error, and deeply guilty of exposing himself to manifest hazard of Erring in that faith (without which it is Impossible to please God) when he doth not submit his Interior Judgement to the known unanimous Judgement of the whole Church. St. Cyprian was a Prime Doctor of the Church, and yet grounding himself upon that which he judged to be Scripture (as appeareth by his first Book Ep. 6. and other places) he did err grossly about the necessity of Rebaptising those who had been baptised by Heretics. But saith St. Austin, l. 2. de Bapt. (c. 4.) If he had lived to see the determination of a Plenary Council, he would for his great Humility and Charity straightway have yielded, and preferred the General Council before his own Judgement. Thus speaketh S. Austin of S. Cyprian, though he knew his private Judgement of discretion to be far less exposed in this Case to hazard of Erring, then is the private Judgement of discretion of most private Men in the world; especially when they go point-blank against a whole General Council in points of higher Concernment than was this point, in which S. Cyprian was presently ready to submit his Judgement. If then we will not be guilty of so intolerable a pride in overvaluing our own private Judgement of Discretion, with so manifest hazard of missing that without which we cannot please God, or be ●●●ed, then will it highly concern us to inquire carefulnesses that Holy way, which will be unto us a direct way, so that fools cannot err by it. For such a way our God hath promised us: Let us search carefully after it.  
This Promise of God had not been performed, and Christ at his coming had but pitifully provided for his Church, if he had not left it some certain Judge, whose Judgement All men should be interiorly (for faith is in the Interior) bond to follow in all their differences and Controversies; insomuch that it must be one of the highest degrees of Treason against God, not to submit his Judgement to the Judgement of him, whom God should appoint for the Judge of all Matters of faith. For if there be no such severe Obligation to submit to the Judgement of this Judge, than might every Man choose, whether he would in his Interior Judgement submit to this Judge or No. And so that very Absurdity and very Perdition of Souls would follow, which is in the having no Judge at all; to wit, that every Man might believe in his Interior Judgement (in which only faith consists) what should seem to him to be grounded in Scripture; And so as the private Judgement of discretion in one Man is directly Opposite and Contrary to another Man's private Judgement of discretion, the faith of the One would be directly contrary to the faith of the Other: And yet there is but one faith True, without which One true faith it is Impossible to please God, and consequently to be saved. How then should God have provided sufficiently for men's Salvation, if after their most Careful reading and Conferring the Scriptures, No One Man among those Thousand Men, who even then differ in Religion, No One Man, I say, but that One Man who holdeth the Truth (which is but One) should Interiorly follow that faith, without which it is Impossible to be saved? It must needs then be a most damnable Sin to commit that highest treason against God's Judge, which is committed by not submitting our Interior Judgement unto him; being that in this our proceeding we go a way, in which all unity in Interior faith (which is in the first place to be regarded) is wholly Impossible to be kept.  
Let us then see (as a thing which concerneth us both most nearly) who is Guilty of this high Treason, I, who am a Roman Catholic, or You, who are not: for our faith being Contrary in Prime points, one of us must needs go astray from that One faith, without which it is Impossible to please God. And he of us Two who thus strayeth, therefore strayeth (and by doing so, teacheth others to stray) because he doth not submit his Judgement to the Judgement of this Judge: for if we both did this, we should join in all possible unity of this One true faith.  
And here comes in that most Important question, Who is this Judge, to whom All are thus to submit their Judgement in all Controversies of faith? For if we can find out this Judge, we can never remain in any doubt; for without all doubt, we must stand to the Judgement of this Judge, what reasons soever our private Judgement of Discretion may suggest; or else we had as good have no Judge at all, and it is not our Own private Judgement of discretion, but the Public Judgement of that Judge whom Christ hath appointed us, and which we are obliged to follow, as hath been shown.  
All Protestants do say, that the Scripture, and only the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge, to end and determine with Infallible Authority all our doubts, differences, and Controversies in Religion. And in this their Tenent they agree with all Heretics which have risen up against the Church of Christ. We Roman Catholics do profess, that all reverence and all Credit is due unto the Scriptures, as unto the Infallible word of God, insomuch, that we are ready to give our lives in defence of any thing which is affirmed in Scripture. I add that we and only we do truly believe the Scriptures; for he only truly believeth any thing with divine faith, who groundeth his Assent upon divine Revelation: But the assent of Roman Catholics only with which they believe the Scriptures to be Gods undoubted word) is grounded on divine Revelation, manifested to them by his Church, which (as I will show) is Infallible. The Assent, by which others believe the Scriptures to be Gods undoubted word, is not grounded on this Revelation manifested by his Church, as they all confess, neither is it grounded upon any other divine Revelation, as I will now prove. For if there be any such Revelation manifested to them, it is manifested to them in the Scriptures, as they say: But there is no such Revelation manifested to them in the Scriptures; for it is written no no where in the Scriptures, that such and such books of Scripture be Canonical, and the undoubted word of God; therefore this cannot be believed for any Revelation made manifest to us in Scripture. They believe therefore this without any revelation made by God, and so their Belief is not Divine, but a humane belief, just such an one as we have, that such and such a book is Virgil's, such a book is Cicero's, &c. And if they tell me, that they by reading Canonical Scriptures, do see a light clearly manifesting them to be God's word, I answer, that the sight by this light is no certain divine revelation, but a humane persuasion subject to falsity, and that far more than the light, by which whole General Counsels have seen the quite Contrary, as I clearly will prove, Numb. 13. A second convincing Argument to prove, that only we truly believe the Scriptures, is, that all others who understand not Hebrew and Greek in which the Scriptures were written, cannot know by any divine faith the undoubted word of God, but they all take upon trust of Men fallible the Translations, which they call God's word, which Translations are full of many and gross corruptions, as concerning our English Bible in particular many have showed. Now then there is not one amongst ten thousand, who perfectly understand Greek and Hebrew; Therefore all the rest have only a humane persuasion, that their Scriptures be Gods uncorrupted word. For I am sure it is not where revealed, that these Translations be Gods uncorrupted word. The Roman Catholic hath still the Authority of a Church Infallible, to assure him which is, which is not God's uncorrupted word. This Authority I will prove to be Divine and warranted by God. But yet we hold it Impossible, that the book of the Scripture should be the Judge appointed by Christ to end all Controversies, or that it should be that Holy way, that shall be unto us a direct way, that fools cannot err by it. For we see with our eyes whole Thousands of Men very wise and Learned, whilst they follow the Scriptures with all sincerity (as they most solemnly protest from their heart) to follow a world of quite contrary ways in matter of highest Importance to Salvation, and consequently all these Multitudes of wise men, but those who go one only of these ways, must needs go astray. Now if wise Men in so great Multitudes do so strangely stray, whilst in all sincerity (as they protest) they follow this way, how is it true, that fools cannot err by it? Doth not St. Austin, and all the greatest Doctors that ever the Church had, profess themselves unable to understand the Scriptures, and this after many years study in them? and how then can men of such ordinary Capacities, and of so mean study and knowledge of those tongues in which the Scriptures were written, and so great variety of Opinions about the true Canon of Scriptures, and a far greater variety about the true Interpretation of so many most Important places of the true Canon of Scripture, come to know the truth, the Infallible and undoubted truth, and this so assuredly, that they may with a safe Conscience upon their private Judgement of discretion settle their faith unmovably in points which they know to be so mightily called into doubt by the greater Part of the world, yea that whole General Counsels have unanimously defined the Contrary, and believed those places of Scripture not to say that to be so, which, for those places of Scripture, they still say and firmly believe to be so? Is not such a belief mainly to be suspected, even in the wisest and learnedst Men? And will you then say still, that this is A direct way unto us, so that fools cannot err by it? The contrary will yet appear far more clearly, when you shall have pondered the ensuing reasons: yet take this for one strong reason, why the Scriptures cannot be that Judge of Controversies who is to direct us, by a way so direct unto us, that fools, cannot err by it.  
The second Reason, to prove the Scriptures not to be this Judge, is this. There be many Controversies, and may be yet very many more, most nearly concerning the necessary Means to Salvation, which can never be ended, and undoubtedly decided by the Judgement and sentence to the Scriptures. I will allege several convincing Examples. For a Controversy may be moved concerning the lawfulness of working, or not working upon saturdays and Sundays. How will this Controversy be decided by the Scriptures? All the old Scriptures command strictly the not working upon saturdays, and no One single word of the New Scripture doth assure us, that this Command was ever by Lawful Authority taken away; or that there is the least unlawfulness in working upon the Sunday. We know indeed, that there was such a day as the Lords day, called by that name, because Saint John had a vision upon that day, as he had also upon many other days. We know St. Paul preached upon the first day of the week, and so he did upon many other days, and most upon the Saturday or Sabbath; For He disputed in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and the exhorted the Jews and the Greeks. (Act. 18.) We know the first day of the week was at one time appointed for the gathering of Alms for poor Christians: But how doth this or any of the former Places prove the Commandment of not working on the Saturday to be taken quite away, and that undoubtedly? Or how do any of these places impose upon All Christians, a manifest and unquestionable Obligation of not working on Sundays? And yet this is All that can be said out of the Scriptures for the undoubted abolishing of a certain Commandment of God, and the undoubted bringing into the place of it a New Commandment, without perhaps the Rising only of our Saviour on the Sunday be sufficient to prove both these things undoubtedly. Yet how can this be? For the day of his Ascension into Heaven was the final period of all he did in the world, and that day was Thursday. The Resurrection indeed might be a Ground for such a Change, but it is nowhere in Scripture that such a Change was made on that Ground. Yea if we stand even to the New Scriptures, our Adversaries the Jews will be too hard for us. For they will tell us, that according to our Scriptures, when our Saviour was asked (Mat. 19) What good shall I do, that I may have life Everlasting? our Saviour said, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. And when that Man replied, to know what Commandment he did understand, he clearly told him, that he understood the Commandments of the Decalogue, Those very Commandments which that Man knew well enough, (as it is said clearly also in St. Mark 10. Luke 18.) You see here (will a Jew, or some new Sectary say unto us) that even in our new Law, our own Lawmaker with his own mouth commandeth, as a thing necessary to enter into life Everlasting, the keeping of the Commandments of the Decalogue, which that Man did know. Therefore he in the New Law commanded that Commandment of keeping the Saturday to be observed, as well as the rest. And St. Paul (1 Cor. 7.19.) Circumcision is nothing, and Prepuce is nothing, but the Observation of the Commandments of God. See here St. Paul, even after Circumcision was declared nothing, to declare the Commandments of God to stand in force; and yet among these Commandments, a chief one is, the keeping of the Saturday, or seventh day, on which God rested: which reason also holdeth still, for still it is true, that God rested on the seventh Day, and he blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it, for the foresaid Reason. How came this Sanctification and Blessing to be lost, the reason of it being still as good as ever? And why then (will this Jew or Sectarist say) should we prefer the keeping of any other day before this, which hath so good a Reason, that you cannot give a better, at least undoubtedly better, and which hath so manifest Authority of the Old and of the New Scriptures, even Three of the four Evangelists, and also in St. Paul; whereas for the taking away of this Commandment, or for the not working on the Sunday, there is not one single Place in all the Bible, much less such a place as manifestly convinceth? This Argument is unanswerable to those who make the Scriptures the sole Judge of Controversies.  
Again, these Jews and new Sectaries will press us, that our own Scriptures (which we hold only to be our Judge in all Controversies) do clearly tell us, that even in the New Law it is said (Act. 15.) It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us (Apostles of the New Law) to lay no further burden upon you, than these necessary things, that you abstain from the things immolated to Idols, and blood, and that which is strangled. See here, among Necessary things, one is, to abstain from blood (which Christians do not, nor think not to be done; for they freely eat black Puddings) and also to abstain from things strangled, as when we strangle Chickens and eat them freely. If you tell me, that Scripture only is judge of Controversies, I will tell you that by the judgement of this judge (following no other as infallible) woe be to the Opinion of all Catholics and Protestants, who hold it lawful to work upon saturdays, unlawful on Sundays; lawful to eat Blood and Strangled things, unlawful to abstain from them, as still forbidden: woe I say to our Opinion; for it not only will not be judged as undoubtedly true by Scripture, but also it will, and that undoubtedly, be judged false by the Places now cited. I pray tell me here, how Men of mean capacity, yea how Men of the greatest capacity in the World, shall be able to find by the judgement of Scripture only, what is Infallibly to be believed in these points, in which so many hundred Thousands of Jews damnably differ from us.  
Did not all this Kingdom of England grounded upon Scriptures, clear enough (as they said) both hold and swear, that they held the King, the Head of the Church? can any point in the Church be of higher concernment to the Church, then to know for certain their own Head? And yet this point is now no longer ascertained us by the Infallible judgement of Scripture.  
For another example, what Controversy can more import, then to be undoubtedly, and by Infallible Authority secured, which books of Scripture be Canonical, and the certain Word of God, and which be not? You say there is no Infallibility of any verity to be had but by the Scripture. But I say, that in all the Scripture no Infallibility can be had concerning the Canon of the Scripture: wherefore either we cannot know this most important point of all points infallibly, or else we must acknowledge the Church to be Infallible: for the Scripture in this point is wholly silent. We dispute and differ highly about the books of Macchabees, whether they be the certain Word of God or no. I pray tell me, how shall this grand Controversy be decided, and decided Infallibly by the ●udgement of Scripture? Luther denyeth the Apocalypse to be true Scripture: we all in England stand out against him. I pray tell me what Scripture we have against him that is Infallible, without begging the question which is called into Controversy.  
We all believe the Gospel of St. Matthew, not only to be the true Gospel of Christ and his Word, but also to be the Gospel of St. Matthew, as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark. If any Man should deny this, what place of Scripture could we cite against him? or what Infallible ground have we of this our belief? The Marcionists, the Cerdonists, the Manichaeans do absolutely deny St. Matthews Gospel to be God's Word. This Controversy, you say, and all other Controversies of Faith, is to be ended by the Scripture: I ask what place of Scripture will end this Controversy, and all other Controversies about all other books of Scripture, which have almost all been denied to be God's Word, by some Heretics or other. And as for St. Matthew, you must know that all Ancient Writers, no one excepted, do say, that he did write in Hebrew; and yet neither his Hebrew Gospel, nor any one certain Copy of it is extant in the World. Tell me then, upon what undoubted Ground you believe any thing that is in St. Matthews Gospel only. The Greek Translation which we have, was made by God knows whom: for we know not. He might be a faithful or unfaithful Translator, he might use a false uncorrect Copy, he might mistake in many places by Ignorance, in many by Negligence or Malice. Upon what Infallible ground shall a converted Manichaean (as St. Austin for example) believe this Greek Gospel which we have? By what Scripture will you press him to it? yea, upon what Scripture do you yourselves believe this Gospel (this Greek Translation of S. Matthew?) If you tell me Saint Matthew did write in Greek, I must tell you, that all Antiquity (no one ancient Author excepted) say the contrary. How will you then ground Infallible belief, upon your so new and so uncertain Opinion? When this question was moved, whether any Book was to be received as the Infallible Word of God or no, The Holy Fathers could never find any more undoubted ground, then that the Church did allow or not allow of such Books to be held for God's undoubted Word. Upon this ground St. Athanasius (in fine Synopsis) receiveth the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the other Three Gospels, and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas. Upon this Ground Tertullian, St. Hierome, St. Austin, and St. Leo, profess themselves to admit such, and to deny other Books to be Canonical. Upon this ground it is, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. l. 3.19.) saith, such Scriptures are held for true, genuine, and manifestly allowed by the opinion of all, because they are so According to the Tradition of the Church, and that by this Evident Note or Mark, they are distinguished from others. Behold the most perspicuous mark, by which Scriptures could be Infallibly known to be, or not be Gods undoubted Word, is the Tradition of the Church. Whence St. Austin, giving a reason to the Manichaeans (who believed some part of the Gospel) why he cited the Acts of the Apostles (which they believed not) saith thus, Which Book (of the Acts) it is necessary for me to believe, if I believe the Gospel, being the Catholic Authority in like manner commendeth both these Scriptures to me. So he, contra Ep. Fund. c. 4.  
By this the Author of the Reply may see how Insufficient his Answer (pag. 25.) is, when he saith, Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church, but we do not take them to be Canonical upon her Tradition; but assent is settled in them as Canonical, in the way of Faith, because they are such: In thy light we shall see light; so by Scripture we shall see Scripture. So he, but not so any one of the Fathers, who were most often pressed to give a reason why they believed such Books to be Canonical, why not. None of these professed themselves to be so sharp sighted, that by seeing only Canonical Scriptures, they could see them to be Canonical Scriptures, and that so manifestly, as to ground their Faith upon it. You by the Apocalypse see it to be Canonical; your most illuminated Luther could not see it to be so by that light. By all the light he had, he Judged St. James his Epistle to be made of Straw, yet you see in it a light, showing undoubtedly it to be God's Word. You cannot see the two first Books of Macchabees to be Canonical, yet St. Austin believed them to be so, for that the Council of Carthage (Can. 47.) received them for such; as also the books of Wisdom, of which St. Austin saith, That it was received of all Christian Bishops, and others, even to the last of the Laity, with veneration of Divine Authority (l. de Praedest. Sanct. Sanctorum 14.) What more clear? And yet you see, that all you of the Church of England, deny all veneration of Divine Authority to this Book. By what Scripture shall we end this and the like Controversies of other Books, for which we have as strong proofs as these now cited; and you have only so weak a proof, as is a light so peculiar to yourselves. And upon the certainty given you, only by this sight, you firmly believe all the Scripture that you believe, that is; all the Faith you have, all the Belief you have depends upon this; That you can see so evidently such and such a Book to be Canonical, that this your Sight, by light received from those Book, showing them to be assuredly Canonical, is the only Infallible Assurance you have, that such and such Books are Canonical; and consequently, this your peculiar sight is the only Infallible Ground you have to rely upon these books, as upon the undoubted Word of God. This is your Doctrine, this is your Holy Way, a way so direct, that fools cannot err by it, though you profess so many wise Men in this point have erred, even whole General Counsels, as also so many great Doctors, before whose eyes this same light stood as clear as before yours: for they Judged very many to be Canonical Scriptures which you deny; so weak a ground are you all forced to rely upon, even in the main Point of Eternal Salvation, whilst you refuse to rely on the Infallible Authority of Christ's Church. Neither doth this our relying on the Church's Authority derogate to the Scriptures: for we do not say, that the Church maketh them true Scriptures, but it maketh us to have an Infallible Ground to hold them for true Scriptures as they are in themselves, and this, not because the Church maketh them held to be so, but because they are true in themselves, as being the Word of God; yet not known by themselves to be so by any Infallible knowledge, without this the testimony of the Church; as Christ was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World, but the Infallible testimony of St. John Baptist, made many know, that he was so. And thus Christ was made known to the world by the Infallible testimony of his Apostles; upon whose testimony many Thousands believed before the Scriptures were written. Therefore for the Scriptures to be believed what they are of themselves, for the Infallible Testimony of the Church, doth no more derogate to their honour, or make the Church Superior to them, than it derogateth to the honour of the Son of God to be believed to be what he is, upon the Infallible testimony of his Apostles; which testimony had it not been Infallible, those who grounded their Faith upon it had had no Infallible ground to believe our Saviour to be him, who he is. In like manner, if the Authority of the Church, testifying such and such books to be God's Word, were not Infallible, we should have no Infallible ground to know them to be such, though they truly be such of themselves: but of this Infallibility I will say no more.  
Now I will go on, and show yet further, that the Scriptures cannot be the Judges of all Controversies: for many things are set down in Scripture in such manner, that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church, do arise about the true Interpretation of the Scripture. And God did well know that this would happen, and therefore he must needs know that he should give the world a very unprofitable Judge, in order to the keeping of Unity, and deciding of Controversies, if he should only leave them a Book, about the true meaning of which Book he well knew more Controversies and Disunions in Religion would arise, then about any other matter; so that the greatest Wits here, being at greatest dissension, this cannot be That holy way, a way so direct to us, that fools cannot err by it. No Lawmaker of any Commonwealth did ever provide so simply for the Unity of it, as to leave them only a Book of Laws to be the sole Judge of all their Controversies, as I shown before. And surely if Christ had intended to leave us a Book to be our sole Judge in all Controversies, then undoubtedly he would in some part of this Book have clearly told us so, this importing so exceedingly as it doth, and yet he hath not done so. Secondly, if he would have given us a Book for Judge he would never have given us for our Judge, such a Book as the Scripture is, which very often speaketh, sometimes so Prophetically, that most would think it spoke of the present time, when it speaketh of the time to come; that it spoke of one person, for example, of David, when it speaketh of Christ; sometime it speaketh by a Figure, by a Metaphor, by a Parable, it hath Tropological, Allegorical, Anagogical, and Mystical senses. It useth the Imperative Mood, as well for Counsels as Commands. In no place it so much goeth about to set down a Catalogue of any particular points necessary, and only necessary to be believed, which any wise Lawmaker would do, if he intended by his writings to end all Controversies in Faith: yea, the Scripture seemeth often to say evidently that, which according to your Doctrine is false. You hold for Superstitious, the Anointing of sick Persons, with certain Prayers, and yet Saint James saith (cap. 5. ver. 14.) Is any sick among you? let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Is not this Controversy clearly by this place of Scripture decided against you? or, have you any one place half so clear to the contrary? Again, about those other most clear words spoken in the Institution of another great Sacrament, in which any wise Man would speak clearly, This is my Body, the late Adversaries of the Roman Church have found out above two hundred several Interpretations. They will needs have the sense to be figurative, although never any Man in any figurative speech was heard to speak thus: For example, to take a Vine, a Lamb, a Door in his hand, and say, this Vine, this Lamb, this Door is Christ; This is no kind of figurative speech, though it be a clear figure to say, Christ is a Vine, a Lamb, a Door, yea he is Bread: But to take Bread into a Man's hand, as Christ did, and then say, This Bread is my Body; to take a Cup of Wine into his hand, and to say, This is the Cup of my Blood, which shall be shed for you, doth not so much as sound like a figurative speech; and yet our Adversaries think it so certainly to be so, that they venture their Souls upon that their conceived certainty. Thus you see, when the Scripture in four several places delivereth these four words, This is my Body; Men will hold it to be clear, that so clear words be not clear, and will venture their Salvation upon this their Imagination. In this and many other points, we say, the Scripture is clear for us: The Lutherans say, it is clear for them: The Calvinists say, it is clear for them. We have conferred Place with Place, we have looked in the Originals; and after all this, the Scripture doth not decide this Controversy; but when all is done, we are as far from Agreeing, and being brought to the undoubted knowledge of the most important truth, as we were at the beginning.  
Another very strong Argument, to declare that the Scripture cannot be the Judge of all Controversies in points of Faith necessary to Salvation, is this; That there be many points, the believing of which is necessary to Salvation, which points are not where set down clearly in Scripture. For first, you make it the chief point of all points, to believe the Scripture to be the Judge of all Controversies, and by itself sufficient to end them all. I ask, where is this point of points which you make the ground of your belief? where is it, I say, set down in Scriptures, and that so clearly, that no prudent doubt can be made, but that such words clearly say what you say? Doth not Saint Athanasius in his Creed put down as an undoubted Article of Catholic Faith, (which Faith (as he saith) without a Man hold it entirely and inviolably, without all doubt he shall perish eternally) doth he not put down there, that we must believe; 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 both from the Father and the Son; And that he, who will be saved, must believe thus? And yet how far are these most hard points from being clearly delivered in the Scripture: So also, that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father, and of the same Substance, is a certain Article of Faith, and yet no no where clearly delivered in Scripture, but was believed by All upon the sole Authority of the Church, which consequently was believed Infallible.  
I have already showed, that the necessary commandment of keeping the Sunday in place of the Saturday is no no where in Scripture, but rather the contrary. How then can I believe this for the Scripture, or for any clear place of it, there being no such place to be found? I have also showed, that it is no no where in Scripture set down at all (much less set down clearly and manifestly) which Books of Scripture be Canonical, which not. How then by the Testimony of Scripture which giveth no Testimony at all of this point, can I believe such books undoubtedly to be, such not to be Canonical? Baptism of Children to be Necessary to their salvation is a prime point of Belief, and yet you cannot believe this prime point upon any clear place of Scripture (for there is no such place) but you must all say with the great Saint Austin, That though 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. (Contra Crescon. l 1.13.) And this following the Tradition of the Church, he calleth The most true and inviolable Rule of Truth. He holdeth therefore Tradition of the Church so Infallible, that it may be a ground for Faith. He was taught so by Saint Paul, (2 Thes. 2.) Hold the Traditions which you have received either by word of Mouth, or by Epistle. Upon which place, Saint chrysostom having taught that the Apostles delivered many things by word of Mouth, not set down any any where in writing; he saith, that these (unwritten Traditions) are worthy of the same belief which those deserve which are written: It is a Tradition (of the Catholic Church) Seek no further. So he. But you say, I must seek further to find this in Scripture, yet Saint chrysostom tells me, that being a Tradition of the Church, it is God's Word, and upon this account as worthy to be believed as if it were his written Word: for it is the being his Word, and not the being of his written Word, which maketh it Infallibly true.  
Well then, It having been made clear by all these reasons and authorities, that the Scriptures cannot be intended by Christ for the Judge of all our Controversies in Faith, and that their reading cannot be that Holy way, a way so direct unto us, that fools cannot err by it; Let us see where this way is to be found, and who is to be judge to define all Controversies with Infallible authority, so that all are bound to submit their Interior judgement (in which all faith consists) to this Authority, it being high Treason against Christ, not to submit to an Authority instituted by him purposely to oblige all to this submission. I say this Judge is the Catholic Church. This I will prove first, and this being proved, I will show briefly that no Church but the Roman can prudently be held to be this Catholic Church. In proof of the Catholic Church her being Judge of all Controversies; I allege first those words, (Matth. 16. v. 18. I say unto thee, (that is to St. Peter by name) Thou art Peter, (that is, Thou art a Rock;) and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; that is, those Gates of Hell out of which so many damnable Errors shall issue, shall never prevail by inducing any damnable Error into that Church, which I will build upon thee, O Peter, and thy Successors; which I add, because this Church was not to be built upon the Person of St. Peter only; for then this fair building had fallen to the ground when St. Peter had died. They who do say, that the Church may fall into damnable Errors, do say, that the Church may fall to the ground, and that the Gates of Hell may prevail against it: for what greater fall can it have, then by damnable Errors to make its Members all fall into Hell? and in what manner can the Gates of Hell more prevail against it? And yet we are sure by God's Word, that shall never happen. Wherefore in this Church we embrace most groundedly all things proposed by it to be believed. Here you see our Judge, Christ's Church, hath God's warrant to warrant Her from bringing in any damnable Error by her Judgement: All may therefore securely obey, But that none can securely disobey her Judgement; Christ also doth warrant us, in the next Chapter but one: (for Matth. 18. v. 17.) he saith, Tell the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and Publican. Here you see all Causes of greater Importance are to be brought to this Judge: for if even private complaints are to be brought into her Tribunal, and if for disobedience after her Judgement given of them, a man be to be hold for a Publican or Heathen, much more are enormiously hurtful crimes, such as are the crimes of Heresy, to be carried to her Tribunal, and those, who in so much more Importing matters disobey, are also much more to be held for Publicans and Heathens. And that no man may think, that after this his condemnation he may stand well in his Interior, persisting still in the same judgement, and doing so, stand right in the sight of God, it followeth, Amen I say unto you (Prelates of my Church) Whatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth, shall also be bound in Heaven. You see I have found a Judge so securely to be followed in his Judgement, and so unsafely to be disobeyed, that his Sentence given upon Earth, is sure to be ratified in Heaven. This also could not be true, if this Judge were fallible in such prime causes, as most concern the Church, and all such causes are those which may bring in damnable Errors.  
Conformably to this doctrine of the Church, her being our Judge, Saint Austin (de Civit. l. 20.9.) expounds to our purpose those words of the Apocalypse or Revelation, (cap. 20. ver. 4.) I saw Seats, and they sat upon them, and Judgement was given them. It is not to be expounded of the last Judgement, but of the Seats of Prelates, and the Prelates themselves, by which the Church is now governed, are to be understood. All this which I have said out of the New Testament, you will the less wonder at, if you Note, that even in the Old Law it is said, The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall require the Law from his Mouth, because he is the Angel of the Lord God of Hosts, (Mal 2.) Note here a gross corruption of the English Bible, which readeth these words, The Priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth, whereas the Originals speak clearly in the future Tense. Here by the way, I must tell you, that, though the Scripture were to be Judge, yet your most corruptd English Scriptures cannot be allowed for Judge. Whence it followeth, that those who do understand only English, can judge of nothing by their Scripture: And so they must trust their Ministers to the full as much, even in this highest point, as we do our Priests in any point.  
But let us proceed; You see first, that I have found a way so direct, that fools cannot err by it: for any man may ask the Priests of the Church, what is the known Doctrine of the Church, and then let him rest securely, when he knoweth that. Secondly, you see I have found such a Judge, as all true believers had for all their Controversies for more than two thousand years together, before Moses did write the first Books of Scripture; all which time you must needs make the Tradition of the Church the infallible Rule of Faith: for here was no written Word of God, upon which their Faith could be built, and yet Saint Paul, (2 Cor. 4.) speaking of those who lived in those Ages before all Scripture, saith, They had the same Spirit of Faith. And the reason is clear: for the Word of God is the same, whether it be revealed by the Pen, or by the Tongue, written or not written. And what (saith St. Irenaus, l. 3. c. 4.) 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 Charges they left the Churches to be governed? To this order (of Tradition by the unwritten word) many of those barbarous Nations do assent, who have believed in Christ, without any writing or Ink, having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and keeping diligently the ancient Traditions. So St. Irenaeus, who you see holdeth manifestly unwritten Traditions of the Church to be a sufficient Ground of Faith. It is most manifestly true, which he saith, that upon this ground the Faith of whole Nations have relied. This ground therefore is infallible, all Nation's Faith relying on this, even two Thousand years and more before the first Scriptures were written, and the Faith of many other Nations, who since their writing have believed, and do believe the true Faith. For how many of them never did see the Scriptures at all, or never did see them in a Language, which they could understand? Neither did the Apostles, or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages, as they could all, or the greater part understand. They thought the Tradition of the Church a sufficient Rule of Faith for all, which they could not do, if this Rule were fallible: We must therefore confess it to be Infallible.  
Thirdly, I have not only found a Judge, so clearly pointing out the way, that fools cannot err by it, but such a Judge as no exception can be taken against his sufficiency: for no other Judge was in the Church for some Thousands of years amongst the most true Believers, and afterwards amongst whole Nations. Fourthly, I have found a Judge, to whom Christ hath given a certain Promise, to teach no damnable error, by which Doctrine the Gates of Hell should prevail against her. Fiftly, I have found a Judge, whom All men are obliged (I say obliged by Interior Assent in point of Faith) to obey, under pain of being held here for Heathens or Publicans, and looked upon as such by the Judgement of Heaven, binding what the Church bindeth. Sixtly, I have found a living Judge, who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time, and who can hear Me and You, and be heard by Me and You: that neither I nor You can doubt of the true meaning of this Church, or if we doubt, we can propose our doubt, and she will tell us clearly her meaning; whereas the Bible can neither hear a Thousand new Controversies which arise daily, nor be heard clearly to give any certain Sentence in them, but only say the same still which she said even before the Controversies began, and about which Sentence of hers, all the Controversy did arise; neither doth the Bible give any such Judgement, as will suffice to hold these and these men, who teach these and these errors, for Heathens and Publicans, which the Church doth so clearly and so manifestly, that they themselves cannot deny themselves to be condemned by the Church, together with their Doctrine; but all they can do, is, to rail against their Judge, which the damned shall do against Christ their Judge.  
I see no exception there can be made against this Judge: Only you will tell me, that Infallibility is wholly necessary for the Judge of Faith, which I also confess; yet I also say, that this Church of Christ, must be confessed to be Infallible. But withal, I would have every one know, that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more, then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawful General Council, cannot err; for it is no necessary Article of Faith, to believe that the Pope or head of the Church cannot err, when he defineth without a General Council. Now that this definition of a whole General Council is Infallible, ought not to seem strange to any Christian: for who can think it strange, that Christ, for the secure direction of the first Christians whom the Apostles converted, should give this Infallibility to all and every one of the Apostles, and that he should regard so little the secure direction of all other Christians, who were to be from the Apostles time, to the end of the world, that for their sakes, & for the secure direction of their Souls, he would not give this Infallibility so much as to one Man, no not to all the Prelates of Christianity assembled together with their head, to define matters most necessary, and in which all error would be most pernicious; who I say, could think this strange? especially, being this gift of Infallibility is given, not for their private sakes to whom it is given, but for the universal good, and necessary direction, concord, and perpetual unity of the whole Church? You must acknowledge that he gave Infallibility of Doctrine to all those, who did write any small part of the Old or New Scripture. He gave it to David, though he was an Adulterer: he gave it to Solomon, who proved not only a most vicious Man in Life, but who for his own person in point of Faith, came to fall into Worshipping of Idols. This you will not have thought strange, but you will hold it Incredible, that he should give this Infallibility, not to one Man, but the whole Church, represented in a General Council.  
Let us pass on further yet, and see how firmly this Infallibility is grounded. I have above shown how strongly it is grounded on those words of God, promising a Holy way, a way so direct unto us, that fools cannot err by it. See here the third Number. In the eight Number I have showed, that we cannot ground that Faith, by which we believe the Sabbath to be changed to the Sunday, upon Scripture; but we must ground it upon the Tradition of the Church, which if it be not Infallible, we have no Infallible Ground at all for this point. And in the ninth Number, I have showed the selfsame to be about eating Blood, or Chickens, or any thing that is strangled. In the 11, 12, and 13. Number, I have demonstrated, that by the Scripture we cannot know which is true Scripture, which is false; which Books be Infallibly the Word of God, which not; for the Scripture hath not one Text in which it telleth us this: and therefore for this Important point of Faith, we can find no other sure Ground, than the Tradition of an Infallible Church: for a fallible Tradition may deceive us. In the 14. Number I have showed, that when Controversies arise (as most, and most Important Controversies do arise) about the true meaning of the Scripture, even after we have conferred all places together, and looked upon the Original Languages, the the Controversies still remain undecided, and no Infallible way can be found to decide them by Scripture. There is therefore no Infallible way to decide them; if the decision and definition of the whole Church in a General Council be not Infallible. This is so clear, that (to the wonder of the world) Luther himself, in his Book of the Power of the Pope, writeth thus. We are not certain, of any private Man, that he hath the Revelation of the Father. The Church alone it is, of which it is not lawful to doubt. So he. In the 15. Number I have showed, that there be many points necessarily to be believed under pain of damnation, which points are not at all set down in any clear Scripture. For these points it is manifest, that we can have no other ground then the Authority of the Church. If this be not Infallible, than we have only fallible ground, which cannot be a ground of Faith. In the 16. Number I have confirmed the same Doctrine by the Authority of Saint Austin and Saint chrysostom. In the 17. Number I have proved this Doctrine clearly out of God's Promise, that he would build this his Church upon a Rock, and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it, which the Gates of Hell might easily do, if the Church could come to teach damnable errors, carrying her and her Children into the Gates of Hell itself. The same in the same place I have proved by Gods commanding us to Tell the Church, and commanding us to hold all those who will not hear the Church, as Publicans and Heathens; and by making good in Heaven the Sentence of the Church given upon Earth, which he would not do, if the Church should have at any time failed in her definition, and that in points damnably erroneous. In the 18. Number I have alleged other Texts, still proving the same. In the 19 Number I have showed, that for two Thousand years together, before the Scriptures were written, the true believers had no other sure ground of their Faith, but the Authority of the Church, which if it had been fallible, the very ground of their Faith had been groundless, and none at all. The first Believers also, and many whole Nations, had no other ground, than the said Authority of the Church, as there I have showed out of Saint Irenaeus, and it is clear of itself; for they did not build their Faith on any Scriptures. Thus far I have gone already in the proof of the Infallibility of the Church. Now I go on with those words of Saint Paul (1 Tim. 3. v. 15.) where the Church of the living God, is called, The Pillar and Ground of Truth. May not Men rely securely upon the Pillar of Truth? May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth? No ground being surer ground, and more infallible than the ground of Truth itself. Yea, my Adversary having found a place in St. Irenaeus, calling the Scripture the Foundation and Pillar of Faith, doth infer that if it be so, than it is the ground and cause of our faith. If this consequence be strong (which I deny not) then is it yet a stronger, that the Truth is no no where surer grounded, then upon the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. But my Adversary would take this place of St. Paul from me, because he saith, This expression may very reasonably be referred (not to the Church, but to the mystery of Godliness) and so be an Hebrew form, etc. Surely he forgot that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew, but in Greek; and then again, No Hebrew form in the world can make the sense he intends. What can be clearer than this, if I say, such a thing was done by Cicero the Father of his Country, and Caesar did such another thing? What I say more clear, then that in this speech I call Cicero The Father of his Country and not Caesar, of whom as yet I had not so much as spoken? So the Apostle had not so much as spoken of any Mystery, when he spoke these words, which lie thus in your own Bible, That thou mayst know how to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth; and without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness, etc. Do you not see, that he had not so much as spoken of this Mystery, when he said the former words, which in all kind of Construction per Appositionem, clearly relate to the Church. O, but my Adversary tells me, that this title of being The Pillar and Foundation of Truth agreeth in the first place to the Scripture. I answer, it agreeth equally to any thing, that is the True Word of God; and therefore it agreeth to the Scripture, because God speaketh by it & in it; but God also speaketh by his Church, and in his Church, giving as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council, as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture; for example, as he gave to Solomon, who in his own person came to play the Idolater. It is objected also, that in these words rather the Office of the Church is set forth then her Authority. To which my Answer is clear, that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out, then by saying; that she is The Pillar and ground of Truth: for what Authority can rely more safely, then that which relieth on the Pillar of Truth? What Authority can be better founded and grounded, then that which is founded and grounded upon the Ground and Foundation of Truth? So that nothing can be more clear against Scripture, then to say, it doth not set out the Authority of the Church in this place, No Text being clearer for any thing. Hence when the Church had defined, that God the Son was Consubstantial to his Father, (that is, of one and the same substance) which is not where clearly said in Scripture, St. Athanasius calleth this Definition of the Church the Word of God, saying, that ever hereafter this Definition of the Nicen Council, That Word of God by the Nicen Council doth remain for ever and ever (Ep. ad African. Episc.) Behold here the Definition of the Council, called The Word of God remaining for ever and ever. Is not this to acknowledge the Church Infallible in her Definition?  
That place also out of St. Matthew proveth strongly the Church's infallibility. Christ there bids his Apostles to teach and Baptise all Nations, adding, And behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. My Adversary saith, It is not necessary to extend this Promise to Christ his being with the Church to the end of the world; which is all one, as to say, It is not necessary that Christ his Promise should be true. For surely he cannot promise more clearly to be with his Church to the end of the world. If he should say, I will be with you for a Thousand years, he should not perform his promise unless he were with it a thousand years: wherefore promising to be with it even to the consummation of the world, to make his promise true he must be with them so long. Now the Apostles were not so long as the end of the world baptising and preaching, but their successors are with them, therefore Christ must be to the consummation of the world. And though these successors of the Apostles be not so worthy of Infallible Assistance as the Apostles were, yet Christ giving the gift of infallible assistance, not for the worth of the person to whom it is given, but for the secure direction of so many millions as were to be of the Church after Christ his time, there is as much, yea far more reason why he should leave the like secure direction for them; because the further we go from Christ's time, the more we are subject to uncertainties about his Doctrine. See Numb. 21. It being then proved, that Christ will be with his Church until the consummation of the world, and it being manifest that he is not with those, who live in damnable Errors, we must of necessity say that Christ's Church in all ages lived secured from damnable Errors, or else there was some Age in which he was not with it, and in which he performed not his promise. And the same is to be said of that place of St. John (14.) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete that may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth. This abiding of the spirit of Truth for ever, secures us for ever from all damnable Errors. Admirably St. Austin. (l de utilit. cred. c. 6) If the Providence of God doth not preside in humane affairs, in vain would solicitude be about Religion; but if God be thus present with us, truly 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. So he. But if this step be fallible, It is no assured step: God's providence therefore hath left an Infallible Authority in his Church, such an Authority as the first Church had for 2000 years before any Scripture was written.  
And do not tell me that all this is then only true, if the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture: for even in that sense, the Devil himself, the Father of Lies, is Infallible, as long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures, and the Gates of Hell cannot by any error prevail against the Devil of Hell: yea, as long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture, he is The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Hath God in the Texts alleged given no more to the Church, then to the Devils? And how is this answer to the purpose, seeing that for two Thousand years before Scripture, no man could know what was conformable to Scripture; yea, nothing was then conformable to any Scripture, there being no Scripture at all? And the Church then had not God's Promise, which in all the Texts, Authorities and Reasons above alleged, is, that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable matter shall be against Scripture; so that when we know this is her Doctrine, we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood. And thus clearly is fulfilled those notable words in the Prophet Daniel, (cap. 2. v. 44.) In the days of those Kingdoms, the God of Heaven will raise up a Kingdom which shall not be dissipated, and his Kingdom shall not be delivered to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and consume all these (Idolatrous) Kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Now, of no Kingdom in the world, but of the Kingdom of Christ's Church, this can be understood. This Church therefore shall stand for ever. And consequently at no time it shall fall into damnable errors: for than it is true, to say, It doth not stand, but is fallen most damnably. Again, in Isaiah 29. God doth clearly declare his Covenant with his Church, according to the Interpretation of Saint Paul himself. (Rom. 11.26.) This is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, 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, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever. But how could the Word of the Lord more departed from the Mouth of the Church, then if she should with her mouth teach damnable errors? From this therefore he secureth his Church for ever and ever. Hence Saint Austin saith, (l. de Unitat. Eccl. cap. 6, 7, 12, & 13.) (See him also, l. 20. de Civit. cap. 8. in Psalm. 85. & de Utilit. Credendi, c. 8.) Whosoever affirmeth the Church to have been overthrown (as it were, if at any time it should teach any damnable error) doth rob Christ of his glory and Inheritance, bought with his precious Blood; yea, Saint Hierom (cont. Lucifer. c. 6.) goeth farther, and averreth, that He that so saith, doth make God subject to the Devil, and a poor miserable Christ. The reason is, because this Assertion doth (after a sort) bereave the whole Incarnation, Life and Passion of our Saviour, of their Effect and End, which was principally to found a Church and Kingdom in this world, which should endure to the day of Judgement, and direct Men in all Truth to Salvation. Wherefore, whosoever affirmeth the Church to have perished, taketh away this effect and Prerogative from his Incarnation, Life, and Passion; and avoucheth, that at some time's Man had no means left to attain to everlasting bliss; which is also repugnant to the Mercy and goodness of God. He also maketh God subject to the Devil, in making the Devil stronger than Christ, and affirming him to have overthrown Christ's Church and Kingdom, which our Lord promised should never be conquered.  
That the Holy Fathers did believe the Church of Christ to be Infallible, and of an Authority sufficient to ground Faith upon, appeareth by their relying only upon her Authority in the chiefest Articles of Faith, which is, to believe such and such Books are the true Word of God; and upon this only ground, they ground this their Faith, as in the 12. Number I have showed Saint Athanasius, Saint Hierome, Saint Austin, Tertullian, and Eusebius, to have received such Books for God's Word, and to have not received others, and to have received such with veneration of Divine Authority, as St. Austin spoke; And upon this infallible Authority they all believed God the Father not to be begotten, God the Son to be begotten by his Father only, and to be Consubstantial to him; and God the Holy Ghost not to be begotten, but to proceed from both Father and Son. Upon this infallible Authority they all held children to be baptised, though nothing for certain could be alleged out of the Canonical Scriptures in this point, but only the Catholic Church taught this to be done, as in the 16th. Numb. have showed out of St. Austin, who there calleth this relying on the Church's Authority, The most true & inviolable Rule of Faith. And S. chrysostom there also saith, that these unwritten Traditions of the Church (infallible only in her Authority) are as worthy of faith and credit, as that which is written in Scripture. And in the 19th. Numb. I have showed out of St. Irenaeus, That we should have been as much obliged to believe although no Scriptures had been written, as we are now, and that the faith of whole Nations is grounded not in Scripture, but consequently on the infallible Authority of the Church, whose word he calleth the Word of God, as I shown in the end of the 22th. Number. I sum up all these Authorities, that my Adversary may not say (as he did) that the authority of St. Austin was single, when he believed the Gospel to be God's Word upon the infallible authority of the Church: for if her authority be by so many Fathers acknowledged infallible, then St. Austin is not single in his opinion in this point.  
But because that place of St. Austin speaketh home, and because my Adversary saith, That if we take this passage by itself, it seemeth to speak high, but saith he, if we consider the tenor of Saint Augustine's discourse in the whole chapter, It is like we will begin to think that it came from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his Adversary. For these causes (I say) I will consider the tenor of St. Augustine's Discourse in this whole Chapter, and I will show manifestly, that this his Doctrine was so far from coming out from him in some heat of Spirit to overcome his adversary, that he maketh it the very prime Ground of his discourse; and without he will stand to that Ground, he there must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary. This Chapter is the fourth Chapter, Cont. Ep. Manichaei. The whole substance of it is this; The Epistle of Manichaeus beginneth thus, Manichaeus the Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the Providence of God the Father. I ask therefore, saith Saint Austin who this Manichaeus 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 fall upon one who did not as yet believe the Gospel, what would you do then, if such an one said I do not believe you? This is his first Argument, to show that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle, could prove nothing against those, who as yet have not believed the Gospel: then he goeth on; But because I am not one, who have not yet believed the Gospel, and so this Answer cannot serve me, notwithstanding, I must tell you, that I am such an one, that I would not believe the Gospel, without the Authority of the Catholic Church did move me. This being the ground of his Answer, you shall see how he builds upon this, and only this Ground. It followeth then thus; I having therefore obeyed those (Catholic Pastors) saying, Believe the Gospel (the most Important point of Points) Why should I not obey them saying to me, do not believe Manichaeus? Then upon this ground he presseth home, saying, Choose which you will; if you say believe the Catholics, than I must not believe you, for they teach me not to give Faith to you: wherefore believing them (as I do) I cannot believe you. Now, if you say, do not believe the Catholics, than you do not go consequently to force me by the Gospel to give Faith to Manichaeus. Why so? Mark if his ground be not as I told you, Because (saith he) I have believed the Gospel itself upon the preaching of the Catholics. Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their teaching, then upon this, to believe the Gospel itself? He goeth on thus: Again, If you hold to the Gospel, my hold shall still be on the Authority of that Church, upon whose Authority I believed the Gospel. I (saith he) will hold myself to those, by whose teaching I have believed the Gospel, and these commanding me, I will not believe thee. And Saint Austin goeth so far upon this Ground, as a Ground Infallible, that he saith, If perhaps you Manichaeans can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove that Apostleship of Manichaeus, that then indeed they shall weaken the Authority of the Catholics. But what do you think will follow? I pray note it well. Their Authority being weakened (and shown once fallible) now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel. And why so? Because upon the Authority of these Catholics, I had believed the Gospel. The ground of his belief in the Gospel, was their Infallible authority, as not only these, but also the next words show manifestly. Wherefore (saith he) if in the Gospel, there be found nothing, that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus, than I will believe the Catholics rather then You. But if You shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle, than I will neither believe the Catholics nor thee. Why so? I will not believe the Catholics, because they (whose Doctrine I thought Infallible) have lied to me concerning your Manichaeans: But I will not believe thee even when thou citest clear Scripture (for of this case he speaketh) and why so? Because thou dost cite me that scripture, to which Scripture I had now believed upon their Authority who have lied unto me. Thus he. Can he more clearly say, that if once in one single Lie, he should find the Church's Authority to be fallible, he should then have left unto him, no Infallible Ground at all, upon which he were to believe Scripture. To deliver a Doctrine thus inculcated over and over again, and thus still relying on this one Ground, is far, and very far from letting a word slip in heat of disputation. And therefore (to speak plainly) my Adversary could not deal sincerely, when he said, If we considered the whole Chapter we should be of his mind: for nothing can make us less of his mind, then to consider the whole Chapter, as I have faithfully done, excepting one little parcel in the end, which most strongly confirms all I have said; for it followeth, but God forbidden I should not believe the Gospel (having so Infallible Authority for it, as the Church is) yet believing this Gospel, I do not see, how I can believe thee (teaching me Manichaeus to be an Apostle:) for we know which Apostle it was, who was chosen in the place of Judas the Traitor; This we have read in the Acts of the Apostles. And because the Manichaeans did not believe the Acts of the Apostles, he addeth, which Book (of the Acts) I must necessarily believe, if I believe the Gospel. And why? Because the Catholic Authority doth in like manner commend both these Scriptures to me. See here again most evidently he saith, the Ground upon which he believeth the Acts of the Apostles, as well as he believed the other Scriptures to be the selfsame Catholic Authority, which in one and the same manner commendeth both Scriptures to us to be believed. Had he said, that he believed this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it, by which he discovered it to be Canonical, than the Manichaeans might as easily have said, that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical. Thus I have given a large and most faithful account of this Chapter, setting most of it down word for word. And this last place, as also many other, quite overthrow what my Adversary saith, that he spoke here of himself, as now a Manichaean: for you see he speaketh of himself, as one believing the Acts of the Apostles, and believing it by a necessary consequence, because he hath already believed the other Canonical Books upon the same Authority of the Church. And if upon this Authority I may with St. Austin believe the whole Scripture to be God's Word from the beginning to the ending, though it containeth so many strange Stories, & such a world of several points, why may I not upon the same Infallible Authority believe Prayers to Saints, Prayer for the dead and other like points? Neither can it be said, that St. Austin (as my Adversary saith) was settled in the belief of the Scripture for the authority of Scripture itself, for I have given you his plain words to the contrary, saying, that the Authority (of the Church) being weakened, he cannot now so much as believe the Gospel, which he might still do if he believed it for itself, and not merely for the Infallible Authority of the Church: yea, (l. de Utilit. Cred. cap. 14.) he saith, that his belief in Christ was grounded upon that Authority, which certainly he must then needs hold for Infallible. If he did thus and was never noted for singularity in his faith for doing thus, why may not I prudently do what he did? Yea, how can I poor simple creature, not do imprudently, if I refuse to do, what he did, who understood the Scriptures as well as any man the Church had?  
Having now shown the Church to be the Judge appointed by Christ for all Controversies, and that the Definition of this Judge is Infallible, and consequently a sufficient ground for Faith, I will now show that all this Doctrine must be applied to the Roman Church, and cannot be applied to the Protestant Church. For first this Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim either to have any such Authority as being Judge in all Points of Controversy, or to the having any infallible Authority. If either of these belonged to her, she would know her own right, from which she now disclaims; and so by her own doctrine she cannot be Judge, or infallible; for so as an Infallible judge, she should judge herself to be fallible No more need to be said to exclude her or any other Church, acknowledging by evident and infallible Scripture (as they profess) their own fallibility, and that they are not judges in Controversies, being infallibly fallible, and so uncapable of these Privileges, as is Evident. And even this might serve to exclude all other Churches, but the Roman. She only claimeth (as she is bound to do) her due right to be Judge in all Controversies, and her infallible authority to decide them with truth. All other Churches of all other Religions do say indeed, that they are themselves the only true Churches, but none of them say themselves to be either the Judges of Controversies, or to be infallible. Wherefore they cannot be either judges, or infallible; for if they be true Judges, than they judge truly against themselves, when they judge it to be as certain as Scripture, that there is no Judge but Scripture; And if they be truly infallible in defining them, they truly and by infallible authority define themselves to be fallible, whilst they define it to be Scripture, that the true Church is fallable. Wherefore infallibly they are fallible, and consequently infallibly they are not the true Church, which we have demonstrated to be infallible, and all those Texts, authorities and Reasons must needs prove all Churches false that be fallible, whilst they prove the true Church necessarily to be infallible: But all Churches besides the Roman, by their own faith are according to infallible Scripture, fallible. None of them therefore is the true Church. If then the Roman Church be not the true Church, than Christ hath no true Church left on Earth, nor hath not had these many Ages.  
Hence you may gather, why I never was solicitous to prove all that was said of the Church by the Scriptures and Fathers to be said of the Roman Church: for whilst I did show them to be said of such a Church as might be of an Authority infallibile and sufficient to ground Faith; It followed manifestly, that all was said of the Roman, no other being Infallible, and so Christ should have no true Church, if this be not a true one: For I have demonstrated, that no other can be Infallible. This being a Demonstration, until this Argument be answered, I hold myself bound to say no more, yet I must needs tell you in brief a small part of that, which I can and will say, if this point be again pressed: I will show how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this, St. Cyprian (Ep. 3. l. 1.) saith, that false Faith cannot have Access to the Roman Church. St. Hierome (in 1. ad Tim.) calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome, The Rector of the House of God, which St. Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of truth. And in his Epistle to the same Pope, he saith, To your Holiness, that is, to the Chair of Peter, I am joined in communion: Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built. He that gathers not with thee, scatters. So the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon, at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome, said, Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And many such other places I will allege, for which now I remit you to Stapleton and Bellarmine, who both show most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief Causes. See this done in all Ages, in Bell. 3. De Verbo Dei, e. 6. I will show also how all Churches of all Ages, which were not confessed Heretical or Schismatical Churches, have been ever joined in communion to the Roman until St. Gregory the greats time, and then ever since; and how in his time England received the same Roman Faith, which now all Roman Catholics profess, and all Protestants deny. And I will show that this faith then brought into England from Rome, did not in any point of Faith controverted between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, differ from that undoubted true Apostolical Faith, which our old Britain's received from Rome, in the second age of the Church in the days of Eleutherius; and from hence the present Roman Churches communion in Doctrine with the Ancient Apostolical Church will appear. I will show that perpetual visibility agreeth only to the Roman Church, and consequently, that in her only that Prophecy concerning Christ was fulfilled, That he should reign in the House of Jacob for ever, and of his reign there shall be no end. We can show how he hath reigned here by known and manifest Pastors of the Church, who have in all ages appeared in Councils to govern his Church. I pray set us but know the name of one of your Pastors, Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand ages, which preceded Luther. All are bound to be of the true Church, but to be of an invisible Church, having only Invisible Pastor's administering Sacraments in an invisible manner, no man can be bound to be of. I will show that all conversions of Nations from Idolatry (so often promised to be made by the true Church) were all and every one of them made by such, as did communicate with the Roman Church; and no one Nation ever converted from Paganism by those who professed Protestant Religion, or held these points in which Protestants differ from us. I will add also, that all who have been eminent for sanctity of Life, or glory of Miracles, have all been joined in communion to the Roman Church; and you cannot name any one famous in either of these respects, whom you can prove to have been a Protestant, a most evident sign of the Truth of the Roman Church. Compare any other Church to it in all these points here mentioned, and you shall see all incomparably more verified in the Roman Church, then in any other differing from her, or agreeing with you, yea verified in none but her.  
I have then I hope performed my Promise to show a clear way, how in the midst of so many Religions, to find the true One by the Infallible Authority of the Catholic Church, which I have showed to be the Judge in all Controversies of Faith, and of Authority sufficient to ground true Faith upon, and that when all this is done. This is that holy and direct way, so direct unto us, that fools cannot err by it, and wise men must err, if they walk not by it.   

The Conclusion, Showing the Reply to my Papers to have been fully answered in the former Discourse.  
This Reply consisteth of Eight Answers, with a word or two at the end, and at the beginning of these Answers.  
To all these in Order.  
FIrst at the beginning, you say there is little reason for you to rejoin, because I wave the Application of my discourse, as to the Roman Church. I answer, That my Position was, that the Church is the Ground of Faith: Of the Roman Church, it was to no end to speak, until I had been first granted that some Church or other was the Ground of Faith. A man must first prove to a Jew, that the Messiah is come, and then he must prove that Christ was this Messiah. Again, all my Proofs proved an infallible Church to be the ground of Faith, of which no fallible Church could be a sure Ground, as is manifest: But all Churches but the Roman Church, do profess according to Scripture themselves to be fallible; whence it followeth, that all Churches (but the Roman) must needs be fallible. For if they or any of them be infallible, than they teach the infallible Truth, when they teach themselves to be fallible. No Church therefore can be Infallible, but she who teacheth herself to be Infallible. Consequently, when I proved the Infallible Church's Authority to be the ground of Faith, I proved the Authority of the Roman Church to be so. See this fully answered, Numb. 27.28.  
Secondly, You say you might still have left me to answer your first Paper with the second Paper. I reply, that this is only to stand to what you have said, as I also do. Let the Reader judge with indifferency.  
Thirdly, You say, I conclude not contradictorily. I reply, that I always conclude the Church's Authority to be a sufficient ground of Faith, you say, it is an insufficient ground. Reader, judge whether these two be not Contradictions, sufficient and insufficient.   

Now to your Eight Answers in Order.  
In your first Answer, you spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith. This, This it is, not to conclude contradictorily. You should conclude, that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith; which still may be, and is true, though it also be most true, that the Scripture is a most sufficient ground of Faith, when it is once known by an infallible Authority to be God's Word, and also when we evidently know, that such and such is the undoubted sense of the Scripture. But I have proved at large, that we cannot know upon infallible Authority, which books be or be not God's Word, but by the Authority of an infallible Church. See Numb. 11, & 12. And consequently, if the Church's Authority be not a sufficient ground for Faith, than we can have no Faith to believe, which books be God's Word, which not, See Numb. 26. The Church's authority is hence proved to be a sufficient ground for Faith, and to be our first ground: for we must first upon the authority of the Church believe such and such Books to be God's Word; and then assured by this our belief that they be God's Word, we may ground our Faith upon the authority of that Word of God, which in this sense I hold to be a most sufficient ground for all Faith, extended to all points clearly contained in Scripture. This and only this all your Authorities prove. Take for an Example, your first Authority of St. Irenaeus, out of which you neither do nor can infer any more, then, that the Scripture (once believed to be God's Word) is to us a sufficient ground of Faith, because in itself it is The Pillar and Foundation of Truth: but by the Authority of Saint Paul (which is a stronger Authority then that of Saint Irenaeus) The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth: Therefore her Authority is a sufficient ground of Faith, even according to this your strong Argument. This I shown, Numb. 22. Yea, Saint Irenaeus expressly teacheth, that though there were no Scripture at all, yet we should all be bound to believe what we now believe, as I have showed Numb. the. 19 And yet then we should have no other Authority, then that of the Church. Again, the Scriptures can then only ground Faith when they contain the Matter about which we are bound to have Faith; but very often they do not contain this Matter, as I have showed, Numb. 9.10.11, 12. and chief Numb. 15. and 16. These points not being contained in Scripture, how can I believe them for the Scripture? Lastly, the Authority of Scripture only can ground Faith in those points, which are known undoubtedly to be delivered in such clear Texts, as a man cannot prudently doubt of the sense; but a number of things are to be believed, which be not thus set down in Scripture, as hath been showed in the places cited. See also Numb. 14. In other Cases I never deny the Scripture to be the ground of Faith, but I say, that as God spoke by the pens of those who writ Scripture, so he speaketh by the Tongue of his Church in a General Council; and therefore these his words are also to be believed, as I fully showed, Numb. 21.22, 23, 24, 25, 26. The Scripture in the Cases I here specified, is a sufficient ground of Faith, as your authorities well prove, and so is the authority of the Church, as I have fully proved in the places cited.  
In your second Answer, all you say is, that the Church cannot ground our Faith, but I have fully shown the contrary in the places cited.  
In your third Answer, you come to answer the Testimonies I brought out of Holy Fathers and Scriptures, and this taketh you up unto your 27. Page My Reply is, that in this Paper I have made good Authorities and Testimonies sufficiently abundant to convince what I undertook, and I have fully refuted the chief things you said against the chief places, as may appear fully out of the Numb. 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, & 26. where at large I have showed your less sincere proceeding about the prime authority of S. Austin, whose authority in the precedent Number I shown not to be single.  
In the fourth Answer, you say you take not Canonical Books to be Canonical for the authority of the Church. I Reply, that if you do not take them to be so on this authority, yet the holy Fathers did, as I have showed Numb. 12.25, 26. And if you believe them to be Canonical only upon the Light given in them to you to see this verity, your ground is far more fallible than the authority of a General Council, as I have demonstrated Numb. 13.  
In the fifth Answer, you endeavour to show, that you ground not your Faith on your own private judgement of discretion, but I have showed fully the contrary, Nu. 3, 4, 7.  
In the sixth Answer, you rejoice to see me confess the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and Manners, as if I had at any time denied this. Neither doth this Confession destroy my Position, that the Church is the Ground of our Belief. Can I not ground my Faith upon what St. Peter saith, because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith? Why is the Scripture the Rule of Faith? Because it delivereth to me God's Written Word. But the Church delivereth to me God's Word written and unwritten, I may therefore also rule myself by that. The most right Rule of Scripture is often so crookedly applied, that he is blind who seethe not that we need to have better security of Interpretation, than our own private discretion of Judgement can afford, as I have fully proved Num. 4.14. Of the Infallibility of the Church in Interpreting, I have fully proved our Doctrine, Numb. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.  
In the seventh Answer, you tax me with being loath to own the Roman Church. Why I did not speak of the Roman Church, I told you here in the beginning, it was because you would conclude as there you do, The Catholic Church is not the Ground of Faith, therefore the Roman is not. I have fully shown the contrary, and proved the Catholic Church to be the ground of our Faith; and out of superabundance I have showed this Church to be the Roman Church. See Numb. 27, 28.  
In the eighth Answer, you charge me in differing from myself, because before I taught the ground of Believing to be the Authority of the Church, and now I say, it is the Authority of God Revealing. My Reply is exceeding easy. The Ground of our Faith is God Revealing, and God Revealing by his Church: as he first causeth our first Belief, when he tells us by his Church such and such Books are Infallibly his Word. God Revealing is always the formal object of Faith, but sometimes God Revealeth his mind by Scriptures, and sometimes by the Church, as he did for two Thousand years and more, before the Scriptures were written. The Prophets before they did write, did say, This saith the Lord, to wit, this he said by their Mouths: So say I, This and this saith our Lord by the Mouth of his Church; as I have showed Numb. 22. Saint Athanasius to speak, and I have showed, Numb. 28. The General Council of Chalcedon to have said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Pope of Rome. And thus God's Revelation cometh to us by the Church: She and only She teacheth us these and these Scriptures to be God's Word. We must first believe her, before we can come to have Infallible Ground to believe Scriptures, as I have fully showed. After we have believed Scripture, we cannot by Scripture only know the undoubted sense of many necessary places in Scripture, as hath been showed. Again, all things necessary to be believed, be not set down in Scripture, as hath also been showed fully. The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church, you by your own words, in this place, must grant her Authority to be our ordinary cause of Faith.  
At the end of these your Answers, you would fain seem to have spoken properly in accusing us of Excess of Faith: But your distinction doth no way salve the Impropriety of the Speech, for there is still a difference in more believing Objects, and believing more Objects: but granting that it may be improperly spoken, yet even in that Sense it is not truly said, because there can be no Excess of Faith in believing what God saith; for believing upon an Infallible Authority all that we believe, we cannot believe more than we should, if we believe no more things, then be grounded upon that Infallible Authority (as we do not:) And consequently we do no more; then believe such things as have for their Warrant, This faith the Lord.  
Having now answered your Paper from the beginning to the end, I am most willing to take your own close out of Saint Austin, Against Reason, no sober Man will go, against Scriptures not Christian, against the Church no Peacemaker; adding his other words (Tr. 32. in Joan.) Let us believe my Brethren, so much as a Man loveth the Church, just so much he hath of the Holy Ghost.  
SIR,  
I Cannot answer it to God, nor to his Church with us, if I let you seem to yourself, or to others of your persuasion, that you have the Victory, until you have overcome your Error; therefore you will excuse me if I still follow you.  
To your Preface then. If the Roman Catholics have often foretold, that by permitting freely to all sorts of people the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother-tongue, multitudes of new Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberless number; and as for the people's Manners, they would grow worse and worse (as you say in the beginning) then are your Roman Catholics, in this, false Prophets; because they seem (by you) to make that the cause of Heresies and bad Manners. This is plainly fallacia non causa, or the fallacy of accident. And secondly, it is contrary to that of our Saviour Christ, Saint Mark the 12.24. Do you not therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures, and the power of God? By our Saviour, the knowledge of the Scriptures is not the cause of erring, but the not knowing of the Scriptures is the cause of erring: You do therefore err not knowing the Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto Salvation; as Saint Paul to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3.15. And thirdly, You confess in this Paper, that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God, we may Ground our Faith in it, for those things which are plainly delivered. And fourthly, How cometh it to pass then, that some of those, in whom Infallibility (as you think) is vested, have been Heretics and lewd: the former of which indeed you do much deny, but is exemplified in Liberius' subscribing against Athanasius, as you may see fully proved by our Reinolds against your Hart. And surely was that also an action of bad Manners. Therefore if your Church were the true Church, yet doth it not (you see) teach the way of Salvation infallibly, and therefore can we not by it infallibly discern the true Religion from the false. Indeed the Catholic Church hath taught the infallible way of Salvation: but that was the Scripture, as I proved by many Testimonies; and this was a teaching the infallible way by consequence, because it did teach the Scripture, which is the infallible way: yet hath it not in particular points, taught the infallible way infallibly. Neither are we by the Church infallibly resolved, that the Scripture is the Word of God, although the authority of the true Church be a motive herein, yet is it not that wherein ultimately we ground our Faith of the Scriptures, as I have showed.  
Whereas then you say that we cannot have, as things stand, any other assurance to ground our Faith upon securely (namely then the Church) you do still but fortiter supponere, for we cannot ground our assurance securely upon the Church. And secondly, Whereas you say, that as things stand, we have no other assurance, etc. you do not well consider what you say, or I do not understand what you mean: for hereby you do intimate that the Church is not the ground of our Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that which is indeed the ground of our Faith, must be so absolutely and universally, as fare as is necessary: the Church security is but the best of the kind, amongst those which are humane; but we must have a Divine indefectible ground for our Divine Faith, in which there cannot be falsity. Neither thirdly, Is the Church the first ground, because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God; because, if we did by it believe the Scripture, than we are not first to believe it by the Scripture. And if whatsoever credence we do give to it, we do give by authority of the Scripture, then are we first to believe the Scripture, and then that is the first ground. Fourthly, In that you say you did never deny; that when we are by the Infallible authority of the Church assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God, we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture, etc. you say that which concludes against the practice of the Church, not to permit the use of Scripture unto the People; and also you do abate of the Universal Proposition in the first Paper, that Divine Faith in all things is caused by the proposal of the Church; and therefore if you would hold you to this, the Controversy would be lessened betwixt us: for dato non concesso, that we are bound to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God by the authority of the Church, yet when we do thus believe it, than the immediate ground of our Faith in those things clearly set down, is the written Word of God, and not the authority of the Church. So then your first Number is indeed in no Number, for you cannot mean thus, that we cannot believe any thing proposed plainly in Scripture, unless we believe the authority of the Church in that particular. And therefore when you have proved the authority of the Church to be that which causeth and determineth our Faith of Scripture to be the Word of God, you will say less then formerly, and until you do prove it, you say nothing.  
As touching the expressions you make, in the second Number, of him who answered the Papers, give him leave, if not to be the adversary herein, yet to differ from you, and to think himself to be one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England. Neither did you intent by courteous and respective words to draw him to your opinion. Soft words alone will not do it, but soft words with hard arguments may do more. When we see a clear demonstration of truth, it is no courtesy to yield assent, for the Understanding cannot refuse Truth when it doth show itself; But whether the Reply (as you speak) be as clear a demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter, let me have the liberty and the civility (if in these businesses it hath any place) not to determine. Only it is very hard to say, who doth optimum quod sic, as they speak, the best of the kind. Yet also wise men may think, that if there can be nothing more expected towards this defence of your first position, the cause is wanting to it. And certainly such a wise man and ingenuous (as you be) will not content himself with any ascertainment, but that which is absolute, and uncapable of Error. Therefore not to deceive you by your own commendations, put it to issue, bring it to the test, try the debate betwixt us by this rule of Wisdom and Conscience also, Tene quod certum est, relinque quod incertum. It is certain that the Scripture is Infallible, and you confess it; it is not certain that the Church is Infallible, and I deny it. Which then should you take to be the Rule and Ground and Cause of Faith?  
As for the good design you mention here, and in your Title, to guide Souls redeemed by Christ to the happy Eternity; I congratulate to you that desire, but I am sorry that such a zeal is better than the way you lead them in. Assuredly those Souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ, may and shall come to happiness, without any Infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth. For first, those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture; matters of question we are in no such danger by the ignorance of, reserving a purpose not to contradict what we shall be convinced in on either part. Secondly, We may be directed in these points by Judges, though not Infallible, as unto the quiet of the Church. Thirdly, Until your Infallible Judge appears to be truly such, it is the best way not to be bound intuitively to his dictates: for than we might be in possibility of being bound to believe an error which is repugnant to the understanding, Ex natura rei. So that until you make good the Title of an infallible Judge, whom (as you say) we are obliged under pain of damnation not to disbelieve, I shall hold up my hand only in admiration of your confidence.  
And whilst you do demonstrate this, (that we are bound under pain of damnation not to disbelieve this Judge of yours;) You say you do demonstrate your former Position that the infallible Authority of the Catholic Church is the ground of our Faith. So you, yes, because you say that the Catholic Church is the infallible Judge: To this, thus. Is it the infallible Judge whereunto we are bound to submit our understandings in all things, or not? if in all things, than we cannot believe what the Scripture saith in plain points without the proposal of the Church; which now seems contrary to your mind, if not in all things, but only whether the Scripture be the Word of God, or in cases of Controversy; then do you now go less then in your former paper, & against the nature of implicit Faith:  
Secondly, that the authority of the Church is not it upon which we resolvedly rest our Faith of the Scripture; or the determination of Controversies, we shall see when you come to it.  
Thirdly, what do you mean by the Church? do you understand it formally of the people, or representatively in an Assembly of the Pastors, if you mean it of the people also; how is infallibility vested in them? Are we bound to stand to their judgement? and they are to be in obedience to their Pastors. Well then; it must be understood of their Pastors. What? of all? or most? or one? If of all, when did they all Vote? if of most, when did most Vote? If of one ordinary Pastor, with, or in a General Council; then remember whensoever in your sense you name a Church, it be so taken of the Pope and his Council General, which yet you will not evince to be infallible by their authority. If they were infallible, they must be infallible by the Word of God, as to us; and than that again is the first ground of Faith: and also secondly, you will find that many privileges which you have spoken of as to the Church, do not belong to the Church Representative strictly, but to all the people of the Church as invisible; which, as such comes not into this Controversy. If then you come again in any discourse, keep you within, and to the bounds of the question; and speak of the authority of the Church in the same sense, as to be the ground of Faith Divine in all points, or in the same particulars. For if you proceed from the Churches being the ground of faith as towards the Scripture to be the Word of God: To conclude, that therefore it is the ground of faith indefinitely or universally, you commit the fallacy à dicto secundum quid; as also, if you proceed from its being the ground of Faith in points of Controversy to the being the ground of Faith in all things, the discourse hath the same fault. And yet you say, that in your progress you leave nothing of concernment in my reply unanswered; and also that you conclude contradictorily to me.  
Sir, Let me here use my Liberty for your good. If you had a mind to leave nothing in my reply of moment unanswered, you would have followed me as a disputant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; you would have opposed distinction to some incident arguments, (for professedly the answerer is not to dispute.) You would have given me answer to answer, interpretation to testimonies, with showing either their impertinency or invalidity. And that excuse of yours, lest you should be too long, is surely too short to cover you. That is not long whereof nothing can be abated as he said, and that is my excuse. And surely your Treatise is too long, not only by your many repetitions which swell your paper; but would have been too long, had it been less, it is too long by itself. Who ever answered a rejoinder with a Treatise? Shall I say, that by your form of a Treatise, it may seem that you have more mind to treat then to fight, I am loath to be so bold; neither doth it become my spirit to tell you that you do not stand your ground; but you do not neither conclude contradictorily, if your Treatise did prove that the authority of your Church is the ground of Faith in the Divinity of the Scripture, and in case of Controversy: For your first paper spoke universally, my Answer denied it, and now you would prove it if you could particularly. If you would conclude contradictorily to me, you should have concluded in the same quantity affirmatively to my negative. This you here seem not to intent, yet in other parts of your Treatise you would contend it.  
And in the end you would arm your Treatise against me, as if there were no difference betwixt Positive and Oppositive Divinity. And this you do by references, but you should not have put the suit to reference without my consent.   

So much for the Preface. After the Preface you come to the Proof of the Title. You mean the Title of this Paper, which surely needs not to be proved, because it is not delivered by way of Affirmation, but of Disquisition.  
ANd as for the Similitude (you say) of St. Anselme, we like it very well. For, if the Tables be turned, it doth very aptly belong to you; who if you have not with a Roman contention for Mastery pulled out the Eyes of Men, yet have put out the Light, not allowing them the use of the Scripture: you shut up the people in Darkness and will not let them see the Sun of Righteousness in his own Orb of Scripture, for fear it may be he should not seem now to rise, but to go down in Rome: and instead hereof you leave Men to walk by the Light of the Pope; whom one compared to the Sun, as the Emperor to the Moon. Christ saith, Search the Scriptures, you say not, yea, you take away the use of all humble seeking of God for the knowledge of Truth; because you have said that we must all submit our assents to the determinations of the Church: So you see how your Opinion is practically impious, and is disagreeable to your own directions: For you say, if they should seek (of God) they should find. Only you say, we should set all passions & prejudice aside, & with a calm humble mind beg of God to give us this grace of seeking truth.  
Surely, this Qualification of our address to God for the finding of Truth is very good, and I would it were as well practised as delivered: but let the world judge who is like to be most wanting in this Devotion, and to exceed in passion and prejudice; He who affirms all to be delivered infallibly by the Church, or he that searcheth in Scripture particular Truths. Infallibility pretended easily makes any man passionate against difference, unless indeed he could make it good. And he that is infallible is in right capacity sure to have a necessary prejudice against different Opinions. Neither since the times of the Apostles hath humility been usually seen to ●●●p company with infallibility; not that he who is most humble is not most likely not to err; but that he who saith he cannot err is most likely not to be humble; but as for prejudice by Education, which you speak of also, may I not as well retort it upon you: I think in some respects it is not so applicable to me. Indeed we do not inherit Religion as Lands: but if, when we come to ability of discerning (which your Religion in its Principles will never let you come to) we see good cause for our Religion: Surely we have no reason to leave it, because it was our Fathers, although we do not embrace it, because it was our Fathers. The relation it hath to our Ancestors hath no more moment in it then the Church may have upon you, namely to be a considerable motive, not to be your ultimate resolution, thus for the first number of your proof, 〈◊〉 that it is 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 even with you for the similitude by a saying of Tertullian in his Apologet at the end of the 9 chapter, Caeti●●s d● species facile concurrunt, ut, qua non vident qua sunt, & videre viatantur quae non ●●nt. So, while you do not see what exceptions there are against you, you see more see what are not exceptions against us, and our way of Faith.  
But therefore in your second Number you will prove your way by Scripture. We now come to it. And your Text is, Esay the 35. from the fourth Verse to the ninth, by parcels, Say to the faint-hearted, Take courage, and fear not; behold, God himself will come and save you: then shall the eyes of the Blind be lightened, and the ears of the Deaf be opened, and there shall be a path, and a way, and it shall be called an Holy way, and this shall be unto you a direct way, so that fools cannot err by it. Thus you order the Testimony.  
To this we say; 1. Whether it be intended by the Holy Ghost to respect the Primitive Church, Christian mystically, through the Jewish, we cannot be certain: but sure we may be, that in the Letter it doth respect the Jewish Church, after their redemption from captivity. And therefore it may be, you, ●earing that this should be taken notice of, do wisely leave out those passages, which may seem to incline the Text to that sense, and you take only that which you think is for your turn. So you know who would have deceived Christ, by omitting that part of Scripture which was against him; although you will not allow to the people the Liberty of Scripture, yet let us have all for our life in the dispute. And it there be a mystical sense here, yet you know the rule of Divines, which is also not denied by yours, that mystical Divinity is not argumentative, unless namely the mystical sense be expressed in Scripture, which you are here to demonstrate.  
2. If it be understood of the Primitive Church, through the Jewish (as Saint Hierome indeed doth comment upon it) yet will it not 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉, unless you can prove, that whatsoever privileges were promised to the first Church in the times of the Apostles, should in full dimensions be always extended to your Church, and your Church only.  
Therefore your Isidor Clarius doth apply this Text to the time of our Saviour, when he did make the Blind to See, the Lame to Walk, as he sent word to John the Baptist. And therefore since it was signally accomplished then, we cannot urge the performance of it in that equality in a sense spiritual, which also seems to be acknowledged by Saint Hierome upon the place; where the opening of the Ears of the Deaf, he doth apply to the Scripture Preached, and the way he says to be God. Now then, as we cannot solidly argue from the promise of pouring out the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which was solemnly and subf●●a visibile, made good upon the Apostles (as ●o●h● Peter declared) that there shall be the like effusion of immediate gifts upon the Church in the following ages, which some Sectaries would plead: so neither can we rationally conclude from this promise, which was as that excellent manner, and in the Letter perfected by our Saviour Christ, that it shall be continued to any Church i● that measure of a spiritual kind. If we cannot evince the same perfection in the same kind, surely can we not by our accommodation of sense, evince the same perfection in another kind, upon the former consideration, because it is mystical, and that not argumentative.  
3. This path, and this way, and this holy way, so that fools cannot err, is (upon supposition) promised to the Church. Is it not? Well then, if it be promised to the Church, than the Church is not that way, for that way is promised to the Church; so that the Church is not absolutely that way, but so far as it goeth that way, which is as much as was said before (and is not yet answered) that the Church is regula regulata, not regulans. Take then the matter thus; that way which the Church goes we must go●● The Church goes by the way of Gods-Word revealed, and so must we, therefore we are not bound to follow the Church with blind obedience, which excludes Faith, because that includes Knowledge, although it be contradistinguished to Science.  
Fourthly, If the promise did belong to the Church in all times, yet not to any Church of one denomination; therefore until you can prove that your Church is all, this makes nothing for you. Particular Churches have not those properties which belong to the Universal Church as such.  
And if you make a proof of the Church to be the holy way, because the Church is holy, how easily is that undone, because there is more reason that the Scripture should be the holy way, for that is perfectly holy: or the Holy Ghost is the Judge, because he is essentially holy, but neither is the Church perfectly holy here, nor essentially holy not in Heaven: And besides, secondly, the Holy Church (if you understand it with relation to the Creed, as in your former Paper) it is to be taken of the Church invisible, which as such is on way. And thus I have slighted your strong hold, as it seems to you, for hitherto you do fly very often.  
In your third Number you come to an assertion of the necessity of an Infallible Judge.  
You say that all Christians of whatsoever Religion do agree in this, that there must be one Judge of all Controversies and Doubts, which either be, or can be in Religion. So you.  
You speak very largely of your supposition, as if it were agreed to by all Christians, but you do not consider that you do leave out that which makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the state of the question; whether there must be an Infallible Judge on Earth, for that is not consented to on all hands, by all Religions, indeed by none but yours.  
That God either essentially taken, or personally the Holy Ghost, is the Supreme, Universal, Infallible Judge, and only in whose Authority we rest, and whose word is the Ground of Faith, we hold. Under him subordinate Judges there are, but not Infallible: neither is it by your reason sufficiently confirmed, that there should be on Earth any Infallible Judge. For the defect of such a Judge on Earth doth not leave us free without any fault to follow our own private judgement, in holding what we will. For first, it is impossible for us to hold what we will, in our judgements. We may possibly, though not morally, profess what we will, although contrary to our judgements, as many do: but we cannot assent to what we will, because our Understanding is not free to take which part of the opposition it pleaseth by way of Will, for it embraceth. Truth naturally, as it sees it, and it cannot give a rational assent without a due conviction, and therefore your implicit Faith is false and null.  
Secondly, We do not say that we should follow our own judgement of discretion, without means of regulating our judgement: but yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils, and Sentences of the Fathers, we cannot resign up our Assents to their Dictates upon their account, but do examine them, (as the Beraeans did that which Saint Paul said) until we can find them resolved into the Infallible rule of Holy Scripture. For let me ask a Papist, according to the renour of your first Paper, What doth he believe? he answers, that which the Church believeth: and why doth he believe it? because the Church believeth it: and why doth the Church believe it? because it received it from the first Church, through the Sentences of the Fathers, or the Determinations of Councils. Well, but how shall the People know, whether this Tradition of Doctrine is truly discerned, and faithfully delivered? but if so, why is he bound to believe the first Church? because either they were the Apostles, o● had it from the Apostles. And why doth he believe the Apostles? Because they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Well, in what they wro●e, or in what they spoke, or both: In both. Well, but how do we know what they spoke▪ We know what they wrote bears witness of itself, so doth not to us what they spoke: so that, although they were inspired in wha● they spoke, yet we know not what they spoke. Neither can we be assured by a Divine Faith, that what of them was not written is certainly derived. And therefore all of Faith must be terminated, and determined in that which is written.  
And as towards Controversies, we say thirdly, that Christ hath sufficiently provided for the Salvation of Man, in regard of means of knowledge, without an Infallible Judge on Earth of their Controversies: because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture; and for matters of question, we are not in any such danger, if we do our endeavour according to our condition, to find out Truth, and do dispose ourselves to Belief, as we shall see credibility to arise. The Scripture doth with competent clearness furnish us against damnative error, and the Church doth no more, as you give us to understand at the end of this your Treatise: and why then should we leave the Scripture (which is acknowledged Infallible) to go to the Church? and what need then of an Infallible Judge? what for Peace and Unity?  
Then fourthly, we say that the Decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibility, do yet oblige unto Peace. Though their judgement cannot engage undisputed assent: yet their power they have from Christ, doth require reverence and undisturbance in the difference. It requires subscription, if we see no cause of dissenting: and if we do, subjection to the censure. All the authority of the world can go no further with us; unless we might be hypocrites in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief. And yet wherein have we divided out accords from the former General Councils? And therefore why are we charged with this Indictment, as if we were opposite to the authority of the truly Catholic Church? yet if we did differ without Opposition, we keep the peace of the Church without question. And that we must differ until we see God speaking, believe his reason that said, Omnis creata veritas, etc. All created verity is defectible, unless as it is rectified by the increased verity: Wherefore the assent neither to the Testimony of Men or Angels doth infallibly lead into Truth, save only so far as they see the Testimony of God speaking in them. So then the assent of Faith is only under obedience to him speaking. And if you say that God doth speak in General Councils, as he doth speak in his Word written, prove it. Yea, how then will you avoid blasphemy? For doth God speak Contradictions? For so one Council hath contradicted another. And to use your own argument, we are bound to submit our judgement only to those who can judge of the inward act; for so you distinguish betwixt temporal Judges and others; but God only can judge of our internal acts, therefore we must submit our assents only to him: and therefore to others, no further than they speak according to him. So that we cannot absolutely adhere to whatsoever is said in Councils, which have erred, Jewish and Christian too. Now than you may think I spoke reason in my respects to General Councils without your unlimited subjection of Faith.  
And therefore your admiration in the beginning of the 5 th'. page of this Paper, which is grounded upon your interpretation of tha● of Esay, is as unnecessary. And that absurdity which you would infer upon my Opinion (that the wisest men in the world are most likely to err this way by which he may in his interior judgement go quite contrary to all Christendom) hath little in it out noise. For first you suppose hereupon an infallible Judge upon earth; which is the Question. Secondly the wisest man is not most likely to err if it be lawful to descent from Universal councils, because as such he is most apt to discern what is defined according to Truth, what not. Thirdly, what think you of Saint Athanasius who differed in his judgement and profession too, from most of Christendom then about the Divinity of the Son. Fourthly, the Rule of Scripture is equally infallible, and those who are wise if they prepare themselves for the search of Truth, they are likely not to err, (for if they go by the Rule, they cannot err, because it is infallible: But those who go by the Church may err, because for aught is yet proved, it is not infallible) and those who are fools may by Scripture be made wise unto salvation. And to this purpose the Scripture, which is very sublime and heavenly in the matter; yet is simple and plain and low in the manner of delivery, that those who are of meaner capacity might hereby he sufficiently directed to life and salvation: Therefore do not tell me but prove to me that the Church is infallible, and that you are the only Church, or else you do nothing but with fools, whom you find or make to go your way.  
In your next lines you do discharge me of singularity in my Opinion: For it appears by you, that all but Roman Catholics are of the same persuasion.  
All but Roman Catholics, you say. As if none were Catholics but either of your Nation, or of your Religion. The first is a contradiction, and the second is a falsity; for there were many Catholics which were not of your Religion in those Points wherein we differ. By the Fathers of the Church, those were accounted Catholics which withstood the plea of Faustinus the Pope's Legate in the Carthaginian Council, when he falsified the Nicene Canon of subjection to the Roman Bishop; whereof no such copy could be found. They were Catholics who determined against Appeals to Rome, who determined equal privileges of other Churches to the Bishop of Rome. They were Catholics who held not Transubstantiation, nor Purgatory, nor your use of Images, nor your Sacrament under one kind, nor your other Sacraments, as of proper Name, nor Indulgencies. And they were Catholics, who held that which you do not hold, as the millenary Opinion, and Infant Communion.  
And therefore (to follow you) the desperate consequence which you charge us with, if we do not come over to your way, flows not from your premises, unless you can make out an infallible assistance of your See, and that this is by God appointed for our necessary passage to salvation, and the way promised in the Prophet Esay. Nay, if the people should be left, for their guidance to the unanimous consent of the whole Church in points of Faith, here would be a desperate consequence; for I hope they were more like to find the Articles of Faith in the leaves of Scripture (which as to these is plain) then in the perusal and collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers of all ages every where, according to the rule of Lyrinensis; or if we take the depositions of the Fathers in those properties, which he describeth such whereby we are to be ruled, that they must be holy Men, wise Men, they must hold the Catholic Faith and Communion, they must persist in their Doctrine, they must persist in it unto Death in the same sense, as in the 39 Chapter against Heresies. If you do not take the consent of the Church, according to these circumstances you differ from him: If you do, how shall the poor people through all those labyrinths, see the right way of wholesome Doctrine, when who knows how many of them did not write at all? How many of those who wrote were not such? How many works of those who were such are to us perished? How many bastard pieces are fathered on them? How many of their writings corrupted? How many or how few have touched upon our differences, having not occasion by adversaries? How many have differed from one another? How many have differed from themselves? Is then this the way that fools cannot err? If wise men go this way, surely this is their first error, that they go this way; wherein nothing is found but perplexities and unsatisfiedness. Neither can they soberly raise the credit of their Doctrine by prime descent without interruption from the Apostolic age, if all be well considered. Such a confidence let me give a check to by application of a story.  
A Christian Prince was much seduced by a kind of men, who professed a vast Art of giving a certain account of many Ages before; and a trifling Courtier perceiving his humour, made him believe that his Pedigree in ancient race of Royal Blood, might be fetched from Noah's Ark: wherewith he being greatly delighted, forthwith laid aside all business, and gave himself to the search of the thing so earnestly, that he suffered none to interrupt him whosoever; no not Ambassadors, which were sent to him about most weighty affairs. Many marvelled hereat, but none durst speak their mind; till at length his Cook, whom he used sometimes as his Fool, told him that the thing he went about was nothing for his honour; for now saith he, I worship your Majesty as a God; but if we go once to Noah's Ark, we must there yourself and I both be akin.  
This the Story; which is so long, that it reacheth you from top to toe: for you would by a very long series derive your authority as it were from Noah's Ark, which you think represents your Church, out of which there is no salvation. You would run it up from very many successions to the times of the Apostles, and nothing will content you but this ancient Original. You lay aside all other proofs in comparison of this succession; (not so much of Doctrine indeed, as of Church) Ambassadors that are sent to you with Scripture you will not hear, unless your Church may have the power of Interpretation infallibly in your own cause. But let some of the Pope's servants whom he makes his Fools, inform him that that which he goes about is little for his Honour; for now they worship him as a God, but if they come to the times of the Apostles, there will be found no such distance betwixt him and others; and consanguinity of Doctrine (as it is expressed) will be able to disinherit your points of difference formerly named, with invocation of Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Where do we find them? Where may we read them? Therefore urge not Antiquity, unless Truth goes along with it on your side, and do not any more strain the consent of ages for Doctrines, which (as we may speak) will be out of breath long before they come to that mighty height of the Apostolic time.  
As for your instance of Saint Cyprian erring by persuasion of that which he held to be Scripture, and St. Augustine's Crisis of his error; I Answer,  
First, You see here Saint Cyprian, a Prime Doctor of the Church did then ground his Opinion upon Scripture without recourse to Tradition. And this makes for us, that he thought it no injury to the Church to  from what was held or practised upon respect to Scripture. He undertook to think and do otherwise then Christendom then, in the point of Rebaptisation; and yet was not accused as an Heretic.  
Secondly, He erred grossly, and yet not dangerously, because he held his Opinion without malignance to the Church: and so may we without peril of salvation. And if you say the case is different betwixt him and us, because that point wherein he went not with the Church, was not then defined by a Council: We answer, what shall we say then of the times in the Church, before there was any Council, and therefore in those times the Rule of Faith and Action was without a Council; and therefore this answer doth not satisfy; or they were ruled only by Scripture, which may satisfy you.  
Thirdly, He erred not in the substance of the Act when he pleaded Scripture; but in the misapplication of Scripture to that case: and therefore this Argument comes to the fallacy of accident, and this makes no prejudice against Scripture; which in itself is contrary to error, without defectibility; and therefore he that indeed follows Scripture cannot err, because it is Infallible. So cannot we say of the Church, for aught yet we see by your Discourse.  
Fourthly, This makes no more disadvantage to the prerogative of Scripture, then that the Pelagians for their Opinions urged the Testimonies of the Fathers: which caused Saint Austin to make an Apology for them, Vobis Pelagianis; when you Pelagians were not yet born, the Fathers spoke more securely; namely of the power of nature. Nay surely it makes a great deal less; for the Father, if in this he had followed the Fathers, whom the Bitagians quoted, had erred not by his Interpretation of them, but, it seems, by their inconfideratenesse: But we cannot charge Scripture with any such fault; and therefore Saint Cyprian erred by misinterpretation. And here also by the way we see how fallible a rule is the consent of the Fathers: since if Saint Austin had ordered his belief thereby he had been overtaken with Pelagianism.  
Now as for Saint Augustine's crisis concerning this of Saint Cyprian, that if he had lived to see the Determination of a plenary Council, he would for his great humility and charity straightway have yielded, and preferred the General Council before his judgement; to this (besides what we now said about the undefinednesse of it by a Council) we say, It is like he would have yielded, and this yet accrues not unto your cause much.  
For first, Saint Austin says for his great humility and charity he would have yielded. And this manner of Expression you may perceive doth abstract from a necessity of duty. Under bond of Duty these virtues have no freedom. He was so humble of mind that he would have thought better of them: he was so charitable, that for this he would have offended none in this case: but doth this infer that he was bound in conscience to sink his Opinion in the authority of their Definition? No, no. Humility and Charity have in them no formality influxive unto Faith (for this is seated in the understanding) but to peace. Therefore this yielding of his, (supposed upon the Case) would have only concerned his person, as not to have opposed here; not his judgement, as if this should necessarily have been overcome by their Authority. For the person may be bound when the Conscience cannot be bound: so may the person yield as to the omission of opposite acts, when the understanding yet keeps its former due apprehension.  
Secondly, this business of Saint Cyprian is such as is a matter of practice not clearly decided by Scripture: but this avails not to an universal conclusion of ruling our faith by the Church; which although you at the beginning did seem to wave, yet here would in your discourse insinuate and wind in. The sum of this is, We do not dispute a reverence to Councils: but we cannot grant an undisputed reception of whatsoever is delivered by them. In such determination we break not the peace; but keep Faith for God's Word. So then your fourth Number in your sixth page might have been spared, until you had upheld your supposition of construing that of Esay to be meant of the Church. All you build thereupon must be ruinous. Debile fundamentum fallit opus. And besides what is there but repetitions? Only you observe therein another inconvenience in our Cause; in that we do not hold one Infallible Judge on earth, which yet in effect you have had before. But to view the moment thereof the better, let me put what you would have into some form with all ingenuity; thus, where there is not one Judge there will not be one Faith: but there is one Faith; therefore there is but one Judge.  
Now if you will accept this: Syllogism for year, I shall answer to it by distinguishing; if you mean in the proposition an Infallible Judge on Earth, and such a Faith as is to be understood in the assumption according to the Text, Ephes. 4.5, than we deny the proposition; for Faith there, is not to be understood of Faith subjectively, but Faith objectively; and Faith, in regard of the objects thereof may be entire, and one, though every one doth not hold them, for the unity of Faith there depends not upon men's profession, but upon coherence with itself, and the exclusion of any other, as towards appointment unto Salvation. If you mean Faith otherwise, we deny your assumption to be true to the sense of the Text.  
Whereas you say then, that otherwise God had not well provided for the Salvation of men generally, if but one of ten thousands (without an Infallible Judge) might hit the right sense of Scripture: We Answer, First, you see here how your opinion doth miserably betray you to hard thoughts of Scripture, and consequently of God in it. Is not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation? Is it not given by inspiration? Is it not profitable for Doctrine, for Conviction, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the man of God might be absolute, being made perfect unto every good work? as Saint Paul to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. what can we desire more of Scripture in regard of sufficiency to its end, then that it should be able to make us wise unto Salvation? what can we want in it, as in regard of the matter of it towards that end, when as it is profitable as to those purposes? and if there be not all so clear, as that every one of the people may discern the mind of God as towards a particular sense; yet the Man of God, the Minister of the Gospel by the Study and Learning he hath, may be able to be thereby furnished to every good work, that he may instruct others. Now I think you will not think that Saint Paul by the Man of God here intended the Pope, or any one Infallible Judge, and therefore your postu●gre or an Infallible Judge is unreasonable. Any Minister of the Gospel, by his abilities, is able competently, through the Scripture, to direct the people unto their happiness; and the Scripture was inspired to this purpose, as it appears. And what need then of an Infallible Judge? It is true, every Minister is not able to explicate all difficulties of Scripture, no nor all your Popes and Counsels neither, but in things necessary their knowledge may be sufficient; in points of debate, there is no necessity of certain knowledge, as unto Salvation. And this you afterward come to, when you take care to save the credit of the Church by a distinction, that it cannot teach any damnative error, so than it may err, but not teach damnative error. The Scripture teacheth all things necessary; cannot err at all; why then do we not rest here? Therefore take you no more this way of reckoning, we have an Infallible Judge therefore we must absolutely hear him. But first, prove the necessity of a Judge indefinitely, and then who it is demonstratively, and then we have done. In the mean time, you are in the peril of Treason, not against God's Judge, but against God the Judge, in setting up another Judge, in the Consciences of men. And if the subordinate Judge, who is not Infallible, goes without a Commission and makes Laws himself, is not this Treason? So then, the subordinate Judge determines by Scripture or not; if not, than he makes a new Law: if he doth determine by Scripture, then doth his determination bind by Authority of Scripture, where of he is but a Minister. And is not the Word by the Spirit of God Judicative? What else is said, Heb. 4.12. Consider well that Text, and see if it may not answer all your objections against Scripture? If you say the Word of God is a Dead Letter, it cannot speak; it is here denied, it is Living: if you say that it cannot act; it is denied, it is active, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you say that cannot decide Controversies; what is said here? It is sharper than any two edged Sword. It decides all Controversies of Faith, and those points of Faith (pretended) which are not, here it doth cut off. If you say that cannot reach the Conscience, what then can? it is piercing, even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit, Joints and Marrow. If you say it cannot judge, it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Critical, exactly Judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart; and this is more than any Judge on Earth can do. All that Judges on Earth can do, in our question, is but to declare and apply the decisions of Scripture against Error or Evil practice: if they go higher, they go above their Sphere. And since they may (for aught appears by you to the contrary) miss of the right determination, we use them but as Consuls, not as dictator's: We consult them, and then look to the Rule. What then it is to submit your interior Judgement (as you speak) to any one on Earth, I leave it to you to judge; since he, whosoever he is, can oblige assent no otherwise now then by light of Scripture, which is the standing and only rule we have to go by unto happiness. And if we go any other way to settle our assent of truth (which is to be preferred before unity) we shall come no way to faith. So you see what is the cause of the chasm betwixt us; you cannot come to us, because you are bound and captivated by your Infallibility, which while you hold, it holds you in incapacity of being better advised: and we cannot come to you, because you hold it. It is hard to say which hath destroyed more Souls, uncertainty of that Religion which we have in Scripture, or Infallibility besides it; and yet not so hard, for Uncertainty may be helped, but Infallibility hath no remedy.  
And now, forasmuch as you have not upon firm ground established the necessariness of an Infallible Judge, I need go no further, till this be made sure. I need not have any thing to do with your assumption; indeed, (if I may be so free) a presumption. Yet, lest you should take it amiss or ill, if I should say nothing to it by itself, I shall not let it pass without some notice of it.  
But what you say at first here, that if we find out this Judge, we can never remain in any doubt; for without all doubt, we must stand to the judgement of this Judge, what reasons soever our private judgement or discretion may suggest: So you; this spoils all, and this is an argument against you: that which you say is little else then Contradictio in adjecto, as they speak. If we must submit our judgements to an Infallible Judge (pretended) whatsoever reasons (of Scripture I mean) we have to the contrary, then there is no such Judge; for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that, for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary. Take Reason simply, and so in matters of Faith it must quiescere (as the School phrase is) as a principle, because the doctrine of Faith is supernatural, in the judgement of Aquinat, at the beginning of his Sums: but take Reason as an Instrument for the finding out of the sense of Scripture; and so, what moments we find in Scripture for any opinion, we cannot sink in any determinations on Earth. As far as the understanding sees appearance of Truth, it doth necessarily leap and run to it, and will not leave it for any Authority under Heaven: and therefore, while the reason of Authority is not so clearly drawn from the Word of God, as the reason of his Opinion in his own judgement, it cannot give up its assent. And if we are by duty to go your way of absolute credence to the dictates of your Judge, we must then, if he says Vices are Virtues, say so too, as your Cardinal Bellarmin determins, in his 4. Book, de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. And thus you again see whither your blind obedience will lead you, even from darkness to darkness.  
In the seventh Number you lay to our charge an agreement with all Heretics that have risen up against the Church, because we (as all Protestants) do hold that the Scripture is the only Judge, by which all doubts and differences and Controversies of Religion, are to be determined with Infallible Authority. To this Saint Austin answers, l. de Trinit. cap. 38.  
We also answer to this charge, first, as before, that Heretics have urged Authority too, and therefore by your argument, you must quit your way of the Authority of the Church, or else grant us our way of Scripture notwithstanding. Secondly, doth it follow rationally, that because the Heretics have misapplyed Scripture, therefore we should not rightly apply it? If the Standard be made use of to ill purpose, of measuring stolen commodities, therefore shall not other measures be ruled hereby? It is accidental to Scripture to be thus abused: shall it therefore lose its proper privilege? because, as Saint Peter saith, some who are unlearned and unsettled wrist Scriptures to their destruction; therefore those who are learned and settled may not improve it to their Salvation: because Robbers make use of the light of the Sun, for actions unrighteous and wicked; therefore honest men may not use the Light for their lawful employments. Is this good reasoning? You had surely raised your discourse to the height, if you had told us that we must not urge Scripture, because the Devil did urge it unto our Saviour Christ. So one indeed concludes: as if the Devil did not apprehend what kind of argument our Saviour would own, and what reject, therefore did he not set upon him with Tradition of the Church, as is noted. Neither did Christ reply upon him with Tradition, but with Scripture, which is a better Argument, that this is to be our Rule which we should be be ordered by. Thirdly, The Heretics did not press that which was true Scripture, but either corrupted it, as Tertullian observes in his prescriptions; or took only so much as was for their use, or perverted the sense of it; so that if Scripture doth consist in the sense, they did not bring Scripture for their proof, but that which is not Scripture. Fourthly, Why doth Bellarmine and others of your Writers so frequently endeavour to uphold their Doctrines by Scripture, if because the Heretics use it, we must not? Neither do they plead Scripture by the Traditional sense of the Church, but by their own Interpretations. When Scripture seems to them to speak for them, than they produce Scripture; but when they are oppressed with clear testimonies against them, then little respect is given thereunto. Fifthly, If Controversies are not to be ended by Scripture, which the Heretics plead, then how are they to be ended by the judgement of the Church? Yes, you will say, but how shall Heretics know, if they doubt what or which is the true Church? it must be by the Scripture, so that our last recourse must be to Scripture. Again, if Heretics must be persuaded by the Church, then are they led, if not by their private judgements, yet by private judgements of others. For besides that the Church consists of private Men, the consent of the whole, if they could be certain of it, being compared to Scripture, in way of contradistinction, hath itself by manner of private judgement: All the public power it hath, it hath by God and Scripture: then here again we must end. Again, how shall Heretics know that all Controversies are to be ended by the Church? they must know it either by their own judgements of discretion, which you deny to us, or by the Church. What in its own cause? or by Scripture? so we must resolve ourselves in Scripture, analytically we must bottom there, synthetically we must begin there. Sixthly, This practice of Heretics, if it hath reason to make us forsake Scripture, hath it not reason also to make you retract your expressions of yourself as towards Scripture, that you do profess all reverence and all credit to be due to Scripture, as the Infallible word of God, insomuch that you are ready to give your lives in defence of any thing contained herein? Will you stand to your words? If you will, then must you believe, that whatsoever is necessary is declared therein sufficiently, For what saith the Scripture by Saint Paul, Gal. 1.8. If I, or an Angel from Heaven preach to you any other. Doctrine besides what you have received, let him be Anathema. And what then becomes of your unwritten word, on behalf whereof you wisely cry up the infallibility of the Church, in points of Religion? For as for the distinction of your men hereupon, that the Text is to be understood of that which is against it, not of that which is beside it, is invalid, for it is in the Text beside, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and besides, that which is beside it as a Rule, is against it: For if any thing be a Rule besides it, then is that not a Rule. For a Rule or Canon, as it excludes defect, so doth it exclude excess, and therefore, in necessaries to faith and salvation nothing is to be added; as in the 22. of the Apocalypse the 18. If any man shall add hereunto, God shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book. After the consignation of the Canon, nothing is to be added as he said.  
And your glorious asserting (which follows in your Treatise) that you only do truly believe the Scripture, because you only believe it to be the Word of God upon Divine Revelation manifested by God's Church, which (as you will show) is infallible, is certainly not very sound: Because first, this is not yet put out of question that the Church is infallible. This you would beg and have to be granted unto you: therefore you pass the proof of it here, and skip from this to the denial of true faith to the Protestants. For this Demonstration we must wait your leisure. Secondly, we deny unto you any reason of this your glory in the belief of Scripture, upon this consideration; that the Faith of Protestants is more grounded than yours is: for whatsoever authority the Church hath towards this persuasion we also make use of as a motive to this Faith: and then we do resolve and settle and determine our Faith hereof by the autopistie of the word of God, which you say is the infallible Word of God. If it be infallible, it cannot deceive us. Neither can be it be said that we cannot be assured of its infallibility by its self; because we cannot be assured of the Authority of the Church, but by the Word of God. Yea, this is the ratio formalis of Divine Faith, to believe what he saith to be true, because he saith it: Therefore must we believe that the Scripture is the Word of God, because he saith it. And suppose the Church were Infallible, yet must we ground and terminate our Faith hereof in Scripture, unless it did otherwise appear Infallibly to be so, or else we are in everlasting motion to and fro: as, Why do I believe the Scripture to be the Word of God? because the Church saith it. Why do I believe the Church? because the Scripture beareth witness of it. How do I know the Scripture saith it? because, again the Church saith so. You must then come to us and our principles, if you will have any grounded constitution of Divine Faith: we fluctuate, and hover up and down like the Dove, until we come to set a sure foot on the ground of Scripture. The prime and indemonstrable principle of all Divinity, amongst principles complexe, must be this, that the Scripture is the Word of God.  
And hereupon, that which you say in your eighth page, That it is not where written in Scripture, that such and such Books of Scripture be Canonical, and the undoubted Word of God, etc. makes no prejudice against us (and yet that which is quoted in Scripture from any other book, under such a name, is upon this consideration Canonical) for they are worthy to be believed for themselves. As we assent unto prime principles, in the habit of intelligence, by their own light: so do we assent unto Scripture, to be the Word of God; through the help of the Spirit of God, do we see the Scripture to be the Word of God, as by its own light. Therefore hath Faith more proportion to Intelligence, then to Science, since we see no reason to believe, but by the credibility of the object which hath upon it impressed the Authority of God. And this in effect, even Aristotle did see in his Rhetorics, when he speaks of that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is either by Humane Testimony or by Divine; in the latter whereof, that which makes the Faith, is the Testimony of God. And that testimony of Saint Austin, which your Bellarmin produceth against those who were for private Revelations, beside Scripture, in his first Book, De verbo Dei, cap. 2. (and he takes it out of the 12 of his De Civit. cap. 9) infers as much in these words, Scripturae fides mirabilem autoritatem non immeritò habet, etc. The Faith of the Scripture, hath not undeservedly an admirable Authority in the Christian World, and in all Nations, which, amongst other things that it spoke, it did by a true Divinity foretell would believe it. It hath an admirable Authority, not undeservedly; mark that, not from the Christian world, but in the Christian world, and in all Nations which it did foretell would believe it; not the Church, for they that were the Church were to believe it first: it did foretell by a true Divinity: if then we would use a scientifical argument, and  from the Scripture, it, should be this, that what it hath foretold, is come certainly to pass; and what is come to pass, in the belief of it it did foretell. The humane Faith then, such as that whereby we believe Cicero's or Virgil's books, is indeed yours; for you are they who have no other than humane grounds, and consequently an humane Faith, if your Faith doth rest upon the authority of Man. What you have more to say to this, out of the virtue of General Councils, you refer me to in the 19 Number; but all the light they give comes from the Sanctuary of Scripture, and therefore what Light you have, must be more then Mans.  
In the middle of your eighth page, you say you have a second convincing Argument: it is easily denied to be a second convincing Argument, for it cannot be a second convincing Argument, until the first proves so.  
But the sum of this Argument is drawn from our uncertainty of the knowledge of the Scripture to be the Word of God by our translations, since the Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek, which one of ten thousand doth not perfectly understand. But do you not consider that this Argument will rebound with more force against you, for you have nothing at all for your belief, but the Authority of the Church in your Translation Latin. Yea, the people must have no knowledge at all by any Translation which they understand, therefore their Faith upon this account is less Divine, because they have no understanding of Scripture by any Interpretation. Secondly, The Translations are the Word of God not absolutely, but so far as they agree with the Originals, and therefore by them we do not ground our Faith as such: but we ground our Faith upon that which is translated to be the Word of God, because God by his Spirit persuadeth us of it, therefore the Fallibility of Translation doth not destroy our Faith, for we do not build it upon a Translation; but this you do, you rely upon your Latin Translation, 
Session the 4. as Bel. in the 30. B. De verbo Dei, c. 9  which by the Trent Council was Christened Authentic before it was born. You make that to be the Scripture, by which you must decide Controversies; (than you decide Controversies by Scripture.) And hath that no faults in it? Is it every word Infallibly done? If Infallibly done at first, why did Clement the eighth vary from Sixtus quintus? and why doth Isidor Clarius vary from him in thousands of places? And do you any where find in Scripture, that this Interpretation is made Canonical? And are there none that find great fault with this Latin one? If you will look into your Bellarmine in his third Book, De verbo Dei, 10. Chapter you may find the contrary; and although it goes under the account of an ancient Edition and Hieronis, yet in the Chapter before, you may see he finds adversary objections, and you may find by his confession that all is not his. What need then Sixtus Quintus have made it up? And is not your Rhemish Testament very faulty? Will you, undertake to make it all good against Fulk? And if you say that you may be certain of your Latin by the Church which you will prove to be infallible; until you do prove it, you do again commit the fallacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This should have been made irrefragably sure at first by Achillean invincible arguments, and then we should have fallen down before you. But again you tell us you will do it, and presently fly at us for our Opinion. Is there not one of yours who is prettily, in his Opposition against Bishop Andrew's about the Pope's temporal power, compared to the pulex, 
Qui cessim fugit & fugit recessìm,  
Et subsultibus hinc & hinc citatis  
Vibrat cruscula;  
And is there no more do so?   
In some lines following of your Treatise we have nothing but petitions or repetitions, and we answer no more till you prove more, than this, no man ever erred by following Scripture sincerely which you grant to be the infallible Word of God: If they erred, they erred from Scripture, not by it. But fools may be made wise by Scripture, and wise men may err by your Church, until you make it infallible. Nullibi pronior fidei lapsus quam ubi rei falsae gravis autor extitit, as he said. If they may teach that which is false, wise men may also be deceived; if they be not infallible, they may teach that which is false.  
But in the eighth line of the ninth page you oppose to me Saint Augustine's authority, and of all the greatest Doctors which ever the Church had, that they professed themselves unable to understand the Scriptures, and that after many years study, and how then, etc.  
We easily answer, Saint Austin doth not say that the Scripture is absolutely and universally, in all places so difficult, that we may not get out from thence that which will direct us to Heaven, for than he should contradict himself. Doth he not say in his 4 th'. chapter of the 2. Book Dê Doct. Christ. That there are some things indeed difficult; but the obscurity is profitable to tame our pride by labour, and to bring back our understanding from loathing, cui facile investigata plerumque vilescum, as he saith. And fully again in in his 10 th'. Tom, De verbis Apostoli, Serm. the 13 th'. Verbi Dei altitudo, etc. The sublimity of the Word of God doth exercise our study, doth not deny to be understood. If all were shut up, there would be nothing whereby that which is obscure would be revealed. Again, if all were covered, there would not be from whence the soul should receive nourishment, and might have strength to knock at that which is shut. Therefore your fallacy is à dicto secundum quid, if from hence, you would conclude all to be difficult: yea so, you would contradict Saint Peter, who saith of Saint Paul's Epistles, that somethings of them are hard to be understood, not all; Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam, as the Rule is. Yea, you would contradict yourself, who say more than once, that those things which are plain in Scripture, you believe by the authority of Scripture. But if from the asserting of some things difficult, you would only conclude that this cannot be the judge in Controversies, as you seem to intent in your conclusion; we say plainly, this difficulty in some things of Scripture doth not infer the necessity of an infallible Judge on earth, your premises do not conclude this, and we allow unto you the use of Judges on earth, although they be not infallible. As Judges in civil Causes may and do sometimes err, yet is there use of them; so also is there of Ecclesiastical Judges, though not incapable of error: and again, there is no peril of damnation on either side soberly held in points of Question; and therefore the Scripture yet may be the way so direct that fools cannot err in matters of necessary faith and practice. And fourthly, a General Council is the highest you can go in humane Authority, and yet this doth not bind unto Faith, because it is not free from error. To which purpose believe Saint Austin, if you will stand to his judgement, in his third book against Maximinus Bish of the Arrians, the fourteenth chapter, Sed nunc nac ego Nicenum, etc. But now neither aught I produce the Nicene Council, nor you that of Ariminum, as boasting thereof: neither am. I held under the authority of this, nor you of the other. Let matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason, be debated by Authorities of Scriptures, not proper witnesses to any, but common to both. So he. Where you see he prefers the authorities of Scripture before Councils; which are proved not infallible even here, because one was for the Arrians. Here is Council against Council, as there hath been Pope against Pope. In this case what will you do? which must you submit to? Is one infallible contrary to another infallible? If you must submit to both, you submit to error, if to one, why not to the other if that be infallible. And this also will include uncertainty of all humane definitions about the Canon of Scripture, which hath been spoken to before.  
We come now to your second Reason in your eighth Number.  
That you say comes into this Enthymene. Many Controversies there are, and may be yet very many more most nearly concerning the necessary means to salvation which can never be ended, and undoubtedly decided by judgement and sentence of the Scriptures; therefore the Scripture is not the Judge.  
We answer to the Antecedent, in those terms I deny it in both the branches, if you mean, by those things nearly concerning the necessary means to salvation, such things as are indeed necessary to salvation; otherwise you go upon a false supposition that there is a necessity of a Judge on earth, undoubtedly to decide that which is not necessary: Therefore choose you which you will hold to; if you mean those following instances to be of the necessaries, I deny the antecedent in both branches; if not, I deny your supposition. Taking you in the former sense, I say that there are not now many Controversies necessary to be determined unto salvation, which may not undoubtedly be decided by Scripture: and also I say there may not be yet many more. The first branch I deny, because though many things which are res questionis, are not decided by Scripture, yet many controversies in things necessary cannot be said not to be undoubtedly decided by Scripture, because in things necessary there are not many Controversies. And the second branch I deny, because we cannot expect any new necessaries, and a new Tradition is a certain contradiction.  
Now to answer to your particulars for the proof of the antecedent. Controversy may be moved (you say) concerning the lawfulness of working and not working of saturdays and Sundays. How will this Controversy be decided by the Scripture, etc. So you.  
To which we return you this answer, that there is enough in Scripture to ground the practice of the Church for the observing of the Lords day. First by the proportion to the Equity of keeping one day in seven, which we have in the fourth Commandment. There is in the Commandment morale naturae, that there should be a time set a part for public worship; and this by the Light of Nature the Heathens did see; as Tully, Non ut Consilii sic Sacrificii, etc. There is not a day appointed of Counsel, as of sacrifice; then there is a positive determination to the Jew of the seventh day, to be the day in the week of their solemn service; and to this is agreeable by good analogle, that Christians should keep one day in seven as well as the Jews. Now the moments in Scripture for the Translation of the day are several, the appellation of the Lords day, most likely of the day we keep, the meeting of the Disciples and breaking of bread on the first day of the week; the order for the provision for the poor by Saint Paul to the Corinthians. To these we add the Syriack Interpretation, which in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 11. Chapter and the 20. Verse, expresseth it thus; when therefore you meet, you do not, as it is just on the Lord's Day, eating and drinking, which is to be understood of the Communion, according to the scope of the place. And therefore may we think that this point of practice was so competently set out in Scripture, as that we cannot suspend the usage upon the Authority of the Church, since we may conceive that the Church was bound by the former Considerations to celebrate the Day of Christ's Resurrection, which is the Hope of the new Creature. The seventh Day to the Jew was Positive and Ceremonial; and therefore upon that account, under capacity of being altered: and the Equity of one day in the week is now under practice upon the former intimations. Secondly, If the Jewish day ceaseth not in the Obligation to Christians, than the time when Christians should keep, is under the Divine Commandment, and is none of those things wherein the Church hath power; because as you will confess, it hath no authority to rescind a Divine precept. So then, if by necessity of mean it is necessary to keep the Lords day, it is lawfully done and upon duty; if it be not necessary by necessity of mean, then is this Example of yours impertinent. And so this argument (unanswerable, as you esteem it) is without much labour answered by those who make the Scripture, in which God speaks, by him the sole Infallible Judge; not excluding subordinate Judges; which are to regulate their decisions by the rule of the word, unto which the Scripture is not silent: and in other things no need to be sure of such a Judge as you would have.  
And this second Answer to your first instance, may be available for your satisfaction in your second instance from the 15. of the Acts. For if those precepts of the 〈◊〉 in that Council, do bind all always, then is We matter determined by Scripture: if they do not, then are we at our Christian liberty from them, without a formal discharge thereof from the Church. And secondly, that we are not held under obedience to those Laws, appears by the intention of their imposition for that time: since, they were imposed upon occasion of scandal to the weak Jew; the reason whereof now ceaseth, and therefore the Laws; ubi ratio cessat lex cessat, as the rule is. Only as the Ceremonial Laws bind, yet qu●ad genus as they speak, that there should be a decent public worship in the Church of God, not quoad speciem, that we should continue the use of the same Ceremonies: so even these precepts which were in their nature Ceremonial, do yet bind so far improportion of kind, that in things of indifferency we should have respect to our weak Brother. Thirdly, Neither can you say, that either he that does abstain from those things forbidden, or he that does not abstain, is upon that account in danger of damnation. And therefore as quoad hoc, we distinguish of your term Necessary; if you take this matter Necessary as absolutely so by the morality of it, or perpetual by appointment, than we deny it to be necessary so, and why do not you keep, them? if only necessary as to present practice; then doth it not come up to our question: for it is none of those things necessary to Salvation, which are determinable by the Church, and not by Scripture.  
In your tenth Number you give us another case not umpired by Scripture, whether the King is Head of the Church. And this, you say, we thought once to be determined by Scripture affirmatively: now not; so you in effect: this point is now no longer ascertained us by infallible judgement of Scripture, so you in terms. We answer. First, What is infallibly decided in Scripture, will ever be so, although we do not always find it; but we cannot find any thing infallibly decided by the Church. Secondly, We do not say that every point is Infallibly decided in Scripture, because it is not at all decided, therefore if you mean us so, you mistake us. And now, premising these considerations; we answer, that we do hold our principle still, if you will understand as according to our mind. Head of the Church as you hold the Pope to be Head of the Church, so as that we are bound in Conscience, as upon his Infallibility, to be ruled by his dictates, in matters of Religion, we never held the King to be: but to be Head of the Church, so as to be the chief Governor thereof, as being appointed by God to be the Keeper of both Tables, so we hold him to be still. This distinction makes an end, as it may seem, of your objection; and yet secondly, we do not pretend the King to be head of the Universal Church, as you pretend the Pope to be head of the Universal Church: and therefore are they not compared ad idem. Thirdly, Is it determined in Scripture, whether the Pope be Head of the Church or not. You say it is, for if you say it is not, you are all lost. Well, if it be determined by Scripture, then consequently it is determined in Scripture that the King is not: and so this your Controversy is one of those, which is decided and concluded negatively, in or by Scripture. So this exception against us doth not thrive.  
Another point of this kind you make, in your eleventh Number, about the Canon of Scripture, your Argument seems to be thus, that we should know the Canon is necessary: we do not know it by Scripture, therefore by the Church. Is it not thus? you cannot make your matter shorter without any detriment to you. And therefore we answer; first, as at first (which you give us the occasion to put you in mind of) that if the Church were Infallible Judge of all Canonical books, yet would it not follow from hence, that it should be Infallible Judge in all points of Faith, and Manners (which you would fain have, as very ●seful for you) unless ca●●ally, for we might suppose more assistance to the Church in this particular, then in other cases: since also, when that is made sure, that there are the books of Scripture, we should look for no other directions for Life and Salvation but this. Therefore, if you argue, that because it is Judge Infallible of Canonical books, it is Judge of all matters, you do not rightly proceed from a particular. You are in that which is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore you do not conclude in your first Universality. Secondly, We are not to be assured by Divine Faith, that there are Canonical books, from the authority of the Church, and therefore is not the Church the Infallible Judge herein. We must believe them to be Canonical by their own Authority, otherwise we shall never believe them to be so: so that you see, we deny the Assumption, and we say we may know the Canonical books by Scripture, we have no other Divine Authority to know them by. They bear witness of themselves, they carry their own light, which we may see them by, as we see the Sun by its own light. For, let me put you to this Dilemma, either the Scripture is to be believed for itself, or the Church is to be believed for itself. If the Scripture be to be believed for itself, then have we our cause; if the Church be to be believed for itself, then must we know this by a Revelation beside Scripture, which your Bellarmine disputes against, in the beginning of his Controversies, and whether that Revelation be not Anabaptistical, and more uncertain than the word of God; judge you. And I pray is it not more fi● that the Scripture should be believed in its own cause, than the Church? but if you say that the Authority of the Church is evidenced by Scripture concerning it; then that is to be believed for itself as towards the Church, and why not then other parts of it? Thirdly, If the Church be the Judge Infallible of Canonical books, how came Saint Hierome to be repugnant to the Church in the debate about Books Apocryphal, as you know and may see by your Bellarmin in his second Book, De verbo Dei, cap. 9 amongst which Apocryphal books the Maccabees are numbered to be by him accounted such, and therefore Saint Jerome did not in his Latin Edition translate them; and then let S. Jerom's authority justify L●ther upon your principles: for you account the Maccabees to be as well Canonical, as you and we do the Apocalypse. That the Scripture is silent of its own Canon▪ and that we cannot prove a book to be infallibly Canonical by itself without begging the question, hath little of iudiciousness in it; for how do we see light? how do we prove first and indemonstrable principles? how do we prove that, which we apprehend by natural light? after this manner is the understanding irradiated to see the authority of Scripture in it and by it, well, and how do we prove the Church to be infallible by it, without begging the question? therefore you must come about to Scripture. And again, if you prove the Church to be infallible Judge herein, because the Scripture is not, you beg the question who are to dispute; not I, who am to answer.  
Your twelfth number goes upon a false supposition▪ at lest in part of it; namely, that we are bound to believe that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by him, as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark. We deny it. We are bound indeed to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew, and St. Mark, as we distinguish them, are the word of God; but we are not bound to believe that they were written by them. It is no part or duty of my faith to believe the Penman of any part of Scripture, save only so far as it is declared in the body of Scripture, for it is not Scripture because Saint Matthew wrote it: but Saint Matthew wrote it, as being inspired that it was the word of God, in the matter of it. If then your discourse goes upon the matter of it, it was answered before: if upon the title, it is not allowed to be de fide or any point of faith, that such was writer of any piece of Scripture. And whereas you urge that some have denied this Gospel, and some or other have denied other books to be Canonical, how then shall we end this Controversy or others about the Canon by Scripture; I answer. And do not Heretics deny your Church to be infallible? will you therefore quit your opinion? So then either this argument is not good against us, or it is also good against you. Secondly, If Heretics reject some books, we may be disposed by the authority of the Catholic Church to our faith of them by their own authority. And this seems to be as much as Saint Austin would have us to attribute to the Church in this particular, as we have his advice in his second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 8. where he says, in Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam-plurimum sequatur authoritatem, In Canonical Scriptures let him very much follow the authority of the Catholic Churches; amongst which surely these are they which merited (if you will construe it so) to have Apostolic seats, and to receive (Apostolic) Epistles. Observe that he saith, let him follow the authority very much, which doth not conclude that we should wholly rely upon it, and of the Catholic Churches in the plural; not one only. Then there are more Catholic Churches in his judgement, and such are they which merited to have Apostolic Seas, and Epistles; then your Church only is not to be called the Apostolic Sea. And whereas afterward in this Church he doth reckon Apocryphal Books, yet is it to be noted, that herein he followed the authority of the Churches; Notwithstanding which, Saint Jerome, as before, did not receive them; which makes a sufficient reason to hold that the authority of the Churches is not a sufficient ground of faith in the belief of Canonical Books, or else St. Jerome (who in this may be compared with St. Austin for his judgement) is in the same condemnation with us.  
Afterwards you plead, that since the Gospel of S. Matthew was written in Hebrew, whereof there is not extant any one Copy in the world, and it is not certain who or how faithfully he did translate it, we cannot be certain by the Scripture that this is the word of God; therefore by the Church. This I think is the sum of your plea. We answer.  
First, Again we do not disclaim the use of the Catholic Churches in the credence of the Word of God: but this doth not certify us. Secondly, You Catholics (as you would be called) speak largely, that not one of the Ancients conceived it to be written in Greek; surely all the Ancients did not write: surely all that did write are not now had. But take it of all that did write and are now extant, and put it to be so that all were of Saint Jeromes Opinion in his Preface upon Saint Matthew, yet all that you say is not certainly true, that there is not a Copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world. For, (not to speak of the Hebrew Gospels set out by Munster and Mercer, which Ludovicus de Dieu takes notice of in the Preface to his Notes upon the Gospels) if you will give any heed to your Isidor Clarius, he will tell you I suppose otherwise; when he saith (in a little Preface which is a Testimony out of Saint Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastic writers) that St. Jerome there affirms, ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodiè in Casariensi Bibliotheca, which Pamphilus the Martyr, studiosissimè confecit, and that he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans, who in Beroea: City of Syria, do use this volume, to describe it. So he. Now it may be that remains there, and therefore you cannot be certain of what you say. And this is more than an ordinary Authority of the Church in an interpretation.  
Again how come your Latin interpretation of this Gospel to be authentic if it was not taken out of an authentic copy: for the Church can do no more than declare that which is authentic, then must it be authentic, otherwise they make Scripture.  
Again let me give you one intimation, that possibly so might yet at first be written in Greek, my reason is this, in the first of Saint Matthew, 23. verse, it is said of Christ, they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is; God with us. If it were written in Hebrew, what need of any interpretation in the same Language, since the Letters of the Word put together, without any variation, do make that signification?  
Again, if the Church hath made the Greek Translation authentic, why is your Latin made authentic? Is there two authentics? If it be not authentic by the Church, what would you infer?  
Again, the harmony of it with other Gospels, hath more in it to persuade Faith, than the credit of the Church.  
Again, if it be an Interpretation, yet unless you do evince it, that we do build our Faith upon the Interpretation, you do nothing. Now then as your people do fix their Faith upon that which is interpreted, not up-upon the interpretation: so may we build our belief upon this Gospel to be the Word of God by the illumination of the Spirit of God, and yet not upon the Translation. The Translation doth but convey unto our knowledge the words, but it is the Spirit of God that doth work in us belief thereof that it is the Word of God. The Translation attends the Notification of the object, what that is which is to be believed: but it is the Divine persuasion which attends the act, and is the cause why it is believed: the Interpretation is but the Instrument of Faith, the ground of it is the persuasion of God, that it is the Truth and Word of God: and therefore your argumentation goes upon a wrong supposition, as if we resolved our Faith in the Translation as such.  
And what you except afterwards against the certainty of our Faith, upon the account of the Greek Translation, doth also return easily upon you; for the same possibility of error, is urged against your Latin, either by ignorance, or negligence, or on purpose for the upholding of your new opinions. And let me ask you, why you account your Latin to be Authentic? you will say, because the Church of Rome was infallibly assisted in it. Was it then Infallibly assisted, when it renders the Hebrew in Genesis ipsa for ipsum, that it might be for the honour of the Virgin? Well, but give it that the Latin was infallibly made by the Church, why not the Greek also infallibly made by the Church? and more confirmed by the Church then your Latin one? you get nothing then by this exception And this may satisfy you, how a Manichaan might believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew, which you put to the question. An opinion thereof he may have by the judgement of the Church, some knowledge of it to be the Word of God he may gather by the agreement with the other Gospels: but the Faith of it to be such, is to be wrought by the Spirit of God, whereby those who heard the Apostles, were caused to believe that which they preached to be the Word of God without persuasion of the Church, which was not then in a body, when some first believed.  
As for the Father's holding Books to be Canonical by the Church, we have spoken to already in this paper, and we shall meet with it again. You speak indeed of them as in general, upon design, ad faciendum populum: but you do not name the places▪ only Saint Athanasius, you are pleased to quote. We answer, if you mean that he received the Gospels, and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas upon the Authority of the Church, as the cause of his Faith of them, you do not prove it by what he says: If you mean that he was induced to think well of them by the reception of the Church, and to refuse the other by their refusal, this doth not come home to the question. And suppose the Church its refusal of the Gospel of Saint Thomas, was sufficient for him to refuse it too, yet doth it not follow, that because the Church did receive the other Gospels, he received them not otherwise, then because they did; for this makes the reception of the ChurCh to be but as a necessary condition, not the formal cause of his Faith. As for Tertullias and Saint Jeroms and St. Augustine's authorities in this case, we shall find an answer, when you quote the places.  
The Testimony of Eusebius, which you produce as out of the third Book, chap. 19 is not there, according to that of Robert Steven in Greek, which came out Lutetiae Parisiorum cum Privilegio Regis.  
In the ninth Chapter indeed of the same Book, there is somewhat of Josephus, that he gives the number of the Books of the Old Testament, and which are uncontradicted by the Ebrews, in the same words by them teaching as out of ancient Tradition. But here we have but Josephus his opinion. Secondly, This is but for the Old Testament, not the whole Scripture. Thirdly, This is but as out of Tradition. Fourthly, You will not find in the next chapter, all your Apocryphal books. The Number he makes to be 22. in which Number Cyril of Jerusalem (in his fourth Cat.) excludes all but Baruch. Fifthly, After so much time which is past, he says, no man durst add or take away, or change any of them. And that which he speaks at the end of the chapter that he followed Tradition, and therefore did not err; if you mean that, it is not pertinent, for he doth not there speak of Scripture. Your flourish then as hereupon, must yet vanish. And besides, all signs are not able to make a certainty, the Tradition of the Church is not an evident sign: it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Church received some things and held them too, which you will not hold, as Infant Communion, and the Millenary Opinion; therefore can we not be assured in way of Faith (wherein there is no falsity) by the Church.  
That of Saint Austin will be included in the disquisition of the main Testimony of that Epistle.  
And to your question which of the Fathers, when they were asked, did answer, that they did believe the Canonical Books upon our ground; that which was said in the former paper of Saint Origen and Saint Athanasius, remains good until it be answered.  
In your thirteenth Number you object Luther's not seeing the Apocalypse, and the Epistle of Saint James, to be Canonical by their own light. We answer,  
First, A negative argument from one is easily denied to be cogent, when we cannot yield it to the Church; because he did not see them, therefore they could not be seen, is no argument. Secondly, You see then hereby that we do not follow him in all things blindly, as you do the Church in whatsoever it proposeth.  
Secondly, The Apocalypse was doubted of by others also, as you know by Ecclesiastical history, although now it is universally received. So also might Luther afterwards come to the sight of them to be Canonical.  
And Thirdly, also other books have been scrupled, notwithstanding the authority of the Church, and therefore how is that a ground of their Faith?  
Saint Austin you make use of afterwards for the Canonicalnesse of the Macchabees, upon the credit of the Council of Carthage, and also the book of Wisdom. To this we need say no more than hath been said, save only we may hence observe, how uncertain we are of a ground of Faith, in the authority of the Fathers, when one says that which is contrary to the other. Answer you Saint Jerome upon the point, as before. And Saint Jerome, I hope, yet was a Catholic, and was not damned because he did not embrace the opinion of the Church in this. If the Church be Infallible to Saint Austin, why not to Saint Jerome? or one may see that which is Infallible, and the other not, then is your former objection thereby taken away. And you will hold Saint Austin no otherwise to have held the Macchabees to be Canonical, than he held the book of Wisdom to be Canonical, and you will hold that the Council of Carthage held the book of Maccabees to be Canonical, as Saint Austin held the book of Wisdom to be Canonical. This I suppose you will agree to without dispute. Well then, be pleased to take notice of what abatements and deductings may be found in Saint Austin upon the place, in regard of Equality of Respect which you think he gave to this book of Wisdom and to Canonical Scripture. First, it seems there was exception taken at the authority of that book, even in their Opinion of St. Augustine's judgement thereupon; and therefore he saith, Quasi & excepta, etc. As if, if this attestation were excepted, the thing itself were not clear, which we will have from hence to be taught, namely this; he was taken away, that wickedness might not alter his understanding, which Saint Cyprian, he saith, had taken out of the book of Wisdom. And when he had discoursed the Truth of the sentence, he infers; which things being so, this sentence of the Book of Wisdom ought not to be rejected, which hath merited to be read of those who are of the degree of Readers of the Church by so long antiquity; and then follow your words. Only you may excuse me, if secondly I be a little critical; for it is not said there that it was received of all, but it was heard of all, with veneration of Divine Authority. If there be no difference, why do ye not use the word? if you do falsify, than it seems there is some difference, and outwardly they might give respect to it as Canonical, although whether in their apprehensions they did esteem it as such may be a question. But thirdly, you see it here to be somewhat distinguished from Books Canonical and to depend upon prescription; as if it were not so from the beginning. Fourthly, those who were Tractatours next to the time of the Apostles did prefer this book before themselves, which using this as a witness did believe that they brought no other than a Divine Testimony. So the Father, whereby is intimated that this was as deutero Canonical (as it is expressed) and not of proper name, Canonical; and also herein is signified that it was not so used in the Apostles times. And again, this Book had merited to be read by so great a numerosity of years, and afterwards he calls this sentence anciently Christian. So upon the whole matter you see some difference made betwixt this book and others by themselves Canonical. 
De Predestinatione Sancto rum, cap. 14.  Peruse then the whole chapter, and you will see how little advantage you can make thereof. Indeed there is in the chapter a word which I know not whether I have rendered according to your mind; it is mereri, and yet I think I have interpreted it discreetly by meriting, that so it might be capable of the same Latitude; but I put you to your choice: How the Fathers use the word you know for obtaining. But if you will have it here to be construed by plain deserving, than we have an Argument against you: For if the book deserved to be read in the Church, than was it not accounted as Divine and Canonical, because it was received by the Church; but it was received by the Church, because it did deserve it by the matter. If you will not understand it here of plain deserving, then here is one place, where the Father useth the words not in the Roman sense; which may be made use of to another pupose about your opinion of merit; and also, if you will not mean it here of deserving, this makes some diminution of respect to the book: and some advantage more I shall make of this chapter in its place.  
Many lines in your fourteenth page you have afterwards, wherein we have nothing but vaunts or repetitions: I will not trouble you with the latter, nor myself with the former: But towards the end of that page you would order the matter so as to hold your own, and yet to give Scripture its due respects. And you seem to bring it to this determination, that when there is an acknowledgement made that the Scriptures are in themselves the Word of God, it doth not derogate from Scripture to hold that yet they are not known to us by an infallible ground, that they are the Word of God, but by the testimony of the Church, which in shorter terms is expressed by others of your Church, that the authority of the Scripture doth depend upon the Church. But this will not serve, the covering is too short.  
For first, this distinction is too narrow to extend to the difference betwixt us in particular points of faith. Therefore if you will yield that points of Religion are to be examined and ended infallibly by Scripture, when we know it to be the Word of God, than we will only stick to this Question: But if you will still maintain the infallibility of the Church in all her definitions, than your composition will not be sufficient, although it could satisfy as to that particular. But secondly, It will not satisfy, because you do not sufficiently provide for the honour of the Scriptures authority, and therefore you derogate from Scripture in this, although you did take away no honour from Scripture as in regard of its truth.  
Do you lay it to heart, that the many questions betwixt us is about the authority of the Scripture; the formal Reason of credibility is the authority. That which makes me to believe it to be the Truth of God, as being his Word, is the Authority. For if the credibility doth rise from the truth of it in itself, you destroy your own cause; for that you confess the Scripture to be the infallible Word of God: then betwixt us simply about the Truth of the Scripture there is no contest. And do not you affirm that the authority of the Church is the Ground of Faith, because you think that the Church by its authority is worthy to be believed since it is infallible? But why then do you not grant this authority to the Scripture, since you confess it to be infallible? If the reason of believing the Church be the infallibility of it, according to you; why is not the infallibility of the Scripture the reason of believing it, since it is confessed infallible? And if you say you do believe it to be so by the authority of the Church, than the formal reason of believing it is not the infallibility of the Scripture, but of the Church; and yet the infallibility of the Church shall be the formal reason of believing it. But you say, you must know the Scripture to be infallible, that I cannot do but by the Church. Well, but do not you then see that you prefer the authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture: for the Church with you, is to be believed for itself: for so it must be; or else the Scripture must be believed for itself, or else we shall have in Divinity no principium primo primum, wherein to rest. Now if the Scripture be to be believed for itself, than we have ended the business. If the Church be to be believed for itself, than we prefer the Authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture, than you derogate from the authority of Scripture. Thirdly, the Church hath authority or not. It hath you say, then of itself or not, what will you say? If of itself, what hath a company of Christians more to say for themselves then others. If you say the authority comes from succession; others also have had a constant succession. And it must come to one first society: Well, where had that society its authority, of itself or not? If of itself, what by revelation beside Scripture or not? If beside, than the charge of Anabaptisticalness is fallen upon you. What then? From Scripture. Well then the Scripture in regard of those Texts which concern the Church is to be believed for itself, and then why not in others? Fourthly, The Word of God in the substance and matter of it was before the Church therefore, because the Church was begotten by it: and therefore it must be known before the Church. Yea, reconcile your Opinion with that of Bellarmine in his first Book De Verbo Dei, cap. 20. The Rule of Catholic Faith must be certain and known; for if it be not known, than it will not be a Rule to us: If it be not certain, it cannot be a Rule. If it be a known Rule against Anabaptists, why not also a known Rule against Papists; and therefore that it must be made manifest by the Church is not necessary, for how was it made manifest to the first Church to be the rule?  
As for the instance of yours, that Christ was made manifest to many by the Testimony of the Baptist and of the Apostles before the Scriptures were written, and yet this derogate? not from Scripture; We answer soon. First, It is yet to be proved whether the Church hath that inspiration as John Baptist and the Apostles had for the first planting of the Church; until that be made good, your Argumentation is not. Secondly, Although the New Testament was not written, the Old was, and john the Baptist and the Apostles preached no other Doctrine than was contained in the Old. So our Saviour, If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me in the 5. of Saint john the 46. verse. Thirdly, If john the Baptist and the Apostles were believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church (as the first Disciples did) why may not the Scriptures be believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church? If the Apostles were believed immediately without the Church in what they said: why may they not be believed also in what they wrote?  
And surely, to go a little more close and deep, if we speak properly, there is not so much a ground of Faith, as a cause; if with the Schoolmen we grant (as we may) that Faith is a supernatural habit, infused by God, which disposeth the understanding to assert that which is said by God is true, because he saith it, not because the Church saith it. And if you say that the Scripture and the Church are not opposite; true, when the Church ruleth itself by Scripture. But if the Question be, which proposal is first, that of the Scripture, or that of the Church; here the Church is opposite to Scripture if it pretend to be first, for both cannot be first. Therefore the first Axiom in Divinity, and consequently of Divine Faith, must be that the Scripture is the Word of God: and then this Scripture is substracted as the ground of all particulars to be necessaririly believed; and therefore if we should have no other Faith of Scripture, then by the credibility of the Church, for aught is yet proved we should have no Divine Faith.  
In your 14. Number, you go about to prove that the Scripture is not the appointed Judge in all Controversies: For many things (you say) are so set down in Scripture, that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church, do arise about the true interpretation of the Scripture. We Answer,  
First, here we see that you would have more to be the question then that, Whether the Church be the judge of the Books Canonical, and that the Scripture is the Word of God. Therefore we follow you, and do say, Secondly, That it seems then the Question is only who should be the infallible Judge to discuss and decide the debates which do arise about the sense of Scripture. So then again, those things which are plainly set down in Scripture (as the many necessary things are) are allowed to be believed without the voice of the Church: and therefore all points of Faith you cannot, it seems, include within the compass of necessary submission to the Church therein. Thirdly, your discourse proceeds not effectually to your conclusion, unless you can prove that the uncertainty of the sense of some passages in Scripture doth convince the necessity of an infallible Judge herein. Secondly, That we are infallibly certain thereof. And Thirdly, That the Church of Rome is it. These particulars are yet depending, and without their affirmation we may affirm that God hath well enough provided for the salvation of men in the Scripture, which is more easy to be understood, than the universal consent of all the Fathers; whose Opinions also must be held true as they are agreeable to the Rule. And also hath he provided wisely for us, in that he hath not left us to the Lesbian Rule of humane authority: and also hath provided for the peace of the Church, in that he hath given us direction of the Pastors; whom although we cannot absolutely believe, yet do not impudently oppose.  
Yet you will say, if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge (infallible you mean, otherwise you do not contradict me) in all controversies, he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly, this importing so exceedingly as it doth; and yet he hath not done so. We answer, Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture, in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures; in that he saith, ye err not knowing the Scriptures, as before: In that he said by Saint Paul that all Scripture is given by Inspiration and is profitable, etc. and that it is able to make the man of God wise unto salvation, as before; And by Saint Peter, 2. Ep. 1. cap. 19 we have a more sure word of Prophecy, to which you do well giving heed, as to a Light that shineth in a dark place until the Day dawn, and the Daystar arise in your hearts. And as for Pastors of the Church, again and again we say, we deny them not a lawful use, or to them a lawful respect in things of God: but they do but carry the Lantern in the dark. So that by this Light of Scripture are we directed unto salvation. Secondly, We turn the mouth of your Argument against you, if Christ had intended that the Church should have been the infallible Judge, it importing so exceedingly, he would have told us so clearly, and infallibly, which he hath not done. He telleth us all Scripture is given by inspiration; and this Proposition if we rightly believe, we believe upon its own authority, because it was given by inspiration: but it is not as clearly said, that the Church judgeth by inspiration. And if it doth, why doth it not determine all Controversies in the Church; and therefore is it either wanting in ability, or peccant in duty. Or if there may be Controversies in your Church without definition of the Church, why may not there be Controversies amongst us, without actual decision of Scripture.  
And now, Sirs, let me have leave to speak affectionately to you, do you not see what dis-respects of Scripture (if not Blasphemies) your Opinion doth miserably betray you to, if you follow it? Would any sober man let fall such words? as if God had intended the Scripture for our Judge, such a book as the Scripture is. So you. Why? which often times speaks so prophetically, that most would think he speaks of the time present, when he speaks of the time to come. So you.  
First, how are these words put together, so Prophetically, that, etc. would it seem to be more Prophetical to speak under the formality of futurition? but if it be Prophetical, to speak of that which is to come, as in verbis de praesens, then what can you blame in that part of Scripture which is Prophetical? Or do you think that it was not meet that in the Old Testament there should be somewhat Prophetical? Or will you think that God made that part of Scripture on purpose obscure, that there might be need of your Infallible Judge? Secondly, The Prophecies are not expressed in the Present Tense, which in proper the Jews have not, but in the time past, to signify the certainty of their accomplishment, and also, because as with God they are already done, since he looks upon all differences of time with one single act of intuition: and as for those Prophecies which respect Christ, they are so expressed, that thereby may be signified, that the merit of Christ did extend to some, even before the times wherein those particular promises were made, and therefore the manner of Prophetical expressions, is upon good reason easily discerned, if not by the people, yet by the Ministers of the Church, without an Infallible Judge.  
And what then, if it speaks of Christ under the Type of David, when not only the Letter signifies a thing, but the thing another thing, and one person represents another▪ Is not this for the excellency of Scripture, without such obscurity, when we believe David was a Prophet, and ●hose which spoke of him were Prophets, and when we are in Scripture directed to such an use of Types. And if any thing be spoken obscurely, yet if it be a matter necessary, there are other Texts more easy to compare it with, and to expound it by, as your Aquinas in his first Page. 1. q. 9, 10. Articles. And therefore this exception is not able to argue the necessity of your Infallible Judge, no more than diversity, as you say of senses of Scripture; wherein it is to be understood; whereas there is but one sense of Scripture principally intended, which is expressed sometimes properly, sometimes improperly. As for the mystical Divinity, you know it is not argumentative, but where it is declared in Scripture. And as for the setting out of things Spiritual in way of Translation from things Temporal; you may consider it is necessary, if you will believe your Angelical Doctor, because, (since our Knowledge comes here by sense) we cannot for this state understand them, but by compare to things of sense: so that there must upon this account be Metaphors; and what are Allegories, but Metaphors continued? And as for the Tropological sense, which respects institution of life, that is not difficultly found in more clear precepts. Again, if by impropriety of speech, we should conclude an absolute need of an Infallible Judge, then how should we Infallibly be guided by the opinion of the Fathers, since so many of them, especially Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen (who were of the ancientest of them) are so full of this obscurity?  
And as for your Objection, that both Precepts and Councils are delivered in the Mood Imperative; you cannot reasonably conceive that we should be so ignorant and credulous, as to think that we should swallow down, without chewing, this your supposition, that there are Counsels of Perfection, above things of Command, for when we have done all, we must say that we are unprofitable Servants; we have done what we ought to do, St. Luke the 17. and 10. Unprofitable, not only to God, (as your men distinguish) but also unprofitable to ourselves, because we have done but our duty, if we did as much as we could, which none does, and yet if we did as much as we could, we should not do so much as we should, since the Commands of God are given to us, according to the tenor of our ability in Adam; which we lost by our own fault. Our obedience therefore, by itself, cannot be profitable.  
Another default you will find or make in Scripture, that it doth no where set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals. But do you think in earnest that this is a cogent argument for your cause? The Scripture doth not set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals, therefore it is not to be the Judge of Controversies.  
To your Antecedent we say, that the Scripture doth give us every particular point which is necessary to be believed, although it doth not give out the Number thereof formal and material, how many and which they are.  
Secondly, It doth not only afford that which is simply necessary, but doth furnish us with many other particulars, so that it is an abundant directory for our use. And therefore is there no defect of Wisdom in this Lawmaker, when he gives us such a Law that Infallibly contains all necessaries and more, and when those necessaries are not only plainly delivered, but also what is not plainly delivered, is thereby signified not to be necessary.  
Thirdly, Again, we admit humane dijudications of doubts emergent in some points, and they have their use with us, without Infallibility.  
Fourthly, Either the Scripture yet, notwithstanding this, is it whereby we must be determined in points of Religion, or else the Church; but the Church by the same argument, is not the Judge, because it doth not define whatsoever may be necessary to be held by a full Catholic in your sense. Whether the Pope hath Temporal power or not, is not this necessary to be determined? if it be determined, how came your Heart to deny it? then whether he hath power Temporal directly, as the Canonists, or indirectly as others, is this determined? then how came Bellarmin to go against his Conscience on one side or other? for he varied herein, as your Widdrington speaks of him. And Widdrington he is another against his power, in his Apology for the right and Sovereignty of temporal Princes.  
And why is not the question decided, whether the Pope be Superior to a Council in things Ecclesiastical, which the Sorbonists deny? Are not there high points which are of weight to move an Infallible Conclusion? Not to speak of God's predetermination, or whether the Virgin Mary was Conceived without Original sin. How is then the Church the Infallible Judge of Controversies? If you say that the Church determines as much as is necessary; well then, and so hath the Scripture, which you acknowledge is Infallible: but are not the former points necessary? what can you instance in which is more necessary, and not determined in Scripture? If our Salvation, as you hold, be in jeopardy for not submitting to the Infallible Judge, what can be of more concernment then to know Infallibly who he is, and what power he hath, which yet your prudent Religion will never make a determination of?  
After this you tax our Doctrine to be contrary to Scripture, and first in the matter of Extreme Unction by Saint James. We say (if you say right, that it is clear against us by Scripture) than the Scripture hath decided this question, than the Scripture can judge and end Controversies. And yet at the beginning hereof, you speak very warily and discreetly it seems. If by this term you would have us believe, that it is not evidently declared against us in Scripture, than we need say no more as to this case. If it be manifest by Scripture against us, and you mean your word (seems) as Aristotle and others use it, in way of Elegance, or of course, than it doth not abate the tenure of the affirmative; and then what need we any other Judge? so are you held by this Dilemma. Secondly, That command of Saint James imports no Sacrament as you would have it; but doth relate to the gift of Healing in those times.  
Another example of our difference from Scripture, you press the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be in our sense. We answer first, You say the words of Institution are clear in this Sacrament, in which any wise Man would speak clearly; and yet afterwards you say this Controversy the Scripture doth not decide. How far are these from a contradiction? if clear, than either is decided or needs none, but it is for your turn that it should be clear and not decided, clear against us: not decided for you. Well here again you incur the former inconvenience, which I will let pass. Secondly, The words indeed are clear for the nature of a Sacrament, which under a visible sign represents a spiritual thing; and so therefore for the condition of a Sacrament, any wise man could not speak more conveniently then in a figurative sense, because it is symbolical to the Sacrament. For if the real presence as you mean, be corporal, then is the property of the Sacrament destroyed, because the sign is turned into that which is signified. And you are in more capacity to yield a figurative sense here, because elsewhere you do object too much of it, and here too little. Indeed if Scripture had no other handling but yours, it would after it, more need an Infallible Judge. Is there no more likelihood of a figurative sense in the words, than there is of the being of an Accident without the Subject; or of the Body of Christ, to be in Heaven and on Earth, and in thousands of places at once?  
But you contend the improbability of this sense, because he took the Bread and the Cup in his hand, and said this is my Body, and this is my Blood. Surely this makes no prejudice against us; for this was necessary towards the consecrating of that Bread and that Wine, otherwise there would have been a Consecration of Bread and Wine in Communi, and therefore he spoke demonstratively, and this demonstration makes the Subject no less capable of a figure then the Predicate; and what difference? Behold the Lamb of God, or this is the Lamb of God. So in the 9 to the Hebrews and the 20. verse, Moses having taken the Blood of Calves and Goats said, This is the Blood of the Testament. Was that Blood transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ? or when one takes his Testament, may he not say this is my Will, although it be but the sign of his Will.  
You take notice also, of the different opinions there are about the sense of the words of Institution. We have no cause to take it to ourselves, who have not such variety of conceits therein. Neither can you, I am sure, justify your Infallibility by your accord herein, since some question whether it be transubstantiated, and therefore have they a proviso of a conditionate adoration, Adoro te si tu es Christus, and so many amongst you differ about the manner of the change; whether by production, which supposeth (as is noted) the Body not to praeexiste, and this is false; or by adduction, which supposeth against Transubstantiation, or by a kind of Conservative Conversion, which is little else then a Contradiction in adjecto, therefore answer yourself. How is it more clearly defined by the Church, which was scarce in debate till the time of Berengarius? Did the Church all that while want necessaries to Salvation? But lastly, you should not have pleaded Scripture for this point on your side, if you will believe Scotus, and your Cardinal Bellarmine; who says, that Scotus held Transubstantiation could not be clearly proved by any Text of Scripture and he himself thinks it not improbable. Therefore herein you cannot, in their judgement, convince us by Scripture, and therefore till the Church be Infallible, it is no doctrine of Faith; as it was not before the Lateran Council, as Scotus affirmed by Beauties' Confession, in the 23. chapter of the third Book, De Sacramento Eucharistia▪ but if Transubstantiation be not declared in Scripture, than our opinion negative to you is more secure, and is not concluded not to be in Scripture, though you or others will not profess it.  
In the former part of your 15. Number, you go over a former argument again, to which the former answer may serve. As for the other part of your Paragraph concerning all the points of Saint Athanasius' Creed, which are not clearly delivered in Scripture, and yet he that will be saved must think thus. I answer, Although the matter of them be not in terminis, found in Scripture, yet the sense of them according to aequivalence may, as well as Transubstantiation, when you will endeavour to make it out by Scripture. Secondly, Although we believe what is said in his Creed, yet therefore are we not bound to believe it by the Authority of the Church, since he would have held it, although the Church had not, as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church, in the Consubstantiality of the Son of God.  
In the beginning of the 16. Paragraph, you say somewhat which you had said before, to it we say nothing, but you raise a new opposition. Baptism of Children to be necessary to their Salvation, is a prime point of Belief, and yet you cannot believe this prime point of Belief by any clear place of Scripture, therefore you mean all necessary points are not clearly believed by Scripture, therefore by the Church; this must be your dissertation, and your minor proposition you confirm by the Testimony of Saint Austin. We Answer, first to your Major, by distinguishing a necessity of Baptism in general, it is necessary by necessity of precept, but it is not necessary by necessity of mean to the child, so as that if it be not baptised, it is undoubtedly damned; the former respects the Parents, that they should take care of it for their children, but if they do not, or the child be taken away as many are before it can be done by a lawful Minister, we cannot conclude it or them absolutely perished; since it is not so necessary to them that were of age at the Primitive Institution, Saint Mark the 16.16. Whosoever believeth and is Baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned; not also, and is not Baptised: For many there were, and cases might be put, that there might be more which could not have Baptism before they died: as appears by your Vicarium Baptisma, which the Fathers speaks of. Then, though we may well assure ourselves, that if Infants rightly Baptised die such, they are certainly saved: yet can we not as reasonably pass the Verdict of Damnation upon those which are not Baptised.  
As to your assumption, we also distinguish, if you mean we cannot believe this Poedobaptisme by any clear place of Scripture, namely, in terminis terminantibus, as they speak expressly, we grant it: but this is not enough for your purpose. And if you mean it cannot be clearly believed, because by consequence it cannot be proved, or because it cannot be clearly believed since it is believed by consequence; then we deny your assumption in both regards. For whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the virtue of the principle, and therefore clearly we may believe it. Now the institution of Baptism in general by Christ; the substitution of it to circumcision (since there is the same Covenant in substance to both Testaments) is a sufficient Principle to infer the necessity of Baptism of Infants, besides what may be supposed by baptising whole Families. And therefore this is none of those things which are not grounded in Scripture, and therefore no Object of the Church Tradition. And therefore Saint Augustine's Testimony will come to no more than this, that though they had nothing for certain alleged out of the Canonical Books in this point, yet the truth of Scripture is kept when they do that which seemed good to the Catholic Church; namely, so far as the Catholic Church keepeth the Truth in clearing that which is not plain in Scripture. Which Church the Scripture doth commend, as he. But is it commended for infallibility? If not, this Testimony and all your Testimonies and all your instances which you have of things not determined in Scripture, but determined by the Church, will do you no good, for you must prove that they were and aught to be infallibly determined by the Church upon necessity of salvation; because you would conclude your postulate of the necessity of an infallible Judge. Now than if those things were not infallibly determined, the instances thereof are of no use to you. And you may consider that we may in things of practice (which in their nature are of free Observation, as being neither commanded or forbidden by the Scripture) and should follow the Church therefore to bring it to an issue: Either this Poedobaptisme was Infallibly followed by the Church or not, if infallibly, it was so by the moments of Paedobaptism in Scripture, although not perspicuous. If not infallibly, yet might they follow the Church, and should in this Case; because if it had been free to them to have done so or not in regard of the thing, yet should they have gone in the way of the Church, when there was nothing to the contrary; much more should they conform in this which had that reason in the Analogy of Scripture; and therefore this Testimony of the Father need not move us, wheresoever we find it; for I cannot find it by your direction. Give me some better direction to find the following of the Tradition of the Church to be the most true and inviolable Rule of Truth reduplicatively namely, upon its own account, and in things necessary; then I shall say more or yield.  
He holdeth therefore (you say) the Tradition of the Church so infallible that it may be a ground of Faith. Here are two things to be said. First, that he holdeth so of Tradition, which by other Testimonies is to be proved. Since, Secondly, he doth not hold it therefore of Tradition; since these words of Saint Austin do not draw after them the nature of Tradition in your sense; which doth not depend upon the written Word, as this doth for the reason of it.  
And you believe Saint Paul taught him so in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 2.15. Hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our Epistle. To this we answer, premising the state of the Question; whether Doctrine of Faith not depending upon the word written do oblige Faith equally to Scripture. Now we say, that these Traditions might respect Order and Ceremony, or History, and so comes not within compass of the Question, in regard of the matter. Secondly, Though it will not please Estius upon the place, yet nothing hinders but that it might be meant of the same matter, which was first preached, then written; and then should hold it or them, as first preached, then written; and this is a second answer, in the place doth come into our question in respect of the matter; for the Syriack renders it, Mandates, Commandments, which do not signify formally matters of Faith. Thirdly, The Thessalonians might be sure that what they had from him by word, was such as they should believe equally to what was written: but so cannot we be of your Doctrines of Faith which you say are handed from Generation to Generation. Make us as sure of them in regard of Divine Inspiration and communication to us, then urge our Obedience equal. And this will give you an account of Saint chrysostom upon the place, who meaneth not otherwise, then that which they had from God by him, whether in word or writing they should hold, which they could believe; we can not for such Traditions, having n●t that certainty of them. Read the whole of him upon that Text; and also do not pass by the Observation of this modesty herein: we may think it worthy of belief, namely the Tradition of the Church, which whether he means it of things of Discipline and order (wherein we deny not conformity to the Church) we are not sure of; but there come not up to our Question: for they are not of Faith, and do not equally oblige.  
And hitherto now you have gone about to assure Christians of a necessity of an infallible Judge; now in your 17. Paragr. you will assume that the Catholic Church, is the Judge. Then the Roman to be the Catholic prudently.  
The text you name for the Catholic Church is that of Saint Matthew in his 16 Chap. the 18 Verse, I say unto thee thou art Peter (that is to S. Peter by name) thou art Peter (that is thou art a rock) and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc. And now surely you are at your strong hold, which you think cannot be undermined or stormed, true, if your application of it were as sure as it.  
But we are not careful to answer you in this assault. First, we deny your interpretation of the name of Peter, you interpret the Greek, that is a rock; it is denied, the Greek word doth not ordinarily, and not here signify a rock. And if you will not believe me, take this argument, Cephas signifieth a stone: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Petrus) signifieth as Cephas, therefore a stone. Both propositions you have proved, as you may see, in S. John, 1.42, 43. as in the Syriack, Thou shalt be called Cephas, that is a stone; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in the Greek; which is interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a stone. And because Cephas is known in Siriack to signify a stone, therefore the Syriack doth not add these words [which is interpreted] and that Petrus signifieth as Cephas you have there; for Cephas is interpreted by Petrus, therefore your interpretation is not right.  
Secondly, If you say, as you did before, that the Hebrew was the Original of Saint Matthew's Gospel; then are you not nearly obliged to the Syriack which is but a dialect thereof? nay likely the very Dialect of Hebrew, wherein it was first written, if not in Greek, and then not only can you not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rock, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither; and than you cannot render the following words as you do, And upon this Rock, etc. For the words in the Syriack are letter for letter the same; both the name of the Apostles; and the word which you render a Rock, are the same, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both, and therefore if you will stand to the Syriack, it will come to this, Thou art a stone, and upon this stone will I build my Church. And this will have fair Correspondence with that of Saint Paul in the same Metaphor, Ephes. 2.20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. So that the privilege of Saint Peter here was only this, to lay as it were the first stone, in this Foundation. Nay thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament more than once signifieth a stone, Rom. 9 last. it is synonymically joined there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joined also to the same Metaphor, in that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for this must signify a stone of offence; for whoever stumbled at a Rock? and therefore a scandal in the Church is by Aquinas defined by that which gives to others an occasion of falling. So also in the very same manner are they put together by Saint Peter himself in his 1. Ep. 2. Verse 8. And we have reason to think that Saint Peter did understand the sense of Christ's words to him, and the reason of his name.  
And thus for your Interpretation of this Text.  
As for the application of it, we say first, whereas you refer this to the Person of Saint Peter, you may know that you differ from the Ancients, who did refer it to the Confession of Saint Peter, and not to his act of his Confession, as his; but as to the Object, which was confessed, which your Isidor Clarius may be thought to aim at, when he Expounds, super hanc Petram, super hanc fidel soliditatem. For Piscator notes well that this rock cannot be meant of Saint Peter; because S. Peter is one of the believers which were built upon this rock. And therefore one hath a conceit that Christ spoke [this rock] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pointing at himself; as where he says destroy this Temple, pointting at his body, and so the copulative may be understood by way of Ebraisme; and upon this rock, but upon this rock. Secondly, as Saint Peter spoke here for the rest of the Apostles; where that which is granted is common to him with the rest of the Apostles, as that which follows, and I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you can Evince it that that which is here promised or given to Saint Peter, ● really different from that which is given to all the Apostles in the 20. of Saint john, the 22, 23. verse, and then shall you do more than you Hart in his Colloquy with Rainolds. There is the same power and authority under the same Metaphor; For what difference will you make betwixt binding and retaining, and losing or remitting▪ so then let me ask you this question: was the primacy of authority given to Saint Peter here at that time, or after the Resurrection given, here promised? If given here, then after this privileges of Infallibility, Saint Peter denied his Master; therefore somebody of yours, and Bellarmin, as I remember, wittily imagineth, that this authority was given to Saint Peter after his Resurrection, that so the successors of Saint Peter might not have the possibility of denying Christ entailed upon them: If promised there, given then, where will you find any Text more symbolical than that of the 20. of Saint John forenamed? and that was given to the Apostles communiter. Therefore if [I will give] respects the future, and after the Resurrection of Christ, as Isidor Glorius doth note; then confess it to be accomplished here, or name any Text, which hath better allusion thereunto. And if the Superiority of Saint Peter was neither given nor promised here, where then? and why is this Text made to bear false witness by you for you.  
Thirdly, This Superiority of Saint Peter in jurisdiction, as to be Prince of the Apostles, as your men speak, is flatly contrary to our Saviour's own Order in the 20. of Saint Matthew, the 26. verse; for when James and John the sons of Zebedee, were petitioned for by their mother for preeminency; Our Saviour said, Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, & those that are great exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so amongst you. Then here is the Controversy determined by our Saviour in Scripture. St. Peter then was not to have any authority over the rest. Not that from hence can be argued, that there should be no one Superior to Presbyters, as Sectaries would urge it; but none of all the Apostles to be superior, to have dominion, to exercise authority over the other of the Apostles. Here is a plain Text for the parity of the Apostles, which destroys the foundation of the Roman Church, which now you speak for.  
Fourthly. Put case Saint Peter had been constituted Prince of the Apostles, and of the Church consequently, yet have you another infinite labour to make good the succession of these privileges to the Bishop of Rome by Divine Right. Why not rather to Antioch and Jerusalem; since also by a Divine Faith we cannot be ascertained, that Saint Peter was ever at Rome. We do not deny it, but yet by you it is not made out to be an object of Divine Faith, that he was there. And to name no other prejudices against you in this, you are put to very hard shifts for the pr●●●hereof, when you are compelled to interpret Babylon ●● the 1 Ep. 5. c. & 13. v. of St. Peter to be Rome. Certainly had your men any other Text for it, they would not have given us this occasion and example to interpret Babylon in another place to be Rome. And yet also Isidor is somewhat tender in this Exposition, it is not very likely, saith he, that it should be understood of that Babylon, of the Assyrians, or that in Egypt, but it is admodum credibile, very credible that it is meant of Rome.  
And Estius upon the place citys the first Author for this Interpretation of it to be Rome, to be the same who was the Father of the Milinary Opinion, namely Papias. But fifthly, The former Text of Saint Matthew is not to be meant of any Church of one Denomination, and if so, it had been meant of one not of Rome. For then the promise had not been made good of not falling into damnable errors, for so the gates of Hell should prevail against it. The gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Rome, Head and Members; as you may see more at large in the Discourse of Raynolds with Hart. What say you to Liberius his subscribing to the censure of Athanasius, and did not he subscribe to the error then which Athanasius withstood? And were not the Members included in the Head? And ought not they to do so as he under peril of damnation? But sixthly, whereas you say that by Christ the Church is secured from any damnable error, we have enough against you by this intimation; if you mean it distinctively, as methinks you do. For you insinuate here that Christ doth not intent her exemption from all error, for than you are in greater danger of not being the Church unto which that Favour is granted: but he doth here free it from damnable error, because else the gates of Hell should prevail against it: So then again it is not necessary to salvation to be free from all error. Well then upon these two concessions that the Church of Christ may be obnoxious to error, though not damna●●● because again, every error doth not damn, we exclu●● the infallibility of the Church, for it may err it seems: and also we exclude the necessity of such an infallibility, for we may be saved notwithstanding some errors, and what need then of an infallible Judge since in points of question simple error is not damnative? and where indeed shall we have an infallible Judge, if there be fallibility in any particular; If the Spirit of God speaks in the Church by infallible assistance, cannot the Spirit of God infallibly determine all points? or if it assists infallibly only to material Articles which are necessary, then do you give us a list of your Fundamentals. And also for Fundamentals we need not such a Judge, having them with sufficient plainness in Scripture which is Infallible. Upon the whole matter then, there is a possibility of their erring, without Infallibility, and of our erring without damnation: So that your first error is an Infallibility of a Judge; the second, the necessity of such a Judge; and a third is this, that no Church can prudently be held to be the Catholic Church, but the Roman.  
But ought we not to disturb your delight, you take in holding a Religion prudently? prudently as if we were to choose a Religion by interest, which prudence doth rather direct to, not by sapience of the highest speculative principles, which direct the understanding: but to let that pass. We only note hereby your pronouncing this main Text, for the Authority of the Church, that what Authority it hath, must be resolved into Scripture, then is that the first and highest principle. That the centre of Truth, wherein we must rest, and the further we go from that, the further from Truth. And the greater circumference we draw, the lines are the remoter from that, wherein we must acquiesce, as being the Word of God.  
Yet you say here we see the Judge, which Christ hath warranted from bringing in any damnable error, therefore may we securely obey. So you. But where is your connexion in this argumentation? Either you distinguish damnative error against that which is not damnative, or not. If not, then in your opinion all error is damnative; then take you heed of this, for this is one. Or if you do distinguish it against error damnative, yet may we not securely obey this Judge, because than we may be bound to obey him in an 〈◊〉 and so should the understanding be obliged to assent to error, which is impossible, and he must act against his Conscience, even in his assent, which is a contradiction.  
And that none may disobey this judge securely, the Text you bring Matth. 18.17. will not evince to your p●●pose. For first, it concerns matters of Trespass betwixt Brother and Brother, not matters of Faith, and thus it is Eccentrical to your resign. Secondly, It concerns refractoriness of the person, not unbelief of the Understanding; and so the Authority of the Church may bind against the former, though not against the latter. Thirdly It respects Excommunication by censure, not determination of a point by Infallibility, and so also is not proper to your cause. And fourthly, It may err in the Censure, and therefore Excommunication, eo ipso, doth not damn, as Unbelief may. Neither am I bound to believe the Censure is just, unless it appears to be so. Fifthly, This power belongs to every particular Church; and to the several Prelates thereof (as you speak also in the number of multitude) and therefore is not appropriated to your Church. Sixthly, It doth not follow, a fortieri, as you would have it, nor yet at all, that because the Church is to judge of private complaints, therefore it can judge infallibly in causes of greater importance: by its authority it doth the former, without Infallibility it does not the latter. The former of them doth not conclude against me, and the latter cannot be from hence collected. As for that which follows, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, as far as it regards Excommunication, must be also taken specificatively, & clavae non errante, as they speak. And this toucheth the person unto the submission, not the Conscience; as to renounce that which it apprehendeth as true: for than should Athanasius have been bound in Conscience by the Censure of the Church to have been an Arrian.  
Then from the peril of disobedience to this judge, you gather that this must supposse the judge not to be fall●ble in such prime causes, as must concern the Church; and all such causes are those which may bring 〈◊〉 damnable errors. So you in the ●nd of that Number.  
But your premises being destroyed, your Conclusion is ruinous, and yet also you do not conclude punctually, according to an Elench; for you conclude it not fallible in prime causes of main importance, but you should in your proof conclude it not fallible in any thing: for if it be fallible in any thing wherein the error is not damnative, than you do not conclude it infallible. Yea, though it should not err actually in any decision, ye followeth not from hence, that it is infallible. For Infallibility excludes all error in whatsoever i● doth propose or decree, and also the possibility of error. Therefore prove it thus, and then an infallibility of our knowledge of it, and infallibly what is the subject of this Infallibility, and then I shall stand up to your Creed. And if you would go the right way in this dispute, you should use another method: for whereas you would argue the Church to be the judge, which we cannot safely disobey; if you could make this sure (which yet is not done) yet you should rather go this way synthetically, the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define, therefore it is the Judge which we ought to obey in all things whatsoever it 〈◊〉 out▪ but your discourse from uncertain decisions and inconveniences doth not bespeak any credence of your infallibility, much less of our knowledge thereof.  
Now we follow you into your eighteenth paragraph. And here we meet with St Augustine's suffrage in his 20. the ●in. cap. 9 where he comments upon these words of Rev. ●●. 4. I fan● thro●●, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given them. So the testimony. And what from hence? Because the Praeposits judge on earth, therefore infallibly, than every Church which hath Praeposits, should be Infallible. Doth this follow▪ we deny not their judicature, but their Infallibility. Conclude thus, or you agree with us.  
Then you ●●y to the Old Testament, Mal. 2.7. For the Priests lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall require the law from his mouth. So you. And you note, besides a great corruption in our English, which rendereth the words, the Priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law. We need not answer that this Text hath nothing for you: Is it meant of the Priests at Rome? If not, how belongeth it to you? but to the Priests of the Church ● what an general? what then do you get by this? Secondly They keep Knowledge sufficiently for the people. Do they keep it Infallibly▪ If not we are agreed. If infallibly, how are the Priests taxed in the following words for not doing so? And if the formality of speech doth import a promise in the future, not a duty in the Subjunctive: yet the promise doth not include an impossibility of error; no more than the promise made to your Church, as you suppose, doth exclude all error, but that which is destructive. Thirdly, The future in the Hebrew, doth not contradict a subjunctive in the interpretation, when the scope bears it, since the Hebrews, as you may know, have no proper Subjunctive. And it is proper to the scope to understand it as of duty, they should keep knowledge, whereupon ●●ey are charged for breach of duty, therefore our Interpretation in this, is more sound than your dispute upon it.  
And therefore that which you say in your 19 Number, that any man may ask the Priests of the Church, what is the Known Doctrine of the Church, & then let him rest securely; when he knows that, that is unreasonable because the Priests are not Infallible. May he not rest more securely in Scripture? for the Church in all things is not as before infallible, the Scripture is, in all which it proposeth: but the Church you say, is not in danger of taking in any damnative error. Well, but the Scriptures sets out none at all; but all things are not determined in Scripture. Well, but all things are not determined in the Church; but all things necessary are taught in the Church, which may keep us from damnative error. Well, and are not all things necessary taught in the Scripture? why then not to the Law and Testimony? why to the Cistern, when we may have it at the Fountain? why not to the Scripture particularly, when what Authority the Church hath, it hath from the Scripture in general? and why doth your Church take away from the people the use of Scripture? and why may not we be informed as sufficiently by our Priests, as you by yours, notwithstanding this Text? especially since we go by Scripture, you by Tradition, or humane definition. And if the Priests of yours were Infallible, can you say Infallibly that they will not deceive you? How miserably then do you provide for the poor people? when you would have them require at their mouth, not the Law of God, but the Doctrine of the Church.  
That which comes on in the same Number about Tradition before Scripture, was answered before it was written. The Word, in the Substance of it, was before the Church which was begotten by it, and when there is now as much need, and as great certainty of Tradition as formerly, then urge it.  
And I thank you for Saint Irenaeus' Testimony, I do not lie at catch; but the most convincing dispute, is by our Adversaries principles; not the Fathers but yours, as you apply them, for we can make very good use of his words. If the Scripture had not been left to us, we should have had Tradition more certainly conveyed to us, as the Gospel was before it was written, and this confirms for me what was said before: but now I assume, the Scripture is now left to us, therefore is there no need of certain conveyance of Tradition to us. Surely you have a mind to help us for your own good.  
Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations you speak of, did rely only upon Tradition, they might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition, and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition, for this is the state of the question: Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten, is of equal authority to Scripture. Secondly, If you say Salvation was written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, this may be meant to be done not only beside Scripture, but besides Tradition, and thus was it done extraordinarily. But why? Thirdly, Might not the Holy Spirit infuse Faith of the Gospel into those Nations, by some of those who were Apostles, or sent from them to Preach it; and then the Tradition you speak of is the matter of the Gospel which is written, and so it doth not appertain to the question of Traditions of proper name, which you say are beside that which is written, though not against it; and then your discourse is fallacious from that which is the object of the Gospel delivered, to that which is beside it delivered, which ambiguity of the word Tradition if it doth deceive you, yet doth it not consequently deceive me: but if you mean Tradition here, only of the manner of communicating the matter of Scripture without writing, than the former answer may satisfy you, that Tradition was then more certain, and they were more assured of it by the Spirit of God than we are now. And also it might be to them, as the Star to the Wise Men for leading them to Christ. By the light of the Star they were guided to Christ, but when they came to him, they saw him not by the light of the Star, but by the light of the Day: so some might be directed to the Gospel by Tradition before they had the Scripture, and then believed it by the light of Scripture.  
You add also, neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages, as they could all, or the greater part understand. So you.  
This is readily denied: for God did take care that the New Testament should for the most part of it at least be first written in Greek. And the Greek you know in the notion of the New Testament, is contradistinguished to the Jew, because so many of the world, besides the Jews, were Greeks; and the Greeks Language was the most common then, and therefore saith Tully in his Oration for the Poet Archias, Graeca per totum orbem leguntur. And God by his gracious Providence, hath taken care that the Scripture should be translated into divers languages, as you may know, that so several Nations might have it familiar to them in their own Tongue; which must condemn your Church, for not permitting of it ordinarily to the people in their own dialect; and also doth conclude, that Tradition is no Infallible provision for a rule of Faith, for how shall the people undoubtedly know that the Traditions were clearly discerned, true from them which were false; and also that they were faithfully handed through so many Centuries to the present time. And yet if so, this would not be sufficient for your use, unless you or others could find these two points more, one how to evade a Circle, by proving the Traditions by the Church, and the Church by the Traditions: and the second this, that those Traditions have Infallibly decided the differences betwixt us, which the Ancients did not professedly handle, as having not provocations thereunto. If any thing be touched by the by, you may know the rule, Aliud agentis parva autoritas.  
In your 20. Number, you make a recapitulation of what you think you have done, and I think you have undone, until you come to  
Sixthly, I have found a lawful Judge, who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time, and who can hear Me and You, and be heard by Me and You: that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church, or if we doubt, we can propose our doubt, and she will tell us clearly her meaning, whereas the Bible, &c. cannot do so.  
This hath in it somewhat new: your discourse in brief, may be under this form. That which can hear you and me, and be heard by you and me, and resolve doubts of its meaning, is the Judge; the Church can do thus, the Scripture not, therefore the Church is the Judge, and not the Scripture.  
We easily answer, If you understand the proposition of a formal Judge, so we grant it, and do not say the Scripture is the Judge, but if you mean it so that nothing can be in any Kind a Judge, but that which doth so, we deny it and your assumption too; for the Law is in its kind the Judge; and so may the Scripture be, as I have showed before in this paper. And unless the Ecclesiastic Judges (whereof we do not reject a lawful and good use) do rightly declare Scripture in the application of it to particular Causes, (wherein the authority of the Church, as some of your men will sometimes say, doth consist) I cannot possibly hold myself bound in Conscience to yield my judgement thereunto. So then secondly, unless you put into the premises, that that which heareth you and me, and is heard by you and me, is the infallible Judge, and then that the Church doth so, your discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench, for so we grant all as to the Church, for this may stand with our cause, but if you do put in infallibility, we deny both the one and the other Preposition. Thirdly, by this Argument you exclude Tradition from being the Judge: for doth that hear you and me? Is that heard by you and me? but you say the Church doth determine hereby, then may it determine by Scripture more securely, and more universally. Fourthly, is not the Heretic Saint Paul speaks of in his third chapter to Titus the 10.11. verses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, condemned by himself, or of himself? how that? not by principles of natural Knowledge: for Theology is supernatural, and therefore needed a Revelation of it from God, you know not by a Revelation immediate Extra Scripturam: for then how should he be condemned of himself? Not by any definition of the Church, which was not then sufficiently form thereunto: no nor yet by Titus; because then as before, he had not been condemned by himself; then he was condemned by himself, because he had in him the Principles of the Word of God, which he gainsaid by his contrary Error: So that it remains he was condemned by the Law of God. And therefore that can judge you and me; not externally, and by voice: but internally by virtue of Conscience; which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemning of Errors in us; so that this Scripture it is, or the Word of God which passeth Sentence in the interior judgement, as you speak, and this absolves some who in the outward Courts are condemned; and condemneth some who in the outward Court are not condemned. And therefore it is not only lawful, but necessary for us sometimes to descent in our judgement, because they may err in their dijudication.  
And as much your own reason suggests in your 21. Number; wherein you acknowledge it to be necessary that there should be infallibility in the Judge of faith; And than you would state or estate this infallibility of the Church of Christ thus, that a Pope defining with a Lawful General Council cannot err. For it is no necessary article of faith to believe that the Pope or Head of the Church cannot Err when he defineth without a General Council. So you.  
Alas, Sir what Cautions do you stand in need of in this grand and capital and Comprehensive Controversy; which affords me Liberty to think, that that is not the ground of Catholic Faith, which is intricated with so many wind; and guarded with such accurateness of Cautions, that render it very suspicious; and therefore not to be plain and a direct way so that fools cannot err: for who can be certain by a Divine Faith of the lawfulness and regularity of your Pope in his Creation, and when there was Pope against Pope, who of the people could distinguish the right? And this is now possible because then in facto. And who then could decide the question: for the infallible judge you say is your Pope with a Council. Which of them could then determine it and in his own cause? Or could your Council determine it without a Pope? but I hope your infallible determination could not be without the Head of the Church; And who according to your Doctrine, should call the Council? for you say that power is vested in the Pope; Well, suppose no doubt of the legality of the Pope; how shall we by a Divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulness and Generality of a Council? for you know Ecclesiastical History is full of instances of Councils, which were called by the Emperors and not by Popes, to whom you say it doth of due belong to call Councils; else they are not lawful. And how shall we know whether every one of the Council hath a free Election to it, and a free decisive vote in it? How much of faction may be looked for in a Council, when there is so much in the Election of a Pope; such exclusions, such bandyings? What Council was ever called by a Pope wherein Religion was not made to serve his interest? Is not he who hath power of preferring like to domineer in such Consultations? And how shall ignorant souls be divinely persuaded that the Council i● General? If it be easy to discern it, than had your Tren● Council great infelicity to be so contradicted by the French Catholics. And how many Bishops in the Trent Council furnished with a Title to overpower them with Votes on the Pope's behalf. So that he answered well who said about the question which is superior, a Pope or a Council; a Pope was like to have the more voices, because he could confer Bishoprics, a Council not. What clue can a collier have infallibly to guide him through all those Labyrinths?  
Secondly, If the infallible Judge of Faith be the Pope with a lawful General Council, how was the Church provided for? when for so many years there was neither Pope in your sense, nor any Council?  
Thirdly, If the Pope and the Council do differ about a Question, what shall be done in that case? yet if the Question be which is superior to the other, the Pope or the Council, what shall be jointly agreed? and is not this a main question between the Sorbonists and others?  
Fourthly, If the Pope with a lawful General Council be the infallible Judge, then how will this be reconciled to the Pontificians, who assert the Government of the Church to be Monarchical by Christ's Institution: for if part of the authority be in the General Council, then is it not all in one, the Pope. Or if the Council be called only ad Consilium, and they have no Votes decisive, how doth this agree to all the former Councils, wherein they had authority of Vote; and he may determine without them as to advise, since he determins without them in the authority; and suppose they advise him to let them have power of Vote; he can yet determine against them.  
Fifthly, How many Councils have been opposite to one another. In which or with which did not the Pope err? The Nicene and that of Ariminum as before decreed, contrarily; one for the Arrians, the former against them, which did not err, and yet if neither had, did ever any of the ancient Councils determine of their own infallibility?  
And what think you of Nazianzens' Opinion about Councils, in his Epistle, to Procopius, the 42. Shall I tell you it? I have no mind to derogate from General Councils, but if you would have me tell you his judgement, it is in such words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I am thus affected, as to shun all meetings of Bishops (if I must speak the truth) for I never saw any Good end of a Synod, nor that had an end of the Evils more than an addition. Nay, did not the Bishop of Bit●nto break out into these words in the face of the Council at Trent; I would that with one consent, we had not altogether declined from Religion, to superstition, from Faith unto infidelity from Christ unto Antichrist, from God to Epicurus. Did he not say so?  
And this may serve for your Answer to all the rest of this your Paragraph. We cannot think it strange that the definition of a General Council should be fallible, until you bring forth your strong reasons to induce my assent, that such assistance was ever promised to a General Council, as the Apostles and Prophets had; or that any General Council had such assistance; or that there was the same reason of such assistance.  
And to say no more of this point, measure the infallibility of the Trent Council by the determinations thereof in things of Religion, and see how they agree with Scripture; which you say is a rule of Faith: and by this Argument be you judge of the infallible Judge. Let us not see your Opinions by infallibility which you pretend: but do you see your infallibility by the determinations it did put forth; namely such wherein we differ, and therefore I need not name them.  
In the 22. Paragraph we have recapitulation, and a passage of Luther, which you use as an Argument ad hominem.  
We Answer, you do then hereby give us occasion to show our ingenuity to truth, that as we follow him and any other with it, so we will not follow others or him without it. But secondly, If this book was written after his recession from the Church of Rome, it is not meant of the Roman Church, but of the Catholic Church; which yet he doth not here compare with the Scripture, but with a private man; which seems to be spoken against Enthusiasts. Neither doth he say that it is not lawful to doubt of the Church that whatsoever it saith is true; but that it hath the Revelation of the Father; to wit because it hath the revealed Word of God with it. Or that the undoubtednesse of it doth not belong to it per se, but per aliud, because it hath for its privilege the Revelation of Scripture; And thus it maketh not for you.  
Now this brings on your forecited passage of Saint Paul to Tim. 1.3.15. Where the Church of God is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth.  
And you ask, May not men rely securely upon the pillar of Truth? May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth? no ground being surer ground and more infallible than the ground of Truth itself? So you;  
Supposing the words read according to this way, we answer; There is a double Pillar, and a double ground; one Principal, the Scripture; the other less principal and subordinate, the Church; now as this pillar and this ground is subordinate to the main pillar and ground, we may rely and ground ourselves: but then the principal reliance and grounding must be upon that which is principal, the Scripture. For let me ask you likewise, what is the Pillar and Ground of the Church? Is it not the Scripture? then the Church is but the pillar and ground by accident, because that doth rely and is grounded upon the Scripture. And therefore the Scripture is the more sure and infallible ground: because what truth the Church hath it hath by participation, and it is possible for it to hold forth and to have hung upon it somwehat which is false, according to your own confession (as I conceive you) although not damnative. And this doth well corroborate my inference from Saint Irenaeus words of the Scriptures being called the Pillar and Ground of Truth; that therefore it is the Ground of Faith, yes very rationally, because it is the prime and supreme pillar and ground of Truth. Yet you will raise a consequence upon mine for your cause, thus. If this consequence be strong (which I deny not) there is yet a stronger, that the Truth is no no where surer grounded then upon the pillar and foundation of Truth. So you.  
Sir, What do you mean? Do you make any difference betwixt the ground and foundation? Do you mean that the Scripture is the ground of Faith, but the Church is the Foundation? This is your sense I suppose, otherwise how a stronger Consequence? For there is no comparative, but where there is some difference. And if this be what you would have, than I think I may say, I have what I would have, and yet we are not agreed. For than you confess what I have hitherto held, that the Scripture is the ground of Faith. You said at first that the authority of the Church was the ground of Faith: I said the Scripture was the ground of Faith; and now you say as I say, that the Scripture is the ground of Faith, and so your contradiction is come into my affirmation. But yet we are not agreed in that which you now superadd, that the Church is the Foundation of Truth; the Scripture is the Ground, the Church the Foundation. Is it so? then have you changed the Question. And why had we not the right state of it at first? And was it not enough that the Church should be the ground of Scripture, but must it be the Foundation in a more excellent sense? I must not let this pass for your sake.  
First, what gives you occasion from the Text to assert the Church to be the Foundation, signanter, I do not see. For the word in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify a Foundation, but that which doth uphold, support against falling; and therefore, Isidor Clarius and Estius do interpret it by firmamentum, not fundamentum. So the Church holds forth, and holds up the Truth. Therefore your meaning of Foundation above ground, hath neither Foundation nor ground.  
Secondly, can you conceive and say, that the Church is a Foundation of Truth comparatively to Scripture? Is not the Scripture the Foundation of the Church: The Scripture in the substance of the Word, was before the Church, because the Church was built upon it; then the Scripture in the substance of it, was the Foundation, and is now, being written. And that which is the first Principle of all must be the Foundation of the rest; and the further we go from it, the less security we have, because we go more into discourse which is uncertain. Now, the first Principle is Scripture, not the Church; because the Church is proved by Scripture, and you proved even now, or would have done, the authority of it by Scripture. The Church may give Testimony of the Scripture: but the Scripture doth not only give Testimony of the Church, but doth ground it, and constitute it, and distinguish it, and upon it, it is built, than this is the Foundation. The Church is built upon the Scripture, not the Scripture upon the Church. As the Law hath itself to Justice, so hath the Scripture itself too Faith. Now the Law is the Foundation of Justice, not the Judge: so is the Scripture the Foundation of Faith, not the Church, which you say is the Judge. For as the Judge is built upon the Law, so is the Church upon Scripture. And as the Judge is to go by the Law in his proceeding and sentence, otherwise he errs; so is the Church to go by the Law of Scripture, otherwise it doth err. And as the Law is not to be proved, it being the first Principle in Justice, so is not the Scripture to be proved; for it is the first principle in Faith. But as the sentence of the Judge may be examined by Law, so may the determinations of the Church be examined by Scripture, since the Judge may err, and so may the Church. But first prove that it hath not erred, and then you will have another work to do to prove it cannot: For the Faith of a Christian immediately is resolved into that which cannot deceive him. And prove that it cannot err, and therefore is the infallible Judge; or if you can, prove it the back way; it is the infallible judge, therefore cannot err.  
Nextly, You make some perstriction of my Criticism (if it may be so called) and yet not mine neither, but of others also; whereby the terms, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, is referred to the commendation of the Mystery of Godliness, after the Hebrew fashion, to give these Praefaces of respect to so grand and sublime doctrines.  
Here you are pleased to smile, as if I had forgotten that this Epistle was written in Greek, not in Hebrew, and also you say no Hebrew form in the world can make that sense he intends.  
Sir, Will you please to give me leave to be even with you in a smile: but no, I have no mind to rejoice in any man's imperfections. Soberly I reply, that I do well remember in what Language it was written, and therefore I make it to be an Ebraisme, in our use of the word, which speaks a following of the Hebrew form in some other Language. And he that doth not understand that there is many of these Ebraismes in the Greek of the New Testament, doth not understand so much as I would desire. And therefore, that which you say, that no Hebrew form can make my sense, is not to be answered. And to follow you, although the Apostle had not spoken yet of Godlilinesse, or the mystery of it, might he not put this form of commendation in the front of the Doctrine of Godliness? as as also in the first Epistle to Timothy, 1 Tim. 1.15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ etc.  
Neither have you any cause to object the reading of the words in our English, since the distinction of Verses is not Canonical, nor yet our English so accounted by us; notwithstanding we have as much reason for it, to make it as good as your Latin.  
But your Adversary says, you say, that this Title of being the Pillar and ground of Truth, agrees in the first place to Scripture. Yes, and so I do still, and have showed it so: but you say it belongeth equally to any thing that is the true Word of God, and therefore agreeth to the Scriptures, because God speaketh in it; and by it. Right, hold you there. Rest yourself here. Set up your staff here, for you can go no further, unless you will go up to Heaven, and the Church Triumphant.  
But God also speaketh by his Church, and in his Church; yes, unto Authority, not Infallibility, and therefore that which follows, remains to be proved by you; that he doth give as much Infallible assistance to the Church in a Council (where is the Pope? have you a mind to the opinion of the French Catholics?) as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture. It is utterly denied. And you may see plainly hereby how the Roman Tyranny over your Conscience (as they would persuade you) draws you necessarily into this peril of Blasphemy: for herein it appears, that now there is no need of Scripture, since God speaks as Infallibly by his Church, as in his Word. And this some Pontificians do lean towards. And then those by you should be called Enthusiasts, not who oppose a private Revelation to Scripture, but to the Church; if God speaks as infallibly by his Church, then speak no more against Enthusiasms, or if you do, we shall tell you the story, that one was accused to Alexander for being a Pirate; so than said he that was accused to Alexander, I am a Pirate with one Flyboat, and you are not, because you have a Navy. So the private men are by you accounted Enthusiasts, because they have but their own singularities for their bottom: but the Church of Rome is not to be charged therewith, because they have so many with them. And yet it may be, if Infallibility were to be determined by Votes, whether it did belong to the Words of God only, or also to the Word of the Church, you would go near to lose it; for all Churches hold the Scripture Infallible, and you too: but no Church but the Roman holds the Church to be Infallible, and then also you must assume that you are the Church, otherwise you would not hold it Infallible.  
You say again, it is objected, that in these words, rather the office of the Church is set forth then her Authority. To which you say, your answer is clear, that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out, then by saying that she is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, etc.  
But the question is, whether these words be intended to that purpose, since also the words do in short fully represent the office of the Church: the intention of the passage must be gathered by the scope, according to the rule of the Schoolman, Intelligentia dicti colligitur ex scopo loquendi. Now the drift of Saint Paul, was to instruct him how he should carry himself in the Church. Was it reasonable than he should have account of the Church in the privileges of it, or in the duty thereof; which is to hold forth, and uphold truth? For if the Infallibility of the Church were here affirmed, then needed he not to have such instructions to take care how he behaved himself in the Church. Since Infallible assistance is immediate, and that which is immediate, includes no time for the inspiration, nor means of instruction: therefore had your Roman Church been real in the asserting of Infallibility, it had not needed eighteen years for the sitting of the Trent Council, with Intermissions, nor more for the consultation whether there should be any.  
As for that which comes next of Athanasius, it was in part answered before: the Argument is this, the Consubstantiality of the Son is by Athanasius, after the determination of the Nicene Council, called that Word of God, by the Nicene Council, which remaineth for ever and ever. And this is no where clearly said in Scripture, therefore somewhat which is not clearly said in Scripture, may by a Council be determined to be the Word of God. To this we answer, we may grant you all of the Syllogism, and yet nothing accrues to you, if the words by the Nicene Council be understood ministerially to Scripture, which they were bound to declare the sense of, as to that point, and so it did not bind with relation to their Authority, but by Authority of Scripture, which they declared the mind of in that case. And therefore though so we grant the Argument, yet do we deny your Consequence which you would make of it in your sense, that the Church is infallible in the definitions of it, since that which was defined was indeed Infallible, and yet was not Infallibly defined: for though the Council did not err in that definition, yet it might have erred: and if it did not err in that, yet it might err in other definitions: and therefore can we not without suspense, intuitively receive what they propose as the Word of God, which is by you yet to be proved. For secondly, That which they have the Principles and Grounds of Scripture for, it is more easy for them rightly to define, in the Application of those principles unto particular cases, as they had for that question about the Consubstantiality of the Son, as Saint John the 10.30. I and my Father are one; not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not one Person, but one in Nature: but as for those questions, whereof the solution is not so principled in Scripture, as being not so necessary to be held on either part; we cannot expect so likely a determination, and yet if probable, we cannot from thence urge it as an object of Faith. That which is in Scripture, according to equivalence of sense (as that point is) we may better credit upon account of Scripture, then that which the ignorance of doth not damn, since the Scripture gives us no moments of knowledge how to order our assent affirmatively or negatively in that.  
But thirdly Saint Athanasius did not ground his Faith in the affirmative of that question upon the authority of the Nicene Council, because he held it before the Council had determined it, and therefore the cause of his Faith herein, was not the authority of the Council. And if that Council of Nice was to be believed for itself, without respect to the matter, as depending upon Scripture, why not the Council of Ariminum to the contrary; and therefore Saint S. Austin would refer it to Scripture betwixt him & Maximinus a Bishop of the Arrians, since the Councils was contrary. And if any exception could have been made against the Council of Ariminum, as towards the denial of such authority of it as is due to other Councils, had it not been easy for the Father to have held the Doctrine upon the Authority of the Council of Nice, though the other had been rejected?  
In your 23. Number, you do not fairly render my Answer. I did not say that Christ would not be at all with his Church to the end of the world: but it is not necessarily there meant, that he would be with them unto the end of the world, as he was with the Apostles by Infallible assistance, so he did not promise he would be with the Successors of the Apostles. And therefore if this be a simple mistake, it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid: if you intended a slander, it is worse. Infallible assistance is not there promised, and therefore the promise may be made good without it. Neither was there such need of Infallible assistance (whatsoever you say) because the rule of Faith and Manners was to be determined in the Scripture, which is the Infallible Word of God. So that although they who followed the Apostles in the governance of the Church, had been so disposed for Infallible assistance, as the Apostles, yet had there not been that use of the assistance Infallible; but having not that disposition thereunto, they wanted a condition and qualification for such assistance. And God did not give an Infallible assistance to the Apostles, because they were disposed for that gift of Infallibility, but rather gave them that disposition, that so they might be fitted for that Infallibility. And so if he had intended such a measure of the Spirit to the Successors of the Apostles, as to them, he could have made them as capable thereof.  
As for your Reason which you mention of leaving as secure direction for them (who followed) because the further we go from Christ's time, the more we are subject to uncertainty about his Doctrine; therefore there is as much yea far more reason (of this secure direction.) I answer, You do not well consider what you say. For if we be more subject to uncertainties, the further we go from Christ his time, then cannot you urge the credit of those Traditions now equally to the certainty of them then: supposing that there were any of Faith not written. Secondly, this Reason would be none, if men would be guided by Scripture, which hath now the same certainty as ever. This is a Rule which will with equal infallibility hold at all times; and unto which we are all equally obliged.  
Again, you would argue that the Church is secure from damnable error, because Christ promised to be with it to the end of the world, and he is not with those who live in damnable error.  
But what is this to me? you may conclude thus, and yet not against me, if you speak of damnable error specificatively: for if you mean it reduplicatively, that all error is damnable, Ut sic, quatenus errer, it is false. All simple error is not damnative to the person. And therefore Christ may be with some who live in some error indeed otherwise with whom is he? For who is there that lives not in some error, though he knows it not? If you mean then damnable error distinctively, I grant you all; and yet you have nothing thereby for your cause. For this doth not prove infallibility to your Church. Security from damnable error (distinctively taken) doth not infer absolute infallibility. The former is promised, as also in that of Saint John. 14.16. (which you would reinforce here;) but absolute infallibility is not intended. And this you must have, or else you are utterly lost. For if the Church be not infallible in all that is proposed by it, how shall I be assured of any particular thing which it proposeth? If I be not assured of this particular, how am I bound to believe it? If I be not bound to believe it upon its proposal, how is it the ground of Faith Divine? If it be not the ground of Faith Divine, than you are gone. And besides those promises in Saint Matthew and Saint John you may know were made as to the Apostles equally, and therefore to their successors equally; and to the Church universal equally, by consequent; and therefore cannot you appropriate it to your Bishop and to your Church.  
Saint Augustine's authority in a passage of his, wherein you say he speaks admirably in this De utilitate credendi, cap 6. you had better have omitted. It strengthens your cause nothing, if you quote it as you should. First it is misquoted for the chapter, for it is not in the 6. chapter, but in the 16. Secondly, you may see in the beginning of the chapter, that the scope of it is to show how authority may first move to Faith. And Thirdly, this scope may discover your corrupting of his Text; for it is not as you give it, a certain step, but contrary, an uncertain step, velut gradu incerto innitentes; as in the Froben Edition, ●N. M. D. lxix. Whereby you may perceive how little reason we have to credit your infallibility. And then Fourthly, part of his authority in that chapter, is by miracles of Christ which he did himself on earth.  
The sum of your fourth Number is this, to persuade not only that the Church's authority is infallible if it judge conformably to Scripture; for so even the Devil himself is infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures: but that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable error shall be against Scripture: So that when we know this is her Doctrine, we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood. And this you would prove by two Testimonies of Scripture.  
We answer distinctly, and First to that you say about the Devil. First, we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil: but we are enjoined to consult with the Church of God. Secondly, we have cause always to suspect the Devil, because either he doth not give us all the Scripture unto a particular, or doth pervert it; or doth speak the truth with an intention of deceiving the more: but we have more charity towards the Church, we have none towards the Devil. Thirdly, Yet though we do not believe the Devil in point of truth, upon his authority; nevertheless can we not believe the Church in whatsoever it says to be true upon its authority: neither doth it follow, that the Devil should hereupon be the pillar and ground of Truth, when he said that which is conformable to Scripture, as well as the Church, because the Church doth hold and uphold Truth: so doth not the Devil, but when he useth it, he doth it to destroy it: and again we are moved to think that which is proposed by the Church to be true, so are we not moved by the Devil to conceive it to be true upon his saying so. And therefore if I do believe that, which the Devil saith conformable to Scripture, to be true; and do not believe that every thing which is said by the Church to be conformable to Scripture; I do not make the same account of what is said by one and by the other. For that which is true I do believe because it is se●, though the Devil saith it: I do believe it in respect to the matter without any respect to the Author; and that which is not true according to Scripture, I cannot believe though the Church saith it; yet am I moved by the authority of the Church to consider the point more, because it is proposed by them: and what is by them proposed according to Scripture I am moved to believe of, with respect of the Author of the proposal: but cannot be resolved in my Faith of, but by the authority of Scripture. And therefore I cannot believe that whatsoever is said by the Church is agreeable to Scripture, because the Church faith it: for this proposition, for aught as yet proved, is not agreeable to Scripture rightly understood. And if you say that your Church must judge the sense, let it first judge whether it doth not beg the principle.  
Neither have your Texts alleged any thing for you. Not that of Daniel, the 2. chapter, the 44. verse. It respects indeed the Kingdom of Christ in general, and therefore is not proper to any Church of his signanter, for any thing can be showed by the Text. Secondly, The Kingdom of Christ principally respects the Church invisible, which as such is not our guide. Thirdly, it may certainly come to its everlasting reign in Heaven, notwithstanding some error on earth by the Church visible. Fourthly, whereas you say it shall destroy all Idolatrous kingdoms, you do very well add in your Parenthesis [Idolatrous Kingdoms] to save yourselves from suspicion. But it all Idolatrous Kingdoms, then have you reason to make your infallibility more strongly infallible; otherwise you will be included in this distraction.  
So also that of Esay 59.21. profits you nothing, some of the former answers may serve; it principally is intended for the Church invisible, which by the Church visible may sufficiently be directed through the means of grace to salvation infallibly, without infallibility of the Church. As the Word of God was certain before it was written, and the Church then was by it directed, because it was then in substance of it though not written (as we have said before, but you compel us to repeat) so by the Word written infallibly, though not infallibly expounded and applied by the Pastors of the Church, shall the Church be brought to Life. For if every evil action doth not destroy the state of salvation, as you will confess: then surely every simple error cannot, because it is not voluntary. And this is fully able to answer your Appendix to this Number at the end of your paper. Those Testimonies (if they be rightly cited) yet in those terms affirm no more than that the invisible Church shall not perish, which is true, although the visible Church be under a possibility to err, since every error is not destructive of salvation.  
In the 25. Number, you tell me what you have said before, but that you have given me some additional Testimonies in the supplement of the last, which have their answer, without repetition. Only you no where I think find that Saint Jerome did receive all those books which you receive for Canonical; and for those Authors which held the Consubstantiality of the Son, and those several properties of the Holy Trinity, you will give me leave with judicious men to suspect Eusebius. Believe your Cardinal herein, Bellarmin in his De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, p. 94.5, 6. where he brings the attestation of Saint Athanasius and Saint Jerome to the same purpose; and Saint Jerome calls him not only an Arrian, but the Prince of the Arrians sometimes; sometimes the Ensign-bearer. Yea the 7. Synod, he says, and the Apostolical Legates rejected his authority, as being an Arrian Heretic as he says. And as for Augustine's expression, that the relying on the Church's authority is the most true and inviolable Rule of Faith you refer it to your 16. Number, and there refer me to the 13. chapter of the first book Contra Cresconium, which I cannot see there. If it should be so disertly, yet this must be understood respectively to those cases wherein the Scripture doth not clearly pass the Verdict; in which the authority of the Church, is the best rule we can then have as towards practice. But this in his Opinion doth not absolutely leave us to follow Tradition of the Church in points of Faith, unless he contradicts himself, as you shall see at the end. But you are afraid of want of Number to make noise, because you say, I said you had no other Testimony but Saint Augustine's. I did not say that you had none but his, absolutely, but you had none but his that I could see of those you produced. Neither him indeed if you please to tell us what you see.  
Therefore we shall look over your reinforcing his, and the main testimony for your cause; in my answer whereunto, I see yet no place for amendments or abatement. I said, if you consider the whole ten●●r of the chapter, you may be inclined to think that it came from him in some heat of dispute, and methinks I may think so still. Your men are wont to answer evidences of the Fathers which are against them, when they please, that such passages came from them, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and surely we may have that liberty, when there is such occasion given for us to interpret them, as here; if we consider how he was displeased with himself for a former respect to that Epistle, and also if we take notice of his short returns of discourse in this Epistle; and also if we mark his check and correcting, and taking up himself towards the end of the chapter, with an absit. Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam.  
And if this answer doth not weigh with you, than I gave you another, that this might be spoken of himself, not in sensu composito, as then, but in sensu diviso, as in order to that time when he was a Manichee himself. To which purpose I told you, it was familiar to him and other writers of that part of the world to express a tense more than past by the imperfect: and the sense is, that when he was a Manichee he would not have believed the Gospel, but that the authority of the Church had moved him to it. One place of this usage I found to be in a chapter you quoted in his De Predestinatione Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 1. s. 14. Qui igitur opus est, ut eorum ferutemur opuscula, qui priusquam ista haresis ●riretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in hâc difficili ad solvendum quastione versari; quod procul dubio facerem, si respondere talibus cogerentur; where you have the Imperfect Tense, for the Tense more past; facerent for fecissent, and so the other. So in his first Book of Retract. cap. 51. Profecto non dixissem, si jam ●uns essem literis Sucris ita eruditus ut recolerem: where you have essem for fuissem, and so the other. And also by the way let me observe somewhat from those two places towards the main question, besides the use of them in the way of Criticism. For by the former you have the reason why the Tradition of the Church in Doctrines received, will not make an end of our differences, since the questions were not then started: and also by the second you may observe, that we cannot swallow all that was said by Saint Austin without chewing, since he says himself, that had he been so well instructed, he would not have said this and that. And indeed his books of Retractations are books against you; and do conclude wholly, that we are not to take whatsoever the Fathers wrote to be as true as Gospel. Yea, some such books of Retractations all of them might have made, as some think Origen did, although they are perished as to us.  
But the answers which I gave you to that passage of Saint Austin will not content you. Therefore you endeavour to show at large that they will not serve. You say unless he will stand to that ground, he must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary. What ground do you mean? What that he was moved by the Churches Infallible Authority, as you would conclude at every turn. No, supposing him not to speak in aestu Sermonis, yet what he said against his Adversary was reasonable, without urging the Infallible authority. For the consent of the Church might be considered by him as a condition towards the reception of any doctrine; and yet not to be that which he built his Faith upon, as upon an Infallible ground. You may know the Causa sine qua non, is not a cause; although such a thing be not without it, yet is not this the cause thereof. And therefore make what you can of the place, it will not afford you a firm foundation, if his authority could do it. You say that this is his first argument, to show that his Adversary, by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle, could prove nothing against those, who as yet have not believed the Gospel. So you.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and what then? Because the Adversary can prove nothing by Scripture to those that deny it, therefore Saint Austin must infer, that the authority of the Church is infallible, and he must believe the Gospel upon no other ground. What consequence is this? as if because Saint Augustine's adversary cared not for the judgement of the Church, therefore we must be guilty of that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which hath so much wronged the Church, as nothing more. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
You go on in your Paraphrastical discourse. But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel, and so this answer cannot serve me; notwithstanding I must tell you that I am such an one, that I would not believe the Gospel without the authority of the Catholic Church did move me. So you. Out of which words of your own, you may learn how to understand the sense and tense of the Father in the place: But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel; then he had believed the Gospel before, and was not to believe it now, and therefore his words must be referred in the African idiotism, unto the time more than imperfect, otherwise what he had believed, he was to believe now, which cannot stand with your Infallibility. And yet you say afterwards, mark if his ground be not so as I told you; because (saith he) I have believed the Gospel itself upon the preaching of the Catholics; therefore if his Adversary should say, do not believe the Catholics, he doth not go consequently to force him by the Gospel to any Faith to Manichaeus. And hereupon you break out in these words, Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their Teaching, then upon this to believe the Gospel itself?  
Answ▪ Again these words do not include a Divine Faith of the Infallibility of the Church, which you must have, or else your cause is starved. Because those words, I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church did move me which must be the principal ground, do not include his Faith of the Infallibility of the Church. He might be moved by the authority of the Church, though not resolved in his Faith by the Infallibility pretended, & according to this proportion must all his discourse be understood, which proceeds from his belief of the Gospel by them, to his being persuaded by them to Manichaeism, if any thing should be found in the Gospel towards it, or else proceeds to his not believing of Manichaeus, upon his belief of the Catholics, who bade him believe the Gospel and not Manichaus. These must be the hinges upon which the whole disputation must turn, and therefore if those words be not understood of an ultimate determination of his Faith by the authority of the Church, but of an instrumental moving, nothing will be concluded sufficient and sufficiently for you. But this answer you give not me any return to. Ponder it very well, for its importance in this debate. For if the whole chapter was soberly spoken; and if that he did not speak of himself, as when he was a Manichaeu, yet if he here intends to signify no more then only the authority of the Church was an impulsive to the belief of the Gospel, you will evince no more than what you need not contend for, because we do not contend against it, as being not the state of the question.  
Therefore it remains for you to prove your supposition, or your proofs of an Infallible authority of the Church, which indeed you would put in, in your conclusions, but is wanting in the premises. And if it did belong to me to dispute, it were not difficult to show the contrary. And since they may come in upon account of the reason of my denial, they shall be there two moments from the chapter.  
First, Because he saith he did believe the Gospel per illos, not propter. Now what we do properly believe any one in, we must believe for him, not by him; for him as a cause, not by him as an instrument; and therefore we believe what God says to be true, not by him, but for him. And if the Apostles, as he says▪ were not 〈◊〉 of their Faith, 2 Cor. 1●. 14. then were not those Catholics he speaks of such, as he ought, for themselves to believe.  
Secondly, Because in several places of the chapter, he doth signify, that if any reason could be given, or any thing whereby it might be manifestly known, that his Adversary were in the right▪ he would leave his Catholics. Now this is not spoken consistently to the nature of Faith, upon Infallible authority: for what we do believe in way of Faith, we do so believe, as there cannot be a falsity in it, as Aquinas doth confess, and I suppose you too (for you would conclude, no falsity or error can be in any thing, which the Church doth define, because it is infallible) and therefore all the Reason, and all the Science in the world, are not able to shake Faith, whereunto the contrary is intimated in the Father. Nay, if there be no arguing to the principles of Faith, from other principles, but from the principles of Scripture, there is arguing to Divine conclusions; then assuredly Faith in principles of Theology (as this is one, the verity of the Gospel) is not obnoxious to any decay by any reasons. And it seems his Faith then in the Gospel, was not Divine, upon the consideration of their authority, since Reason may be valid against Humane authority, but not Divine: so that had he meant, he built his Faith of the Gospel, upon the authority infallible of the Church, there had been no place for Reason to have any power of assent on the behalf of the Manichees.  
Again, if you hold to the Gospel, my hold shall still be to the authority of the Church, upon whose authority I believed the Gospel. I (saith he) will hold myself to those, by whose teaching, I have believed the Gospel, and there commanding me, I will not believe thee. So you think that this is also available for you: surely nothing less: for besides that, you omit much of his connexion that makes for my former argument, and also that ●●●kes against your rash and blind believing: besides that you may understand that here he doth not compare the authority of the Church, with the autopisty of Scripture (which is the 〈◊〉 of the controversy) but he doth compare the authority of the Catholics, as towards the belief of the Gospel, with the authority of the Manichees, as to believe their false Gospel of Manichaeus. Indeed the authority of the Church is more urged, and is more useful to prevail abo●●e, or against the authority of private opposites; but w●● that it hath the moment of credibility above, or equally to the authority of Scripture itself, is that which is an question, and is not here determined for you.  
But you go on. And Saint Austin goeth on so far upon this ground as a ground Infallible. What, of Faith▪ it is again denied, not only simply but it is denied to be held so by him in this discourse. If you may have your suppositions, we must needs soon have done.  
Well, go on. That he saith, if perhaps you Manicha●us can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus, that then indeed they shall weaken the authority of the Catholics. So he ●aith. And what can you make of this for your use▪ Take it by itself and it will come to this, that a clear place in the Gospel would persuade him to lessen his opinion of the authority of the Catholics: then he would hold clear Scripture above, or against the authority of the Church, than their authority is not in his judgement Infallible: or else Infallible authority of the Church may be opposite to Infallible authority of the Scripture; and one in his opinion of them, (the Scripture) is more Infallible than the other (the Church) which is incongruous; for in Infallibility there is no degree, no more then in Truth. And if you say that the Scripture yet may be more Infallible to him; this spoils all your cause, for you say you go to Faith by the Church, because that way is more plain &c manifest●  
Therefore you hasten me from this passage to show me what will follow. But what do you think will follow? I pray note it well their authority being weakened (and shown once fallible) now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel. And why so? because upon the authority of these Catholics I had believed the Gospel. So you.  
But do you see how you interpose your gloss in your Parenthesis, thus; their authority being once weakened, and shown once fallible. Do you imagine that we can neglect or overlook this your glossall inference or opposition, and shown once fallible: as if there were no authority but that which is Infallible, and there were no weakening of authority, but to make it fallible. Authority may stand with Fallibility, for we grant Authority to the Church, distinguishing it from Infallibility. And if you had done so, you had saved many a wound, which your Church hath got by that unfortunate word, Infallibility, as one of your own men happily confessed. Neither therefore doth it follow, that the authority of the Catholics being weakened and showed once fallible, he could not at all believe the Gospel, because by the authority of the Catholics, he had believed the Gospel; but he could not then believe the Gospel by that inductive and motive of the authority of the Church: for the first, Christians believed the Apostles severally, without the authority of the Church. Yea, if upon that consideration he could not have believed the Gospel, their authority, by whom he did believe it being weakened, yet doth it not from hence flow necessarily, that when he did believe the Gospel, he did believe it upon an Infallible authority; because, although he could not believe the Gospel without it, yet might he account it as towards belief, but a condition, not a cause of his Faith. And this you must have, or else you do not contradict. Whatsoever is necessary to an effect, is not the cause of it; although whatsoever is a cause thereof is necessary to it.  
Therefore that is not so, which again you say that the ground of his belief in the Gospel was their infallible authority; as not only these, but also the next words show manifestly. When will you by your proof put the infallible proposal of the Church out of question? when shall we have any more than supposals of it?  
Let us see your next words. Wherefore if in the Gospel there be nothing found that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus, than I will believe the Catholics rather then you: but if you shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle; then neither will I believe the Catholics nor thee. Why so? I will not believe the Catholics, because they (whose Doctrine I thought infallible) have lied to me concerning the Manichaeaus. But I will not believe thee, even when thou citest clear Scripture (for of this case he speaketh) and why so? because thou dost cite me that Scripture to which Scripture I had now believed upon their authority who have lied to me. So you.  
And what now from hence can you gather more then from the former passage of the same nature, unless you did make good another Parenthetical supposition, whose Doctrine, I thought infallible? This is not in Saint Austin, but comes from your own private Spirit. And therefore if you will not be ruled by our Spirit because of the former exception to the contrary: surely we have no cause to be overperswaded by your judgement without any reason for it.  
Secondly, May you not from hence take notice that what I said of Saint ●ustin, that in the Testimony here, he might speak as in some heat of Dispute? For can we think that Saint Austin had such a soul as to say soberly and categorically that he would not believe clear Scripture which was cited by any one, because Catholics had told him otherwise? Did Saint Austin in your conceit differ in judgement from your Aquinas? or did your Aquinas differ from Saint Austin? Consider then what your Aquinas saith in his Sums, the first Part, the first question, and the eight Art. Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis facta qui Canonicos libros scripserunt; for our Faith doth rely upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books, but not upon the revelation, if any other was made to other Doctors: Nay, he confirms it by Saint Austin out of his 19 Epist. a little after the beginning, Solis enim Scripturarum libris, etc. For I have learned to give this honour only to the Books of Scripture, which are called Canonical, as to believe most firmly, that none of the Authors thereof did err in writing any thing: but others I so read, that whatsoever holiness or learning they are excellent in, I do not think true therefore because they thought so or wrote so. Compare then this passage with the other, or the other with this; and then judge whether either he did not differ from himself in his Principles, or did not speak the former as a disputant.  
Thirdly, Let me note, whereas you do rightly translate Saint Austin, as speaking of his belief by the Catholics in the tense more than past; you give yourself occasion to think that he meant the main passage (non crederem) not of himself then, but as before a Manichee. And your argument which you produce a little after against this last answer, because he speaks here of believing the Acts of the Apostles, and believing it by a necessary consequence (because he hath already believed the other Canonical books upon the same authority of the Church) doth not overthrow my answer; because you say yourself that this book of the Acts he did believe by consequence: by the authority of the Church he was at first moved to believe the other books; and therefore by consequence he did believe the book of the Acts, because the Catholic authority did in like manner commend both Scriptures. The speaking here in the present doth not derogate from my answer, because the believing by consequence, supposeth an act of believing antecedent.  
Also Fourthly, note that here he said the Catholic authority doth commend, both which may be done without infallibility. For the commendation doth not engage the judgement in assent necessary: but the authority may engage the mind to have a good opinion thereof, and so may move dispositively to Faith.  
Fifthly, Prepend it well, that it is said by St. Austin, that he was moved by the Catholic Church its authority, and that the Catholic authority doth commend both; not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included. And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have, and also that his authority, were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholic Church; Yet you can have from hence no more than your part comes to of a particular Catholic Church; if indeed you were such. And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholics would detract or retract, namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholic Church, in the respects of it, should be singularly appropriated to the Roman. But of this in your 27 number.  
Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase, could he more clearly say, that if once in one single lie he should find the Church's authority to be fallible, he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to believe Scripture. So you. First I deny your consequence; this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lie he could have no infallible ground to believe Scripture. It follows well that he could not believe Scripture by their authority, because they had led unto him. But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible; for they might purpose that which they thought to be true for error: and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility. And for aught I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lie to him; and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible.  
As for that which you think an Argument against me, that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates. This is nothing effectual, for how often do we with fervour endeavour to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us. Yea, it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it; because we are so eager to cover our imperfections; and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary. Secondly, what doth he inculcate that which you would have? But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say, this is under question, and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you, if he speak it assertively, until you fortify your supposition.  
But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the cross I find, and that is this. Had he said, that he believed this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it, by which he discovered it to be Canonical, than the Manichaeans might as easily have said, that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical. So you.  
This is no way moving, much less cogent. For first, it proceeds from a Negative; which in the kind of it unless from Scripture (which is the adequate rule) is of no validity. Because he did not say so, therefore he did not hold so? No connexion.  
Secondly, by the same reason I may say, he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible, for than he would have told them so plainly, he would have made an end of the dispute, without any need of using Scripture.  
Thirdly, they were not prepared for this Theological Argument, because they did not own the Church.  
And now all things being duly considered, I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for yourself out of that supreme Testimony of Saint Austin. And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below, namely the fifth, against the Epistle of the Manichee, with the 14. De util. Cred. against the Manichees too; you will not or cannot hearty dislike my Answers, and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last: since here also he doth not compare the authority of the Church with the authority of the Scripture, which is our main question; but he compares with the authority of those few, those turbulent, those new men, as he speaks, (who were not like to bring forth any thing, which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authority) the authority of the Church, as to the believing of Christ; where also he said that he was moved by the authority of the Catholics;— Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi. Whereby you shall if you will, see the reasonableness of the former criticism; because here he said, jam credidi; so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee.  
And therefore can you not with Saint Austin believe the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending, as upon infallible authority of the Church; because if he did, yet cannot you do it which is not to be done: and if it be to be done, because he did it, than it is not to be done, because he did it not. And I hope those strange stories, and those several points (which you speak to be in Scripture) may be more like to be believed upon the authority of the Scripture, then upon the authority of the Church; since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture, not as a Church. And therefore if you have no other infallible ground for prayers to Saints, and prayer for the dead (in your sense) and other like points, than you have proved he went upon, as towards the believing of Scripture, you have none. Nay, you have not so good authority for those and such like points, as he had for the belief of the Scripture: for besides the difference of the matter, he had Catholic authority for his belief, though the authority was not Infallible: but you have not Catholic authority for your points, though fallible. But I observe your wisdom. You would justify your points here by Infallibility, which you think may be more likely, then to justify your Infallibility by your points of difference.  
Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared, until the condition be proved. If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose, than you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity, because you had followed him. As for you, you need not fear singularity. You provide against that in your opinion, or your Masters for you; for you must follow the Church, without examination of what they say. Their word must be taken: but yet your Church may be accused of singularity, because it doth not follow the Catholic. If then you will do prudently (as you speak) go with Saint Austin no further, than he would have you follow him, namely in the way of Scripture, which he understood well, and at the latter time of his life: but whether he understood it as much as any the Church had (which you say) may be yet under debate (with all respect to Saint Austin) since it appears not that he had any skill in Hebrew, and (if I remember well) confesseth that he learned Greek but late. So then, if in some cases, your own Men confess that we must have recourse to the Original Languages, how could he understand them so well?  
And now come we to your grand assumption, that what hath been said of the Catholic Church (that it is by Christ appointed to be the Judge of all Controversies, and that the definition of this Judge is Infallible, and consequently a sufficient ground of Faith) all the Doctrine must be applied to the Roman Church, and cannot be applied to the Protestant Church.  
And now then you are pleased at the latter end to discover yourself, that you did intent at first the Roman Church, but dealt more cunningly than the rest of the Pontificians, who do include in the nature of the one and true Church, subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Methinks this plot of yours might be somewhat resembled by him who had that Fantasy, that whatsoever Ship came to Port was his, so now every Church must be yours or none; as if the Roman Sea were the Ocean: or, you would have all the Honours that might be conferred by God upon that Church, he would please to own signally, and to make his; conceiving that this Church can be none but your own. And thus would you have led me on with some ingenuity, to be liberal in my respects and devoirs to the Catholic Church, that so you might without contradiction sweep all for the Roman Catholic.  
But prove that those privileges, you speak of, belong to the Roman Church, and cannot be applied to the Protestant Church. You prove it thus:  
First, This Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim to those privileges, and so by her own Doctrine, she cannot be Judge or Infallible, nor any other Church but the Roman, upon the same reason, because they profess themselves by evident and Infallible Scriptures their own Fallibility, as you prove the consequence to be to the end of your Page of the 27. Number; and therefore the Roman Church is the true Church, unless Christ hath no true Chrch, nor hath had these many ages. This is your argument, which proceeds by way of a negative induction, not the Protestant Church, nor this other Church, nor that, nor any other Church doth claim the privilege of being Infallible Judge, only the Roman; therefore, otherwise Christ hath had no true Church these many Ages.  
Sir, Which will you give us leave to do, to smile or weep, that men not to be contemned for their Learning and Reading should be abused, and should endeavour to abuse others by such ratiosinations, which are made useful only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
We and all other Churches do of their own accord yield unto you that they are Fallible. We save you the labour of the eviction. True Churches they say they are, and say they are not Infallible; and they say also that you only do lay claim to this Infallibility: but what then? therefore you have Infallibility? what, because you only claim it? Suppose that the Roman Church doth lay claim to Utopia, or to the Terra incognita, no other Church doth, not the Protestant, not any other, therefore it is due to them. Yes, but where is this Utopia? where is this Terra incognita? what be the Privileges and Dominions thereof they are yet to seek for them, who lay claim to them. First, then make it out that there is such an Infallibility to be had before you challenge it, and do not prove the being of it by your challenging it, lest your Roman Eagle be said to catch at flies: but prove solidly the being of it by the grounds thereof: and then secondly, prove a just claim; for suppose that others did not lay claim to it, what right can yet you have by a claim? Is this also given primo occupanti? If you have no other tenure for your Infallibility, you have none, and it doth bespeak fallibility to say the title is good.  
If I might be so bold (and surely I may in the cause of the truth of God) it is more likely to fall out thus; no Church but the Roman doth pretend to Infalliblity, therefore is it highly presumptuous, and is only in this not an Usurper, because there is no such thing as belonging to any Church. We have no such tradition, nor the Churches of God: and yet also is it an insolent Usurpation of that Prerogative, which belongs only to God and Scripture.  
This is enough to undo your argumentation and you: but whereas you say that all other Churches of other Religions do say indeed that they themselves are the only true Churches; it is not true, they do not speak of themselves exclusively, as you do. Particular true Churches, they may be under the truly Catholic Church, and therefore they can contesserate one with another, with respective acknowledgements; but you are they who exclude all from the condition of being true Churches, which will not reconcile themselves to you by absolute subjection.  
And since you say that all other Churches but yours disclaim Infallibility, you see that we alone do not stand aloof from obedience to your Roman Tyranny. So you are not Catholics in dominion neither.  
Yet you would seem to have some reason for your discourse, that one Church must be Infallible, otherwise Christ hath not, nor hath had, any true Church these many ages. This is inconsequential, unless there be some Church Infallible, Christ hath no true Church. It is a false proposition, as we have answered you, from the first to the last, that a true Church is Infallible, and it is now all the question. Though it be not true in every point, yet may it be a true Church. Every error doth not destroy the being of the Church, and you have very great cause not to press this, lest it be retorted against your Church, as it might be to be Even with you; that Church which holds itself Infallible, and yet hath erred, is Fallible, and therefore by your Doctrine no true Church; the Church of Rome holdeth itself Infallible, and yet hath erred, than this is no true Church. And might not the assumption here be proved by your own Doctrine? for if the Tradition of the Church be the Rule of Faith, than you have erred in rejecting the Millenary opinion, which was a tradition of the Church.  
So then your design you speak of in the 28. Number, of not expressing the Roman Church in your dispute, you see is destroyed: for what you say of the Catholic Church, is not sufficiently pleaded for the Roman, and also Infallibility is not yet asserted to the Catholic. And therefore your demonstration you talk of, is but a flourish, and your Argument you think unanswerable, is not to be answered, any more, because that strength which it had is taken away. And I have no more to say until you have any more to say, upon this point or any you mean, in difference betwixt us.  
But yet you have not done, but like a Parthian who fights flying; so you dispute still ending. You say you will show how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this, Saint Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith, That false Faith cannot have access to the Roman Church. And when you please to press this, I shall show you what little ground you are like to get in that Epistle; since though he names the Roman Church as the principal Church, as the chair of Peter, yet he there defends his own jurisdiction against those who would ramble to Rome to have their cause heard and judged there. Neither will you get any credit by those whom he speaks of, and in those words you quote, there is an intimation, that the Romans then, when he did write, were not such as those were in the Apostles times, Apostolo praedicante; and I shall tell you why it was called the principal Church, for a principle of Unity; so he, from whence the Sacerdotal Unity began; and also by reflection from the Imperial Seat.  
And if you will object Saint Jerome's authority in his Comment upon the first to Timothy, that he calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome, the rector of the House of God, which you say Saint Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. I shall return you answer, that this is not very much; for other Bishops were called in ancient times Papae too, and that he calleth him the rector of the House of God, that is not much neither, since every Bishop is so; The rector of the Church in that place where he lives. And this will appear to be less considerable, if you will take notice that in his Comment upon the first Ep. to Tim. the third chapter upon these words, A Bishop must be irreprehensible; where he speaks of a Bishop in communi, he says, Aut Ecclesiae Princeps non erit; so a Bishop in general with him is a Prince of the Church, and also you know what opinion he had betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, Read to this purpose his Epistle to Evagrius. If you come upon me again with Saint Jerome to Damasus in an Epistle, you may tell me what Epistle, for he wrote more than one, and his Title in some is, as is set down plainly Hieronimus Damaso. Surely Popes than had not that state, or else Saint Jerom had little reverence towards him. And you may see also how the Pope writes to him to resolve questions: And is this any sign of the Pope's Infallibility? Well, but you say in that Epistle you will tell me of, to Damasus, he saith, To your Holiness, that is, To the Chair of Peter I am joined in Communion: Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built, he that gathereth not with thee, scattereth. So you.  
And shall I give you answer to this now? then I may tell you that this doth but magnify the honour of his own Commuion, and yet not much neither, if you will observe what he saith in his Comment upon Amos the 6. chapter, Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis, ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur, Tu es Petrus, etc. Then Peter is not in his Opinion the only Rock, you see. Moreover, so the Fathers you say, in the Council of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said, Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo.  
And what can you ever make of this that they did say so? No more than thus much, that the Successor of St. Peter spoke. Doth this signify that all the Personal pripriviledges which Saint Peter had, Pope Leo had? then there needed but him to determine all the Controversies. Yea, according to Saint Jerom before, if he had had all those privileges which Saint Peter had, yet the Church should not be built upon him only; for the other Apostles were Rocks too. Yea, and is he Christ's Successor also? If he be not, then that which you would fain arrogate to him, belongs only to Christ to be Head of the Universal Church.  
To cut short, you remit me to Statleton and Bellarmin, who both show most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief causes. The places you say you will allege, though for the present you refer me to them.  
What do you mean Sir, to put me off to those adversaries, or in the interim to satisfy me until you have ranged them into another discourse? I need not send you to our men who have withstood those Champion's foot to foot— Junctusque Viro Vir. Saint Cyprian in the place before makes an exception against this supreme Tribunal for Appeals, and the African Churches.  
After this, you seem to threaten me with further Demonstrations of particulars material to your cause. Until which time it becomes me in civility to wait, and not to take the word out of your mouth, or your work out of your hand. I shall let you rise that you may have more strength for the next assault. I could leave here, but that our late Feast may hint you to think of the contest betwixt the Roman and other Churches about the observavation of Easter. And were those Heretics or Schismatics that would not stand to the Roman determination herein?  
And as for your earnest demand, to know but the name of one of the Pastors' Doctors, or Preachers in those last thousand Ages (Years) which preceded Luther; I may conceive myself obliged then to give you some account hereof, when you shall tell me whoever of all the Bishops of Rome, in a vast insolency took upon him the Empire of the whole Church, under the Title of Universal Bishop, before Boniface the Third took it from Phocas his Donation. Until gregory's time inclusively there was no such Usurpation: and you know what Gregory said of John of Constantinople for his pretending to it, that whosoever did, made himself the forerunner of Antichrist.  
But if I would answer, the answer would be easy; and it is ready, you have it already in a Testimony out of Tertullian in his Prescriptions, it may be you took no notice of it then, nor did I urge it to this purpose by way of Application to our Church, thus, That which we are, the Scriptures were from the beginning, we are of them before it was otherwise, before they were corrupted by you▪ Then we are as ancient as may be for our Doctrine and Sacraments, they are found in the Records of Scripture. And if Campian says, All the Fathers were his and yours; we may say, the Apostles are ours. Nay, the Fathers are not yet proved to be yours in the main difference betwixt us; nor I think can you prove them to be yours without corruption of the Text, or of the sense by you in any other point of importance, betwixt us. Nay, how many of your Roman Communion have given Testimony to us in Substance of Doctrine, besides ●erus, whom you have abused (as I told you) therefore, to make him after death speak false to Truth and himself. Nay, we are, what the Roman Church was, before the Roman Church was what it should not be, and what it was not in the purest Primitiveness: and therefore your additional Doctrines (which, and your universal Jurisdiction pretended, have made the breach, and discontinued our Communion) we could not have from Rome then when it had them not. And therefore it is not proper for us to be Opponents; for we are upon the Negative. Do you show that a flourishing visibility is necessary to the Church, and how it is like to be in your Church in the time of Antichrist, according to your Doctrine, and how it held in the time of the Arrian persecution. Do you show that you have had in your Communion all the Holy men and none other, and then you will do a miracle. And let us hear of it no more until it be done. As he said, Landari non potest nisi peractum. Go on with your design, and let it be a real defence of your cause, by a solid and substantial maintenance of the points you hold, and we deny, but do not offer to deceive us with old shoes and clouted, and mouldy bread, and old rags and and old bottles, as if you came from a far Country, that you might be of a League together, as the Gibeonites cozened the Israelites. If you do, we shall endeavour to discover it. Therefore rather think of that of our Saviour, Saint Matt. 9.16. No man putteth a piece of new cloth to an old garment: for that which filleth up taketh from the Garment, and the rent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is made worse.  
And now methinks I should end; but for the conclusion, showing (as you say) my Reply to your papers to be fully answered in your former discourse.  
Sir, this is very odd that you will not answer particucularly my premises, and yet I must combat with your conclusion. And yet if I have answered your premises, in the Laws of Disputation, I have nothing to do with your conclusion. And therefore whatsoever part of your discourse you refer me to, in this your conclusion, for my answer to the first Reply, since it is punctually answered by me in the matter of it, needs not to be showed by me to be insufficient for my answer. For besides that you leave me to find my own condemnation in your paper, where I can, which is a mighty labour and it may be impossible, (whereas you will urge a particular formal Judge to hear and determine,) besides this; you may understand, that that which is not true in itself (as I have showed as well as you the contrary) cannot answer me, for it cannot answer for itself, being false: and therefore the product of it, were it rightly applied in the form, would be null.  
Yet have I a fancy, that since somewhat in it is not said before by you, and somewhat you do charge me with; if I should give no Reply thereunto, you would think that the cause were wanting, or I to it: I shall therefore where there is need briefly run it through.  
First you say, that I said there was little reason for me to rejoin, because in your paper you wave the Application of it to the Roman Church. You make your apology that it was to no end, until I had granted that some Church was the ground of Faith. A man must first prove to a Jew, that the Messiah is come, and then he must prove that Christ was this Messiah. So you.  
I Answer, That I think I gave you the true Reason of your not including the Roman Church in your prosecution of the Catholic Church, before. But in that you say, that first a man must prove the Messiah to be come before that he proves Christ to be the Messiah, you speak not congruouslie, for Christ and Messiah are all one, in different Languages; you mean that Jesus is the Messiah. For the Jews acknowledged Jesus, but not Christ. But let that pass. According to your Doctors you could not abstract the Catholic Church from the Roman Church, as I have told you; since they include the Pope as Head, in the definition of the Catholic Church, and that which belongs to the nature of a thing you cannot abstract from it; for than you should make a falsity in your abstraction, for than you should conceive the nature of it without that which is necessary to the nature. And that which follows, as you say, by consequent from the Catholic to the Roman, is formerly denied.  
Secondly, you say that I say that I might still have left you to answer your first paper with your second. And so I say still. You Reply that this is only to stand to what I have said, as you also do; Let the Reader judge with indifferency. And I say, let the Reader or the world judge with indifferency which of us doth most stand to his supposition without reason, or who is most likely to do so; I, or you, who are so captivated to and by your infallibility, which you must stand out in by itself, which is the Question: and if you offer to prove it by Scripture, you come upon our ground.  
thirdly, you say I say you do not conclude contradictorilie; and I say so still. You Reply, that you always conclude the Church's authority to be a sufficient ground ground of Faith, and I say it is an insufficient ground.  
Answer But you do not consider that your Arguments or Testimonies do not conclude the Church a sufficient ground: and therefore whether you as a Disputant do conclude contradictorilie, let the Reader judge.  
Nextlie, you come to my Eight answers, as you divide my last paper. And in my first answer, you say, I spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith. So then I have made by your confession my word good that I would give you a proof by Testimonies, that the Scripture is a sufficient ground of Faith, which I have done with Reasons also thereupon. But you triumph, this this it is not to conclude contradictorilie. And why so? You say, that I should have concluded that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith; which may be and is true, though it also be most true that the Scripture is a most sufficient ground of Faith, when it is once known by an infallible authority to be the Word of God; and also when we evidently know that such and such is the undoubted sense of Scripture. Thus you.  
But first, are there two sufficient grounds of Faith or not, as to the same Objects? if one be sufficient, why the other? if both be necessary, than either is not sufficient. So then, if the Scripture be the most sufficient ground of Faith, when it be known to be the Word of God, and the sense of it, than I have contradicted you, and you have contradicted yourself.  
For I say as you say, that it is most true that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith. And two sufficients there are not in the same kind. Yes, you say, but first the Scripture must be known by infallible authority to be the Word of God. Well, but we both believe that the Scripture is the Word of God; and by infallible authority we do believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, because we do believe it by the authority of itself, which you say is infallible. And if you believe it by infallible authority of the Church, as you think you must go to Scripture for this authority: then is not the Church a sufficient ground, because it needs the Scripture to prove the Church, and confirm its authority. And therefore my concluding was contradictory, since your supposition of two sufficient grounds is false. Well, and how shall we know evidently whether this is the sense of Scripture? By the authority of the Church, you say. And why then do they not by their authority evidently deliver unto us the sense of Scripture in every difficulty? If it cannot, it is insufficient; if it will not, it is uncharitable; and besides you fall into the same danger again. For where hath it this authority? by the Scripture; then the Scripture is the sufficient ground again, and this not. And when the Church in a Council doth decide a controversy best, it doth so by principles of Scripture, applying them to particular cases, and the determinations of the Church have themselves to the Scripture, but as conclusions; and the Scripture hath itself to those conclusions, as the principle. And therefore properly the principles are believed, and the conclusions are credible, not by themselves, but by participation from the Principles. So that as the prime Principles are the ground of all Science, so are the Principles of Scripture the ground of all Faith. And the first Principle in Theologie must be this, that the Scripture is the Word of God, and so the ground of Faith. And if the Church be not subordinate; it is opposite to Scripture, as the first Principle; and so stands by itself, and must fall to the ground. And if you say it is not necessary to umpire all doubts, than you say as we say; and why then an infallible Judge? And forasmuch as we do believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, why do you contend? because we do not believe it as you believe it? but if you intent your Treatise in charity you might have spared your labour. For we are in a surer condition than you can be upon your Principles: You believe the Scripture by the authority of the Church, and we believe it by that by which the Church hath its authority. So that the Scripture is not only the first ground in regard of Order, but also of causality, because the Church hath no ground but by Scripture. Therefore we like your intention better than your judgement. Neither do we deny the moment of the authority of the Catholic Church towards Faith, so that we have all the authority of Heaven and Earth for our belief. And if there were a doubt, and in us a possibility of error by apprehension that we cannot be assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God by the Church; yet our error would not be so dangerous, (because we should err in honour of Scripture) as yours is or would be, who err in honour of the Church.  
Also must I observe your ingenuity again here that you do profess it as most true, that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith, when we know by infallible authority that it is the Word of God, and that such and such is the sense thereof. If there be degrees of Truth and sufficiency then are we more secure: if degrees of Truth and sufficiency to us; then are we yet more right. And also this doth deduct from your universality of faith in your first paper by the proposal of the Church in all things.  
For my second, third and fourth, and fifth answer, the Paragraphs of your Discourse or Treatise have in them nothing  hath any potential contrariety to them; which I have not fully, as I think taken away.  
In your Application you make to or against my sixth answer, you seem to take another argument to persuade me that the Scripture and the Church may both be grounds of Faith. It is by way of interrogation. Can I not, say you, ground my Faith upon what Saint Peter saith, because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith? We answer, your question is out of question, but your consequence from thence is unsolid and unjudicious, because they were both inspired in their Doctrine: but it is yet again in question, whether the Church be infallibly inspired, and we can be infallibly assured thereof, the reason being not the same; your reasoning sinks. Yet you insist further. Why is the Scripture the rule of Faith? Because it delivereth to me Gods written Word, but the Church delivereth to me God's Word written and unwritten. I may therefore rule myself by that. So you. I answer, This argument hath no strength to weaken that which I laid down before, that there are not two sufficient grounds of Faith; because the Church is but a Ministerial rule, and subordinate to Scripture, and so subordinately a rule; as to that Word of God which is written: and therefore can it not ground or order my Faith by its own Virtue, but only by proportion to Scripture: and so is not a rule equal to Scripture intensively. And if you conceive your argument should have any force, because the Church doth exceed the Scripture extensively, in that it delivereth the Word written and unwritten; Surely you are much mistaken by your supposition, that there is a Word of God not written in points of Faith equally credible to that which is written. It is to be proved, not supposed. Your reasoning rather hath force against yourself; The Church is not a rule infallible; because it delivereth to us a Word of God not written, for herein it mainly errs. The Scripture is not only a necessary rule, but also sufficient, most sufficient. And therefore they bring in tradition by way of supplement: you say it is a sufficient rule in that you say it is a sufficient ground of Faith, therefore must you expunge tradition.  
This rule of Scripture you say is often so crookedly applied, that we had need of better security of interpretation than our own judgement of discretion. So you.  
First, this is accidental to the rule, and therefore it doth not infringe its prerogative.  
Secondly, by this Argument, if you drive it to the not being a rule upon this account, the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule, because they have been abused.  
Thirdly, We do not intent the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation; nor do we oppose it to the authority of the Church: but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith (notwithstanding the decisions of the Church) by consonance thereof to Scripture, otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith. Every one must be persuaded in his own mind, although he doth not make his own sense. This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady, it respects authority; but joineth only with appearance of the Word of God.  
That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before. That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from yourself, which indeed if it were in way of retractation, would not be reprehensible; as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations, Neque enim nisi imprudens, etc. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me, because I reprehend my errors.  
But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you, you may, thus. Before, you said that the ground of believing is the authority of the Church; since you have said, in your second paper that it is the authority of God revealing. If there be no difference, why do you not keep your terms, as a Disputant should do? But you say your reply is exceeding easy; the ground of our faith is God revealing, and God revealing by his Church, as he first causeth our first belief, when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word. So you.  
Now then, if you make the authority of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith, than it is not the authority of the Church, because although God doth reveal by his Church, yet is not the authority of the Church the ground of faith, but God's authority; for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassador, which we do not believe for himself, but for his Letters of Credence from his Master: and so is it the authority of Gods revealing, which is the ground of faith. And this is made out by that you say, to compound your variance: You say, the ground of our faith is God revealing, and Gods revealing by his Church, as he first causeth our first belief, when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word: then the authority is his, whereby we believe, and not the authority of the Church, which is but Ministerial. And by your own argument are you undone; for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture, because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical (as you have said before, and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer) then also the Authority of the Church is not the ground of faith, because we must first believe God's authority revealing it to his Church, before we believe the Church. But also, to take notice of that Argument of yours here, it is false. For we must first believe the authority of Scripture, before we can believe any authority of the Church. For the Church as such, hath all from Scripture, as I have showed. And therefore by your own argument are you undone again: for if that be the ground of faith, which is first, than the Scripture, not the Church: and therefore the Church may be disputed; not the Scripture, which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light; and cannot demonstrate, as we may, the Church by principles of Scripture.  
Again, you seem to differ from yourself, because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars, causally, because by it we believe the Scripture: but before, the faith of a Catholic (which you mean generally) must consist in submitting his understanding, and adhering to the Church, and in believing every thing, because she proposeth it; so your first paper in terminis terminantibus. But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church, we may believe that which is plain in it by itself, because it saith it, not because the Church saith it. Do not you now somewhat yield, not to me, but to truth? Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost: and yet also will it be too hard for him, though he denies it. Consider then what you have said, and what you think; and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at God's Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mystery of implicit faith.  
And that also which you so much repeat, that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authority of the Church, is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate. It hath been often denied you upon necessity; and it did not obtain, it seems, universally in the practice of the Church, or else some of your Apocryphal books were not accounted Canonical; for cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese, where he speaks in part of the Scriptures, he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of, nor some others.  
Yea, for the reception of books Canonical, Saint Jerome, gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels, (in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew) not because the Church owned no more, as you would have Saint Austin to be understood: but he doth prove that there are but four, by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse, about the four beasts, which do represent, as he interprets their meaning, the four Evangelists.  
You go on, and say, God revealing is always the formal Object of faith. Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church, because she proposeth it: so that the formal Object of things to be believed, was as proposed by the Church, under that consideration. But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture, sometimes by the Church, as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written. So you. Well then, now he reveals himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church, as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture, which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word. So then, we may believe him immediately by Scripture: but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture, wants conviction.  
Neither do you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows, that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written, he revealed himself by the Church. This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine, because the Scripture in the substance of it, was before it was written: but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us, as the word before it was written was unto them. And the Reason may be taken from God's wise Dispensations to his Church, then when there was no Word written, he would provide, that that whereby the Church should be ruled, should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved: but now, when there is a Word written, which is a most sufficient ground of Faith, (as you confess) there is no such cause of any word beside it. If the Scripture be a Rule of faith, as you do liberally grant, than this is now a rule not only inclusively, but exclusively: for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled; and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives; and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners. For indeed the property of a Rule doth not only exclude less, but also more. It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessary in themselves, as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it. But then again, your former reasoning is inconcludent; because God revealed himself to his Church severally, before he revealed himself by his Church. And therefore this was not the way universally holding, namely by the Church, even before the Scripture was written. And therefore much less doth it now bind when the Word of God is written. Show the like inspirations to the Church, as the Prophets had, by some infallible way, and then we shall say, that thus saith the Lord absolutely, undisputedly, without possibility of contradiction, by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God, to be believed equally to Scripture; and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture, as the Nicene, you mean, was not believed or to be believed without; for it did determine by it, and by that Text I named, [I and my Father are one;] which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question four times in that Epistle you named. And if you can prove that Saint Peter's successors (as you imagine) had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had, than ye might say, Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo, as infallibly as God spoke by his. Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion, as Athanasius had; for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils, as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle: if what is said by the Church must be true, than Athanasius must have changed his Opinion. Or if you will have always the Pope to be put into the authority of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel; then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true. What? because he cannot err? No more than those forty Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from, the 8. chapter, to the 15. who have been, as he said accused of error; and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose, can possibly justify.  
Pope Zephyrine, a Montanist, than he erred; if not a Montanist, than Tertullian is not to be believed. Liberius as before an Arrian; so Athanasius, so Jerome, so Damasus of him; and Damasus could not err as you hold, yet an Arrian is surely in error? is he not? Honorius was erroneous too; and he spoken of in a former paper, he a Monothelite, as Melchior Canus saith some Catholics hold; and he proves it by Synods, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, and he proves it by Epistles of Popes; if all there be deceived, how shall we believe authority of man? As for Gregory the Third, Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say, Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse, quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus. So he. Then do you reconcile error by ignorance with Infallibility. How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions, when he was ignorant in the Gospel, and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife, if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt? And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter, hath this passage, Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit. Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum. Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis, qui Historias legerit non dubitat; and a little after, Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent, qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent. And how then shall we by your Head of the Church, or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly? But many necessary places of Scripture, do not, (as you imagine) need a Judge, or not infallible.  
All things also necessary to be believed, are set down in Scripture, and the contrary you have not showed, and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former; or tradition for the latter, as I have showed. Nevertheless, you proceed thus; The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church, you by your own words in this place must grant her authority to be our ordinary cause of Faith. So you.  
Answer. As you suppose much for your advantage, without colour of reason; so you confound much without distinction. First, the term Revelation hath two respects, one to the Agent, and so it refers to the act and manner thereof; another to the matter of that which is revealed, that is the object. The Revelation of God taking it passively, for the object, the matter which is revealed, comes to us by the Church, because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church: But taking Revelation of God actively, with respect to the manner, to bear your sense, that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church, either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture; so it doth not come by the Church; and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith, which must rely upon infallible verity, as Aquinas speaks in his first part, first question, eight answer, and therefore as before, doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets, which wrote the Canonical books; and not then upon the Church, who was bound to receive these Books, and to communicate them. So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only, or a motive of this faith; an instrument by its office, and a motive by its authority. And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture; So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible, which you would have the Church to be. Secondly, you suppose that which is not to be supposed, that by my words, since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church, I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith: and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so. Surely you here do commit Crimen falsi, for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession. I have often upon your occasion, said the contrary, that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith. And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion, or of Scripture, in all your Church, is more easy to be found then said. And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world, the greatest part of it is but opinion, which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture. And as for us; we have also the authority of the Church Catholic to move our judgement; and Scripture to settle our faith. And we are more related to the four General Councils in consanguinity of Doctrine, as he said, than your Church now.  
And now at the end of all, you do fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression, namely, Excess of Faith.  
But you say, my distinction doth no way salve the impropriety of my Speech. For there is still a difference in more believing Objects, and believing more Objects. But granting that it may be improperly spoken, yet even in that sense it is not truly said, because there can be no Excess of Faith, in believing that which God hath said.  
So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva, & fides Objectiva; fides Qua, & fides Quae; there may be an Excess of Faith, in the Object, if we believe more than God hath said; supposing we can believe what God hath not said; although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject; for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed. But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse, but because of the Application of it to you; as it now appears; and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibility; and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe, you have this Warrant, Thus saith the Lord. But since, this infallibility of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last, nor shall have it surely by begging, you are yet to find out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve yourselves from that just charge of Excess of Faith: and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibility; for which you have not, Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it? by Tradition? And how do you prove Tradition, by the infallibility of the Church? Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference. If you have a desire to rest your judgement, and your soul in certain infallibility, by your own word; then centre in Scripture, from which all Lines of Truth are drawn, and dismiss Tradition (as your men state it) for which this infallibility was devised; and yet cannot be maintained; for it cannot maintain itself.  
You close with a passage of Saint Austin. If so the words, you intent it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ, not to persuade my Faith in its infallibility. I may love the Church without infallibility, because though I do not love Error, yet must I love the Church when it is in Error. And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper. Excuse me that it was so long ere it came (and yet not much above the space of yours) and also so long now it is come.  
Only let me leave you with a Father or two, in whose company you are delighted; Tertullian in his Prescript, cap. 8. We have no need of Curiosity after Christ, nor further Inquisition after the Gospel. When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond. For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe. Again against Hermog. cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture. And a little after, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina; If it be not written, let him fear that woe appointed for those who add or take away.  
And Saint Austin, in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9 In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt: Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture, are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living; to wit, Hope and Charity.  
For the excellent modification of Scripture, in the 6. chapter, Magnifice igitur & salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret. Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur. And the same in the 7. chapter, for the second Degree or step to Wisdom, He saith, Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate, neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae, sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit; sive non intellectae, quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus: sed cogitare potius & credere id esse melius & verius quod ibi scriptum est, etiamsi lateat, quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus.  
And again, Saint Austin contra Literas, Petit. Lib. 3. cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam nos, nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos, sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scriptures legalibus & Evangelicis accepistis, Anathema sit.  
Consider what is said, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.   

To the Reader. How in these times in which there be so many Religions, the true Religion may certainly be found out.  
1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these days. This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely. And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer, the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent. That this may be done more clearly, I will briefly tell you the Order I intent to observe in the examination of the said answer. And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title; Therefore when I have showed you the Order of that Treatise, you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it.  
2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it. My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface. Again, that Treatise did show five things.  
First, it did show the necessity of a Judge, to whom all are bound to submit.  
Secondly, That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide all necessary Controversies without a living Judge (to the 17. Numb.)  
Thirdly, that this Judge could be no other than the true Church (to the 21. Numb)  
Fourthly, that the true Church is infallible in her judging points of Faith, (to the 17. Numb.)  
Fifthly, That this true Church which is our infallible Judge, is the Roman Church, (to 29 and last Numb.)  
Lastly, followed the Conclusion. My answer therefore must have five more chapters to show the Reply made against that Treatise to be unsatisfactory in every particular argument opposed against me in all these five points.  
3. There might have been added another chapter to examine what my adversary saith concerning the Conclusion of my Treatise. But as he himself (Page 112.) observeth very well, he might have spared his Reply against my Conclusion, because it containeth no new thing appertaining to the main Controversy, but it was made only to show that in the handling of the main Controversy, I had answered all his paper, which I did there run over in order. And therefore in his answers to all I had said about the main Controversy, he had given up his answers to all that which is only run over again in the conclusion. Neither know I any reason that I gave him to fancy (as he saith he doth) that I should either think a good cause wanting to him, or him wanting to a good cause, unless he had answered my Conclusion apart, though something were in it not said before by me and some few things in which I charge him. But Sir, that which I stand upon is the main question and the proof or disproof of it. Nor will I judge so hardly of you as to think you will conceive either my cause worse, or me a worse defender of it, because I tyre not myself and my Reader with our personal debates, when they concern not the main question, in which both of us have been so large. And so as you thought you might have ended when you came to that conclusion, so I think I may well end when I have answered those hundred Pages, and more, which I met with before I come thither, though there still remained something which concerned our private debates. For if that which hath been said before doth not satisfy, no great satisfaction will be added by going on a little further in the same strain in matters less to the matter.   

The first CHAPTER. The Answer to my Preface Confuted.  
1. YOur first words intimate that you fear least your silence should make me seem to myself or others to have got the Victory. Sir, your Reply is most welcome in this respect that it doth more help me then your silence could, not to seem to have got, but really to get that Victory which I desire not to myself, but to truth. For the examination of your Reply will serve for a Touchstone to my Arguments. I will follow you as you desire step after step, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. To show the necessity of treating the matter I had undertaken, I said that such a manner of reading the Scripture as is permitted by you to all sorts of people, with so unlimited a Licence, to interpret them according to their own private judgement of discretion, as a thing most apt to cause a numberless number of Sects and Heresies. A priori this is proved thus. You permit any Artificer, who can read, to take the Bible into his hand, and to take it for his sole, and only judge of all necessary Controversies. And though all the force and efficacy of the words of Scripture consist in the true sense and sincere Interpretation of it, yet when all comes to all you leave this Interpretation to be made by every Reader, though never so unskilful with so great Latitude, that though a General Council of the greatest Doctors which could be gathered together, should have defined such and such a point for undoubted true Doctrine, and to be held so according to Scripture, yet you permit any Cobbler to make a Review of this Decree, and if he hearing all that can be said on the one side and on the other, judgeth at last that the whole Council hath erred in interpreting Scripture, you leave him free to hold himself so strongly to his own interpretation, as if it were the true sense of God's Word; neither will you hear of any Obligation which he hath interiorly to submit his judgement (which is the seat of true faith or error) to any other judge upon earth. For surely if he be left by your Principles so free in the choice of his interpretation of Scripture, as not to be obliged to submit interiorly to a whole General Council, he hath far greater freedom in not being obliged to submit to any other private Doctors. Is not this to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding God's Word, and falling into Heresy?  
Secondly, the same is proved a posteriori in those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted not only to the bare reading, but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow (I still mean when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleged on all sides) there and only there, Sects have multiplied, and do multiply beyond measure.  
3. Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of Heresies, and bad life which followeth Heresy. First it is so far from being contrary to that Text, You err not, knowing the Scripture, that it is most agreeable to it. For a most fit way to err against the knowledge of Scripture, is to permit such, and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures, as are most fit to err in the interpretation of them especially being licenced to cross all Antiquity, and all the Authority of the Church if these stand in their way. And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding, The knowledge of Scripture. If the works of these famous Physicians Galen and Hipocrates, were thrust into all Tradesman's hands, and every one of them were licenced to interpret, as they sincerely thought best, would you call this The knowledge of Physic, especially if every one might be permitted to hold his interpretation against a General Assembly of most learned Physicians? Secondly, you in vain object that of Saint Paul, That the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. Far was it from the intention of Saint Paul, to speak of the Scriptures interpreted by every giddy fancy; for thus they may be the occasion of our damnation. Saint Paul said they were able to make Timothy wise to salvation, because he was a man who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of (to wit, by the Oral tradition of the Doctors of the Church) A man knowing of whom he had learned these things, and these traditions. Let such men read Scriptures, and let them with such interpretations understand them, and they will make them wise to salvation, and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church, and never to contradict that. Thirdly, you say, I confess that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may ground our faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered: Yes, but I also say, that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture. And Saint Peter saith, That many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of Saint Paul. So that misinterpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition. Fourthly you object Heresy and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibility. If I should grant all, what prove you from hence, but that there be other ways to Heresy, and bad life, besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit; So there be other ways to Hell besides Drunkenness, but what doth this hinder drunkenness from being the high way to Hell. Again, had not David, who was a murderer and adulterer; had not Solomon, who was an Idolater, the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing several parts of the Holy Scripture? But to prevent this, and all that else where you do, or can say against the Pope, I (in my 21. Number) desired you, and all to take notice of that which here you quite forget. I said, I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more, then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawful Council cannot err, How then doth the belief or faith of our Church (I speak not of private men's private opinions) invest infallibility in a person heretical or lewd? Those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope can not err in defining out of a general Council, have other Answers to your Objection. But that which you say is nothing against our faith, which no man (though never so little a Frenchman) will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining, out of a general Council. So much for this.  
Whereas I said that we cannot have, as things stand, any other assurance to ground our faith upon then the Church, you tell me, I suppose the question. Sir, I did not suppose, but only propose, what presently I meant to prove. And where as you say, that I do not well consider what I say, when I say, that as things stand we have no other assurance. I answer, That though God might have ordained otherwise, yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points, speaking of the last ground on which we must stand, not a Humane, but a Divine ground, The pillar and ground of Truth; and it is the first, because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as I shall show, Numb. 20. chapter, 3. Neither do we first believe the Church for the Scripture as I shall show, chapter 3. Numb. 31.32. though against those who have first admitted the Scriptures for God's Word, we do prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church. That I have said nothing against the practice of our Church, appeareth by what I said just now, showing how the people deprave the hard places of Scripture to their own perdition.  
5. You charge me with abating from my first Proposition in which I said, Divine Faith in all things was caused by the proposal of the Church, because now I say that when by the infallible authority of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the Word of God, we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture. Good Sir, Do you not see, that if I be asked why I believe (in this case) such a thing, my first answer will be because God hath said it in the Scripture? but if I be pressed further; and why do you believe the Scripture to be Gods undoubted Word? my last answer must be for the infallible authority of the Church by which God teacheth this Verity. Surely the main question that serveth for the knowledge of the ground work of all our faith, is to examine upon what authority at last all our faith doth rely, when all comes to all. Take then the belief of what particular points you please, and examine upon what authority it cometh at last to rely, and you shall ever find it to be the authority of God revealing by the Church.  
6. Now whether my adversary be indeed, as he saith, one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England, or whether he hath showed that Treatise of mine to be no Demonstration; Let the indifferent Reader, after due pondering the force of all Arguments determine. Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you add; The Scripture is infallible, but the Church is not, therefore I must take for the ground of my Faith the Scripture. For first, The Scripture cannot be proved to be God's Word without the Church be infallible, as I shall show, chap. 3. Numb. 20. Hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infallibility sufficient to support this most weighty Article of our faith, That all the Scripture is the Word of God, and therefore though upon her authority I believe Scripture to be most infallible, yet because I ground this belief on her authority, her authority is the last ground of Faith.  
7. And whereas in your next Number, you promise such souls as have forsaken an infallible Church, a happy eternity upon this ground, that those things which are necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture, I pray God their souls come not to be required at your hands. For this ground is most groundless in two respects. First, because no soul can have infallible assurance of the Scriptures being the true Word of God, if the Church be not infallible, and you refusing to stand on this ground make the last ground of all your faith to be I know not what kind of Light, Visible to certain eyes, such as yours are, discovering unto them infallibly, that such and such books be the infallible Word of God. The vanity of which Opinion I shall show chap. 1. Numb. 20.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Secondly, It is most manifestly false, That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, as I show chapter 3.  
8. In your next Paragraph, I find nothing which I have not here answered, only you still force me to say, I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more than to believe, that the Pope defining with a lawful Council cannot err. What proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the authority of the Church. When the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent.  
9 As for your complaint that your paper is not fully answered; I suppose that if any thing of importance was left unanswered you will tell me of it here, that I may here answer it. Concerning my manner in answering of you, I must tell you that St. Thomas, and the chief School Divines, for clarity and brevity, use to proceed thus. Having first proposed the question they put down the reasons which seem to make against the truth. This was done to my hand in your first paper. Then they set down the Truth and the Reasons of it, and this Saint Thomas in his Quaestionibus fasiùs disputatis doth sometimes very largely; (and this I did to your hand in my last paper.) Lastly, they solve the former Objections against truth, by reference to such Reasons as they (in their Proofs) did show the truth to be grounded upon. And this in my conclusion I shown myself to have performed; or, if any little thing were wanting I did supply it; Wherefore, though I had not your consent to proceed thus with your paper, yet I content myself with having the consent of the best Schoolmen. My intention in rejoining by a Treatise was to have this most important matter distinctly, orderly, and fully put down. And by having done so I find this great commodity, that your answer becomes more Methodical, and my Reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous. And the Reader seethe still how orderly the combat is.   

The Second CHAPTER. The necessity of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all are bound to submit.  
1. IN the beginning of your Answer, 
Of my first Number.  to what I said concerning this point, you go about to persuade us, that we Recusants (who upon this account are liable to lose two parts of our Estates, and what else you are, or shall be pleased to take from us, be it goods, liberty or life) that we I say are most likely to take up our Religion by prejudice. Doubtless you must think us first to be very noble contemners of the world, whose greatest commodities do not hinder us, from looking upon even with prejudice, a Religion so manifestly prejudicial to us; and so your own Tertullias saying fitly checks you, for being one who cannot see so manifest Verities as be in our Religion, you persuade yourself to see certain Falsities, which so manifestly be not in it, let us come to the matter.  

Of my second Number.  2. God having made man to a supernatural end to be attained by supernatural means, (among which the first is true faith) it is clear that he must according to his merciful Providence, provide us some way to this faith, so easy, that all (if they pleased) might be brought to the knowledge of it. And because the far greater part of men were ignorant, it beseemed his goodness (who is the Lover of Souls) to provide us such a way as these ignorant men should not be able (unless by wilfully carelessness) to err by it, according to that of the Prophet Esay 35. promising at the coming of the Messiah, A Path and a way which shall be so direct to us that fools cannot err by it. To elude this Text; You say, sure may we be that the Letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their Redemption from Captivity. I answer, if this be sure, then sure it is, That God directeth the Jewish Church by a way so direct that fools could not err by it. And if he did this to the Jewish Church, there can be no good reason why he should be less careful to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ. Whence you see I had no reason to have feared this Interpretation. Yet I think it is sure that this is not the true interpretation, for when did the blind see, deaf hear, when did then God himself come and save us? And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way, as he said, I am the Truth and the Way, this self same Saviour said, I (who am this way) am with you until the consummation of the world, to wit, directing my Church the right way to salvation, of which direction the Church hath no less need now, then then. And as we could not securely have put a limitation to these words of Joel, if Saint Peter had not secured us of the true sense, so cannot you here limit these words, not having the like warrant for it. And as for the first part of Miracles, it is manifest by our Saviour his own words, Those who believed in him should do greater than he had done. If then this Text was Verified after our Saviour's time, you cannot say it is only spoke of his time, and that he did take away a way so necessary for us, His gifts being without Repentance. And it is strange that you thinking this gift Literally conferred to the Jewish Church, should with the same breath plead so hard that it is a gift, which should not in full dimension be always extended to the Church. I cannot believe that you trust your other argument. If this way be promised to the Church, Ergo the Church is not this way. Suppose God had promised the Kingdom of France a Monarchy, Ergo the Kingdom of France (say you) is not this Monarchy. The true consequence is, Ergo, The Kingdom of France is this Monarchy. The Church is this way which God promised it should be. And it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way, and is with his Church ruling it until the continuation of the world. And so Christ is Regula regulans, and the Church Regula regulata. But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the Word of God, and you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedidience. And still I must mind you that I speak of the Universal Church represented in a General Council confirmed by the Supreme Pastor. This Church guiding by her infallible doctrine is this way, the Church Diffusive (guided now by this Doctrine) was promised this Direct way: such a way we were promised, a way so direct represented that fools cannot err by it. The Scripture as some may conceive (for you dare not defend it) is not this way, for we see with our eyes, not only fools, but also most learned men to err grossly, and to follow most contradictory opinions, whilst they profess from their hearts to follow Scripture as near as they can; the Scripture therefore is not this way, yet such a way we must find to make Gods promise good. Nothing then with any probability can be said to be this way, but the Visible Church of Christ. For the Church Invisible as such, is no way according to your Confession. The visible Church than is this Judge; by submission to her judgement we in all things are secured.  

Of my third Number.  3. Whence what you say against my third Number is easily answered. For all Religions agreeing that there must be one Judge of all Controversies which either be, or may be in Religion, they must all give infallibility to their Judge as you yourselves do, affirming Gods written Word to have plainly set down all things necessary to salvation, so that no necessary controversy can spring up but this Judge as you say doth decide it, which how false it is I shall fully show chap. 3. All other Sectaries agreeing with you in this point, I understand not how you could say, that none but we held a Judge infallible. And indeed without an infallible guide every man might proceed as if your faith were fallible, and so give an infallible assent to nothing; I did never say that without such a judge we should be free to follow (without any fault) our private judgement in holding what we will, as you insinuate: but I said, otherwise every man might be free to believe what he judged best, and so we should have as many Religions as there be private and different judgements. Had you put these my words, you had not had a word to say. But you thought good to put such words as you knew how to answer, and to leave out my true words, and to say nothing to the argument by which I proved them. And so that argument still standing in force, all that you say against your own saying is from the purpose.  
4. You add that you do not say we should follow our own judgement of discretion without means of regulating our judgements. But mark how in the next words you take away all means (for to take away all infallible means is to take away all means able to produce an infallible assent to faith) to have us surely guided in matters of faith, for you say, yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils, we cannot resign up our assents to their Dictates upon their account, but do examine (as the Bereans did) which Saint Paul said, until we can find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Holy Scripture: So you far from the spirit of that great Saint Gregory, who said, (Li. 1. Ep. 24.) I do profess myself to reverence the first four Councils as I reverence the four Books of the Gospel. And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council; whosoever is of another mind, let him be an Anatheme. Thus he received all the lawful General Councils, which had been before him, for there were but five. But whereas you will not resign up your assent to the Definitions of Councils, until you first can find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Scripture; I must tell you first, that you will still be strongly pressed, to show upon what infallible principle you take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the undoubted Word of God, and then you shall see how the whole Machine of your religion topleth & tumbleth to the ground; for there cannot be a more groundless ground, 
See of this chap. 3. Numb. 20.  than that ground upon which you (by rejecting the infallible authority of the Church) are forced to build your whole religion, to wit, that you by the mere reading of the Scripture can by its Light (as you discover the Sun by its Light) discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted Word of God, that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to this verity. And it must be a far surer discovery then that by which we discover the Sun by his Light; for this discovery can only ground a natural certainty, the other discovery must ground a supernatural, not certainly, but infallibly. Secondly, I must tell you, that these your proceed to a private review, after you have perused the Definitions of the Councils to examine them until you find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Scripture, (of which resolution you make your private judgements the judge to open awide gap to Heresy, as I have showed in the last chapter, Numb. 2. And for the importance of the matter I will here again further declare in an example which hereafter also will stand me in much use. Let us take an Arrian Cobbler; to this man, this your Doctrine giveth the final review of the Council of Nice, and you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council, (defining God the Son to be of the self same individual substance with his Father) to examine them, until he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture. He doth examine them, and chief how they agree with that text, I and my Father are one, on which Text you 
* Chap. 4. Number 57  afterwards confess the infallibility of this definition to be chief grounded, and therefore St. Athanasius did press it thrice. Now in the examining of the conformity of this definition with this text, the Arrian Cobbler by his poor understanding is easily able to see (that which a wiser man would yet see sooner) that he is put upon a necessity to inquire how God the Son, and his Father are one, whether it be by affection only as Arrians hold, or One in the self same individual substance as the Council defineth, and enquiring this, he calls to his mind that other text, Jo. 17. v. 21. where Christ prayeth, That all his Disciples may be one thing, as thou Father in me, and I in thee. Here will this Cobbler say, (because he hath often been instructed by his own Doctors) Christ, who said, I and my Father are one thing, demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing, as he and his Father are one thing. But he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing, in the self same individual substance; Therefore (he concludes) Christ is not one thing in the self same individual substance with his Father, but one thing in affection only as his Disciples might come to be one thing. False therefore (would he say) is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible Word of God, in which all things necessary to salvation (as this point is) are plainly set down, as this point is not, for this, is the plainest place, and yet conferring it with the other, I find it not evidently agreeing with the Definition of the Council, but rather evidently against it; by which I conclude in this my Review, the Definition of the Council to be false. Most learned Sir, either convince this Cobbler by some clearer Text of Scripture, which I am sure (if this Text fail) is impossible, or else to the eternal good of misled souls, confess, that if once you give private men leave to make a Review of the Definitions of Councils, you can find no means upon earth to put an end unto our endless controversies; the Scriptures alone not sufficing for this end, as I shall show in the next chap. without you take the Scriptures as they send us to the Church bidding us hear her, under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens.  
5. Thirdly, Learned Sir, I must tell you that this your Doctrine maketh the Definition of true Councils, and their final determinations to be indeed no Definitions nor final Determinations at all. For you make all those great Fathers of the Church to assemble themselves, from so remote parts of the world, only to talk and discourse about such and such points in controversy, and to leave the controversies themselves undefined, and undermined, to be finally defined and determined only by those places of Scripture; which places as they could not before the meeting of the Councils, so they cannot after the meeting of the Council fully define, determine, and decide these controversies. Now surely it is clear by these Acts of the first four Councils (which Councils your English Church holds for lawful) that the Fathers of these Councils never so much as doubted, but that they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define, and finally to determine those controversies still arising. And they had grievously wronged the world by Excommunicating all such as should gainsay what they had defined and determined, if Error and Falsity, and Contradiction to Scripture could have been found in their Definitions and Determinations. What you touch concerning the Bereans, I answer fully, chap. 3. Numb. 14.  
6. Whereas you add fourthly, That the decisions of the Church, though unprovided of infallibility, do yet oblige unto peace, though their judgement cannot claim an undisputed assent, yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference; you teach by words, what the deeds of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid. Secondly, seeing that a general Council (as you in your first paper confess) is the highest Court on Earth, to hear and determine Controversies, if her determinations may be erroneous, and these erroneous determinations be to be accepted peaceably, reverently, and without disturbance; in what a pitiful case should Gods whole Church be, which having no higher Court, from which relief might be hoped, is bound to conform and subscribe to erroneous definitions; and all preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouth against these errors. Did it beseem the wisdom of Christ to appoint such a Government in his Church, which should leave open so wide a gap to errors, which being by command from the highest authority on earth, preached by so many, and not so much as contradicted by one, must needs increase to a wonderful height. Would any wise Lawmakers proceed thus, if they could help it as well as Christ could, by continuing in his Church that infallibility which you will confess it had those two thousand years before Scripture was written, and which this Church of Christ had before all the whole Canon of the New Testament was finished, which was for the first forty years of the Church.  
7. Vain is your fear that we should become Hypocrites in differing by one outward Act from our inward act of belief, for any wise man may inwardly persuade himself, although I by my force of wit, cannot see how such a point defined by a whole general Council should be true; yet if I have wit, I cannot but persuade myself even according to humane wisdom, that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth then my private judgement; and therefore rather to be interiorly embraced. Again, I may discourse thus. All the places alleadgeable against the Definitions of Councils, or of Scriptures, be places clear or not clear; if not clear, then clearly I am imprudent and impudent to oppose, in a point not clear, my private judgement of discretion against the public judgement of all Christendom, far more likely in a point not clear to hit upon the truth than I am. Now if these places alledgable against the Definitions of Councils be clear and evident, it is an evident and clear folly in me, to think that so wise an Assembly should have so universal a blindness, as that none of them should be able to discover that which is clear and evident even in my short sight: See chap. 4. Numb. 51. Again I may and aught to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall show, chapter 4 Numb. 28.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. And this Principle will beat down to the ground all Opposition which an humble soul can make, who will captivate her understanding in this case unto the obedience of faith as the Apostle speaketh.  
8. And when you ask me, wherein you oppose general Councils? I answer, First that you oppose them even in that most fundamental ground, upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to set as Judges, with full Commission to determine securely all controversies, obliging all Christians to conform to their Definitions by such Censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven. Others will tell you divers other Oppositions you have with Councils, and even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions. But when you come to speak your mind more largely, you do your uttermost endeavours to make the world think that they have not sufficient assurance that any Council was as yet a Lawful General Council. I need no further proof of these your endeavours then all those manifold Objections which you put, and I answer in my 4. chapter Numb. 20.21.  
9 And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposite to the true Catholic Church? I answer, Christ had in all ages since his time, a true Catholic Church, and consequently he had such a Church upon earth when your Reformation (as you call it) began. But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many, and very important points of doctrine, not only the Roman, but all other Churches upon earth: Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholic Church in many, and very important points. And in plain English I tell you, this argument (which is in lawful form) is unanswerable. And when you say, that when you differ without opposition you keep the peace of the Church without question. I answer, That your Reformers did apparently in many and most important points differ from all Churches Christ had then upon the Earth, in opinion of public Doctrine; censuring such and such Points as they all held, to be Erroneous, Superstitious, opposite to the Word of God; and in this opposition you continue still, though in this whole age you have not been able to name one age in this last thousand years, in which Christ had a truly Catholic Church upon Earth, agreeing with you in those many and most important points in which your Reformers taxed us to have opposed the Scriptures. And as for exterior division you cannot name the Church upon earth from which you did not divide yourselves at your Reformation. And I challenge you to tell me if you can, to what Church on Earth then visible you did join yourselves, or who acknowledged you to be of their communion?  
10. To prove yet further that we are not bound to submit our judgements to the Church, you use (as you say) my own argument, That we are bound to submit our judgement only to those who can judge of the inward act. But Sir, I never said any such thing, for how know we whether the Scripture Writers, or the Apostles themselves did know (without which knowledge they could not judge) of the interior Acts of all men, from their time to the end of the world? and yet all these men, upon due Proposition of their Doctrine, are obliged to submit their interior acts to their Doctrine. But I said that which you had rather a mind to mistake, than answer. For I said, That Christ should have left a very miserable Church, and should have gathered a most heart-dis-united sort of people, if after the reading of Scriptures (after which they wrangle so fiercely) He had left them no other Judge but their own private judgements subject to such variety in understanding the Scriptures; what Lawmaker (said I) was ever so inconsiderate as to leave only a Book of Laws to his Commonwealth without any living Judge, to whom all were to submit; Then I added, True it is, that to submit exteriorly to Temporal Judges sufficeth, they being able only to judge of the exterior man. Did I say this of general Councils? No, did I not, as it were to prevent your Objection, expressly add, But God (in whose name the Church teacheth, and commandeth all which she teacheth and commandeth) searcheth the heart and the reins and looketh upon the mind (which is the seat of true or false belief;) This God, I say, chief exacteth that those of his Church be of one faith interiorly, or else they be not of one faith; for faith essentially consisteth in the interior judgement. He hath all reason to exact that interiorly they be all of one faith. For he could not seriously have desired their salvation, without he required of them (by way of most rigorous obligation) to do that which is so wholly necessary to salvation, that without it no man is saved. For without true faith it is impossible to please God. This and much more to this effect, I press there hotly, and yet I am not so much as answered coldly.  
11. But you skip to my admiration at your doctrine which indeed giveth a very admirable licence to any Cobbler to peruse the Decrees of general Councils, and to reject them too, if in his review of them he doth not find them Resolved into the infallible text of clear Scripture. Of which Doctrine I have already spoken fully (Num. 4.) And I think I had reason to say that the wisest man in the world is then most likely to err, when, in his interior judgement he goeth quite contrary to all Christendom. Of this I have given a very clear Reason here in my 7. Number, which will stop your mouth from calling every where, to have me prove the Church's infallibility until you come to my 4 chapter; or if it doth not, I must desire you in this place to turn unto it. And in the very next chapter I shall show, that (though the Scripture be most infallible) yet it is not sufficient by itself alone unless you take it as it sends us to the Church) to decide all controversies. As for Saint Athanasius, did ever he oppose his judgement against the Definition of a lawful general Council? Nay, did it not appear by the Council of Nice, standing for his Doctrine, that he might well know the true Church lawfully assembled under the lawful Pastor confirming their Acts would teach as he taught. And because he knew this authority (relying on the assistance of the Holy Ghost) to be more than humane, he might well oppose a greater human authority.  
By the way it is strange you should carp at us for calling ourselves Roman Catholics, as if say you, no others were Catholics, whereas to avoid this very strife impertinent now to our purpose, I used that very name by which no others are excluded. And in this impertinent strife you say many things of which you prove not one.  
12. I pass to that which is pertinent to the purpose, that it is a very desperate consequence flowing from the premises of your Doctrine, permitting any private person so to peruse the Definitions of Councils, that he might freely reject them in his private judgement (which is the seat of all Faith) if he judged them not to be resolved into the infallible authority of Scripture, upon this ground, that we have nothing infallible but the Texts of Scripture, For these Texts being not able to decide all necessary controversies (I still add unless you take them as they send us to the Church by themselves, as I shall fully show in the next Chapter, it is clear that we shall remain disputing without end, or possibility of end, unless God hath given an infallible assistance to the Church; wherefore not to grant such an absurdity, we are necessitated to expound those Scriptures, promising that Christ will be with his Church unto the end of the world, That he will send them the Spirit of Truth to abide with them to teach them all Truth, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. That we must hear her under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens, That she is the Pillar and ground of Truth, and divers others of which I speak, chapter 4. to be extended to an infallible assistance, for an assistance joined with fallibility will still leave us jarring, as appears by our own Doctrine.  
13. Being loath to stand too long to such a consequence, you make a long impertinent discourse about the perusal of the collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers, of all Ages, every where. Good Sir, tell me what connexion hath the perusal of every judgement, of every Father, of every Age, every where, with that Obligation which I put of following these Cannons of Councils which make to the decisions of those most known controversies about which we contend? Is the judgement of every Father of every Age, the judgement of a general Council? Why then do you run yourself out of breath in inpugning that which is nothing to our purpose, and which I never spoke of, rather than in holding close to the matter. But since you first bring the authority of Councils to a little more than nothing, and here again the authority of the Fathers, to a little less than nothing, in order to the ending of controversies; this your violence against any provocation, to Antiquity, and consent of Fathers, Will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning appeared possible. For it is evident out of your own words that it is to no end to deal with you out of Fathers, and I am resolved to deal with no body but to some end. I will therefore humour you in this, and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the Opinion of Fathers. But do not think that I do this, as if that what you here said against the authority of Fathers, found any credit with me, or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered. For you yourself cannot be ignorant that we allege plenty of such Holy Fathers against you, as are confessed by yourselves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church. And we find sufficient of their works which have not perished, never taxed by any (but confessed Heretics) to be erroneous in these points in which they hold with us, whereas their small errors used presently to be discovered, and cried down. We find also sufficient plenty of such works as never were suspected to be bastard pieces, or to have been corrupted; And it would make a learned man amazed to ask, as you do, How few of them have touched upon our differences? Are you ignorant that our learned Coccius hath filled a great, and a very great double ●ome only with the words of Holy Father's opposite to your Doctrine in those points in which we differ. Gualterus did single out twelve points (in which our chief differences do consist.) And he showeth (in his Chronicle at the end of every age from Christ's time to this,) sufficient plenty of Holy Fathers, to Demonstrate, what the prime Pastors of the Church (followed by the people,) did believe in every one of those Ages, concerning these very prime points, in which we differ from you. The Author of the Progeny of Catholics and Protestants, handling a part all our main differences, doth in all these points, give you the very words, of your own chief Doctors, clearly acknowledging a great number of Holy Fathers, directly opposite unto them in each one of those points. Do but please to look at the end of this Author upon his Table of Books and Chapters, and you may find that which I have said verified, in what point or points you please. Groundless then is the whole Discourse against arguing out of Holy Fathers. And indeed your Doctors would fain dispute out of Scriptures only, because they find it to be true that the Scriptures alone cannot decide many Controversies, but by some Interpretation or other they think themselves able to elude the force of arguments drawn from Scriptures only: the say which are not in Scripture, are in no case receivable by them, whereas indeed, there is no good got by disputing of Texts of Scriptures, but either to make men sick or mad, as our adversaries may daily see by their fruitless Scripture combats with the Anabaptists, the Sabatharians, and other upstart Sectaries. But the Church of God is the King's high way, by which a man is sure to travail to truth. There ought therefore to be no appealing to Scriptures, nor disputing out of them only, since by that means, either neither side will be victorious, or it is a hazard whether. These things you might have learned from the ancient Fathers if you had regarded their Doctrine, yet since their authority hath so low a place in your esteem in order to finding out the truth, to humour you, I will lay aside all that might be said out of the Fathers.  
I cut then off (by your own consent) all you say concerning S. Cyprian, and the Crisis of S. Austin concerning S. Cyprian; yet have I a great mind to tell you that S. Austin expressed exceeding well that Humility and Charity be those two virtues which made S. Cyprian (and aught to make us) submit to general Councils, as a prime part of our bounded duty; humility, wheresoever it is found is the Actus imperans of a most submissive Obedience to the Orders of those, whom under pain of damnation we are to obey. Because the Devils had not this Humility in submitting themselves to God, and the obedience due to him, their Rebellion is ascribed to pride, which for the same reason is styled, The Mother of Heresy. Now as Humility bringeth with her this necessary submission in the interior, so Charity is the Virtue which will be sure to see that peace and Unity be kept exteriorly in the Church. Grant this submission to all Councils and we have done.  

Of my fourth and fifth Number.  15. God on his part hath given us an excellent means to be surely guided in our interior (in which faith consists) by following the Church the King's high way surely leading to Truth; take away this means (recommended so often for this end by Scripture) and you shall see how pitifully we are left unprovided in order to exterior Unity. But you press to have my discourse to this effect drawn into a syllogism, which you do for me. But I hope to do it yet more clearly for myself in this manner. Under pain of damnation all are bound to agree in this; that every one interiorly giveth an infallible assent to all such points as are necessary to be believed for salvation. But all can never be brought to agree in giving interiorly this infallible Assent to all such points, without they submit their Assent to some living Judge endued with infallibility: Therefore all can never be brought to agree in that, in which they are bound to agree under pain of damnation, without they all submit their interior assent to some living Judge endued with infallibility. The first Proposition is clear; because all are obliged to please God, and to have that faith, without which it is impossible to please God. The second Proposition is proved thus. An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority, and no other infallible authority sufficient to breed this agreement in their interior assent to all points necessary, can be assigned but the authority of the Church. The Authority of the Scripture, though infallible doth not give us clear Texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation, as I shall show in the next chapter. And we see with our eyes those who submit to this authority of Scripture as infallible, to disagree mainly in these very points; for one thinketh in his conscience these Scriptures to be understood one way, another thinketh in his conscience they are to be understood one other way, & this other is licenced by you to differ from the former, for you licence such a man to differ even from the greatest authority upon Earth, to wit, a general Council, much more easy must you be to licence him to differ from an other private man: and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other. What possible means is here of Union in the interior man in which faith only doth consist. What you add of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture only, is in this sense true, that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church, not that Scripture alone by herself endeth all our controversies as partly hath been proved, but shall now more copiously be performed in my next chapter, in which you shall find all that you add in this place presently answered, after I have fully set down the state of the question.   

The third CHAPTER. That seeing Scripture alone doth not decide all things necessary to salvation, there must be a living Judge.  
1. YOu deliver your Opinion in your answer to my third Number page 12. As towards controversies we say that Christ hath sufficiently provided for the salvation of man in regard of means of Knowledge without an infallible Judge on Earth, because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture. And in another place you say, what is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary. Of this your opinion no proof was given by you until you come unto this present place. Here than I will begin to discuss this Question: And first I will take leave to state this Question a little more fully, and distinctly.  
2. Your Assertion then is, That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture. In this Assertion there be 2 things which need a full and distinct declaration. The first is to declare these words, Necessary to salvation. The second to declare those other words, Plainly set down in Scripture. And first concerning those words Necessary to salvation, they must of necessity be understood so, that all things are plainly set down in Scripture, which are necessary. First, to the Universal Church as it is a community. Secondly, all things which are necessary to all States, and Degrees that must needs be in this community. Thirdly, all things necessary to every single person bound to be of this community. As for the first, the Church being intended to be a community diffused through the whole World, and intended for a Perpetuity, 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; and what power these Pastors have either in respect of one another, or in respect to their particular flocks, and what Laws they may make, either single in regard of their flocks, or assembled in regard of the whole community; and how many, to this effect must be assembled; who must call their assembly, who perside in it, when it is to be accounted lawful when an unlawful assembly. Whether the Precepts of this assembly oblige under pain of damnation, to the keeping (for Example) of any Feast, as Christmas, Ascension, or any Fast, as the Fast of Lent, of Christmas Eve, and to this community it is also necessary to know what public service may and aught to be imposed upon all, and when all are bound to be present at it. What Sacraments are to be administered, by whom, when the people are bound to use them, and how often, and in what manner and form they must be Administered. All these things are necessary to the Church as a community, and yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture, whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians, all undecidable by Scripture. Some of you contend according to Scripture that there must be Bishops with such and such Power and Authority, and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons, and without these no true Sacraments, things so necessary to the salvation of all men. Others answer in the words of your own doctrine, What is not plainly delivered in Scripture, is thereby signified not to be necessary. But it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authority. That Priests should be Ordained with such and such a Form, that none but Priests should have Power to bless the Bread, administer the Sacraments; That this Bread must be Wheat-bread or Barley, or Oaten or Pease-bread. Therefore all these things are signified not to be necessary. The same Argument might be made of other such like Controversies, which certainly be no less necessary than the former to be decided; Though according to their Doctrine none of them should be necessary; Or, if necessary, they should be decidable by plain Scripture, and then your Doctors could not jar about them, as they do. Some of you will have no words at all necessary to the Administration of Baptism, some will have such kind of words, and others, words very different from them in substance.  
Secondly, to speak now of such things as are of strict necessity to certain men, of certain states and degrees in the Church. Your Bishops must know how to ordain Priests, and with what form of words or actions. Where shall they find this plainly set down in Scripture? They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptise at all, or baptise in necessity only, and not out of it? Whether they may permit women or lay-men to bless the bread, and distribute the Sacrament, seeing that Christ said, Do this all; not plainly expressing how far these his words extended themselves. Priest's must know what kind of Ordination is necessary for their Function, what commission is necessary for their lawful Missions, and whether it can be granted by Laymen, or no? as also their power to make and administer Sacraments, and yet none of these are plainly set down in Scripture, and endless controversies there be about them.  
4. Thirdly, divers of the former things not set down plainly in Scripture, are necessary to be known by all men all being obliged to serve God in a true Church, having a lawful succession of true Pastors truly ordained themselves, and truly ordaining their Priests, who must be known to Administer true Sacraments in their true matter and form, preaching also the Word of God by lawful Mission. It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and do somethings, and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture. Every one is to believe some things distinctly. Now which these things be, or how many, Scriptures express not. Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday. Every one is bound not to have two wives at one time, not also to marry within such and such a degree of consanguinity. Where be all these things plainly set down in Scripture? Of divers other things we shall yet say more. Yet even hence appeareth how many endless difficulties these words of yours Necessary to salvation bring with them.  
5. Other endless difficulties be superadded by those other words Plainly set down in Scripture. First, to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture, so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sense of it, I must first know such a book to be the true, and undoubted Word of God, which (as I shall show, Numb, 20.) cannot be known by Scripture, at least by those who can truly swear that they are no more able, by the reading of the book of Numbers for example, to discover in it any Divine Light, showing it to be true Scripture, more than they discover in the books of Judith or Toby showing them to be true Scripture. Secondly, they must infallibly show that this very Verse, in which I find this point is not thrust in among other true parts of Scripture, or some word changing the sense, either thrust in, or left out in this Verse; and this they must know infallibly. Thirdly, after all this they must yet further know, and that infallibly, whether these true and uncorrupted words of Scripture be taken in this place in their common sense, or taken Figuratively, or spoken mystically of some other thing. Now how is it possible by Scripture only to come to have an infallible knowledge of this, for it dependeth merely on the secret free will of God to use these words here either Mystically or Figuratively, or in their plain vulgar sense. To know, and that infallibly, This secret freewill of God, I must have a Revelation, and such a one as no doubt can be made of it. Where find I this Revelation in Scripture? Fourthly, your learned Sanctius, De Sacra Scriptura, (Col. 409.) having said, That Holy Scripture in these things which are necessary to salvation is clear; he assigns no fewer than nineteen Rules necessary to the true knowledge thereof; besides the having the Spirit of God, and the reading the Scripture attentively, and the understanding the words and places thereof. And Scharpius in Cursu Theologico de Scriptoribus controvers. 8. P. 44. assigneth twenty Rules for the understanding the Scripture, which unless they be kept we cannot but err. But surely it is very easy to keep them. No such matter; For he exacts to know Original Languages to discuss the words, Phrases, and Hebraisms, to confer the places which are like, and unlike to one another, etc. Tell me now, do all these, and the former Rules, show a plain, easy way to infallibility; especially, we having no sure knowledge that all these fallible Rules, will at last produce infallibility. Good God Is this the way promised to be so direct unto us that fools cannot err by it. Fifthly, I must add a saying of your so much esteemed Chillingworth, who (in his preface Numb. 30.) saith, No more certain Sign that a point is not evident, then when honest, and understanding, and indifferent men, and such as give themselves Liberty of Judgement, after mature consideration of the matter, do differ about it. About how many points do you, and your Brothers differ? which I have in this Chapter shown to be points mainly necessary to Salvation, which according to this Rule of knowing what is evident, what not, are evidently not set down plainly in Scripture: And to speak the plain truth, this ground upon which you, and yours are still forced to stand, so to withstand the necessity of one Infallible living Judge, seemeth a plain Paradox.  
6. In one sense (as I have often noted) we still grant all things necessary to Salvation to be set down in Scripture, to wit, in these Texts in which the Scripture bids us Hear the Church, and that under pain of being accounted (by a sentence ratified in Heaven) Publicans and Heathens, and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her; by any false Doctrine, that She is Pillar and Ground of Truth; That the Holy Ghost abideth with her for ever teaching her all Truth, That God's Spirit shall not departed from the Mouth of her seed, nor her seeds seed. And such like places which I shall in due place (Chap. 4. Num. 58. to 64.) show, most forcibly to prove this verity. And the very reading of them, showeth them to be no less plain, and clear to this purpose, than those places, which you cry out to be evident for the proof of every point which is necessary to salvation. And I am sure you can bring no such evident Texts for all, yea, for any of these points, which I have already said in this chapter not to be evidently set down in Scripture, though they be of prime necessity, as others also which I shall by and by add. The Scripture alone by itself, (in which sense you speak) doth not (as these places will demonstrate) set down all things necessary to salvation, yet she setteth down (and that first more clearly than she doth set down many such necessary points) a Command to go to the Church for our full instruction. So Saint Paul was taught all things necessary for his knowledge by those few words, (Act 9.6.) Go into the City, and it shall be told what thou must do. That all might see this City of the Church, he placed it on a Mountain, whence all necessary points are delivered from a living Oracle, speaking so distinctly, that no doubt can remain of the true sense, or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance, this doubt will presently be cleared by some new Declaration, authentically notified unto us by our Pastors and Doctors which God gave us (as the Scripture saith) That we should not be Children wavering and carried about with the wind of false doctrine with circumvention of error.  
7. But to go on with your Assertion, all things necessary to salvation (say you) are plainly set down in Scripture. This is your main foundation of Faith, making you not only to take Scriptures, but to take Scriptures only, and nothing but Scriptures for the ground of your Faith, this ground I say must needs, be plainly set down in Scripture, otherwise according to your own words, What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary. Again, if this be not plainly set down in Scripture, it will remain uncertain to us, whether God did intended to have all such necessary things taught us by the Scripture taken by itself alone; or whether God intended the Scripture for divers other ends, provinding sufficiently for this end by sending us to the Church for our further instruction. That than which I call for again, and again, is to have plainly set down to me in Scripture, that God intended by the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone, to teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation: show me the Texes.  
8. You go about to show me them. And first you press the second time that of Saint Paul to Timothy, 2.15, 16. Take for my first answer that which I gave you when you first alleged this place, chap. 1. Numb. 3. And you must pardon me if I say that place speaketh of Scriptures interpreted by the Church, to whom I think it is fit to give this Office, then to let every Cobbler usurp it as I have showed you do, chap. 1. Numb. 2. and chap. 2. Numb. 4. the Scriptures thus profaned, and by such interpretations truly discanoned (as I may say) are rather subject to that effect which Saint Paul his Epistles, (according to St. Peter) had with some men, that is, they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters: where (by the way) you are again to take notice, that St. Peter saith, Interpreters depraved those places of Saint Paul to their damnation, though these places were hard, as Saint Peter saith, and consequently these places, did not (according to you doctrine) contain points necessary to salvation. Whence you see that your proceed in allowing much liberty of Interpretations even in hard points may easily prove damnable. It was then true which I told you in another place. That though the Scripture be a most right Rule, yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied, that we stand in need of a better security of the interpretation of it (in which the very carnel of the Letter doth consist) than we have of the interpretation (finally stood unto) made by the private judgement of our own discretion. I know your Answer is that it is accidental to this Rule to be misapplied, and that this cannot infringe the authority of Scripture. It doth not indeed infringe the Authority of Scripture used as God would have it used, with due submission to the public interpretation of his Church. Otherwise, not for want of infallibility in Scripture, but by the abundance of fallibility in our private judgements of discretion, it followeth, that we poor creatures, shall be subject to be misled most pitifully, without God doth provide us of an infallible interpreter. Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scriptute then Saint Peter spoke of Saint Paul's Epistles. Nothing more clear than that the words of Scripture are capable of several senses, and when the senses be several, it must needs depend upon the inward and most secret intention of God to have had an intention to use these words to such or such a sense only, or to both if he pleased. How shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention but by an interpreter, having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit, who assisted those who did write the Scripture. Wherefore we cannot but wonder to see, how much scope you give to such poor creatures as ignorant men are, by thrusting the whole Bible into every man's hands, and investing him with so ample a faculty to interpret it, without any interior submission to the Church (although the interior judgement be the very seat of damnable error, or saving Truth) that he may follow in his judgement what he shall sincerely judge to be truest. In so much, that he may in his own interpretation, stand out in his judgement, against the interpretations of whole General Councils. And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister. And any Minister of the Gospel say you (but I must not say, (Any General Council) is able competently, through the Scripture to direct the People to their happiness. And the Scripture was inspired to this purpose. Happy Ministers! Happy people led so securely! Only unhappy misled people are we, who had rather say, The Scripture was inspired, that through it General Councils might securely direct the people to their happiness, then say with my good adversary, any Minister of the Gospel is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happiness, And the Scriptures were inspired to this purpose. Do but allow me this to the Church, that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people their happiness, and we will not contend with you whether this competent direction to happiness shall be called an infallible direction or no: though we think it most certain, that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happiness. Now because by the way, I did say our Church could not err in damnative errors, you conceive me to grant that it may err in points not damnative. No Sir, when I said these words, I did only take, and subsume that, which you yourselves most commonly grant unto the Church, that it cannot err in damnative matters. This alone giveth her a main advantage over any Minister or any private Interpreter. This alone giveth a demonstrable reason, why we should not follow our own interpretations, which may be damnative; as those interpretations were which some men made of Saint Paul's Epistles to their own perdition, as Saint Peter saith. And surely such Interpretations are then likely to be damnative when they are flatly contrary to the Interpretations of the Church. What Commission the Church had for her infallibility I shall show in due place.  
And to show it more fully I will press again your Text and give a second answer unto it by answering the words following, which are. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and it is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction (so your Bible reads) for instruction in righteousness. Is it given by Inspiration? yes. What prove you from hence, but that you and yours have a notable Talon in not concluding contradictorily. You should conclude thus. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. But all Doctrine given by Inspiration from God containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation. Therefore all Scripture contains plainly all things necessary to salvation, & it doth this taking the word, Necessary, and the word plainly as I have showed they must be taken in the beginning of this chapter. Well but you will hit of it by and by, after three or four Consequences of no Consequence. For you go thus on, Is not all Scripture profitable for Doctrine? Yes, in a high Degree it teacheth most eminent Virtues, and among other Virtues it teacheth most wholesome submission, and obedience to the Church, and by her all things necessary for salvation. And thus the Scripture by herself alone is very profitable. But Sir, I expected a Contradictory Conclusion. Deduce me from these words, this Consequence Ergo, God intended by the Scriptures alone to teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation, or all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture still understanding these words as I in the beginning shown they must be understood. Go on. Is it not profitable for reproof? Yes Sir. But where is the contradictory Conclusion I expected? Is it not profitable for correction? Yes. But I want still this Contradictory Conclusion. Is it not profitable for instruction in Righteousness? Yes. And now all your Powder is spent, and you have not hit the mark, for I have not yet the Contradictory Conclusion I so long expected. Hear now a true Contradictory Conclusion against yourself out of this Text. That which in this Text is said only to be profitable for these ends, is not thereby said to be sufficient even to these ends, and yet much less sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to Salvation by itself alone. But the Scripture in this Text, is only said to be profitable to these ends here expressed. Therefore it is not hereby said to be sufficient and that by itself alone even to these ends, and much less by itself alone sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation, plainly setting down what is to be held in all things necessary to Salvation. Again (for a third answer.) You cannot say St. Paul spoke these words of the New Testament, which for some forty years, after Saint Paul spoke these words was not finished. Therefore Saint Paul in this Text doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture, whence he is most weakly cited to prove from hence that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation. Again when this is proved, it is manifest, that part of the whole Canon is lost. How then know you that some necessary points, not delivered in other parts of Scripture, were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which have perished, and so are come not to be extant in writing? I desire your Answer to this Question.  
Your second Text to prove this is Hebrews. 4, 12. The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit, and it is a discoverer of the thoughts and the intents of the heart. Here is the Text, but where is the contradictory conclusion inferring, and that evidently, That it is plainly set down in Scripture, that the Scripture by itself alone is sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies? You argue thus. If you say the Word of God is a dead Letter it cannot speak, it is denied. If you say the Word of God cannot act, it is denied it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Sir, What if I say the Word of God speaks and speaks clearly many most profitable things, and that it sets down many most rare examples of Virtue, with excellent Principles, and Documents, and incitements to the same in a manner most forceable to strike fire out of a flinty heart; do I not, when I say this, say all that you have said? And when I have said all this, where is that evident consequence directly concluding, That all controversies necessary to salvation are plainly decided by Scripture alone? But to come at last to this Consequence you tell me, If you say it cannot decide Controversies what is said here? It is sharper than any two edged sword. But good Sir, I pray, to what use is the Word of God said to be sharper than any two edged sword? can you show me any one clear, and evident syllable in this Text, telling me plainly, that this sharpness is in order, not only to decide Controversies, but also all necessary Controversies, and to do this by itself alone. Where is then your contradictory Conclusion? But I will from hence directly conclude, that according to your own doctrine Saint Paul could not say in this Text, that the Word of God, is by itself alone sufficient to decide all necessary controversies, which I prove. The Word of God according to your own doctrine was not sufficient to decide all necessary controversies before the whole Canon of the Scripture was completely finished. But Saint Paul said this of the Word of God before the Canon of the Scripture was completely finished; Therefore Saint Paul said this of the Word of God before the Word of God, was of itself alone sufficient to decide all necessary controversies. Therefore, than it had been false to say the Word of God had been sufficient to this end. Therefore St. Paul did not then say so. Again those words spoke not of the Word of God blunted with those interpretations which your opinion licenseth, but of the Word of God applied according to the Divinely-spirited interpretation of the Church, in whose hands, hands guided by the Holy Ghost, this Word of God is so managed for the decision of controversies, that it is sharper than any two edged sword. For her declarations of Scripture be not fallible, but proceed from the same Spirit by which the Scripture was made as I shall show. And so here is no fear of missing the right interpretation. You may securely submit your interior assent to the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Where this guidance is neglected, there we see with our eyes controversies in most main points daily multiplied, and yet the Bible daily consulted, and not one of those Controversies so much as lessened, but still increased more and more. In these days he must put out his eyes who will not see this.  
11. I have now answered the Texts you alleged in this place, but to the end that all the Texts, which you thought fittest to allege to prove the most important Verity, may here be mustered up together, and their whole force appear to the full, I will set down here all the Texts which you allege to this purpose. You then (page 52. in your answer to my 14. Numb.) urge, that Christ biddeth us search the Scriptures. But Sir, first you are to prove that these words clearly and evidently must of necessity be taken in the Imperative Mood, for without you do this, you can never prove evidently from hence that they contain a Command, and to prove this, especially evidently, is impossible. Because both the Greek and the Latin word is as truly and properly, and vulgarly the Indicative Mood as the Imperative, and our English Translator might, if he had pleased, most faithfully have translated these words thus you do search the Scriptures. And Saint Cyril holdeth this to be the true sense L. 3. in Jo. C. 4. and your own great Dr. Beza holds the same. Secondly, suppose your Translator hath hit upon the right sense, and that Christ did indeed bid them search the Scriptures, because they clearly testify that one point when he was the Messiah, yet all this will help you to make no better consequence than you made before. And what a pretty conclusion is this. Christ bids us search the Scriptures because they testify clearly that one point of which he spoke; Therefore the Scriptures testify clearly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversy necessary to salvation. And no better is this consequence, Christ biddeth us search the Scriptures, therefore we are to attend them alone, we are not to attend to the Voice of John, nor the Voice from Heaven biding all to hear him, not to his own preaching, and miracles. Is not this also a good consequence? Saint Paul saith, if Women will learn any thing let them ask their Husbands at home, 1 Cor. 14.35. Ergo, women are not to learn of the Ministers of the Church.  
12. Your fourth Text is, You err not knowing the Scriptures. Good Sir, give me now a Contradictory Conclusion. Shall it be this, Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture; or rather this; Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture; For this is the far stronger consequence from these words. For had all things been plainly set down, they should not have erred; But they erred, Therefore all things were not plainly set down. Again, they might err in the knowledge of the Scriptures, because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretations, which is the most ready way to error, especially when men oppose the public Interpretation of the Church, as I shown chap. 1. Numb. 3. last words saith the Bereans.  
13. Your first Text, is 2 Pet 1. v. 19 We have also a more sure word of Prophecy, whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place until the day dawn and the Daystar arise in your souls. Your proof from this Text is just as weak, as the proof from the last Text but one; for just as that Text, so also this saith that, that one point, of Jesus his being the true Son of God, and the Messiah, might clearly be found in the Scripture. How will you infer? Ergo All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, because one thing is plainly set down. Every Verity set down in Scripture is a most sure infallible Verity. But, whence have you that every Verity necessary to salvation is set down in the Scripture? And yet again, where have you that all things necessary to Salvation were then set down plainly in Scripture when Saint Peter spoke these words, which he spoke many years before the whole Canon of Scripture was finished? But before the whole Canon was finished it was false to say, All things necessary to salvation were clearly set down in Scripture; Therefore if Saint Peter had said this in this Text, he had said that which was false, Therefore, It is false that Saint Peter said in this Text, that all things necessary to salvation were plainly set down in Scripture.  
14. Your next and last Text is Act. 17. where it is said of the Bere●●s, They received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Good Sir, whilst this text is now fresh in our minds, show me here any one evident clear syllable which saith, the Bereans did search the Scriptures before they believed Saint Paul. Nay is it not first said, They received the Word with all readiness of mind, to wit, they received the Word as many other thousands did (whose proceed you can never prove less laudable than the Bereans) upon those Motives which Saint Paul proposed unto them, before they searched the Scriptures, and being by these motives and instructions well enlightened to understand the Scriptures, they for their further comfort and confirmation searched the Scriptures daily to see whether they testified the same point: and this one point of our Saviour's coming, being clearly in Scripture, perhaps Saint Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it. Neither hence is it made evident that the Old Testament was thrust into every man's hand of the Bereans, but that they deputed their chief Doctors to make this search, and that for this one point only. Whence (as I said before) your consequence from hence is very weak; That all points necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, because this one point was so. Yea, when the Bereans did search the Scriptures, no part of the New Testament was written, how strangely then do you prove from their search of the Old Scripture to find one point set down clearly, that all points necessary to be found are set down plainly, now the new Scripture is written.  
15. Having now examined all the Texts upon which you did ground that main point, that all things necessary to decide all controversies are plainly set down in Scripture, and having found this point no where plainly set down, I from hence plainly conclude, that the belief of this point is not plainly necessary; And I conclude this by your own words, That what is not plainly set down in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary; We are not therefore obliged to take the Scripture for our only Judge of controversies, for where is this Obligation plainly set down in Scripture? And for aught we can yet see there may be many prime controversies no no where plainly decided, yea or so much as lightly insinuated in Scripture. And yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable controversies, because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church, built upon a Rock the pillar and ground of truth, having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truths? Frivolous is that Objection which saith, If it be a point necessary to salvation to believe that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our controversies we should find this plainly set down in Scripture. Because as we have proved all this while, all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture, even such points as might import the ending of all controversies: to wit this your grand point, All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture; Yea the Texts which I bring chap. 4. are a hundred times more clear to prove that the Church is to decide all our controversies, then that the Scripture by itself alone is to decide them, as any man may see by the attentive reading of these my Texts there and your Texts here. See there Numb. 58. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65.  
16. Though it might evidently serve to prove against you, That all things necessary to Salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture, that this very prime point is not plainly set down in Scripture, yet I have already in the beginning of this Chapter brought many other strong proofs to which according to good order I should here add those many more which I am yet to bring. But you interpose so many things by the way, that I am forced to defer those other arguments. Yet that my Reader may know briefly what they are, and how many (and so read them here if he please,) I thought good to tell him that I prove yet further many necessary points to Salvation not to be plainly set down in Scripture. For we find not there set down evidently. First, Whether it be damnable to work upon the Sunday? see Numb. 39 Secondly, Whether the King be the head of the Church? see Num. 41. Thirdly, Which books be the undoubted true Canonical Scriptures? see Numb. 42. And particularly, Whether St. Matthews Gospel be the undoubted word of God? Numb. 42.46. Fourthly, Whether it be clear in your opinion that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Extreme unction? see Numb. 58. Fiftly, Whether also it be clear that Christ doth not give us his true body in the Sacrament? Numb. 59 Sixthly, I show divers points necessary to Salvation, for which you cannot show evident Scripture. As, That God the Father is not begotten, God the Son is begotten and not made: And that he is Consubstantial to his Father; That God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten, but doth proceed, and that both from the Father and from the Son: see Numb. 60. Seventhly, I press for an evident Text for Baptising Infants, or bringing them to be baptised when Parents can, which you hold necessary for all Parents. Numb. 61. I might have added that great Question, Whether it be necessary to rebaptize those who be baptised by Heretics. For as Saint Austin saith De Unitate Eccle. c. 22. This is neither openly nor evidently read (in Scripture) Neither by you nor 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 thou impugner of the infallibility of the Church) We should make no doubt to perform what he should say; Lest we should seem, not so much to gain say him, as to gainsay Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended? Now Christ beareth witness to his Church And a little after: Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself, who by his testimony commands the Church. I allege these words for their convincing reason, and not for the authority of Saint Austin, with whom you are so little satisfied.  
17. 
Of my 6. Number.  But now I must satisfy such questions as you are still interposing against, what I said; I said then, that, being Scriptures cannot be showed for the decision of all necessary Controversies, we must see further what Judge God hath appointed us to follow in the decision of them, & appointed us with an Obligation to submit to him; because we gainsaying him, should seem not so much to gainsay him as to gainsay Christ by whom this Judge was appointed to be heard by us, just as Saint Austin discoursed now. But this our Discourse pleaseth not you. You say, This spoils all, contradicts all. Because you suppose that such a Judge may contradict Scripture. Very likely! A Judge given by God, with a Commission to direct all to salvation, and to that end assisted by his Spirit never departing from his mouth, but abiding with him for ever, to teach him all truth, that he should contradict the truth itself. Is not this called contradiction, to say, that God can testify of such an one that he shall always teach truth, the Spirit of truth never departing from his mouth, and yet to say that he shall contradict Scriptures. Vain therefore is your fear that there should be solid reasons grounded in Scripture, against the doctrine of such a Judge, who himself is the pillar and ground of truth, and whose tongue is directed by the same Spirit who directed the Pens of those who writ the Scripture.  
18. This Spirit of truth did not direct that pen which in your paper did write that foul calumny, which you utter in these words. We must then if he, (the Pope) saith Vices are Virtues, say so too, as your Bellarmine determins in his fourth Book De Romano Pontifice C. 5. Good Sir, read this place again, and see if you can hold blushing. If I should discourse thus with a child, and say, know (dear child) that in no possible case it is lawful to call Vice Virtue. And this child should childishly say, Sir, How if God the Father should say, such a thing is a Virtue, and Christ should preach that such a thing were a Vice, were not I bound in this case to say that such a Virtue is a Vice. Dear child would I say, this cannot happen. But if the child should still more childishly press me, Sir. But what if this should happen? then I must say so, must I not? Yes (child) when, that shall grow to be possible, which is wholly impossible, Then say, Vices are Virtues. Would not this child be the veriest child that ever escaped the name of a fool, if he should say, that I taught a case to be possible in which Vices might be called Virtues. Bellarmin saith in plain words It is impossible the Pope should err (especially with a Council) commanding any Vice. And when he had proved this by other arguments he addeth also this proof, That (if he could command any Vice) he then should necessarily err against faith (which before he had proved he could not do) seeing that Faith teacheth all Virtue to be good, all Vice to be bad. Then to those, who will childishly know, what the people must do when the Pope, who (with a Council at least) cannot err against faith, should err against Faith, he answereth, that when this impossible thing happeneth, the Church should be bound to believe Vices to be good, and Virtues evil, unless she would sin against her conscience. Even so Sir, when Christ or Saint Paul, shall be found teaching that to be Vice, which God, had before in the old Scripture revealed to be Virtue, you shall be bound to hold it a Virtue, because God hath revealed it in the old Scripture; and also that it is Vice, because, Christ (truth itself) taught it so in the New Testament. But you shall not be bound to this, until that happen which cannot happen. And so said Bellarmine of the other Case; God forgive these wilful or exceeding careless slanders.  
19 Let us at last go on to see who must be our Judge in all Controversies, All Protestants do say, (as I noted) that the Scripture, and only the Scripture, is left us by Christ our Judge to end all Controversies. And in this their Tenet they agree with all Heretics who have risen up against the Church of Christ. Here you fall upon me as if I spoke against the use of Scripture in Controversies. But Sir it is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points, and another thing to say Scripture, and only Scripture must be the Judge for all Controversies. To what end then is all you say against me as against one misliking the use of Scripture? The force of my argument in effect is this. All Offenders against the Law will never be so much their own condemners, as to choose, on their own accord, a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned. Therefore when we see all Offenders against God's Law in point of Heresy, choose on their own accord, to be judged by Scripture, it is a manifest sign that they know, they shall never be condemned clearly by Scripture, whom they took, for their Judge, because (before they broached their errors) they knew all that this Judge would say against them. And they knew also by what glosses and interpretations they could escape the being clearly condemned, by any thing which their Judge could say, Is not this true? And is it not also true, that you give so ample scope to these kind of glosses and interpretations, that, if you in particular be persuaded that whole General Councils, one after another, have interpreted such Texts in a false sense, you may firmly believe your own particular interpretation. I think it would pose you, to find any Heretics living before these days, who were so presumptuous as to uphold any opinion which they held condemned before in a lawful general Council. No Catholic I am sure did ever do it.  
20. Now, by reason our Adversaries are still detracting from us, as if we detracted from Scripture, because we hold that God did not intent by it alone (otherwise then by sending us to the Church) to decide all Controversies, I did show that we only did truly believe Scripture. For he only truly believeth a thing with Divine faith, who groundeth his assent upon Divine Revelation. Our Adversaries do not do this. We only do it. I will show both these things to be true, though I be forced to be somewhat large, for I can no no where more profitably enlarge myself then in these things which touch the ground of Faith, about which our main Controversy is. I say then that our Adversaries do not by Divine Faith believe the Scriptures to be God's Word. For no body can believe this, with Divine Faith, who doth not ground his assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation. But our adversaries do not ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation, for they can show not where the Revelation upon which they believe such and such Books to be God's Word. Show me for example where God hath revealed that St. Matthewes Gospel is the Word of God; show me also the Revelation for which you believe other Books. What say you to this? You say That the Canonical Books are worthy to be believed (and so is the Book of Toby and Judith as well as these) for themselves, as we assent unto prime Principles in the habit of Intelligence 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. And again, afterwards, The Canonical Books (why not Toby and Judith,) bear witnesses of themselves. They carry their own light which we may see them by, as we see the Sun by its own light. Good Sir, Have you brought all the infallibility of christian Religion unto this last ground, and here left it on the ground to be trampled by Socinians? Do you expect that rational men should believe you when you say in plain English, that, as the first Principals are so evident of themselves, that they need no proof, for example, That the whole is greater than any part of the whole, that if this be equal to that, it is equal to whatsoever is equal to that; so it is a thing, of itself evident, that such a book; (for example, Saint Matthewes Gospel) is the true and infallible Word, and that this is so clear that it needs no other proof, but the reading of it to make it manifestly infallible; even as the Sun needs no other evidence than his own light to be manifestly known. All that you believe, you ground upon the Scripture, as upon the true Word of God; and when you are further pressed to know upon what ground you believe the books of Scripture to be the infallible Word of God, you confess in plain terms, that the only infallible ground of this is, that this is evident of its own self, needing no further proof for the requiring an infallible assent unto it. Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitiful a case as your Adversaries could wish it.  
21. First, this ground is accounted a plain foolish ground by your renowned Chillingworth, whose book the most learned of both Universities have owned and magnified, notwithstanding his scornful Language of this ground of your whole Religion. Chillingworth then (P. 69. N. 49.) answering these words of his Adversary, That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known by itself alone, but by some  authority, Replieth thus. This you need not prove for no wise man denieth it. And Doctor Covel in his defence, Art. 4. P. 31. It is not the Word of God which doth or possible can assure us that we do well to think it the Word of God. And Master Hooker writeth thus. Of things necessary the very chief 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. P. 86. That which this man whom some call, the most learned Protestant amongst the English who put pen to paper, that which this man and Dr. Covet holdeth as an impossibility, and consequently for a mere Chimaera, you hold not only possible, but evident, and not only evident but as evident as the Suns being seen by his own light, and not only so evident, but evident with a sufficient certainty to ground on infallible assent, which is a far higher degree than the certainty we have of our seeing the Sun by his Light, which depends upon our fallible sense; but this must be an infallible ground, or else your faith of this cannot be infallible. Yea, your own self, when you least thought of it (when in another place I urged the necessity of a Church to judge all Controversies) acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare, by infallible authority, which Books be the true Word of God, which not; then to declare any other point; where as, if it had been true, that this point might as well be seen infallibly, by the only reading of such Books, as the Sun is seen by his light, there should have been less necessity of such an infallible Declaration; for of all unnecessary things no thing would be more unnecessary than another light, by which we might see the Sun more clearly.  
22. Secondly, there be many millions, who cannot truly and sincerely protest before God, and take it upon their salvations, that they are wholly unable, by the reading these books, to come to an infallible assurance that these be God's Word, or to any such assurance as cometh near infallibility. Now Sir, I pray tell me, what means hath God provided to bring these men to this infallible assurance, which they are obliged under pain of damnation to have? For he shall be damned who doth not infallibly believe the Scripture; If you tell me it is impossible that after fervent prayer to God they should still have no infallible knowledge, assuring them such and such books are God's Word, I must needs tell you it is impossible for me, and (as I think) for any wise man to believe you.  
23. Thirdly, if your opinion of knowing true Scripture, by the reading of them, were true, then let but a Heathen, Turk, or Jew, read the Gospel, he must, by reading of it, see it as clearly to be God's Word, as he must see the Sun by his light. And again, because all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in the Word of God (as you teach) the same Heathen should plainly see all things necessary to salvation warranted him by the undoubted Word of God. If this were true, it is impossible that thousands should not be yearly converted by this means. How cometh it then to pass that the reading of Scriptures alone, did never find that concurrence of God's grace to convert any single man (that we could hear of) whereas the Preachers of the Church of God have found this concurrence of God's grace to the conversion of millions.  
24. Fourthly, nothing being to be believed (as you teach) but Scripture, it followeth that the faith (by which we believe Scripture to be God's Word) must be the very first ground of all faith upon which all is built, and the greatest light of Christian Verity; how incredible a thing than is it, that this should be true, and that the prime Doctors of the Church, in none of their so many writings concerning our faith, should never mention this? and that no small glimpse of this light should be observable in the writings of all Antiquity? In which the most observing eyes cannot espy the least glimpse of it. Reply, I think if the Doctors of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens that they had no better assurance for all the points of their (then new) faith then the Word of God written, and no greater assurance that such and such writings were his undoubted Word, than the very reading of those books did give them, by a light as evident as the Sun, the Heathens would have scoffed at them for saying that which they protested to be so visible, and yet none could see it but those who first believe it upon this evidence to them wholly invisible.  
25. Fifthly, I argue thus. Take a book, which you hold not to be Gods undoubted word; The book of Toby (for example) or Judith, and read these books over. And then take another book, which you hold to be Gods undoubted Word, for example, the book of Numbers, and read that over, or rather to end the sooner (read over only as many Chapters as be in the book of Toby, that is 16. and then I challenge you to tell me if you can (as surely you can if it be as clear (as Sun shine) in what Chapter, Verse, or Word, any divine rays (and such rays as are sufficiently observable to produce an infallible assent, that such a book is Gods undoubted word) which rays be not to the very full as observable in the same chapter and verse or equivolent word, of the book of Toby: What would you have us do with our eyes to keep us from seeing how clearly this is impossible for you to do, which notwithstanding should be most easy, if your opinion were true or the truth.  
26. Sixthly, if any one verse yea or any one small word, (especially this little word Not be left out in any Chapter either through ignorance, malice or carelessness of those writers, whose Copies our printed books have followed, whom will you be able to make believe that you are so sharp-sighted, as to see this omssion by a light, sufficient for an infallible belief of it only by the reading these Scriptures.  
27. Seventhly, To prove that true general Counsels be fallible you use often to allege this argument, that one true general Council directly gainsaith another, which if you could prove) you should indeed prove that the Councils are fallible. But I can prove unto you that one who readeth the same book as well as you, and hath the true Spirit of God as well as you (if not in a larger measure) shall flatly say that Book not to be God's Word, which you without all doubt affirm to be Gods infallible Word. This ground then of knowing which is, which is not God's Word, grounding contradictory opinions must needs be false, as I prove thus, Luther a ●an acknowledged by your common consent to have had God's Spirit, did read over the Epistle of Saint James, and held it to be an Epistle of straw. He did read over the Book of the Apocalypses or Revelations and held it not to have been written by an Apostolical Spirit. You read over these books, and protest so seriously, that by the light of them you infalliblely know them, to be Gods true Word. Your two opinions are flat contradictory, and yet they are both grounded upon this ground of reading these books with the Spirit of God.  
Therefore this ground is fallible, and consequently cannot ground an infallible faith of this point. But you have no other infallible faith of this point, but what is grounded on this fallible ground, Ergo the faith you have of this point is not an infallible, and divine faith, but a mere humane persuasion, such as we have to believe the works, Virgil's too have been written by Virgil. But if any desire to have this case put in two Men, whom most of the world will more assuredly believe to have had the true Spirit of God, and to have had also as clear-sighted eyes, as most men we know in all mankind, I will put the case in the two prime Doctors of the Latin Church, Saint Hierome, and Saint Austin. Saint Hierome read over the books of the Maccabees, and could not by the reading of them see them infallibly to be God's Word. St. Austin read these books, and held them infallibly to be God's Word. How came these two most sharp-sighted men to see quite contrary to one another by the self same most clear Light, as you must say. But we deny that either of them did see this Light, and that by it only they did see which were true, which false Scriptures. But we say they both followed in this point the proposition of the Church, which Church in Saint Hieromes time had not clearly proposed the book of Maccabees to be God's word. But the third Council of Garthage (at which Austin was present) declared these Books to be God's Word, and so Saint Austin held th●● Books infallibly to be God's Word, grounding this his belief upon the Declaration of the Council at Carthage, which Council saith (Canon 47.) that it did set down these books for Scripture, because we have received from our Fathers that those are to be read in the Church. Saint Hierome had not seen this Council of Carthage; and because he was used to ground his faith, by which he believed such books to be, or not be God's Word upon the Declaration of the Church, therefore until he did see that Declaration, he could not hold this as infallible, which Saint Austin afterwards held infallible because he had seen afterwards that Declaration of the Church. This is an excellent proof of our Opinions, and disproof of yours, which cannot give any kind of reason for their disagreeing in a thing so clear as you say this point is.  
28. Hence you will see that this Evidence upon which you ground your infallible assent to believe Scripture, to be God's Word (and then all the rest for God's Word believed so ungroundedly) is not improperly by you compared to that Evidence, by which the first Principles, show themselves to be evidently true, as this Principle doth, It is impossible that any thing should be so, and yet not be so in all the selfsame circumstances. For who ever did differ about such a Principle as this is. All men see the Evidence of these Principles. But none but a few of your sect, see the Evidence of what you say. Yea they evidently see there is no such evidence to be seen. And if you say that we must have a special spirit (that is, new eyes) to see it, Than you, who have this spirit, are all Prophets discovering by private Revelations made to yourselves, that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover. But now, when I see all, and every one of your belief, laying claim to the Spirit, assisting them even as fare as infallibility to the hardest of all points, I hope no prudent man will think that God's Church may not lay claim (with a thousand times far greater reason) to the Spirit of the Holy Ghost assisting her even to infallibility in points of as much consequence, the Church having far more proof of his assistance, than every private Protestant. Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scripture, An undoubted Principle, the first Principle; you think they hold this Principle like the first Principle in Sciences, which are therefore indemonstrable, because they are of themselves as evident, as any reason you can bring to make them more evident. But the Scripture is only said to be an unquestionable Principle, because it is already granted to be God's Word by all parties. But why all grant it, all must give the reason, for the Scripture of itself cannot show itself to be infallibly God's Word as I have proved.  
29. Eighthly and lastly, if you intent for the solution of any of the former Arguments (though you cannot escape most of them by that shift) to fly to the private assistance of the spirit, helping you to see that, which this light of the Scriptures alone cannot help them unto, than you must come infallibly to know you have this help from the spirit of truth: for it you know this only fallibly, that will not help you to an infallible assent. Now how can you know this infallibility but by a Revelation secure from all illusion? Tell me how you came by this Revelation? Did you try the Spirit whether it were of God or no? If not, how are you then secured? If you did, by what infallible means did you try it? If you can by Scripture, we must needs laugh, because we speak of the first act of belief by which you, or any other first began to believe the Scripture to be infallibly God's Word. Before you believed the Scripture to be Gods infallible Word you could not by it (as by a means infallible to your judgement) try your spirit, and know it to be infallibly the Spirit of truth. Again, you could not know it to be the Spirit of ruth, until you had first an infallible assurance that the Scripture (by which you did try it) was infallibly Gods true word. And yet again you could not have an infallible assurance that such books of Scripture were God's infallible word, but by this infallible assurance you had, that this Spirit helping you to see this, was the Spirit of Truth: so that you could not be infallibly assured of your Spirit until you had infallible assurance that the Scripture was God's Word; and you could not have infallible assurance that the Scripture was God's Word until you were infallibly assured of your Spirit; Is not this clearly to walk in a Circle with the wicked?  
30. Having now showed that you (who reject the infallibility of the Church) have left yourselves no infallible ground, upon which you can believe that most Fundamental Article of belief, to wit, that such and such Books be infallibly God's true Word; I am pressed to show what infallible belief we have of this point, and how we avoid all Circle. I Answer that we ground the belief of this point upon the authority of the Church, as being Infallible in proposing the Verities she hath received from God. This infallibility I do not suppose, but prove at large, Chapter 4. If you have not patience to stay, turn now to that place. You falsely say that Whatsoever authority the Church hath towards this persuasion you also make use of as a motive to this faith. She hath an infallible authority, which you count a fancy, and make no other use of it, but to scoff at it; and yet this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth, not this persuasion, but this infallible assent. Take the Church as a most grave assembly of pious learned men, without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, and their authority is but humane, and so all the help you can have from them will not ground an infallible assent, which we must have in our belief, to hold Scripture infallible to be God's Word. The Scriptures (as I have showed) have not where revealed which books be Scripture, which not; and so we have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of this Church, as assisted infallibly by the Holy Ghost. Some thing even in this place, I shall add of this infallibility so to satisfy your present longing.  
31. But for the present you are endeavouring to include me in a Circle as I did you in the last objection why (say you) do I believe the Scripture to be God's word. Because the Church saith it. Very Well. Why do I believe the Church? Because the Scripture beareth witness of it. No Sir. You never heard me give this reason unless it were when I spoke to one, who independently of the Church, did profess himself to believe the Scripture so be God's Word, as you do, who profess to believe this upon an infallible assurance received (as you say) from God's Word by the very reading of it. Against those who upon another account (different from the infallible authority of the Church, receive God's Word!) I prove, that according to that word of God, the Church is to be heard and believed, as the pillar and ground of truth. And for this point I produce as clear Texts as you do for most of those points which you hold necessary for Salvation. But if you be a Scholar you know that all our Divines in their Treatises of faith, put this very question which you here put Why do you believe the church? and not one of them answereth as you here make us answer; that so you might the better impugn us with the applause of the deceived multitude. Sir, when we deal with those who have not admitted the Scriptures as infallible, we do not prove them to be so by the Authority of the Church, without first proving to them this Authority of the Church (and that independently of Scripture) to be infallible. Now if you ask me how I do this? then indeed you speak to the purpose, though not to your purpose which was to shut me up in a Circle into which you see, I never set foot.  
32. Now, if you will still be earnest to know why I do believe this Church to be infallible; I answer, that to give full satisfaction against all that a caviller can say, requireth a Treatise longer than this whole Treatise. What I have said is sufficient to avoid all Circle, when withal I shall have told you that we proceed as securely and groundedly in the reasons for which we believe, the Church to have received from God, Commission to teach us those infalfallible Verities, which she hath received from God, with infallible certainty, as many millions have proceeded in their embracing the true Faith, whose proceed no man can condemn. I pray, why did the Jews believe their Prophets to have had Commission from God to deliver his Word infallibly to them by word of mouth, and by writing? Surely as they most prudently believed what the Prophets taught them by word of mouth to be infallibly true, because spoken by those, whom God gave Commission to say what they said; so they most prudently believed what the same men did deliver to them by their writings as God's Word, because written by those, whom God gave Commission unto to write what they writ. The credit and belief given as well to their writings, as to their words unwritten, was at last found prudently accepted upon the Motives, upon which they accepted their Commissions as given by God for their infallible instruction. All were moved prudently to accept of this their Commission, because God did own it for his by several Miracles, or other most apparent proofs, testifying to the people the infallible Commission which those Prophets, and Scripture writers had, to teach them by words, or writing, or both. Their wits then were induced to accept of this their Commission as truly given by God, moved thereunto by such prudent Motives, that it had been a high act of imprudence (which in point of salvation is damnable) to have disbelieved them; for example, they did either see such apparent Miracles, or such notorious force of Doctrine, working visibly so strange changes of manners, and in so many before so vicious, to a life very Virtuous, and sometimes virtuous in a stupidious degree. The writers of the New Testament had these divine attentions yet more abundantly (though the others cannot be denied sufficient) whence as from their only words not yet written many thousands received their faith, because they first prudently were induced by these Motives to acknowledge them to have had a true Commission from God, to say to us in his Name all that they said, and then because they acknowledged this Commission to be from God, they believed infallibly all what they said, because they said it with Commission from God to say it. So by their words now written by them in the Scriptures, which they delivered unto them, many thousands received their Faith, because first prudently they were induced by these Motives to acknowledge these writers to have had a true Commission from God to write what they did write in his Name, and then because they acknowledged this Commission to have been from God they did believe infallibly all that they did write, because they did write it with Commission from God. Thus you see upon what assurance, those who first received the Scriptures did receive them for God's Word. The Apostles gave their writings to the prime Prelates and Pastors of the Church, assuring them in God's Name that these writings were God's Word. These Pastors and Prelates preached to the people that they should admit of these writings as Gods true Word. What they preached was believed with an infallible assent upon the authority of the prime Pastors of the Church. They were prudently induced to give an infallible assent to their authority by these strong Motives by which they had demonstrated themselves to have Commission from God to teach his Doctrine, both by word and writing. Thus was the first Age assured of God's Word by the Oral Tradition of the first Pastors of the Church, assuring them also that the Spirit of truth would abide with the Church, teaching her all truth, and that they were to hear the Church under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens and that she should be unto them as the pillar and ground of truth: for as they did write, so doubtless they did teach these things. These first Christians than received this doctrine with an assent as infallible as they received the Scriptures. And so all then believed and all taught their Successors to believe the Church to have such infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, that in all doubts arising about faith they were to submit unto her, as to one having Commission from God to declare all such matters. The second Age by so universal, so full, so manifest a tradition, was most prudently induced to acknowledge the church to have such a Commission from God, and so they believe the Church for this divine authority given her. Now there is nothing which can make any thing more prudently credible then universal tradition; A miracle to confirm that there is such a City as London, though in itself it were a surer motive, would not work so undoubted a belief in the minds of those who never did see London, as universal tradition worketh. And yet this tradition is but one of the motives which induceth us to acknowledge the Church to have received Commission to declare with infallible authority the Verities received from the Apostles, and consequently her declarations to be admitted with infallible assent for her authority. But I must needs note that this motive of tradition alone, did serve to make all for the first 2000 years and more, give an infallible assent to their Church see Ch. 4. Number 11. yet here I entreat you to mark how they resolved their faith then. Why did they believe then that the Soul was immortal. Because God said so by his Church. having Commission to teach us all we are to believe. Why believed they that this Church had Commission to teach them as Authorized with due infallibility? Because the same Church told them so. Why did they believe this? Because they would do so, And they would do so because, it had been mere folly not to accept of this Church's Commission to teach them infallibly all truths, which Commission they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as divine by all good people; so we &c. I will add one Motive more.  
33. Miracles are called a Testimony greater than john the Baptist. Christ himself said, If you will not believe me, believe my Works? By this great testimony of Miracles God hath often owned the doctrine of the Roman Church, even as it is in this our days. For he knoweth but little of the world, who doth not know the vast extent of those Provinces and Kingdoms which in this last Age the Preachers of the Roman Faith have added to their Faith by this Testimony of God, by Signs and Wonders, and divers Miracles, Hebrews 2.4. And here most Visibly, Our Lord ever working withal, and confirming their words by Signs and Miracles. It appeareth also by the History of Bede and the plain confession of your learned Magdeburgians, that the faith brought into our England by St. Austin, was the same faith which you abolished by your Reformation, as you call it. And yet again it appeareth by Bede and St. Gregory his Epistles, that wonderful were the miracles which St. Austin wrought in Confirmation of the faith preached, in so much that St. Gregory thought it necessary to admonish him of containing himself in humility, lest the working of so many miracles should puff him up. These Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church. God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles. Therefore the doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles. And it may for this motive be embraced with as infallible an assent as the doctrine of the Prophets and Apost. Yea, there have been many miracles wrought to testify many & very many of those points in particular in which we differ from you. As you may see showed by Brierly only by looking in his Index. 5. miracles, but see him particularly, T. 2. C. 3 Tr. S. 7. Subdivis, And Tr. 1. S. 5. There you shall see how solidly grounded these Miracles are, against which you can object nothing which is not objected with equal probability by Heathens against the Miracles of the Prophets, and by Jews against those of the Apostles. Tell me then if these two motives (though there be yet many others) be not as powerful inducements to move us to acknowledge that God hath given his Church infallible authority to teach us faithfully which she received from him, as were those motives for which the Jews did prudently believe that the Scripture given them by David, by Solomon, by Nahum, by Amos and others, were written with infallible authority by them, having Commission from God to write what they did write. We then believe the Church to have such a Commission with as good security as they acknowledged this Commission in those Scripture writers. Whereas the ground upon which you believe Scripture is thought to be foolish and Chimerical by some of your best Writers.  
34. Yet to show further how unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith, I did add this argument that the true Original Scriptures were written in languages not known to one among ten thousand, if we speak of a perfect knowledge. Others must trust the Translations of private men, and believe them rather than the Translations used by the Church in general Councils Is it not clear that the Authority of such Translations is far greater, and far more to be judged to agree with the true Original, than any of your private men's Translations? You yourself confess that Translations are only so far God's word as they agree with the originals, whence I infer that no body in your opinion can believe any point upon the authority of any Translations, until he be assured that such a point agreeth with the true Hebrew or true Greek Original; How disappointed then be most of your Religion, especially your women, who so fiercely fly upon us for believing the Church, whilst they themselves must either believe nothing (for they cannot believe any thing upon the credit of the English Translation, until they know how exactly it agreeth with the true Greek, or true Hebrew Original, which is wholly impossible for them) or else they must merely take upon trust the most fallible Translations for the infallible Original, and trust rather in this most important point the learning, and fair dealing of those private Ministers (deeply interessed in this cause) then trust the gratest authority upon earth, which is a general Council having so strong promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost. I entreat you here to see Chapter 4. Numb. 9  
35. Again, I pray tell me how you learned Ministers who have so full knowledge of these languages as too Translate, and upon your own knowledge to judge of true Translations made by others, of you it is that I ask how you come to know (and know so sufficiently as to ground an infallible assent in yourselves and others) when your Translations agree with the true Original? For you have now confessed that Translations are only so far God's word as they agree with the Originals. And you must mean the true Originals or else you say nothing, for agreeing with false or doubtful Originals will not make them Gods undoubted Word. Tell me, (I say it again, and again) how do you know which be the true, and undoubtedly true Originals? and upon what secure ground do you know it? The true Originals be either Hebrew or Greek; As for the Hebrew, all must know that the ancient Hebrew Copies were all written without points, that is, in full substance without Vowels. Now they be the Vowels which make or mar the word and sense; for a Vowel addeth the soul and the sound to the consonants, and maketh them signify most different things. For example, for a Ball write only b ll too which consonants if you add an (a) it is Ball, add an (e) it is Bell, add an (u) and it is a Bull, So that, great confusion must needs follow if the true points, that is the true vowels were not put to the same Consonants. Well now again, all must know that a good while after the time of Christ and his Apostles, the Jewish Rabbis, under pretence of avoiding the mistakes which might happen in the less skilful in the Hebrew tongue (which then was almost worn out) did take the old Hebrew Testament, and put the points, that is the Vowels unto it, so that the old Testament we now use came from these Jewish hands. Tell me then how know you infallibly whither these perfidious Jews had skill, and honesty enough to deliver to us their Copies with the true points and vowels; and yet all depends on this. The consonants alone will not assure us in these unskilful, and so remote ages. For the least change in appoint maketh most contrary things to be all one, for no Man can tell (especially infallibly) whether these words an Angel had a b ll in his hand should be read thus, an Angel had a Ball, in his hand or a Bell, or a Bill, or a Bull. Put a false Vowel and it is all one. To taste cheese and to tossed cheese, all one; to be fat and to be fit, to increase in Grace and to increase in Grece, all one; to eat a bitter fig and to eat a better fig. A pot full of butter, and a Pit full of Batter, will be the same. Hence you see the small infallibility you have of the possessing the true undoubted Original Hebrew old Testament. As for the new testament. Saint Mathewes Gospel was Originally written in Hebrew, and that Original is quite lost. Now the other Greek Originals which we have, have a stupendious Variety, He who found the word Infallible so unfortunate to him (which you object to me) telleth of his own knowledge a story most unfortunate to you and yours (which I have also heapd by an other way,) His words are these. In my hearing Bishop Usher, professed, that whereas he had of many years before a desire to publish the 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 readings which himself had collected, the incredible multitude of them almost in every verse, should rather have made Men Atheistical then satisfy them in the true reading of any particular passage. An evident sign that the Governors of the Church did not only rely upon what was in writing. So Cressy Exomol. C. 8. N. 3. Now if another in Spain, another at Constantinople or other in some remote part from these had bestowed the like or greater expenses, and industries in procuring Varieties of Manuscripts, it is most probable they might have in these places found in every one of them, as great variety of lections, which multitude of Lections Usher alone found to be incredible almost in every verse. The Manuscripts which were before all printing being so exceeding different, what assurance have those who did first print such, or such a Manuscript, rather than a hundred Manuscripts (different from that which they printed) that the Manuscript, which was the true undoubted Copy of the true undoubted Original was printed by them, and published to the world, which now contents itself with printed Copies only, and not one among twenty thousand hath recourse to any old written Manuscripts; or if they have recourse to any such Manuscript, or Manuscripts, yet they are so wonderful fare from having any full assurance, that such Manuscripts be the true undoubted Copies, of the true undoubted Original; that they approach not one inch nearer the Assurance of the Truth, by having Recourse to such Manuscripts. And here it is that I may fare fit use these your own words (used in another place against me;) Alas Sir, At what a loss are you and yours in this grand and capital and comprehensive controversy, which affords me liberty to think, that which is intricated with so many unspeakable difficulties and most manifest uncertainties, is not that manifest ground of certainty, and infallible certainty, by which fools cannot err; for what else can a Collier have infallibly to guide him through all these Labyrinths, whose wind are made more unextricable by lying so far from the least glimpse of any Light: For as you say Translations are only so fare God's Word as they agree with the Originals, that is with such Originals as are the true and undoubted Copies of the true and undoubted Original. But (say I) it is impossible for any man living (who accounteth the judgement of the Church to be fallible) to know infallibly, which Translation agree with the true undoubted Originals, and which not, because it is impossible for him to know which be the true undoubted Originals, and which not. Therefore it is impossible for any man living (who accounteth the judgement of the Church to be fallible) to know which Translations be the word of God and which not. You than have neither infallible assurance of translation, nor of Original, and consequently you have no assurance of any part of Scripture to be God assured Word. And yet all the assurance of your faith is built upon this, of which you have no assurance at all. For you have no assurance of either Translation or Original or Interpretation of any one book or how many or which books make up the whole Canon.  
36. As for our assurance of the Word of God it dependeth not upon these inextricable uncertainties. If those who received the first true Original Copy did upon good ground receive it, relying upon the authority of those who did give it unto them, as an authority infallible; we upon no less good ground receive (as authentical and secure from error, both in faith and manners) our Vulgar Translation, which we receive upon the infallible authority of the Church, An infalliblity as well grounded as theirs who received first the true Original Scriptures, as I proved Numbers 32.33. But of this infallibility I am to treat at large Chapter 4. If Isidor Clarins in any one title importing faith or manners, differs from what we receive, upon this infallible authority, we have nothing to do with him; what you object against us for the different editions of Sixtus and Clement hath been answered by many, and very fully by that famous book called Charity Maintained, written against Potter, see it Part. 2. Cap. 6. Numb. 3. Where, by authentical Testimonies of persons beyond all exceptions, is showed that the decree of Sixtus about his edition, was never promulgated, and that he himself, had declared divers things to have crept in which needed a second review, and that the whole work should be reexamined though he could never do it, being prevented by death. The very self same is told you distinctly in the Preface to our Vulgar Edition: but I cited the former book, because of his several proofs, and because Chillingworth (who with so much applause of many) answered this book, doth not return one word to disprove his Adversaries most satisfactory answer. All your other arguments end in the biting of a flea.  
37. Next you object two places of S. Austin. But Sir you have given me leave to have no more to do with the Father's Authority. Councils you also labour to discredit in the highest degree, for you make them like false witnesses, in matters concerning the salvation of infinite people, to betray their own falsity, in affirming things directly contradictory. You must not say, but prove by S. Austin, and other good Authors, that two lawful Councils, lawfully approved, have taught contrary opinions in matter of Faith, otherwise you only deceive the people, which knoweth not which Councils were lawful, which not. Would you make us believe S. Austin thought the Council of Ariminum a lawful Council? Do you yourself hold it so? Did not he know it was not so? as well as you. After all than you cannot show which is your prime Principle. That, take away the infallibility of the Church, you can find infallible means by Scripture only to decide all Controversies; for by Scripture only it is a plain impossibility to decide which Scriptures be the true word of God, which not, As also which be corrupted which be not, and which be the true original Copies of the true Books, which be not, This is a true convincing argument.  
38. Another argument is, that there be many Controversies (and may be yet many more) the decision of which is necessary to Salvation, and yet they cannot be decided by Scripture only, and consequently some other infallible Judge (to wit the Church) is necessary for the infallible decision of these points. Your second answer still is, that the decisions of all such Controversies are plainly set down in Scripture, which I have at large showed in the beginning of this Chapter, to be false, and now I go to show it further by specifying divers of these Controversies in particular.  

Of my 8th. Number.  39 The first of these Controversies is about the necessity of not working upon the Sunday. You dare not say that he shall be saved who doth weekly work, and resolveth to work upon the Sunday, without any necessity. You must then affirm, that to abstain from working upon that day, is a point necessary to Salvation. Now I ask where this necessary point is plainly set down in Scripture? And I press you to give me, as clear Texts to prove this, as I cited at large to prove that we must not now work on saturdays. You are to show Texts in which this point is plainly set down, for these Texts I called. In place of these Texts you bring your own discourses. Now according to your own opinion that Councils, though general, in their discourses out of Scripture, may be forsaken by him who judgeth such discourses nothing so well grounded in the Text, as the discourses for the contrary opinion are grounded in other Texts. Hence you must needs give the Sabbatharians, leave to reject these your discourses with far greater reason than you reject the discourses of Councils. Whence then shall we have an infallible decision of this Controversy. Your own Doctor Tailor in his defence of Episcopacy. Pag. 100 writeth thus, For that (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 upon changing Sundays Feast into Thursday, to have shown their Christian Liberty. If this were plainly set down in Scripture would not these your illuminated Brethren see it as well as you. And you so often called upon for a plain Text, instead of bringing infallible Texts, bring nothing but a discourse of your own, very fallible, and proving nothing but a possibility of such a change, To the far stronger Text, for still keeping the Sabbath, you say not a word. My argument then as yet hath nothing like a satisfactory answer returned unto it.  
40. 
Of my 9th. Number.  The second Controversy which I said could not clearly be decided by Scripture is about our lawful eating or not eating of that which is strangled, clearly forbidden Act. 15. But because there may be some reasons alleged why this precept now obligeth no longer (though I might insist that we seek for Texts and not for reasons) I press this argument no further, having so great plenty of far more pressing arguments.  
41. 
Of my 10th. Number.  A third Controversy not clearly decided for you by Scripture, I briefly touched concerning the holding the King, Head of the Church, whom you according to plain Scripture. determine to be still the Head of the Church, though others hold it very far from being plain Scripture. This Controversy must needs highly import, that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head, by whom they are to be governed. This point was before evident Scripture, now it is no longer evident Scripture. Your answer is first. What is infallibly decided by Scripture, will ever be so, although we do not always find it. Sir, if you mean what is infallibly decided by evident Scripture, is not always to be found, it is manifestly false. This being against the very Nature of that which is evident when it is supposed to stand laid wide open before our eyes in the same words which made it before evident Scripture. You add, Secondly, That you do not say every point is Infallibly decided by Scripture, because it is not at all decided? Sir, Is not this a necessary point, and be not these your own words? All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, and again, What is not plainly set down in Scripture is hereby understood not to be necessary. Grant these Principles false and the cause is mine. If they be true, this point being necessary, must also be plainly decided by clear Scripture. And when you ask me whether it be determined in Scripture that the Pope is head of the Church? You forget that we do not teach (as you do) that all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture, but we teach the quite contrary. You that hold that on the one side the King is head of the Church, and on the other side that all points necessary to Salvation be plainly set down in Scripture, you (I say) must show me plain Scripture for what you say in a point so necessary, as it is for so many millions to know so capital a point as their head is. If for such a point as this (to which so many were obliged to swear) you have no plain Text of Scripture, I pray tell us no more hereafter, that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture. I add that either you must be far from having any evident Text for this point in Scripture, or your most illuminated Calvin could not see that which was evident, for he writing on the 7th of Amos, saith of our English Church. They were blasphemous when they called him (Henry the Eighth) chief Head of the Church under Christ.  

Of my 11th. and 12th. Numb.  42. A fourth Controversy not decidable by any clear Text of Scripture is, which be the true Books of Scripture, which not, about which we still differ mainly. And it is evident no Text can decide this Controversy: Of this in general I have spoken fully. That for which I repeated it over again is to press particularly the impossibility that there is to prove by Scripture (against the Manicheans) that St. Matthew his Gospel is the true uncorrupted Word of God. That it is impossible to know it to be Saint Mathewes Gospel you yourself confess, holding it in plain terms a point of no necessity to believe this; yet sure I am that your learned Brethren in their conference at Ratisbone, dared not to deny that it was an Article of faith to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel to have be●n written by Saint Matthew. And I believe your own Brethren will be scandalised at this your Opinion. But before you can go forward, to show it impossible to prove by Scripture that Saint Matthewes Gospel is the same uncorrupted Word of God, I am necessitated to Answer what ye Object by the way.  
43. You say then first, That if the Church were infallible Judge of all Canonical Books, yet would it not follow from hence, that it should be infallible judge in all points of Faith, unless causally, for we might suppose more assurance to the Church in this particular then in other cases. Is it so good Sir? Can you suppose a point, upon which all depends, to be held by all as infallibly true, without showing such a point to be clearly contained in Scripture? Why this spoils all. Your only shift, to avoid the necessity of an infallible Church, is still to say, that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture, and that if any point be not plainly set down in Scripture, it hereby appeareth not to be necessary. And will you now suppose this most necessary point of all points, which is not clearly set down in Scripture, to be admitted with infallible assent upon the only authority of the Church? That we are universally to hear the Church hath many pregnant places in Scripture, as I shall show at large, C 4. But that we are to learn this one point, and none but this only, from the infallible authority of the Church, hath no colour nor shadow of Scripture, or any thing like Scripture. You must therefore ground this your answer not upon Scripture, but upon Reason. Now the Reason upon which you reject the Church from being an infallible Judge of Controversies, is because there is no necessity of such a Judge, since the whole Canon of the Scripture was finished. And for this only Reason (without any Text) you put the Church's infallibility to expire and give up the Ghost at the finishing the Canon of the Scripture. Now if the reason for which you discard the Church's infallibility, in other points, be this, that other points are cleared sufficiently by Scripture: Then there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may more assuredly suppose the Church to be infallible, but that this one point cannot be sufficiently cleared by Scripture; and that therefore only there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the infallible authority of a Church, undoubtedly infallible in this prime point, which point causally brings forth all others. This discourse being evidently deduced out of your own prime principles, I pray mark two things which I am going to say. The first is, that this your answer overthroweth utterly that main ground of yours, That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture, For no point is more necessary than this without which there is no coming to the belief of any thing in Scripture, and yet this point is neither plainly nor obscurely set down in Scripture, unless it be where we are Universally sent to the Church for learning other points as well as this.  
44. The Second thing I would have marked is, that you utterly overthrow that principle which is the groundwork of your faith. For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the infallibility of a Church, for as much as concerns this one point in particular, because this one point in particular is less clear in Scripture then any other necessary point; that grand principle of yours evidently appeareth false (though you speak it for your second answer so close after the other) That the Canonical Books bear witness of themselves, they carry their own light, which we may see them by this as we see the Sun by his own Light. How is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Church's Authority as infallible in this particular point, because it can less be cleared by Scripture then other points, and yet on the other side, this point of all other points, hath this particular privilege to be so manifest, That it beareth witness of its own self, that it carrieth its own Light with it, and such a conspicuous Light, that we may see this Verity by it, as we see the Sun by its own Light. But how vain this Ground is, upon which all must be supported, I have showed largely from the 26. Number unto the 30th. As for your Dilemma, I have broken the Horns of it, Numb. 31.32, 33. And what you further say about Saint Hierom is answered, Numb. 27. And as for Bellarmine, if you had cited him in the very self same Treatise in that place where he speaketh of the Maccabees in particular, (to wit, Lib. 1. Cap. 1. fine) He would have answered your Argument just as I answer it in that place. And note I pray by the way what you find, to wit, That the Fathers of the Council of Carthage acknowledged the Maccabees for true Scripture. Now if these Fathers were of your Religion, than you must make them agree with you in your prime Principles upon which you receive all Scriptures as Gods infallible Word, because by their own light every Book is seen to be Canonical, as we see the Sun by its own light; Therefore according to you, these Fathers, did, by this light see these books of the Macha. to be canonical, by a light sufficient to an infallibility. This must therefore be infallibly true, & yet your Church denies it; nay you must say you cannot see this light you say is so clear.  
45. And I pray now ask me (as you do) How I see Light? I Answer, with such eyes as other men have, Who can see it as well as I. It hath little judiciousness in it, (pardon your own words) to say that a thing is as visible as Light, and as apparent as the first principles, and yet even at the very self same time to say the most irradiated understandings of Saint Austin, of the whole Council of Carthage, of Saint Hierom, of Luther, of their own selves; see by this Light, and by this prime Principle quite opposite Verities. But of this see yet more in my 27. Number. As for the infallibility of the Church, I do not prove it first by Scripture, but as I have told you Numb. 30.31, 32, 33. About believing Saint Matthewes Gospel to have been written by him; I have said enough, Numb. 42.  
46. At last I have forced a passage to my intended argument about Saint Matthews Gospel, which I boldly say cannot possibly, by your principles, ever come to be believed, with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted Word. The Marcionists, the Cerdonists, the Manicheans, do deny (and others may come to deny) the Gospel of Saint Matthew to be Gods true Word. This Controversy (as all others) according to you must be ended by Scripture only. But that is impossible, for the Scripture, doth not so much as touch in one word this Controversy. Therefore it is false that the Scripture doth plainly set down all necessary points, without you will say it is not necessary to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel. Here you cannot fly to a Light as clear as the Sun showing this Verity, for your own doctrine is that Translations are only so far God's Word as they agree with the Originals, as we have seen, Numb. 34.35. But we have only Translations of Saint Matthews Gospel, and no Original copy at all; Therefore it is impossible for us (in your Principles) to know how far Saint Mattthews Gospel is God's Word, because it is impossible to know how far it agreeth with the Originals. Perhaps whole Chapters are left out, perhaps divers things here and there put in, or altered, for it is uncertain who the Translator was, and of what skill, or honesty. The Church you confess (in your first answer) doth not certify us; Ergo, this Answer is no Answer. For yet, you do not show, how we are certified of this truth, That this is the true uncorrupted Gospel of Saint Matthew. Secondly, you would tax us for saying that no one of the Ancients conceived this Gospel to be written in Greek. You might easily understand our meaning to be that no one of them can be produced as a witness, so much as weakly moving us to believe this. For their Testimony (who did not write at all, or whose writings have perished) is no kind of Testimony, no more than if there never had been such men. You add that it is not certainly true that there is not a copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world. Good Sir, in what year of our Lord, was it that I did say, that this was certainly true● Did not I say so this very last year, which was above twelve hundred years since Saint Jeroms time. If there were one Hebrew copy then, what is that to our purpose now? Can we go and confer our Translations of Saint Matthew, and see how far they agree with that Original copy which St. Jerom in his days did see in one only place of the world? Show me so much as one Hebrew copy now extant in the whole world of sufficient credit to ground an infallible assent. If after more than a thousand years' loss of all Original copies, Munster, or any other private man, obtrude us an Hebrew Original, which hath lain all this while, God knows where; by what Evidence will that appear Gods infallible and uncorrupted Word: All your shifts will not here help you.  
48. You would shift first by ask how the Latin Interpretation came to be Authentic. I Answer, Because it was accepted for authentic, and thus declared to be so by the Church, which Church when she admitted it, was fully satisfied that it agreed with the Original. And this she knew by Tradition from the Church of former Ages. This Tradition doth not certify you because you hold it fallible. And therefore most certainly I certify you that you will never believe Saint Matthewes Gospel with an infallible assent until you believe the Church infallible in her traditions. Your second shift is, this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek. Good Sir, tell me whether only possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent. And here give me leave by the way to show you once more the evident unevidence which is in that light by which you see Saint Luke's Gospel (for example) to be Gods true word, and so of all other Scriptures. The Greek Copy of Saint Luke, you see as evidently as the Sun to be Gods true Word by reading of it, and yet this great Evidence is so little different from that Evident inevidence, (which you call a Possibility) that Saint Matthews Greek Copy is Gods true and uncorrupted Word, that you cannot see (with your irradiated understanding) whether this inevidence be not to the full as good as that Evidence, and that it may not as well ground an infallible assent as that. Again, how come you to hold it a mere Possibility that Saint Matthews Gospel was written in Greek; for if the Greek Text of Saint Matthew be as truly Original as that of Saint Luke, your irradiated understanding must needs by its Light, see it to be God's Word, as well as you see the Sun by its Light; why then do you venture no further then to esteem it a possibility. Is it a mere possibility that St. Luke's Gospel is Gods uncorrupted word? Now let us see how slender your Conjecture is (though I confess it to be better in my judgement, than the light manifesting to you infallibly the truth of Saint Luke's Gospel:) Let us see, I say how slender your Conjecture is to prove that possibly Saint Matthews Gospel might be written first in Greek, because the Greek Copy interpreteth the Hebrew word, Emmanuel; which if it were written in Hebrew, needed not any interpretation. A pitiful weak Conjecture. And this Dart is no sooner raised above your head with weak hand, but it falls with a strong hand, upon your head again. The Greek Copy translateth Hebrew words, therefore (say you) it is no Translation, but it is an Original. Sir, it is manifest that Translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew words first, and then the Translation of it. So Genesis 31.48. Galaad, id est, tumulus testis. Galaad, that is, the witness heap. And Gen. 35.18. Benoni, id est, filius doloris mei. Benjamin, id filius dextrae. And Exod. 12. Phase, id est, transitus. And Exodus 26. Manhu, quod significat quid est ho. By these and divers such places you see how familiarly Translatours tell you the Hebrew word, and then the Interpretation of it. No profane mean authority would upon so slight a conjecture as this is, be rejected and contradicted. Much less if he made himself an eyewitness of what he said. Yet you reject Saint Jerom, though he saith he did see a copy of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes, and you reject him though all the Father's writings extant stand on his side, and this upon a most slender conjecture of your own, which would have made another man more wisely conjecture the quite contrary, and say, this copy Translateth, Ergo, it is a Translation. Whence it evidently appears how little you care either for the single, or for the unanimous consent of Eminent Fathers. But this being a point only to be tried by the Testimony of Antiquity, your Cause is lost without some good Authors can be found for you. Your third shift is in place of giving a Solution to make an Objection, ask, Why our Latin Translation was made Authentic, if the Church had made the Greek Authentic?  
I Answer, that I know of no body who told you, That the Greek Translation was made Authentic by the Church. Neither Greeke nor Latin can be Authentic but by the Church, because the Hebrew Original being lost, we cannot know how fare either Greek or Latin Translation agreeth with the Original, but by the infallible Tradition of the Church, you, who reject this, cannot know possibly how far translations be Gods uncorrupted word, for (as you say) they are only so far God's uncorrupted Word as they agree with the Original; But you know not how far they agree with the Original. Ergo you know not how far they be God's word. Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the Harmony with the other Gospels. Sir If any man intended to make a supposititious Gospel; do you not think he would take care, not to contradict the others. But what harmony can there be found in these many things related by Saint Matthew, and not related at all by any others? Yea, one of the greatest difficulties against Saint Matthews Gospel is to show that it exactly agreeth with other Scriptures from the beginning to the ending. And to be the briefer I will only instance in some places of the beginning and ending omitting all the rest. In the very first Chapter Saint Matthew tells us that joram did beget Ozias; And yet out of the fourth Book of Kings (which your Bible is pleased to call the Second Book) it is manifest that joram begat Ochozias C. 8. And that Ochozias did beget joas, C. 11. And that joas begat Amasias, C. 12. and this Amasias begat Azarias C. 14. who is called here in Saint Matthew, Ozias. I ask then how cometh Saint Matthew to say joas begat Ozias, who was born three Generations after him. And being that these three Generations happened between the time of David, and the Captivity of Babylon, they being added to the other 14 Generations do make them to be seaventeen. How then is it true which Saint Matthew saith verse 17. that all Generations from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen. For all these Generations were Seventeen. Again he saith, there were fourteen Generations from Abraham to David, and (besides the fourteen now mentioned) that there were fourteen more Generations from the carrying away into Babylon until Christ. Count now thrice fourteen Generations, and they in all will make forty two. But I pray now take your fingers, and count all the Generations specified in Saint Matthew, and you shall find them to be only forty one. A wonderful exceeding great difficulty. And this for the beginning. Now towards the end of Saint Matthew see the Twenty seven Chapter v. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was said by the Prophet Jeremy; Read all the Prophet Jeremy and he hath no such matter in him. What Harmony appeareth here? Indeed in the Prophet Zachary (C. 11.) there is in substance what Saint Matthew said in his former Chapter about the denial of Christ by Saint Peter, how much do Interpreters sweat to reconcile what Saint Matthew saith with that which other Evangilists say, which seem to differ in very many circumstances. No less, yea far greater difficulty is it, to make all that Saint Matthew saith in his last Chapter concerning some Circumstances of the Resurrection of Christ, as the attentive Reader may easily see. Now I pray tell me if it be not a plain Paradox to say that the agreeing of Saint Matthew with other Scriptures is so apparent, that even from hence a man may know his Gospel to be infallibly God's word, whereas the apparent disagreeing bringeth most vast difficulties, as I have showed. Your fifth and last shift is, That all the people do fix their faith upon that which is interpreted and not upon the Interpretation. If you do so, then for any thing you know, you may fix your faith upon a Lie: for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the Interpreter be God's Word, or the Interpreters own word? Especially when we know not who this Interpreter was, how skilful, how faithful, how true a Copy he used? How know you that this translator doth not convey his own fancies in place of God's Word? Do you know it because your fancy also tells you that this is God's Word, than thus we may have a double fantastical assurance, and nothing else. This you are forced to hold sufficient, yet how doth this agree with your own words, Translations are only so far God's Words as they agree with the Originals, you cannot resolve your faith into the Original never proposed unto you, into the Translation you say you do not resolve it, yet you resolve it into the written word. What written word is that, which is neither Translation nor Original? This I ask and this you are bound to tell me, being your very main Position is that all you believe is resolved in to the written words. If the Illumination of the Spirit can tell you God's word without any certain assured conveying means, you must needs be a prophet, you must needs have far more than you will allow to the Church. You must needs know which of those so many Greek Copies, is the only true one. And by the like illumination of the Spirit any clown neither understanding Latin, Greek or Hebrew, will be able infallibly to know which English Translation is Gods true Word. And if you say he cannot because he cannot confer it with the Original, he will truly tell you that he can confer it with the Original, as much as you can confer any Translation of S. Matthew with the Original, which not being Extant in the whole World can no more be looked upon by you who know Hebrew, then by him. To other Translations you give but humane credit, such as he giveth to the English Translation.  
Now after you have given to every one of your own any Illumination of Spirit sufficient to know infallibly God's Word without having any better conveyance, than a humane Translation, you (very judiciously) deny any such Illumination to the Church, because she erred in Translating Ipsa for ipsum. It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be Translated Ipsum, how know you the Church followed the false Hebrew Copy? How many most grave and most ancient Fathers have also read Ipsa. And it was a loud lie of Kemnitius to say the contrary. See the D●way Annotations Gen. 3. V 15. And Bellarm. l. 2. de verbo Dei, Cap. 12. And if you ask why the Greek was not made infallible by the Church as well as the Latin? I answer, we have her declaration that the Latin Vulgar is Authentic, and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners; when the Church shall declare as much of the Greek, that may then be believed Authentic; if both be Authentic upon the Church's Declaration, yet you, who believe her Declarations to be fallible, will still have a only fallible ground for that assent which you give to Saint Matthews Gospel. So that all your shifts fail you in this important point of Faith towards a whole Gospel. All that you prove concerning other points debated between us out of Holy Fathers, since they find so little credit with you) after their Authority is demonstrated to stand for such or such a point) are not to be insisted upon until you esteem them more.  
49. I come then to what you say to my 13. Number, 
Of my 13th. Number.  where I Object Luther's not seeing the Apocalypse and the Epistle of Saint James to be Canonical by their own light. Your first answer is, That a Negative Argument from one is not cogent, for it followeth not he did not see, therefore he could not see it? Sir, in our case a Negative Argument is a strong proof, and as strong an one as this. I do not see (endeavouring to see, and having good eyes wide open) a light as visible by its light, as the Sun by his light: Ergo, there is no such light standing before me. You will grant Luther's Eyes as good as your own, his Understanding as Irradiated as your own; the Apocalypse stood before his eyes as clearly as yours, what should hinder him from seeing it, and make you see it? The light is the same, the Proposition of it the same, your eyes or understanding no better, nor more assisted. Secondly, you answer that hence we see you do not follow him in all things blindly. Sir, the Question is here, who is blind, and truly blind. For you say that a light, no less visible by itself then the Sun● is, stands before both your eyes in the reading of the Apocal. and yet the one believeth as truly as he believeth any thing that he seethe this light, the other will venture his salvation that he seethe it not, for, in the same book of Apocalyps last Chap. verse 1. it is said. If any man shall take away from the words of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life. Luther took all the book away; you hold it all Scripture, and yet him a Saint. You go on, and add that the Apocalypse and other Books also have been doubted of. But do you not mark the more doubt there hath been of them, the more evident it is that they most ungroundedly be affirmed by you to carry their own light by which they may be seen, as we see the Sun by his own light. Again, being you neither agree with us in the Canon of the Scripture, nor with your own Brethren, what reason have you to obtrude a Canon of your own coining to us for Judge of all Controversies, you not agreeing nor knowing how many books make up the true Canon, and all agreeing that divers books of the true Canon be quite lost? Where shall we find this our Judge? Among us (after the Church Declaration was notified concerning the receiving of any book for Canonical) you will never find it doubted of by any true Catholics. You are mistaken, if you think Saint Jerom held the Macchabees not to be Canonical after the definition of the Council of Carthage. It was before that Council that he writ what he writ. Concerning the rest you add out of Saint Austin, I would say more if you esteemed the Father's more, what you add after that, hath already been answered.  

〈◊〉 14th. 〈◊〉  50. In my 14. Num. for a further proof that the Scripture alone cannot decide all controversies, I did and do still insist upon this argument, that almost all Controversies do arise about the true sense of such or such a Text in Scripture. The sense is the kernel, the life, the Soul of the text; miss in this, miss in all. And yet about this sense greatest wits vastly differ in many points necessary to Salvation, and consequently many miss the true sense to their eternal damnation. This book of the Scripture, by itself alone could never yet end these differences; Therefore if God had left us no other means to end our differences, but this Book, about the true understanding of which all our differences arise, he should have no better provided for our unity (even in points necessary to Salvation) than that Lawmaker, who should leave his Commonwealth a Book of Laws to end all their Controversies in Law, about the meaning of which Book, he knew all the chiefest Controversies would still arise. This is indeed a repetition of what I said, but it is a repetition of what you have not yet answered. For against your first answer it is apparent that there is not only a necessity of a judge different from Scripture, to declare unto us, which books be the true and uncorrupted word of God; but there is also a main necessity of such a judge to know the undoubted meaning of God's undoubted Word, about which there be far more controversies in points necessary to Salvation. And though, in your second answer, you tell us, that all points necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, yet I have plainly proved the contrary Chap. 3 Num. 200. And my discourse (Contrary to your 3. Answer) is affectual, for in points necessary to Salvation, to be believed with divine faith, we must have an infallible authority to rely on, for that faith, which relieth upon a fallible authority, cannot be an infallible assent. And again if we have not full security of this infallible authority, we cannot assent unto it with an assent infallible, to which we being obliged by God, God also must have furnished us of full security to know this authority to be infallible, as I have showed him to do. And yet again, that this infallible authority, so well secured is invested in the Church appeareth sufficiently by this, that the Scriptures not assisting us in the infallible knowledge of their own true sense, in points necessary to be believed with infallible faith, we must be assisted to this infallible knowledge by some other infallible means (for fallible will not do the deed.) No other infallible means can, with any shadow of probability, be said given unto us, but the infallible authority of the Church▪ Therefore her authority must be infallible, as shall at large be proved in the next Chapter, and then (in the next after that) I will show that this infallible Church is the Roman, and none but the Roman.  
51. Again, I said, that if Christ had intended the Book of Scriptures for the judge of all Controversies, the knowledge of this point being so primely necessary, must needs be according to your principles evidently set down in Scripture, in w● all points necessary to salvation are (as you say) evidently set down. You pretend here this point to be clear in Scripture, but I have largely shown the contrary and answered your objection. And I retort it thus, that if God would have us in all controversies guided by the Scripture only he would clearly have said so in these Scripture yea he would have told us the true undoubted Canon of Scripture. This is now unknown to you: And we are sure divers parts of this Canon are lost, what Scripture tells us we must be judged by only part of Scripture? I pray answer this.  

Of my 14th. Number.  52. Moreover I added that if God would have given us a Book for our Judge, he would never have given us for our Judge such a Book as the Scripture is, which very often speaketh obscurely, sometime so prophetically, that most would think it spoke of the present time, when it speaketh of the time to come, that it speaks of one person, for example of David, when it speaketh of another, for example of Christ; and much more I added to this effect, that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our Judge. My adversary to avoid this Argument, so mangleth the sense, that he may make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect by reporting them as if I should have said, If God had intended Scripture for our Judge, he would not have given us such a Book as scripture. Which words taken without those particles, for our judge, seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture, but taken with those particles (which purposely were added, to make the sense of the writer appear) the sense can offend no man capable of sense. For what man of understanding would affectionately cry out of disrespect, if not of blasphemy against Scripture, if he should hear one say, if God had intended still the Scripture for sole Judge in all Law Controversies, he would never have given us such a Book as the Scripture is for our judge. Would any sober man let fall such a censure upon such an occasion? Is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a Book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it, and yet not be fit to decide all Controversies by itself alone, it never being intended for that end. It is sufficient that this Book provides an infallible means to judge them, by sending us to the Church for our Judge. They truly disgrace the Scripture, who will first make men believe that all necessary Controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone, and that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them, and then, when it comes to the trial, are not able to show any Text of Scripture, deciding many and most important Controversies: for, this is in effect to say, God performed very unsufficiently what he intended to do, by Scripture. If what I said gave you any advantage, show it by disproving what I said.  
53. First, you ask how these words are put together, so Prophetically, that most would think that the Scripture speaketh of the time present, when it speaketh of the time to come? I answer, that it was fit the old Testament should be Prophetical, and I intended nothing less than to blame Scripture. And yet I say, that when the Scripture useth such words as signify to us a verity present, as well as a verity future, we (who have nothing but these words to direct us) cannot tell infallibly whether God intended by them to speak only of what was present, or of what was to come. And so God's meaning in all these places is obscure unto us. And if you can help us to any assured means of knowing infallibly the hidden sense of God, uttered in this manner, you shall do more than any of your Doctors ever did. Secondly, whereas you think it little to the purpose of him, who is to show in how doubtful terms the Scriptures sometimes express themselves, when they spoke so, that you cannot tell whether David speaketh of himself or of Christ, your judgement is very different from Candaris, that wise judicious man, who had charge of all the Treasure of the Queen of Aethiopia, (Acts 8.27.) He read Isaias, the clearest of all the Prophets concerning Christ, and he read a place as clearly speaking of Christ, as most places you can turn unto with all your skill, and yet when Philip said to him, Understandest thou what thou readest? He, who was so prudent, and so sincere a searcher of the Truth answered, How can I except some man should guide me? And then he asked of his guide, that, of which he most doubted; I pray thee of whom speaketh the Prophet this? of himself or of some other man? Had you been there you would have told him he had blamed Scripture as you tell me for the like cause. Who doubteth but Prophets should speak prophetically. And yet again, who doubteth but that this their speaking so, makes them to need a Guide & an Interpreter.  
54. I do not think that among your own Clergy or Laity, you are as much esteemed as he who spoke as fully of this point as I did: I mean Doctor jeremy Tailor in his Discourse of the Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. 3. where he proveth the uncertainty of Arguments 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 Anagogical, sometimes there are divers literal Senses in the same place; so he. Now it depends upon the secret intention of the Holy Ghost to have used these words in some one only, or two, or more of these senses. Is there no difficulty think you in finding out so great a secret, and that infallibly as we must do in points necessary to salvation? And if you say the sense is always cleared out of some Text or other in such points, you say more than you can prove. Take for an example these four words: This is my Body, you must say they are spoken in a Figurative sense, and not in their Natural sense: show this in a Figurative sense to be infallibly the true sense by any other clear Text, or else you show not what you say. Two hundred several Interpretations have been given of these four words. Is this a sign that true sense is easily known, and known infallibly? Is not this about a point necessary to salvation?  
55. To show further the difficulty there was to know the undoubted meaning of Scripture even in precepts, (which being precepts are damnably broken) I used this argument: the Scripture useth the Imperative Mood as well when it counsels as when it commands. What infallible means than have we to know what is recommended only to us as a Counsel or Command, as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation; Instead of teaching me this means you say you cannot swallow this without chewing, because I suppose that there are Counsels of perfection above things of Command; whilst you chew this, do not you see that your teeth by't Saint Paul; who expressly supposeth with me, that there be counsels of perfections above things of Command. For (1 Cor. 7.25.) he saith. Concerning Virgins I have no Commandment of our Lord, yet I give Counsel. And Verse 38. He that giveth his daughter in marriage doth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doth better. How doth this agree with your strange Divinity, according to which we have done but our duty, and what we are obliged to do under a damnable sin, when we have done as much as we could. Is this true? Might not this man have given his daughter in marriage who doth not give her? He might have done so, and done well according to Saint Paul. According to you he is bound to do all that he could do. But he could have done better in not giving her to marriage, therefore according to you he was bound not to give her under pain of damnation. Here I must entreat you to mark the words of the Text you allege against me, Luke 17. So likewise when you have done all those things which are commanded you; (he saith not which are only commended by way of Council) say we are unprofitable servants, we have done what we ought to do, to wit, by an express Precept obliging under damnation. In one sense this man who hath not married his daughter, may truly say, I have done what I ought to do, not out of strict Obligation, binding under pain of Hell-fire; (for I might have done well in doing the contrary,) but what I ought to do, out of more perfect charity. To swallow this Apostolical Doctrine is far easier than to admit into ones mouth those words of yours. The Commandments of God are given to us according to the tenor of our ability in Adam. What evident Text teacheth this? I am sure Saint john saith, Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandments. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his Commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him, John 2. Therefore since Adam's days God enabled us to keep his Commandments.  
56. You go on as if I found fault with Scripture. I only find fault with those who affirm Scripture to have been intended by God for an end, to which I show it never was intended. Because if it had been intended by God to teach us clearly all things necessary to salvation (otherwise then by sending us to the Church, and by bidding us keep our received Traditions) it would have set the things down clearly and distinctly, and not have left these points to be picked out, one out of one book, another out of another, no man knoweth directly where; yea divers books contained not so much as one of these points, which you hold necessary to salvation, especially in plain and clear terms. And those books which do contain such points do intermingle so many other less necessary points, or points of doubtful necessity, with those which are wholly necessary (without ever telling us of this less or greater necessity) that all the whole Bible must be very carefully, and very attentively read over (which is impossible, because divers whole Books of the Bible are lost) before a man can come to the infallible knowledge of such points as you will say are necessary, which points you say are but few, and the Books of Scripture are many, and divers more have been written and quite lost; and how can we tell whether all these we have now, contain all points necessary? For the most you pretend is, that in the whole Canon all points necessary were delivered; we have not the whole Canon, but divers books of it have perished; Therefore we have no assurance that the Scripture we have containeth all things necessary. The Scriptures we have, make a book so big, that the far greater part of the world (taken up with so many necessary affairs) cannot in a very long space of time read over this Book with any part of that exactness, which according to your own Principles, must be required to find out, which points be necessary to salvation. For to do this, they must first read over the whole Canon, and yet divers books of it are lost, and not to be had, how shall they read them? Secondly, to have assurance that they have read over the whole Canon, they must read over such books as we hold to be part of the true Canon, to see whether they be so or no, and use such diligences as are necessary for an infallible assurance. They must also note most accurately all places which may perhaps clearly deliver a necessary point, when they shall have been conferred with other places, which perhaps be at the other end of the Bible, or may occur to me when I less observe any kind of connexion with what I read before. Besides this, for fear Translations (which are only so fare God's Word as they agree with the Original) should be taken by me for God's true Word; I must consult with the Original, and with the true Original, of which I cannot get an undoubted copy infallibly secured from corruption, Is it likely that God, who hath promised us a Way so direct unto us that fools cannot err by it, would intent to lead us by a way having so many passages open to error. These difficulties show that God did not intent this Book to be our only guide. His wisdom directs him to the best means to compass his intention. Even our ordinary wisdom (if we had an intention to set forth a writing to end all necessary Controversies) would direct us to set down plainly and clearly in one place all those (few as you say) points necessary to be believed. When God determined to set down all the Jewish Ceremonies, you see how fully, particularly, and clearly he setteth them down in Leviticus. Points of faith necessary to salvation import incomparably more than points of mere Ceremony. If then God had intended a Book, by which only he was resolved to deliver unto us all points necessary to salvation, these points (as you say) being but few, he would in some one part of these books have clearly set down these few points, a thousand times more importing then the points of Ceremonies. Many hold that the Epistles of Saint John were written after his Apocalyps, and so (by order of time) that they were the very last part of the Canon. And yet in the very last part (of this my last part) of the Canon, Saint john saith, I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen writ them. But I trust we shall see thee shortly, and we shall speak face to to face. No man can say that these many things which St. john had to write, were things unnecessary; wherefore many necessary things may not be set down in the Canon. And yet the Canon is very complete in order to its true end, and also in order to the ending of all Controversies by sending us to the Church for full instruction, as I have showed. And it is apparently false which you say, that the Scripture doth give us every particular point which is necessary to be believed, as I have showed in this Chapter. And whereas you add secondly, That the Scripture giveth also many points not necessary, you mark not that the vast number of those points among which, here, and there (we are not assured where) the necessary points are intermingled from the beginning of the Bible to the end, is a thing which would make any man far from being fully assured, that God's intention was by this Book alone to decide all Controversies about points only necessary, which might far more easily for our capacity, have been done in some one Chapter of some one of these Books.  
57 After this you urge that our Church hath not decided all necessary Controversies. Sir, Our Doctrine is that the Church can decide any point formerly revealed when any necessity shall require it or the declaration of this point concern our Salvation. Salvation hath very securely been had without the decision of those points you speak of. If circumstances happen that Salvation cannot be had without their decision, they will then be decided. If you acknowledge a real necessity to be at all times of the infallible knowledge of those points then by your own principles you are bound to say that they are plainly set down in Scripture. And I am sure our Church hath determined that we are obliged to believe all Scripture with an undoubtful belief, either you must say these points are not necessary, and then all your arguments fall of themselves, or else you must say these be plainly set down in Scripture, and then we are by our Church obliged to believe them with divine faith. I add that our whole Church teacheth the definitions of Councils confirmed, to be infallible. Submit to this Judge appointed by God, who did bid us hear the Church, and you shall find her definitions not to leave you ignorant of what is necessary for you to know. To cavil at her, you will pretend that to be necessary which you will say the next moment is unnecessary.  
58. But to show you further that the Scripture is not clear in all points necessary to Salvation, with such clarity as is necessary to put an end effectually to all controversies, I take a point or two set down with full as great clarity as divers other points can be showed to be set down; which other points, you do affirm both to be necessary to Salvation, and also to be set down clear enough, to decide the Controversy for you; though they be set down with no greater clarity than those points which I will specify; and which you will say be not set down clear enough to decide the Controversy for us: whence the inconsequence of your proceed will be made evident, whilst all shall see, that you will pretend such a degree of clarity in the Texts which you use to allege for such points, to be sufficient to decide them for you, and by and by they shall see again a higher degree of clarity rejected by you as unsufficient to decide a point against you. To prove this the first point I specify is of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. The text in your own Bible speaketh thus, James 5.14. Is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders (Priests) of the Church. And let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of our Lord. And the prayer 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. What imports a dying man more then to have that applied to him in due manner by which he may be secured (upon the word of a God) that, if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him? And yet you cry superstition, superstition. If a Priest be called for to pray over a sick man, and to anoint him with oil, which is that Visible Act to which invisible grace, justifiing from sin, is promised in those words, And if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. How clear this place is, appears by the very letter, in which we have all we desire to make a Sacrament. A Visible sign of invisible grace. You will say, this clarity is not in a degree sufficient to make a man believe with divine faith, that this Unction of anointing is a Sacrament, or a Visible sign of invisible Grace. And (so soon as I shall ask) you will tell me that your grand fundamental and Capital point, All things necessary to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture, is a point delivered in Scripture by Texts, having a sufficient degree of clarity to make it an Article to be believed with a divine faith; I call for those Texts, and you do give them as well as you can, (as I suppose) I examine them all in this Chapter (from my eighth Number to my fifteenth) and I dare Venture my life that no wise conscionable man will say that any one of those texts, or all put together, do with as great a degree of clarity affirm All things necessary to Salvation to be plainly set down in Scripture alone, as this text I alleged affirmeth this Sacrament of Anointing. But this, you say, is not affirmed with a degree of Clarity sufficient to decide the Controversy for us, and to ground an infallible belief of this point, Therefore that degree of Clarity is not sufficient to decide in your behalf that capital Controversy, and to ground an infallible belief of it. And yet for many other points (which I specified in the beginning of this Chapter) you have not so much Scripture as you have for this prime point, though I did choose this for my instance, because I had examined all your texts. You give two answers to this Objection. The first is, that, if the Scripture hath decided this point for us, than the Scripture can judge and end Controversies. But Sir, doth it hence follow that it can end all necessary Controversies, because it can end this one Controversy? Again, is this Controversy by this Text ended? Do not you still stand out in the contrary opinion? This Text indeed might (as I said) seem in the impartial judgement of a prudent man, to say evidently that this anointing is a Sacrament, and sure I am that it saith it clearer than any Scripture you can bring for many points which you say are clearly decided by Scripture; yet we see by the experience which we have of you, and yours, that even this great degree of clarity in this Text will not serve to convince your judgements, whence it is manifestly inferred that a less degree of clarity (which notwithstanding is the highest, which can be found in many Texts that be the clearest alledgeable for many points necessary to salvation) will not effectually end the controversies about those points. And therefore there must be some other means to end them. Your Second Answer is flatly against the Text, for you say these words do only relate to the gift of healing in those days: and the Scripture saith they have also a relation to the healing of the Soul. If he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him. I pray what Scripture have you to prove that the Elders in those days did commonly cure all sick anointing them with oil? I am sure you can allege nothing but some uncertain conjecture. I asked you also if you had one place of Scripture half as clear against this Sacrament of anointing, as the Text I brought was clear for it? But you neither did nor could give me any.  
59 The second point which I did choose to prove that such Texts of Scripture, as are clearer than those Texts, which you can allege for many necessary points; for example clearer than any Text for the Sunday, or baptising children, is (notwithstanding this greater degree of clarity) rejected by you, as not sufficient to decide the controversy against you. Therefore I say, you most inconsequently proceed when you affirm far less clearer Texts sufficient to decide all Controversies. The Text brought by me, and rejected thus by you, was, This is my Body. Words expressed by four several Writers of the Scripture without any intimation of their being spoken Figuratively. And if you confer this place with the sixth of Saint john, he hath these words, The bread that I will give is my flesh, and then (as it were purposely to show he spoke not Figuratively) he added, My Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed. Notwithstanding these so clear Texts you hold that the Scripture decideth this point against us with a decision sufficient to end the controversy, And yet for the contrary all the Texts you can bring have not that degree of clarity which these Texts have against you. But you deny that these Texts decide against you. Therefore (to speak with tolerable consequence) you should acknowledge that less clear Texts cannot decide against us; yet being, by your own main principle, bound to show that all points necessary be clearly determined according to truth in Scripture, you are put upon a necessity to say that less clear Texts suffice to determine this controversy for you, though you stiffly maintain that more clear Texts are not able to determine against you. By which it is apparent how false that Principle is which forceth you to utter these inconsequent consequences. By this also you may see that the Contradiction you would find in my words for saying on the one side these Texts are clear, and on the other side that this Controversy the Scripture doth not decide, doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles. For you on the one side say that other Texts (which are manifestly less clear) are clear enough to end the controversies; therefore these which are clearer, must needs be clear enough for that end. And again you say on the other side, by these our Texts (clearer than yours) this Controversy is not clearly decided. Therefore I must consequently say, that according to you This Controversy the Scripture doth not decide. It is according to your Principles that these Texts must be clear, because they be clearer than those which you are forced to affirm clear; and again you must say they be not clear, for fear you should confess them to decide against you. Now if these two places be denied to be clear, with a clarity sufficient to put an end to the Controversy, then according to my principles scarce any Controversy will ever be decided by any Text. And this is most for my turn to show the necessity of a living Judge: whereas afterwards you take occasion to dispute of this Sacrament, you do not do it as it should here have been done to the present purpose, to wit, by alleging more clear Texts to prove that Christ's true body is not really in the Sacrament, than I allege to prove that it was really in it. For these Texts I do call, These Texts I require. Without you give me these more clear Texts, you will never give me a satisfactory answer. All other things I wave of until I have these clearer Texts. The difference of these two hundred interpretations about these four words This is my Body, though they be not owned by you, yet they make strongly against you in this respect, that they show the Text of Scripture not to have ended, but to have occasioned these endless differences. And consequently they show this point not to be clear out of Scripture. You in vain are busy about other things which are not to the purpose, so to entertain your Reader that he may not mark your omitting the main point, which was to show this great Controversy to be clearly decided on your side by Scripture only.  

Of my 15th. Number.  60. I go on still pressing other points, the belief of which points yourself hold necessary to salvation, and yet you cannot show them evidently taught in Scripture. For you cannot produce an evident Text, teaching that God the Father is not begotten, God the Son is not made, but begotten by his Father only, that the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth, and that both from the Father and the Son. And that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father. Your answer to this is most highly unsatisfactory. You say that although the matter of these points be not found in terminis in Scripture, yet the sense of them, according to equivalence, may as well as Transubstantiation? To be as clearly set down as Transubstantiation in Scripture, is (according to your own principles) not to be clearly set down at all. In your answer you were to show that these points were clearly set down in Scripture, and you answer that they are as clearly set down as a point which is not clearly set down. Is this any way satisfactory? Neither is it more satisfactory if you mean to argue out of our own principles, for according to us, all points necessary (and this point in particular) are not clearly set down in Scripture. And to prove this I have laboured all this Chapter. So that you neither satisfy according to your own nor our Principles. Your second answer is destroyed by your former, for whilst in that you profess to hold these Articles, and not hold them upon the authority of the Church, you leave yourself no other authority, upon which you can hold them but only such Texts of Scripture as are not clear, and no more sufficient to ground faith, than other places are to ground a belief of Transubstantiation. Be such places sufficient?  
61. For another necessary point not plainly set down in Scripture, I urge Baptism of children, 
Of my 16th. Number.  which is by no evident Text of Scripture taught us. You answer that it is not necessary for the salvation of the children to be baptised. And to prove this pernicious doctrine, you bring a Text which clearly speaketh only of men old enough to believe and desire Baptism. For your Text is, He that believeth (he is then old enough to believe) and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not (and consequently would positively not be baptised) shall be damned. This Text you see, speaketh nothing of children, and whilst it damneth those who would not so much as believe, it showeth itself to speak of those who would not be baptised, and these it damneth. How doth it then intimate that those who are children, and could have only baptism, in re, and not in voto, should be saved without Baptism, for which point you bring it, and yet of this point it speaketh not at all; much less doth it speak as clearly as another text speaketh the quite contrary, to wit, Except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Jo. 3. v. 5. Hear your own Doctor Tailor in his defence of Episcopacy, Sect. 19 P. 100 Baptism of Infants is of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried, and yet the Church hath founded this Rite Rule upon the Tradition of the Apostles: And wise men (of whom I hope you are one) do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture enforce a necessity of communicating Infants upon us, as we do of baptising Infants upon them; Therefore a great Master of Geneva in a Book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolical traditional Ordination. They that deny this (Ordinary necessity of baptising Infants) are by the just Anathema of the Catholic Church, confidently condemned for Heretics: so he. This ordinary necessity of Baptism to all that ever cried, You deny; Therefore by the just Anathema of the Catholic Church, you are condemned for an Heretic: yea you go further than the Pelagian Heresy, for they were counted Heretics (See Saint Aust. Heresi. 88) for saying, Although Infants be not baptised, they shall possess an eternal and blessed life; though it be out of the Kingdom of God: You will admit them into the possession thereof even unto the Kingdom of God. Whereas your own Musculus (in Locis, Tit. de Baptismo) saith; The Fathers denied salvation to the Children who died without Baptism, though their Parents were faithful. And by reason of this necessity of Baptism to the salvation of Infants, held so generally, Calvin himself saith, It was usual many Ages since, even almost from the beginning of the Church, that in danger of death Lay-people might baptise, Institut. (Lib. 4. Cap. 15. Numb. 20.) 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 Ecclesiast. Policy 62. A number of other learned Protestants are against your Opinion. But I say less of this point, for your own Opinion giveth me advantage enough to prove what I intent, that is, a point to be necessary, and yet not plainly set down in Scripture; if you grant that there is a Precept necessary to be fulfilled by Parents that they procure their Children to be baptised. But why God should command this, the Children being as well saved without it (according to you) as with it, still remains to be proved. I stand upon your grant of this Precept as necessarily to be fulfilled by the Parents. This Precept is necessary to be fulfilled. This Precept is not plainly set down in Scripture. Therefore all necessary points are not plainly set down in Scripture. Your answer will not here help you out, you say, Whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the Virtue of the Principle. But you cannot show that this precept, given to the Parents, is necessarily inferred out of Scripture. Not out of the Institution of our Saviour, for he also instituted the Eucharist not necessary for Infants not out of the substitution to Circumcision, for so it should not be necessary to women, no nor to any but those of the jewish Nation to whom only Circumcision was given as necessary. Is this a necessary Consequence? Circumcision was necessary for the male children, Ergo Baptism is necessary for male and female. You see it is not half true. Neither is that a necessary Consequence which is drawn from the baptising of whole families: for first, as we read whole families were baptised, so we read that whole families believed. So john. 4. verse 53. Himself believed and his whole family. Will you hence evidently infer that the little Children under years of discretion also believed, as you infer that they are to be baptised by a necessary precept. Again this illation is far from being evident, for it is not evident that there be little ones in every family alive, and those also under the age of discretion. In many families all the little ones that be alive are above seven years old. There be many families of people newly married who have not yet any Children; There be many families of people who never had Children as those who are barren, Others have lost all they had by death. It is then no evident consequence, He baptised the whole family, therefore he baptised little Infants, I insist not upon the Authorities I alleged out of Saint Austin. St Chrysost. because I deal with one who little regards authority confessed to be the Fathers.  
62. Now Sir, to conclude this long Chapter, I will show that I conclude this point (and so I do all the former) just as you say I must conclude. For you say to me you must prove that those points were and aught to be determined by the Church upon necessity of Salvation. This I prove by this argument. This point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent. But we cannot believe any point with an infallible assent, unless it be determined by an infallible authority; therefore we must find out an infallible authority which hath determined these points. The authority of the Scripture (as I have proved) hath not determined these points. We must therefore find out some other infallible authority upon whose determination we may be able to do, that which to be saved we must do, to wit, upon which we may be able to believe these points with an infallible assent: No such infallible Authority can be found on Earth, if we deny the Authority of the Church to be infallible. I conclude then that her Authority must needs be infallible.   

The Fourth CHAPTER. The Church is this Judge. Her Authority Infallible.  
NO better beginning can I give to this Chapter, 
Of my 17th. Number.  than the very last Number of the last Chapter, which I must entreat my reader to note most carefully, so to observe the forcible deduction by which I prove the necessity of a judge, different from Scripture, who must be infallible for the reason there assigned, and who can be no other than the Church. This proof alone might serve the turn, yet I add.  
2. First those words Matthew 12.19 spoken to Saint Peter; upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; these words allow the Church a security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious that the gates of Hell may prevail against her. And this promise made to the Church is that which mainly makes to my purpose; Whether the church be built upon Saint Peter, and his Successors, or upon the faith of Saint Peter, is not the thing I chiefly here aim at. My aim is to find a Church built on a Rock so strong that no error shall ever overthrow it. And so I have nothing to do with your long disputation about Saint Peter. I am now secured the Church shall never be a Nest of Errors, Idolatrous, superstitious, wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible tribunal without sufficient warrant. All or any of these things would bring her to the gates of Hell, they being all damnable impieties. That, what is said of this infallibility of the Church, only concerns the Roman Church, I will show in the next Chapter. Have patience until then or read that first; You being to say nothing against me until you begin to say sixthly, That you have enough against me for saying the Church is secured from all damnable errors by this promise. For this maketh you think my meaning to be, that Christ doth not intent here to exempt the Church from all error but only damnable. But Sir my meaning in specifying her exemption from damnable error was only that time to take for granted, that, which most of yours use to grant, and even thence to press, your further, you grant the Church free from damnable error, whence I have at least thus much that no body shall be damned for following the guidance of the Church. And I have also that the whole Church, being thus by divine assistance secured from erring damnably, is secured from ever being destroyed by any damnable error, she is therefore always to have such a visible existence as is necessary to afford a guidance secured from erring damnable by it. Now by what Logic do you infer that because the Church is secured from all damnable error, therefore according to my doctrine she is not secured from other errors? All you build, upon this consequence, falls to the ground. Going on I find you by the way quarrelling with one of the Cardinal virtues, even Prudence herself, which you intimate then only to have place, when Religion is chosen by interest. I pray do you think in earnest that men cannot proceed prudently in the choice of their Religion? Then you conclude that all the force my former argument hath it hath from Scripture. Is not my argument the better for this against you, who profess to believe Scripture to be Gods undoubted word, independently of the authority of the Church, because it is clearly manifested to you, to be so by its light, as the Sun by his light. Is it not a convincing argument which is strengthened with an authority acknowledged so firm? Against a Heathen (until I had proved Scripture to him) I would not use this argument.  
4. Presently I find you again stumbling at the sense in which I took the word damnable, as if I should allow the following of the Church in other errors. No Sir, you cannot follow her in other errors, because she cannot go before you in any error; not in any damnable error, as your own selves teach, no nor in any other error as in this very next argument is proved, if you mark the force of it.  
5. The force then of my next Argument is this, God commandeth us to obey the Church and hear her; in obeying her and hearing her, we follow God's Command. But no kind of error, little, or great, can be incurred, by following Gods Command, therefore we can be lead into no kind of error by following the Church. Again you yourselves say it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an error, though it be not a damnable error. Wherefore if I can prove that we are obliged to follow the Church, I shall prove also that she cannot guide us into any kind of error. This I prove by that text Matthew 18. verse 18. If he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a publican or a Heathen, Therefore merely, and purely, for not hearing the Church, a man is to be held and truly, according to God's judgement, deserving to be held, a publican or Heathen: but all we are obliged not to deserve to be held by God's judgement, Publicans or heathens, Therefore all are obliged to hear the Church, being that merely and purely for not hearing her, they are to be held, and deservingly held, according to God's judgement, Publicans and Heathens, as is also further insinuated in the next verse, where it is said, this sentence shall be ratified in Heaven. Now if any man reply that we are to hear the Church so long as she swerveth 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. Ergo, it proveth that she cannot swerve from God's word, and indeed, if she could, the merely not hearing her, could not deserve, that a man should deserve to be accounted, according to God's judgement, a Publican or Heathen. But you tell me this text is to be understood, not of matters of faith or unbelief, but of matters of trespass between brother and brother, and refractoriness in the person. And that it respects excommunication by censure, in which also it may err. Neither is a man bound to believe the censure is just, unless it appears to be so. This last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine, for the unanimous opinion of learned men is, That a man is bound to hold his superiors censure or command to be just, unless the contrary appears evident. See your own Doctors, Chillingworth, P. 308, N. 108. Hooker, P. 310, 311. N. 110. Laud, P. 226. And indeed you bring all to this, that, when all comes to all, you are the last judge, to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred, and not to the sentence of the Church, for you reserve to yourself the last judgement of her sentence, to see whether it be just or no in your own private opinion. Sir, if the contrary be not evident, the Church (who is Superior) is to be followed, and obeyed. If the contrary be evident it is impossible such a superior as the Church is, assembled in a general Council should not mark that evidence, without we will call that evident, or not evident, which is for our present turn to call evident or not evident. That which is truly evident will of itself appear to be so at least to the most judicious, upright, and best instructed Prelates of the Church. And this is to be said according to human Reason, although they had no infallible promise of a more than humane assistance, from the Holy Ghost. Moreover Sir, let us if you please, not pass so fare as the Censure, but let us make a stay in the mere consideration only of the cause, for which the censure is given: that the cause is not hearing the Church; for this, and merely for this only cause, according to the text, this man is (according to God's judgement) deservedly to be held as a Publican or Heathen; and therefore, if for this act of not hearing the Church, the censure cometh to be after wards pronounced against him, that censure will be made good in Heaven, as the next verse clearly saith; Wherefore it is impossible that this Censure should be unjust, if he truly be guilty of not hearing the Church. It is true that a man may by false information, or some such way be judged to be guilty of not hearing the Church, when really he is not guilty, and so there may be an error in the mistake of the fact, and thus Clavae errante in mater of fact, the sentence will not be ratified in Heaven. But this is nothing to the purpose, for still he, who is truly guilty of not hearing the Church, is for that only fact, and merely for that cause, to be held deservedly, according to God's judgement, as a publican or Heathen. And so the Church cannot error in denouncing Excommunication against such a person. And hence you see how truly miserable such a person is, and how it must needs be damnable unto him not to hear the Church, which not to hear, maketh a man to be held as a Publican or Heathen most deservedly, and according to Gods own judgement. To hold himself not to deserve this punishment, is to hold against Scripture. You highly wrong Saint Athanasius, to say he heard not the Church, See my 9 Number.  
These my Premises being made good, it followeth clearly, that no man is secure in conscience who will not obey the Church. And hence again it followeth that this Church cannot err, at least damnably, for else a Man might in Conscience be bound to follow a damnable error. No, she cannot err in an error not damnable, because also it very true which you lately said, that so men should be bound to assent unto an error which is impossible. Hence that common doctrine of Antiquity That it is not possible to have a just cause to separate from the Church. And it cannot be said that any man separates himself not from the Church, but her errors; being she is secured from all error; as appeareth manifestly by our obligation to hear her; you tell me that this text, obliging to hear the Church, is meant only of trespasses betwixt Brother, and Brother, which trespasses are also to be told to every particular Church and to Several Prelates, and therefore this place, say you, maketh nothing for the authoritty of the Universal Church. Sir, I grant particular trespasses are to be referred ro particular Prelates, and that the Church is not to be called to a general Counsel, for every private man's trespasses; singular private men are to be condemned by the particular Prelates of their particular Churches, proceeding according to the known Decrees and Orders of the Universal Church. If he clearly disobeyeth them thus proceeding, he disobeyeth the Universal Church. And for this act merely deserveth, according to Gods own judgement, to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen. So he who disobeyeth the particular Judge, judging according to the known Laws of the Commonwealth, disobeyes the Commonwealth. And it is this not obeying the Church, and the not hearing her, which exaggerates the crime, whence you see the not hearing the particular Prelates, in so well ordered a Community as the Church is, may come to be commonly the self same crime with the not hearing of the Church. And because all such Prelates (when the contrary is not apparently manifest) are supposed to do their duty in giving sentence according to the known Decrees, Orders and Canons of the Universal Church, as we usually say, those who disobey the Judges disobey the Commonwealth: so generally speaking, those who disobey the Prelates of the particular Church, disobey the Universal Church, commanding them to proceed according to her Decrees, Definitions, and Canons. So that at last this disobedience is against Christ, and God himself, according to that which God said to Samuel, Lib. 1. Cap. 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 ●●. And therefore Christ commanded the lawful Successors of Moses to be followed in what they delivered by public authority, although they were wicked in their private lives, and many of them publicly did teach Errors though not by public authority, or authorized by any Definition of that Seat, which private Errors Christ called the Leaven of the Pharisees, bidding his Apostles take heed of it; But concerning what that Seat did by public Definition, Christ was so far from bidding people to take heed of it, that he in as general terms, as men speak when they would speak without any exception, Said to the whole promiscuous multitude, and also to his disciples; upon the Chair of Moses have setten the Scribes & Pharieses. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; Mark these most ample words. All therefore whatsoever. O! will you say, what if they bid us do against the Scriptures; Why, this very saying of Christ showeth they were secured from ever doing against the Scripture when they proceeded by way of defining with Public authority. If you object, that they condemned our Saviour by public authority, you have your Answer Number 9 Say I we must hear the Church, and because we must Universally hear her (for she doubtless hath to the full as much reason to be heard as the old jewish Church then had) she must be confessed to have full assurance never to gainsay the Scripture. And as the Synagogues Authortity was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard only in point of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother, but was to be extended to All whatsoever they should order: So you can not (with out depressing the Authority of Christ's Church who had a better Covenant established upon better promises Hebrews 8.6.) hinder her power from being extended to All whatsoever she shall Order. It must not therefore be confined only to trespass betwixt Brother and Brother; But we must of necessity, for the reason now expressed, argue thus, That being she is to be heard, even in Controversies concerning trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother, much more is she to be heard in such trespasses as are committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church. Then or never he is to be complained of, And if this obstinacy in persevering in trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother deserveth that a Man should be held as a Publican and a Heathen, he incomparably more deserveth to be held so, who being commanded by the Church to desist from such pernicious opinions as ruin the Souls of his Brothers, and tear asunder the bowels of his Mother, still persists in his impious doctrine, and in that most infectious, and Soulmurthring crime of heresy the most heinous trespass against all our Brothers. Either such a crime or no crime is to be told the Church. Yea Saint Thomas calleth Schism (of which Heresy is always guilty) the highest sin against the whole Comunity of our brother hood. Now this crime is to be told first to the particular Prelates as soon as it is perceived to be beginning to creep like a canker, as the Scripture saith Heresy doth. If by this judgement of particular Prelates this crime be clearly found to be indeed Heresy, or a doctrine opposite to the known former definitions of the Church Universal, they are to excommunicate him who is pertinacious in this soul-murthering Crime, and this sentence is sure to be ratified in Heaven; because he who hath opposed in Doctrine the known Definitions of the Church, hath not heard nor obeyed her, for which only fact (according to the clear sentence of Scripture) he deservedly is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. Now if the Crime be not clearly against the known doctrine of the Universal Church, or not so evident against it, but many hold the contrary, the particular Prelates are bound to acquaint the head of the Church therewith. This supreme Prelate of the Church is bound to use the fullness of his authority to suppress the arising Heresy. He may forbid (if he feareth danger in the doctrine) that no such doctrine be published until the Church shall think it fit. And then all must do as Saint Paul saith, Hebr. 13. v. 27. Obey their Prelates. Thus far the power of the supreme Prelates is extended by the consent of the whole Church. He therefore that in this case obeyeth not, is guilty of not bearing the Church, which single crime maketh a man deservedly accounted as a Publican or Heathen. Now though the Supreme head of the Church be as infallible as Saint Peter was, yet if he seethe this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared Heresy, if it be so; or to be embraced, if it be fitting, and proposed to all Christendom, then is the true time of calling a general Council, and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture. So though the Apostles were all infallible in their Doctrine yet they would not determine that grave question Acts 15. without calling a Council To consider of this word, in which there was made a great disputation; for this is necessary for the fuller conviction of Heretics, fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort, and further comfort of the whole Church, to see truth to triumph, upheld by the shoulders of all Christendom; what proceeding could be more sweet or more orderly; what exposition more agreeable to this Text, Tell the Church, which denunciation is to proceed by degrees from lower to higher Judges, as is there expressed. And Consequently when the sentence of the Highest tribunal of all is rejected, then or never, a man is deservedly to be accounted a Publican or a Heathen for not hearing the Church universal. She therefore under so great a penalty being always to be heard, is secured from all kind of error what soever, in matters of faith belonging to her tribunal, and so we must grant her to be infallible. I have then already found out such a judge, as I sought for, a judge in matters of faith, a living judge, and infallible (as you would have him) with an infallibility excluding all error in what soever he proposeth or decreeth, or all possibility of error. For if it were possible for this judge to impose an error, Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so heinous a crime not, to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all. He obliged all to obey and hear her, she therefore cannot lead us into an error. For as you truly say To be bound to assent to an error is impossible. Our infallibility of knowledge concerning this point is as great as it is of those points, which are delivered by Scripture. And therefore you may stand up to my Creed, and that far more securely than stand out against such a Church; the not hearing of which is so great a crime. This Church is infallible and by manifest consequence only the Roman Church, as I shall demonstrate the next Chapter, Number 2.  
7. Here by the way you tell me, That If I would go the right way in this Dispute, I should use another method, for whereas I would argue the Church to be this Judge, which we cannot safely disobey, I should rather show a priori, That the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define, and therefore aught to be obeyed in all things whatsoever. But Sir, when I come to use this very method, I do foresee that it will so galled you, that you will cry out to have this burdensome, heavy argument cast upon the other shoulder, from which you now would have it shifted, to avoid the present trouble it causeth you, you shall see if it fall not out as I said, And that in this Chapter Numb. 52.  

Of my 18th. Number.  8. As for St. Augustine's Authority, I must here lay it aside as well as every where else, for fear I should lose my labour even after I have proved what I should.  
9 You fly upon me for flying to that Text of Malachy 2.7. The Priest's Lips shall keep Knowledge, and they shall require the Law from his Mouth, because he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. Concerning the translation of which Text, I truly charge your Bible of corruption for reading thus, The Priest's Lips should keep the Law, and they should seek the Law at his Mouth, Whereas all Originals speak clearly in the future tense, as the Hebrew doth, and also the Greek and Latin, which two Languages want not a subjunctive Mood; you ask, Is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome? I told you it was not. And I did say expressly that I added this Text to take away from you all wondering at us, for allowing that to be practised towards the Priests of the new Law (whose authority doubtless excels those of the old Law) which was practised towards the Priests of the old Law, in which those who searched for the true knowledge of the Law, were not directed to seek that knowledge by their own reading the Scriptures, but they were to search it by having recourse to the Priests, who never (universally) should fail at any time (mark that I speak by universal consent) to deliver false doctrine. As for private Priests they be like Private translations of the word of God; If what they deliver agree with the doctrine of the Church, their doctrine is infallible; not for their private delivery of it, but for the authority of their Church, as Translators are not to be believed for their authority but for their agreeing with the word of God. But there is a vast difference in this that the agreeing of the Translation with the Original is wonderful hard to know, especially when the Original itself cannot be known (by those who admit of an infallible Church) by any infallible knowledge. The argument of the Priests with the Public Doctrine of the Church, is easily known, because her doctrine is so carefully published amongst all understanding men. And as it is easy to know that Homo doth truly signify a man, for though one ignorant or malicious Fellow should say it signified a beast, yet the consent of all others would manifest that man's perversity. If a question were proposed in a matter of doubt in which their opinions varied, than men are to proceed as I just now declared Num. 9 And then when the cause should be decided by the High Priests he who would not not hear him was deservedly put to death Deutronomy. 17. I know you told me in another place that the Jewish Church erred. I did deny it, why? Did not they err in condemning our Saviour. Yes, but then the Jewish Church erred not. The true high Priest (without whom there is no true Representative Church) erred not Caiphas, was not the true High Priest for another was lawfully declared to be so. This other true High Priest was Christ, who before his condemnation had sufficiently for a legal declaration proclaimed himself to be the true Messiah, the true Anointed of our Lord. This true high Priest erred not: The true head of the Church not erring the Church cannot be said to err. The true head of the Church defined not with the Council of Ariminumt Saint Athanasius was bound to follow the Church defining, which defined not in that Council, for the Head of the Church not defining with the body, the whole body, or Church, defined not. Therefore I say again you err when you say, He should have been bound in Conscience by the censure of the Church to have been an Arrian. The Church, is the High Priest defining with a lawful general Council. The High Priest defining in a general Council erred not. I wonder you go about also to justify the Translators proceed, because who think the scope of the sacred writer doth bear it. Is not this to give Translators leave, together with their Translation to obtrude their gloss, and what they imagine the scope should be? Is this a sound Translation? Master Broughton one of the best skilled in Hebrew and Greek of your Church, did according to his great skill, give a truer censure of your Translation in his advertisement of corruption to your 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 then are they who take all that this Bible saith, for the undoubted word of God. When Tindal in the beginning of your Reformation▪ Translated God's Word into English, he did reform it so like one of your great Reformers, that Bishop Tonstall noted no less than two thousand Corruptions in the New Testament only, Is not this good dealing in so short a volume; Is reading of these Translations called by you the Knowledge of Scripture; Chap. 1. Num. 3.  
10. But to go on with my former discourse I did say, 
Of my 19th. Number.  let any man ask the Priests of our Church what is the known doctrine of the Church and let him rest securely when he knows that. This you say is unreasonable, because the Priests are not infallible. But Sir, do you not mark that I ground their faith not upon the Priest but upon the Church Universal. Just as you say, you ground your faith not upon your Translations which only convey (as the Priests do) the word of God to the searcher of it; yet we have incomparable more assurance of the agreement of what the Priests say to be the known doctrine of the Church, with the true doctrine of the Church; than you have of the agreement of your most corrupted (as we now shown) Translations, with the true Word of God, which I explicated more largely in the beginning of the last Number: whence you will see, that when by fallible men we know that this word Homo a man signifieth a man and not a beast, that when I find in Scripture tha● God became Homo a man, I am infallibly assured he became a true man and not a beast Or a seaman; so when by fallible men we know assuredly enough to make it evidently credible that this is the doctrine of the Church, we are assured by the Church that is true. For the Church is infallible as I am here proving, and secured from all error which the Scripture (to those who rejects the Church) are not neither in their Translations as I have here showed, nor in their Original, as I shown in the last chap Numb. 35. And again although you were secured of the true Scripture: yet you are not secured of the true sense of it, as I shown there Num. 50. And yet again a great many necessary Controversies are not contained in Scripture, as I shown in the beginning and ending of that Chapter, which whosoever shall read will wonder with what confidence you ask, well, and are not all things necessary taught in the Scripture? I have also shown you it is false, that what Authority the Church hath it hath from the Scripture. see Chap. 3. N. 30. 31. 32. yea immediately before those places, I did (by eight arguments) show that you have no infallible assurance of true Scripture if you deny the Church's infallibility. And whosoever shall but consider what I said in the last Number will have a ready answer to your question here Why doth your Church take away from the people the use of Scripture. Sir why doth your English Church in place of Scripture give them such damnably corrupted Scriptures? These Corruptions take indeed from them the use of Scripture, it being impossible for them to know what is uncorrupted, in such a Chaos of corruptions. How miserably do you provide for the poor people? In our manner of requiring that law from the Priests (which your own Translation saith the people should do) there is no more danger then in your taking the signification of a word in Scripture from the Public consent of all men. Again, we permit the use of Scripture in such languages as a general council can judge of, because they be sufficiently understood by the Church Universal. Vulgar translations are incomparably more easily corrupted and their Corruptions unknown unto her. The Latin language is known to most well bred men in learning, To such others as are sober, stayed, and peaceable spirits the Church denyeth not the use of such Translations as their lawful local Prelates hold secure. Farther use of Scripture is an abuse and we both see and fell the sad effects of it. You, who so carped at going to the Priests of the Church for Knowledge of the law. You I say, if you mark it, send all your people to your own Priests, as you call them, neither rightly ordained, nor Canonically licenced to preach. For to bid them go to the English Bible, is to bid them go to translations most corrupted and authorised only by your Ministers. To confer these Translations with the Originals they cannot do, no nor you neither. For you know not infallibly the true Originals. It is your own doctrine, Translations are only known to be God's word as far as they are known to agree with the Originals: how far this is, you (not knowing the true Original) cannot tell. Of this you and all yours (who deny the Church infallible) are ignorant. And upon your word, who (how learned so ever) are ignorant of this, which only concerns them, they all in this highest matter must rely. I put this so fully with great reflection, because that Noble party (whose Champion you are) gave occasion to all our combating by carping at our blind obeying our Priest, and believing them, whereas all those of your Religion could go to the fountain. But alas! when that fountain, which they conceive themselves to drink to their eternal health is so poisened (as I shown in the last Number) that millions of millions (as your own Broughto● saith) run to Hell flames by occasion of this corruption; And I may most truly say far more perish by misunderstanding (whilst they follow their Ministers, and their own private judgement of discretion) that which is truly Translated, then Perish by the corruption of that which is falsely Translated. Thus they perish for not hearing that Church, which their own Scripture bids them hear, whereas in doing that, which God biddeth, there can be no danger of error, great or little. And you slander us when you say we bid the people require from the Priest's mouth not the law of God but the doctrine of the Church. Sir, the doctrine of the Church is God's law. And private Priests are far more likely to teach them Gods law by teaching them what the Universal Church holds to be God's Law, then by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be God's Law as you would have them do.  
11 Now to prove further the Church to be a competent judge guiding us no less securely than those many millions were guided who had an infallible faith, and the same Spirit of faith with us as S. Paul said, though their faith were grounded on the authority of no Scripture, but wholly and entirely on the tradition of their infallible Church: I urged that in those two thousand years and more, before Moses did write the very first book of Scripture, the true faith of all the true believers of those Ages depended in its infallibility, upon their Churches being infallible in proposing the traditions she had received; shall we allow infallibility to that Church, and deny it to Christ's Church? shall we be worse provided for in so main a point in the law of grace, than they were in the law of Nature? what text of Scripture is there for this? Then it was not written. Hear the Church, than it was not written that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her. Nor that she was the Pillar and ground of truth, that the spirit of truth abided with her then, teaching her then all truth. All this and far more than this (as I shall show in this chapter) is written now of Christ's Church. And yet you will say we are not sufficiently certified of her infalliblity. I pray tell me how then were they certified (and infallibly certified of the infallibility of their Church?) How did Men then infallibly know that they were bound under pain of damnation to believe the tradition of that Church? show me then what you demanded of me lastly to show, that is show the ground they had then to hold their Church infallible, and the infallibility of the knowledge of it, and infallibly what was the subject of this infallibility. If you cannot show that they could not then do it better than we now, then refuse not to stand up to our Creed. Your answer to so convincing an argument is most unsatisfactory, and it would make a man think your intent were to plead against yourself. You say this was answered before it was written, what was that answer? It was that the word in substance of it was before the Church, which was begotten by it; to this you add that when there is now as much need, and as great certainty of tradition as formerly, than I may urge this argument? so when you speak of the word of God, which you say was before all writing, and which begot the Church, you must speak of the unwritten word. 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 an infallible direction for so many millions, as were by it only to be directed in the way of Salvation before any Scripture was written, you must of necessity put this word outwardly expressed somewhere, and expressed in such a manner as may be able to produce this effect of guiding whole millions in the way of Salvation by an infallible belief of what God hath said by that word. Now I pray find me out any word of God any where existent before Scripture, but in the Oral Tradition of the Church of those times. You say, God's word revealed is the ground of all faith. They then had faith, therefore they then had God's word revealed, and revealed in a sufficient manner to ground divine faith, But they only had God's word revealed by Tradition, Therefore God's word revealed by tradition is a sufficient ground to ground divine faith. By this unwritten word, that is by this Tradition of the Church, she from a small Church (consisting of those very few, to whom God by his own mouth did first of all speak, or by his Angels) grew to be a multitude of true believers. And so the Church was begotten by Tradition, upon which only this multitude (that is the Church) did judge most prudently that to be the true word of God which was by so powerful a motive persuaded to be so. That hence you may see, that, this very motive alone, is a very sufficient inducement to receive the Verities recommended by it, and to receive them with an infallible assent. For this was the only inducement which we know the true believers to have had for those 2000 years and more, which were before Moses did write the first book of Scripture. And those Scriptures which were written from the law of Moses, to the time of Christ, were only kept among the jews, and this time lasted two thousand years more, during which long time many among the Gentiles, as appeareth by Job and his friends, had true divine faith with out any knowledge of the Scripture wholly unknown unto them, this faith of theirs could have no other ground but God's unwritten Word, delivered to them by Tradition; Therefore Gods unwritten Word, delivered by Tradition only, is a sufficient ground for infallible faith.  
12 And whereas you add, That when there is as much need and as great certainty of Traditions as formerly, than I may urge this argument, I answer, that the need or necessity of Traditions, which you conceive to have been greater than now, doth not make the Traditions more credible. Those who have read very much in very many credible books of France; have no need at all of any unwritten and oral tradition to make them believe there is such a country as France, yet these men (whom we will suppose to live at Dover) do as certainly know by unwritten or Oral Tradition of men daily coming from France, bringing French passengers, French commodities, and as to those who never read one word concerning France, not being able to read at all. And those who are not able to read at all, are not less assured by unwritten tradition, that there is such a Kingdom as France, because there be many books written of France, and the French wars with the English: So though we have now the Scriptures written concerning most points of faith; we are not less helped by tradition because there be such books extant. And good Sir, consider how great our necessities are of both these helps; for even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions, we have ever had with them a perpetual succession of horrible divisions opening still wider and wider; All commonly caused by the misinterpretation of the Scripture, to which inconvenience they were not subject before all Scripture was written. And therefore, in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scripture, a greater necessity than ever of Tradition, both to assure us which books be the word of God, which not, which be the true which the false Copies of these books? Where they be secure, where corrupted? And lastly which is the true sense of them and which not? For the sense even in necessary matters, as I have showed in the last Chapter, is far from being evident. Again Tradition doth of its own self naturally continue in its full force and vigour, after the same things are wrirten as well as it did before, as appears by what I just now said of the unwritten traditions by which many men only know France or Spain, yea rather, the increasing of it (by being divulged in writing by most credible and manifold Authors) doth very much strengthen this former tradition, so far is it from taking any thing from it: wherefore God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of Nature (which no man can say he did) if the former Traditions of the Church (which before the writing of any Scripture did fully suffice alone to ground an infallible faith of such and such points, should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect, when they were strengthened by so great an authority as that of the Sacred Writers was. Hence is confuted the opinion of Protestants, teaching the Authority of Traditions to have expired when the whole Canon of the Scripture was finished, though not before: For which they have no Scripture at all. And if they go by reason, they are to say Tradition was rather more strengthened, yea if they will not say this, yet consequently they should say that Tradition revived again (at least in part) when some part of the Canon was lost, yet you ought not to say that Tradition expired at the finishing of the Canon, without it can be showed that God did express this unto the Church so to undeceive those many thousands who had then reason to think that they might securely build their belief upon that, upon which for about four thousand years, so many had until that day built their faith. When Saint Paul, or any other Canonical writer preached first that doctrine, which afterward he did write, did the belief of those thousands which was at first sufficiently grounded upon his preaching, come to lose its certainty, or rather to gain a new degree of certainty, when Saint Paul came afterward to write that they must hold the Traditions he had delivered to them, 
2 Thess. 2. 1 Gal. 2.  and that though an Angel should come and teach them contrary to what they had received (by his Oral Tradition) they should account him Anathema. And again, Have thou a form of sound words which thou hast heard of me 1. Tim. chap. 1. And again chap. 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. Would the writing of such Scriptures make them think any force taken from Traditions, or rather make them conceive that Traditions are to be stood upon now more than ever before. Again, what wise man would put out one light, costing him nothing, because it will be shining of its own nature (unless you will needs have it hidden) because he hath now another light, but so that even with both these lights, many of his household will still remain in darkness. But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us, I would know of you upon what account the Tradition of so Noble a Church as Christ's Church is, should be of less credit or certainty, than the Tradition of that fare less Noble Church which was in the Law of Nature. What means had they then given by God to secure their Tradition for the space of 4000 years, which we want for the having secured our Traditions for these last 1654. years? This means you can by no means assign, and therefore, by all means, you must grant the Traditions of this Nobler Church to have been as securely preserved from Corruption for these fewer years, as those Traditions of a fare less Noble Church, were preserved without corruption for above 4000 years. Again the Tradition of Christ's primitive Church before the Scriptures were written, and sufficiently promulged (which Tradition did by an infallible authority recommend all things) was to be believed upon her sole authority, and so was the Tradition of the first Church before there was any Scripture, and therefore by good consequence she in the first place recommended herauthority to be believed as divine and infallible, and all the true believers believed it to be so, which they could not have done without God had said so; for all divine belief resteth upon the saying of God. God therefore said (by that his Church) that her Traditions were infallible for her authority. Now if God said this, shall we upon your fallible discourse come to say the Church's Traditions are now no longer infallible though God said they were so, and never yet expressed the ceasing of their infallibility. By this you will see whether my Answer hath helped you, or your reply helped me concerning what will follow out of St. Irenaeus.  
13. For this serves for making good what I said out of St. Irenaeus so fare as he is a witness (which a profane author might have been) of what happened so near his times. For as for his authority, as he is a most grave Father of the Church and a most believing that to be true which he commended to writing as most true, I do not press it against you. Yet because here you thank St. Irenaeus for his testimony, and make a show as if it were for you (though you cannot invent the means by which Tradition should have been conveyed more certainly supposing there had been no Scripture), I could not but observe how so soon as you have hugged him, you cast him off again with small respect, when you say Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely only upon Tradition, They might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition. How flatly be these your words against St. Irenaeus who clearly declareth all himself to tell us upon what ground we must have been obliged to believe, though the Apostles had never written any Scriptures at all: What (saith he) 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 Charges they left the Church 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. What bringeth he this example of these Barbarous Nations for, but to show that we might with divine faith believe upon the sole account of that very tradition which the Apostles de facto left to those to whom they left the Church's government, although the Apostles had never written at all at any time? He therefore was none of those who would say with you neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely only upon traditions; For if they had relied upon any things else in their belief, their example had been nothing to his purpose to show what we should have done when we had only Tradition to rely upon.  
14. As for arguing about Tradition I went no Further than to show, that the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility (in proposing for God's word that which she delivereth us (for God's Word) as worthy of an infallible assent in this point. And the examples I bring, prove this. Now if this point be once assented unto with an infallible assent, it draweth by unevitable Consequence the like assent to all other points, which by the same authority are testified to be likewise delivered as God's Word; Or else you must be forced to say that it is in our power to assent to this authority as divine in all things it delivers as God's Word, and yet to deny it in some things which it delivers as God's word, which is a plain contradiction. Well then if upon this presupposed authority as infallible, I believe the Church delivering such and such points by her doctors and teachers, which be points never written; then it is manifest I believe her in other points then those which were then written; & so I may with as good reason believe her now upon her own authority, testifying other points then those which are written. Whence you see all I say holdeth good even in Traditions of proper name which we say are besides that which is written. I cannot conclude more opposite to you then with your own words here P. 73. Tradition in matters of faith unwritten is of equal authority to scripture. The Traditions we stand upon be matters of faith truly once revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles, though this revelation were not written by them; Therefore this is of equal authority to Scripture even according to your own words.  
15 I going on to prove yet further that Christ intended to guide us not by the Scripture only, but chiefly by his Church, used this argument Neither the Apostles nor their Successors took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as all, or the greater part of them could understand. You answer; they did take care that the new Testament should be written in Greek. Then you being still to prove that Greek was understood by all, or the greater part of the world, your only proof of this is only out of Tully; saying, Graeca per totum Orbem leguntur, Greek is read though the whole World, and so is Virgil in latin. But neither the one nor the other is to be understood in a sense making to our purpose; for both these say are only true thus, that the more learned sort of men every where read Greek, and Virgil. And these words of Tully being delivered in on Encomiasticall Oration (pro Archia) may truly be said to be spoken by way of a Notable amplification. And either this must be confessed, or Scripture denied. For it is evident out of Scripture. That the Vulgar language of divers Nations situated, even between that place we call Constantinople, and the City of Antioch, in which a man would suppose the Greek language fare more common, then in the more Western or any Northern, or Southern places, yet I say even between those two Cities of Antioch (where the same Tully saith, Archias was born and studied) and Constantinople, the Greek tongue was not the Vulgar language of Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia minor, Phrygia, Pamphilia, all which Nations the Scripture (Act. 2.) testifieth to have had different languages. Within that compass is also Galatia which Saint Hierome testifieth to have had a language somewhat like those of Trevers. If nations so near Greece had not the Vulgar use of that language, but that tongue had so small a compass even in Asia, and some few Eastern parts of Europe, all other parts of Europe and whole Africa using Vulgarly other Tongues, how short do you fall of proving that Greek was understood by the greater part of the World? And if this cannot be proved, than I said truly that though the Apostles writ the new Testament in Greek, yet they did not take any care to have it communicated to all Nations in such Languages, as they could all, or the greater part understand. For all, or the greater part could not understand Greek; call here to mind how loud you use to cry out against us for using our Common prayer in Latin, though Latin be so common among all well bred people. And yet our Common prayer is a thing only offered to God by the Priests (who understand what they say) for the people. But the New Testament contains (as you say) the only necessary ground of faith, faith necessary to salvation. But the falsity of this your saying is convinced by the Apostles taking no care (neither read we of any care taken for many years after their times) to communicate the whole Canon of Scripture to the several converted Nations in their several tongues; I pray name me the time when the Scripture can be first shown to have been thus communicated to the people of so several languages? You will sweat for some hundred years before you can find this either done or effectually desired to be done. They know the tongue could sufficiently deliver God's Word to the people, and that Oral Tradition joined to daily profession, practice would abundantly suffice for the infallible delivery of God's Word.  
16. You move the question how the people should clearly know the true tradition from the false? I answer first they could know this better than know true Scripture from false, for they could not do that, but by knowing first the true Tradition recommending the true Scriptures from the Tradition recommending false. Again, after Christ they could do this as well (and better) than their forefathers for many hundreds of years, yea for two thousand, yea for twice two thousand years together. Reflect a little upon the efficacy of Tradition, joined with perpetual profession, and answerable practice daily occurring. For example. The Apostles by only unwriting Tradition did clearly, undeniably teach the baptising of Children, prayer for the faithful departed. This Tradition from hence came to be Professed as true doctrine by all the first Christians, and conformably hereunto, they in all places baptised their Children, in all places they prayed for the faithful departed. Nothing more common than being born: every one that is born dieth: whence daily was the practice of baptising infants and yet more daily the practice of praying for the dead, because they baptise infants but once, but they pray often for the same man who is dead. Will we suppose these two traditions are called in question concerning the truth of them. And let us suppose this to be done (as it was done) in the last age. Learned men looking in Records of their own and all other Countries, will find every where Christen, and every where prayers for the dead, all inscriptions of graves, all wills and testaments, all foundations of pious places will testify this custom fare more strongly than that of Baptism, yea in no one country nor in any one age since Christ (until this last following age) did ever any one man deny praying for the dead, except Aerius counted for this his opinion an Heretic by St. Austin and by St. Epiphanius as you know very well. Hence it is made evidently credible to any learned man that this Tradition of baptising Infants, and much more the Tradition of praying for the dead, came to us from the Apostles, it not being possible for all true believers, in so many several countries, and so many several ages, to agree in the profession and daily practice of this truth, without they had received these two things jointly with their first faith, else the novelty and the authors of such a novelty, would in some time or some place, have been made known to posterity, for no one man's work was it, no, nor no one hundred men's work, to bring all men, every where, to any such novelty with so unanimous, and no where contradicted consent. The Ignorant people will have the truth of these Traditions also made evidently credible unto them by the public, unanimous and universal consent of all ancient men and all Ancient Monuments and also the like unanimous affirmation of all learned men of any standing, who will all and every where profess themselves assured of it, by their Learning and certain knowledge of those Traditions proved in the manner I now said. This maketh the matter evidently credible to the ignorant. Wherefore they should do most imprudently not to believe that these points came from the Apostles, and then supposing that they came from them, they should do a damnable sin not to believe them. Can any rational man desire a more rational proceeding? How many true believers commended in Scripture, cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed? How we proceeding thus escape clearly all Circle I told you the last Chapter. Numb. 31.32. Now as you must grant that our Church (submitted unto as infallible) presently by her authority decides all controversies; so her Traditions once acknowledged as infallible, will decide the points questioned. The Scripture never so clear can never decide any one controversy until it be first acknowledged. Thus you see the two things which you here desired to see.  
17. After this I passed to another quality which the Church hath, and the Bible hath not, though it be a quality primely necessary to decide all controversies, whence it appeareth that God intended not the Bible but the Church to be our judge. This quality is, that the Church is a living judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time, and who can hear me and you, and be heard by me & you so manifestly, that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church, or if we do doubt we can propose our doubts and she will explicate, her meaning. Such a living judge as this we must have to put effectually an End to all Controversies that can arise. And as for the Bible I have showed that it doth not decide all points necessary to Salvation, the Bible heareth not new Controversies arising, as I prove by this clear example. An Arrian▪ sta●●eth up (as really he did) and saith that these words of the Scripture, These three are one are words added by us to the true Scripture. This Controversy and a thousand such like the Bible heareth not, the Bible judgeth not, for there is not a word of it in all the Bible. And though you say you can see true Scripture by its light, you shall never get any man to believe that you yourself do really believe that you see every verse in Scripture, by its light. No light appeareth so dim as these words appear to man. Three are one. Yet besides this light you (who reject Church Tradition as fallible) you I say, have left you no other infallible ground, nor any infallible means to convince the Arrian, until you hold the Church infallible. All other use which you say you make of the (Church) sufficeth not to ground an infallible assent, for when all comes to all, you make any private man, and consequently every Arrian Cobbler (as I shown) the last Court of Judicature in giving the final sentence, on which all depends. For he must be the last judge, who after the Church's judgement, must give sentence that she hath, or hath not judged against Scripture. That you may see my argument is not peccant; I will frame both the Premises and the Conclusion thus. Faith being an infallible assent, Controversies concerning faith cannot be determined so as to end then effectually, but by an infallible living judge who can hear you and me, and be heard by you and me. But no other than the Church, can (with any ground) be held to be this living judge; Therefore She must be held to be this judge. I do not without Reason put in my Premises the term of infallible, for faith being an infallible assent, must needs require an infallible authority to rest upon. This Authority she must find in all points to which she is bound to give this assent. But she is bound to give this assent to divers points not proposed clearly in Scripture as I shown the last Chapter. Therefore she is bound to give this assent to divers of those points only, because they are proposed by the Church, to which she could not possibly be bound to give an infallible assent, without due assurance of her infallibility.  
48 You object that the Church Traditions cannot hear you and me. I answer that it is the Church who proposeth these Traditions, and not the Traditions which are our judge; you ask me whither an Heretic be not condemned by himself as Saint Paul saith, and you interpret his saying, so that he must needs be condemned by himself, for no other reason, but because he had in him the principles of the word of God, which he gainsaid by his contrary error, and so he was condemned thereby, and therefore that can Judge. Sir he is not an Heretic but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience, that he gainsayeth the Scripture. All christians are readier to die then to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture. When St. Paul writ those words, the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written, and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have been the infallible judge of Controversies. And I wonder you should say, the Church at the writing of this by St. Paul was not sufficiently form, which the same St. Paul testifieth to have been form before his conversion, accusing himself for having above measure persecuted the Church of God. And before his conversion, the Number of the disciples was multiplied, Act. 6. yea Act. 8. Simon Magus was turned Heretic before St. Paul was turned Christian, or any word of the new Scripture was written. The meaning of St. Paul is that an Heretic might, if he would, clearly see his private doctrine to be opposite to the known public Doctrine of the Church, which Church then shined with the glory of infinite Miracles, stupendious conversions, and most eminent Sanctity, and was then form most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith. Yea you will say she was then more completely furnished to that end then ever she was since that time.  
49. Now because your chief exception against the Churches being our judge, is that you hold her not infallible, besides all the proofs I have already brought of her infallibility, I shall now add divers more. But in the first place I must a little more fully tell you what we understand by the name of the Church: He who is a seeker of his Religion must first believe the Universal Church diffused to be furnished by God with true infallible means to direct us securely in all doubts of faith, wherefore he most prudently judgeth himself bound to join himself to her in faith, being convinced that she directed most securely in faith. Being thus also a seeker resolved to join to these true believers. When he proceedeth further to take a particular account in whom this infallible means (given to the Church Universal) of directing all securely in matters of faith doth consist, he will readily find that it doth not consist in all the members of the Universal Church, for Children and women be of the Church, and yet their Vote (in no man's opinion) is required to the deciding any controversy in faith, the Laiety also hath no decisive Voice in those points, nor every inferior Clergy man, but only such as are Prelates, Overseers and Governors over the rest. So that in fine this infallible direction is Unanimously affirmed by us all, to be undoubtedly settled upon the authority of the prime Pastors & Prelates of the Church assembled together in a lawful general Council, with their chief Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome: Against a thing so easily to be understood you cry out aloud of strange intricateness and inextricable proceed. And yet I think most clowns of this Land did easily understand what was meant by a decree of the Kingdom, to the which the consent of King and Kingdom assembled in Parliament (as the custom was for many years together) was required. Now what more difficulty is there to know what we mean by a decree, or Definition of the Church; The kingdom representative was the king and the Parliament, The Church representative is the chief Bishop with the full Assembly of the other Bishops in a lawful Council; the Decrees, and definitions of which assembly be the decrees and definition of the Church. In a thing so clear you labour your uttermost to raise a thick mist.  
50. First you object who can be certain by a divine faith of the lawfulness and Regularity of a Pope in his first creation. I answer that when I speak of a Pope defining in a lawful Council (as I do now speak) I speak of such a Pope to whom the Church submitted in calling the Council, and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful head to preside in the Council, These very acts supply all defects in his election and do make it evidently credible that he is the true head who thus admitted defined with the Council as their acknowledged head. Secondly you ask when there was Pope against Pope, who of the people could distinguish the right Pope. I answer, 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 Council, and in this Council to preside over them. To 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 then 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. Thirdly you think that no Controversies can (in our opinion) be decided when there is a doubt who is true Pope. And you ask who is then to call a Council. And when the Council is called you think us to think that this Council can define nothing without a Pope. I doubt not Sir but you have found a clear answer to all this in Bellarm lib. 2. de Concilis Chap. 19 that although a Council without 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 remain assembled, they remain 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 ought to meet upon their own authority, and assemble themselves. Fourthly you ask how we can by divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulness and generality of Counsels, for Counsels have been called by Emperors not by Popes; Sir your Church which never had, nor shall have general Council, is to seek in all things belonging to them. Our Church almost in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in general Counsels, and by perpetual practice hath been sufficiently informed to deliver (by the assistance of the Holy Ghost) all that she hath received from her ancestors to be essential to a true Council, and to deliver this point infallibly. To your objection in order I answer, first, That it is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institution by which either Emperors 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. Epho. Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ, for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ, that henceforth 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 motive, the Imperial power, which cannot move further than it reigneth, nor ought not to move further, 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 being to be moved, must be moved by such a power as this is. If Emperors called councils it was not by an 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 implored 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 assuredly obtained in so just necessities as there seemed to press for a speedy meeting. If Emperors were present in Counsels it was only by their presence and good countenance to honour, encourage, and further the proceed of the Council, and to pass their Vote in points of belief. You add something else now but it comes again presently. Fifthly you object, How shall we know that every one of the Council hath a free election to it, and a free decisive Vote in it? I answer the freedom of every man's calling is made evidently credible by the public summons sent through the whole Christian world obeyed by the same without any pertinatious opposition, and the answerable public appearance from all parts of the world every one exhibiting the publicly authenticated testimony of his election, and confirmation. If any man be excluded he may (without he will renounce his right) be heard in the Council, which being a public hearing, the matter cannot but be known. Many yet never were, nor can be thus injured without making their injury notorious by public protestations and such like remedies always used against unjust exclusion, or hindrance of liberty in Voting. If the Council be known notoriously to use such proceedings we are not to acknowledge it for a lawful Council. Again as private men's proceed are not to be judgeed bad unless they can be proved to be so, much less ought the proceed of the Church representative to be judged bad without sufficient proof of the contrary. And when such evident and notorious ill proceed are not apparent, nothing can be solidly objected against the lawfulness of the Council. And therefore it being to be admitted as a lawful Council, it belongeth to the Holy Ghost to provide that their difinitions be not prejudicial to the Church put under his protection, and direction. You only look what the inward nature of humane malice might act, but you should also look to the extrinsical overruling providence promised by God against humane malice, and weakness. This is that which maketh all these factions, and bandings, and domineering self interest never to be effectually destructive of that secure direction promised by God to his Church. Though hell gates should be set wide open they should not prevail against her. Sixthly you ask how shall ignorant people be divinely persuaded that the Council is general? I answer, the public Summons to the Council sent through the Christian world, The Public appearance of Prelates made upon these summons from all parts of the world, Their public sitting, public subscribing, public divulging their decrees and definitions, acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present, denied by no man to be theirs with the least show of probability, no more than such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament. All these motives, I say, maketh it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the Church. Now this being evidently credible to be her definition, and I believing by divine faith, all her definitions to be true. I also believe this definition amongst the rest to be true. It is a great sign you are ill furnished with strong arguments, when you would persuade us that in things so easy to be known there be such insuperable difficulties. The Council of Trents definitions concerning faith were never opposed by France, though some things ordained for practice seemed less suitable to the particular state of that Kingdom, yet this difficulty was at last removed. Seventhly you ask how many Bishops in the Trent Council were furnished with a title to overpower the rest for the Pope's ends. I pray Sir, tell me how many. But tell me by credible witnesses (such as are their own subscriptions) who can assure me of this truth; And when you have told me this, give me leave to ask what one of them was as much as suspected to be of a faith different from the rest. If they differed not in faith from the rest, how then can the Pope be suspected to have acted against faith by making such Bishops. Again doth the making of such Bishops make the holy Ghost unable to order things so in the council that nothing shall happen destructive of the secure direction undertaken to be afforded for ever by him. Saul shall sooner turn a Prophet, and Caiphas shall prophesy not knowing what he doth, before the spirit of truth, sent to teach the Church all truth, shall fail in his duty. Eightly you ask how the Church was provided for when for so many years there was no Pope defining with a Council? This time you mean was the first three hundred years after Christ, when for persecution no Council could be gathered. All this time the known doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh, and so notorious by the Tradition of the Church diffused, and there remained also so Universal a respect and obedience to the chief Bishop of the Church notoriously known to be the upholder of true doctrine, that the Church wanted not means to decide Controversies as fare as the necessity of those times required: whence the Quartodecimani although they opposed nothing set down clearly in Scripture, were judged Heretics for opposing the doctrine of the first Church made evidently known by fresh Tradition. Now as the Church could want Councils for so many years, so it could want Councils for the short space of schism. For the necessity of new declarations it not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity, calling for instant remedy, and a reme-of this nature only, Scripture alone, you say will remedy this necessity. We besides scripture have always at hand, the many definitions of former Councils, and the known Traditions of the Church, which alone served God's Church in those two thousand years before Scripture, and for two thousand years more served the faithful amongst the Gentiles who had not the Scriptures, which remained almost solely and alone to the jews. Ninthly you ask if the Pope and Council do differ at any time about some question, what shall be defined? I answer nothing shall be defined because this essential hindrance manifesteth no definition of such a particular question, to it at that time necessary for the preservation of the Church; for if this depended upon such a present definition, the Holy Ghost (whom you still forget) would not forget to inspire the parties requisite to do their duties. Tenthly you ask how my opinion stands with theirs who affirm the government of the Church to be Monarchical by Christ's institution. I answer our government in England was Monarchical this last five hundred years, and yet our Monarches could not do all things without a Parliament. Again those who make the Pope sufficiently assisted to define all alone, cannot possibly deny what I say, to wit, that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Council. Eleventhly, you ask, How many (general) Counsels have been opposite to one another. I answer. Not so much as one. You ask again, in which or with which did he not err. I answer, he neither erred in or with any. In the Nicene he erred not, as you will grant, nor in the three next General Counsels, as your Church of England grants. He subscribed not in the Council of Ariminum, how then did he err in it? yea because he subscribed not, that Council is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians; or if your English Church accounted that a lawful Council, they must admit that, whilst they admit the first four Counsels. So that I am amazed to see a learned man four or five times object the contrariety of the Council of Ariminum to the Council of Nice, to prove from thence that two lawful general Counsels can be opposite to one another, you knowing well that this Council of Ariminum was no lawful Council, the chief Bishop and head of the Church not subscribing in it. Tell me I pray, if by all your great reading, you can find one single Holy Father who did ever censure any one general Council of doctrine, in any one point either false, or opposite to any former lawful general Council. In what age then live we, which licenseth every Mechanical fellow, freely to tax the Counsels of all ages of errors against Scripture. This is the fruit of crying out in what Council or with what Council did not the Pope err. Twelfthly, you ask me (I pray see my 12. Number above, fine) did ever any of the ancient counsels determine of their own infallibility. I answer the ancientest council of all said, Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. Can any thing fallible seem good to the Holy Ghost? Or to a council lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost, as all lawful councils were ever supposed by themselves to be? and upon this ground they ever assumed an authority sufficient not only to be securely followed by the whole Church in their definitions, but denounced an Anathema to the rejectors of their definitions; which had been wickedly done if there might have been errors in faith. The most bloody persecution of tyrants could not have been half so pernicious to the Church, as it was thus to be taught, and compelled by the unanimous authority of Christendom, to embrace that as Catholic doctrine, which is an error in faith. And surely a practice so Universal, so frequent, and yet so pernicious, would have been cried out upon over and over again, by the most zealous and learned ancient Fathers, who notwithstanding never opened their mouths against this proceeding of councils which could not be justifiable. For this proceeding of settling a court of so great authority, and an everlasting Court to be called in matters of greatest moment until the end of the world, so to teach the world in all ages the Catholic truth, in greatest points, if in place of this truth, errors against faith could have been perpetually obtruded even to the whole world, and that with the greatest authority in the world; and this under pain of being cut off from the body of Christ; imagine if you can a thing more pernicious than this. And yet this was the proceeding of all antiquity if the Church were fallible as you say. Thirtenthly you ask me what I think of Nazianzens' opinion about counsels in his Ep. to Procopius the 12 as you say, but I find it in the 42. Sir I think if what you have said, against the proof of any point out of the General consent of Fathers, be true; no single proof, brought from some one of them, can have any force out of your mouth, what force soever it might have had out of a Mouth used to speak otherwise of them. But you are pressing & ask, shall I tell you, yes Sir tell me. Yet let me tell you that what he saith will be nothing to the purpose unless he can be showed to speak of a lawful free General Council called, and directed by the chief Pastor of the Church presiding in it: now Sir tell me, doth he speak of such a council? His words are, I am thus affected as to shun all meetings of Bishops, (if I must speak the truth) for I never saw any good end of a Synod, nor that had an end of evils more than an addition. Sir you much wrong this grave Father if you think he speaketh of such councils as I now mentioned. Before his speaking these words there had been but one such council, to wit, that of Nice. Let us hear from himself his opinion of this one council out of those Treatises which go just before his Epistles, which you might have read as well as them. In the first of these Treatises being asked the most certain doctrine of faith; He answereth that it is that which was promulgated by the Holy Fathers at Nice, & that he never did prefer nor was able to prefer any thing before it, so He Tract. 50. And in his next Treatise he explicates this faith at large. And in the end he saith he doth embrace the treatise of this council to the uttermost power of his mind, knowing it opposed with invincible verity against all Heretics, and in his Orations to Saint Athanasius he sayeth, The Fathers of this council were gathered by the Holy Ghost. Saint Gregory then, who speaketh thus, had the same spirit that the other Saint Gregory (the great) who said, I do profess myself to reverence the first four councils as I reverence the four books of the Gospel. And in this manner do I reverence the fift council. Whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema, l. 1 Epistol. Ep. prope finem. He then who thus reverenced lawful general councils, did not doubtless speak the former words concerning them. But did he perhaps speak them of lawful particular Councils? No, how then? It was hard fortune to live in a time, in which the Arrians had so great power that they disturbed the lawful proceed of several particular councils. Hence the councils of Seleucum, Tirus, Ariminun, Milan, Smyrna, came to unfortunate conclusions, rather increasing than lessening the former evils. Neither were the times so altered that there appeared any great likelihood that in those parts, any better conclusion could be expected of that council to which he was called, when he writ that Epistle. So also Saint Basil (his bosom friend) writing at that time to Saint Athanasius Ep. 52. said He thought it impossible for a General Council to be assembled in those times. Clear than it is that Saint Gregory spoke only of such councils as had lately been held and could be held in those days, in which the Arrians would be sure to cross all that might be good and to make those particular meetings patronise their cause. What you further speak of a private Bishop of Bitonto telling the Fathers of the council of Trent to their face, of their falling with one consent from Religion to superstition, from Faith unto infidelity, from Christ unto Antichrist, from God to Epicurus, is a thing I never yet did read in any credible Historian; And I dare say never any credible Historian, from Christ's time until that time, ever could find such a saucy speech to relate in History, used as yet by any modest, or immodest Catholic to the face of a Council. And can you put on a forehead to countenance such a speech, not having any one example from Christ's time to this day as I said? So it is. The Catholics and only the Roman Catholics have been the men who were still employed in upholding the authority of councils of Fathers, and you cannot (I say it again and again) find an example from Christ's time unto this age, of any who were not known Heretics, who were carping at the authority of councils or Fathers. You spoke full enough before of the Fathers. I think you have not wanted much of doing your worst against counsels, although you said in another place, In what do we oppose Counsels? and you would seem to acknowledge them the highest Tribunal on earth, though so much be said, for their vilification. And when you have cried down the authority of Fathers & patronised the reproachful language of this private Man against a whole council, of what authority do you think this one private man's saying could be?  
21. Hence you see how little all this serveth for an answer of what yet is to be answered in the 21 Number of my former paper, specially when I shall have added the other proofs which I have of the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church. Of this by and by. Now you invite me to re-examin the Determinations of the council of Trent. It appeareth by what I said Chap. 2. Num. 4.5.6.7. That it is fine doctrine that determinations of councils should be examined by such as I and you are. Have we such assistance of the Holy Ghost as councils have? Have we half the authority, or any thing like one quarter of even the wit and learning which they have? Sir, Let us two set down and examine how true this is which I shall now say. Either the dete●minations of General Councils be such as are evidently against clear Scripture, or the Texts which we think they gainsay be not evident to the contrary, which if they be not, it would be a wonderful imprudence in me, and you, to think we should surer hit right upon the meaning of obscure places in Scripture then the whole council hath done. But now if the places alledgeable against the councils be evidently clear Texts, do you think to persuade any pious and prudent Man, that so very many (and many of them so very eminent for piety and for prudence) as are known to have subscribed to so many General Councils, not to have been able to see that which hath been evidently set down before all their Eyes in clear Scripture? God give us Humility. God give us charity. God have mercy upon us in the bitter day of his judgement, if we pass so bitter a judgement against the whole Church representative. And yet if you pass not this bitter judgement, you will never pass this objection without being posed.  
22. Good Sir, what mean you here to bid me say no more of this point (concerning the Holy Ghost giving to his Church an assistance reaching to infallibility,) but you would have me now measure the infallibility of our councils or Churches by their determinations, and to see how they agree with Scripture. Let us not (say you) see your opinions by infallibility but your infallibility by your determinations set forth by your Church. Remember Sir, what you find in the 7 Number of this chapter where you undertake to instruct me in the right way of disputing, according to which I should not stand showing the Church's determinations to be such as should be obeyed, but I should show à priori (as they say) that she is infallible and that therefore her definitions are to be admitted. Now when I come to do what you would have me to do, you cry out, say no more of this point, but go now the other way, cast the weight of this argument upon the other shoulder. It galleth me upon this. Sir, by your good leave I must dwell upon this argument yet a great while. The more it presseth the better it is.  
23. This I will do by passing to my 22. Number, 
Of my 22th. Number.  where first you stumble, and then tread upon Luther. Let him lie where you will. He is no better than his Fathers. I step over him: and so prove this infallibility of the Church. I cite Saint Paul, Tim. 3.15. calling the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of Faith. May not all securely in their faith, rely upon the pillar of Truth? May they not most groundedly ground themselves upon the ground of Truth itself? You answer, There is a double pillar, and a double ground, one principal, the Scripture, the other less principal and subordinate, the Church. But this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not. The Church must still be a true pillar, and a true ground of Truth. The people believed God and Moses, saith the Scripture. Moses was infinitely under God, yet this hindered not his being truly such a pillar of Truth as was to be relied upon securely in matters of Faith. I apply all to Moses in respect of God, what you apply to the Scripture in respect of the Church. And yet after all this as they might rely upon Moses as a pillar of Truth, so we upon the Church. All true believers for two thousand years before the writing of Scripture had no other ground to stand upon but this Church, the ground of Truth. And therefore a ground sure enough, and yet not sure enough if fallible. Yea, the true believers to whom Saint Paul did write these words. The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth, had not the whole Canon of the Scripture, which collectively taken maketh your other ground of Christian belief to stand upon; therefore Saint Paul's words were spoken of the Church as of such a pillar of truth, and such a ground of truth, as might then be securely relied upon in all matters of faith; and confessedly as then the true believers had not the Scriptures sufficiently completed to be their adequate Rule of Faith. Now after the writings of these, Scripture recommending the Church as the pillar and ground of Truth, this ground was so far from growing weaker, that the confirmation of Scripture added new force to it. I have now shown you the Text, in which without any subordination to Scripture (as than not written) the Church was by Saint Paul called the pillar and ground of Truth. Now show me your Text in which there must be a subordination, and such a subordination as may make the Church not to be truly such a pillar and such a ground of Truth, as all men may not now rely on it any longer as they did before all Scripture was written. I call for your Text, not for your reason, against which other Reasons will soon be found. And as for that saying of Saint Irenaus, the Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth; it hath not upon his saying greater authority, than the terming of the Church the pillar and ground of truth hath upon the authority of St. Paul. My proof, as grounded on S. Paul, is stronger than yours as grounded on St. Irenaeus: yet I make not St. Irenaeus contrary to St. Paul, what he saith of the Scripture I yield for true, yield me what St. Paul saith that I may ground my faith upon the Church. This I cannot do unless God speaketh by his Church. If God speaketh by his Church I pray believe what he speaketh. He telleth me by his Church, that I am to admit of the Scriptures as his undoubted word, upon this his telling me so, I ground that faith by which I believe the Scriptures, so that I believe the Scriptures for the Church, which faith of mine is as surely grounded as was the faith of the true believers, who at that very time, in which St. Paul did write these words, did ground their faith in all points upon the Church as you cannot deny. And thus in respect of us, the Church is first believed independently of Scripture, to which we are most prudently moved by such motives as I have specified, and the Scripture in order to us, cometh to be acknowledged as God's word upon the authority of the Church, there being no other assured stay (speaking of the whole and undoubted Canon) to know the true Scripture from false. The Scripture is not the first Principle, but upon supposition, that every one among christians admit of it for God's Word, and so we argue out of it against one another. But speaking of him, who is to begin to be a christian (as where all once began) he cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first Principles of Sciences, which of themselves appear so clearly true, that all you can bring to prove their truth will appear less true than those Principles appear by themselves. The Scripture is not the first Principle in this sense appearing evidently by its own light to be God's Word, as I have showed at large. And this answereth all you say until you come to make good your new interpretation of St. Paul's words, an interpretation unheard of to all antiquity, and to all men until this age. Necessity now forced men to their shifts to put off Scripture when it made against them. These words must now be necessarily referred to that which is said in the verse following concerning the mystery of the Incarnation, and so (though St. Paul) did write this Epistle in Greek, he must needs be said to have used here an Ebraisme. And why must he needs be said to have done so here in this particular place because sometimes such Ebraisms be used in the new Testament. Whether this reason will justify so new an interpretation of words (even for a thousand and five hundred years applied to the Church, never applied to the Mystery of the Incarnation) shall be determined even by the Principles of one of your greatest Divines now living I mean Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of prophesying Sect. 4. An other great pretence (for justifying new interpretations) is the conference of places (which you would use here by conferring this place to some few places in which such Ebraismes be used in Greek) A thing of such indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words, variety of sense, 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 observours. This he proveth by several examples, and then he truly saith, This is a fallacy a Posse ad esse. It is possible a thing sometimes may be so, therefore undoubtedly here it is so. There be such Ebraismes some where, therefore they must needs be here, where for a thousand and five hundred years no man observed any such thing, Most truly saith the same Doctor, This is the great way of answering all the Arguments which can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend. Sir you who make the Scripture judge of all Controversies should not (of all men) justify such liberty of new interpretation as this your proceeding would bring in. Or if you do you will soon see (and may already see it) that your judge will be made to speak what each party pleaseth. And thus will be unable to decide any thing. But to proceed, The Church, truly being (before the Canon was written) the pillar and ground of truth in itself without any subordination, so that the believers looked no further than that God taught them such and such things by the Church, I have from the text all I desire to prove, that God's assistance promised to the Church should reach as fare as infallibility. Whether this infallibility be equal to that of the Apostles or no maketh not to the purpose, so long as it is granted that our faith relying upon her authority doth rely as securely as that which relies upon the Pillar and ground of truth. Here you come in with a parenthesis noting me for a French Catholic, for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a council. Sir, you are no Scholar if you know not that all Roman Catholics allow infallibility to the Pope defining with a council.  
24 But because I say also that God speaketh by his Church proposing infallibly his truth by her mouth, you tell me that I hence may plainly see how the Roman tyranny draws me necessarily into peril of blasphemy. A deep charge, needing a strong proof. And yet all your proof is because now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as by his word Sir, I pray why is it more blasphemy to say that God speaketh by Christ's Church, who spoke infallibly by the Church of the law of Nature for two thousand years (see here Numb. 32.) And when he then began to speak by Moses and the Scripture to the Jews, he still by his Church spoke to the faithful among the Gentiles) and the Jews might have grounded their faith on that voice) for two thousand years more. And when the writers of the former parts of the new Testament did write what they writ, and when St. Paul did write what he writ, God did infallibly teach all by the Church; and yet these writers thought Scriptures necessary, but not necessary for all the ends for which you may think them necessary. Again, what a slender proof is this to ground a charge of blasphemy upon so vast a multitude, as adhere to the Roman Church? There is no need of Scripture if God speaketh by his Church to infallibility. Did not God speak to infallibility by the Scriptures teaching that Jesus was the Messiah? Was it therefore mere blasphemy to account St. John Baptist sent by God to teach the same with infallible assurance? Was it therefore near blasphemy to think that voice was infallible by which God the Father testified the same from Heaven? Was it therefore near blasphemy, to account the testimony of miracles (ordained to testify the same thing) infallible, though Christ calleth it testimonium majus Joanne. Joan. 5? Or rather is it not near blasphemy to say all these testimonies besides Scripture are needless? Do you not see that after all the testimonies of God by the Scripture, and by the Church, that still millions do not believe? Why is then one of these testimonies superfluous? The Church is not more Enthusiastical now then she was for 4. thousand years before she had all the promises which Christ made her of assistance, which should be at least as special and full, as she ever had before. Before she delivered only what she had received by Tradition. Now she delivereth what she received by Tradition and by Scripture, in interpreting of which (according to that sense truly intended by the Holy Ghost) the same Holy Ghost doth assist her; so that here is no new Revelation claimed to be made to her, but an infallible assistance to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed. If others claimful assurance by the Spirit in any point, let them show as good promises made to them in particular, as are made to the Church, and we shalt never account these false Enthusiasts. This infallible assistance being promised to the Church by God cannot be voted from her by the multitude of misbelievers who oppose her, though you set them all loose to vote against her.  
25 After all, you will have St. Paul call the Church the Pillar and ground of truth with an intention only to set forth the office, and not with an intention to set forth the authority of the Church. Sir, how can you know St. Paul intention but by his words? And sure I am that no word could in brief more fully set forth her infallible authority, then by declaring her to be the pillar itself, and the ground of truth. When he useth such words as declare this as sufficiently as need to be, how know you that he intended not to declare this sufficiently? I ask also in any man's apprehension, what office of the Church is signified by calling her the ground of truths? In which words an assuredly grounded authority will presently appear to be signified. O but you know his intention was to signify the office only of the Church, and not her Authority, because he meant here to instruct Timothy how to carry himself in the Church of God, and to this purpose it had been impertinent to speak of her Authority, as you think. I think it was very pertinent to speak of it even to this purpose. For is it not fit that in a Church, which is to be held for the public Oracle of the world, the chief Pastors of this Church (especially those who were to be first of all made chief Pastors) should behave themselves so, as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church? How much do, not your multitude only, but your greatest Doctors think themselves to say against the infallibility promised to such a Church as ours is, in which they see sometimes scandalous Popes, scandalous Cardinals, scandalous Bishops, etc. Which though it be a pitiful argument, because scandalous men, and Solomon the Idolater have been assisted with an infallibility to be Writers of Scripture itself, yet it is an argument which troubleth weak souls. And therefore to take away such scandals, it is very convenient that Bishops, especially those who were first of all preferred to that office, should be blameless, continent, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour; and that they should have a good report even from the enemies of the Church. Also, that the Deacons should be grave, not double tongued, not given to much Wine or covetous. These and such like precepts as these were much to the purpose, and as so were here given by St. Paul, to maintain the credit of such a Church as might seem to all fit to be accounted the Oracle of the World. The Pillar and ground of Truth.  
59 Let us hear how you argue here. If the infallibility of the Church were here affirmed, than Timothy needed not such instructions to take care how he behaved himself in the Church, since infallible assistance is immediate, and that which is immediate includes no time for the inspiration, nor means of instruction, so you. A strange Consequence. The Church is infallible in defining points in a general Council, Ergo, no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour. Was it so for the first two thousand years before the Scripture was written? Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediately? And how is it true that the assistance which is immediate to the Church assembled in a full Council, includes no time for the inspiration, nor no means for the instruction? Do you think that as soon as all are assembled they are presently all, or the greater part, to define all things as fast as they are proposed; was it so when the Apostles and the Elders of the Church were assembled together in the first Council? though this issued forth their decree with this preface. It seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and us. Was there no time required for this short Decree. No means used before it was made? Read those words. The Apostles and the Elders coming together to consider of the matter And when there had been much disputing, Peter risen up and said. There followeth his speech. Then St. James made an other speech, To what purpose all these speeches, and these made after former much disputing, if your doctrine be true, that neither time nor use of any be to proceed the immediate assistance of the holy Ghost which they had undoubtedly. And here as if you had proved some thing you have a fling at the Council of Trent for sitting so long; a thing as little derogatory to that Councils infallibility, as that much disputing, and making several speeches was derogatory to the infallibility of the council of the Apostles, in which only one short Decree was made. Look on the many Canons, and Decrees for Reformation, in matters subject to great Disputes, Oppositions of secular power (which crossed not the Apostles first Council) Look on the multitude of Heresies condemned, after a full hearing of all that could be said by all parties, and it must needs be rather a point of satisfaction to all, than a scandal unto any, to see so mature consideration used. But both a slow and a hasty, and a mean delivery of any one's condemnation, will be distasteful to the condemned person.  
27. As for the Authority of St. Athanasius calling the definition of the council of Nice, by which the Consubstantiality of God the Son with his Father, The Word of God, it showeth clearly, that this prime Doctor held that God delivered his Word unto us by the council. Your Answer is that the councils Definition did not bind with Relation to the Authority of the Council, but by the authothority of Scripture Ministerially proposed by the council. Sir, I have already showed, Chap. 2. Numb. 4. that the clearest Text which the council had to cite, even that text, I and my Father are one, can be so expounded by an Arrian, that it doth no more than probably declare the consubstantiality. But (as you say here) If the text be but probable we cannot from thence urge this probable sense of it as an object of faith. But S. Athanasius urgeth Consubstantiality (after the Nicene council) as God's Word, and an Object of Faith, which he cannot do with a Relation to a Text only probable in Scripture; Therefore he doth it with Relation to the infallibility of the councils Authority, which council if it had only Authority to propose, like a Minister, such and such Texts, as may be severally taken (and consequently mistaken) by an Interpreter, who is only fallible, could not be said in its Interpretations to propose the undoubted Word of God. And though Saint Athanasius held that as truth before the council in order to himself who was convinced, that his interpretation was conformable to the ancient Doctrine of the Church, yet in order to those, who were not before the council, convinced by that Verily, he could nor boldly denounce this as an infallible meaning of God's Word obliging all. O! This Declaration of God's Word by the council, he boldly said, The Word of God, by the Council of Nice remained for ever. After this, you come in again with the council of Ariminum, contending that council as well to be believed for itself as the council of Nice. And you think if more exceptions could have been made against the authority of the council of Ariminum, Saint Austin, against his Arrian adversary might easily, have Prevailed, by insisting only upon the authority of the council of Nice, which he waveth, and goeth to arguments out of Scripture. Sir, A man of reading cannot but know that the council of Ariminum is never by the Fathers (no nor by your Church of England) numbered among the first four councils, which four by addition of this council (had it been a lawful council) should have been made Five. And you might as well think, that I might prevail against you by only citing the council of Trent, which I never cited yet, but stood wholly on other arguments. For I know as we in vain dispute with Heathens out of Scripture, or out of Saint Matthewes Gospel against Manich●ans, or out of the Maccabees against you; so Saint A●st●● in vain had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it, as you do at that of Trent. He being well furnished with other arguments out of Scriptures admitted by him, intended by them only at that time to overthrow him, and not to meddle with a long contention (fit to fill a book alone) about the validity of the council of Nice, and invalidity of that of Ariminum, as we two for the like reason do not stand only contesting about the authority of the council of Trent. I am now for a long time to contest with you about the Scripture only, as Saint A●stin did with him.  
28. But before I enter further upon this contestation about this controversy of the Infallibility of the Church, I must put you in mind of your own doctrines which teacheth that all necessary controversies are clearly decided according to the truth by plain Scripture. This controversy then being one of the most necessary must clearly according to your doctrine be decided for you against me by plain Scripture. If then I can but show that it is not thus clearly decided against me, I clearly show that I hold no error in this point. For all error in such a necessary point as this is, can be demonstrated to be against plain Scripture. What I hold (to wi●t, that the Church is Infallible) cannot be demonstrated by plain Scripture to be so. Therefore what I hold is no error. Now I must prove that what I hold of the infallibility of the Church cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error. This I prove thus. The Scripture is not so clear against this as it is for this. Therefore this cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error. My first proposition must be showed by citing as clear texts for what I hold of this point, as you can bring against it. Well then, for this point I have alleged in the beginning of this chapter, the text, promising, That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against this Church; and that text which tells us we must hear the Church under pain of being by God's judgement accounted as Publicans and Heathens, and that the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth.  
29. In my 23. Numb. of my former Treatise I add a fourth Text; Behold I am with you all dai●s, 
Of my 23th. Number.  even to the consummation of the world. Out of this & such like promises made to the Apostles, we prove their infallibility in teaching, in writing, etc. But these words are to be verified unto the consummation of the world, therefore they must not only contain a promise made of being with the Apostles, who died a thousand and 6 hundred years ago, but of being with the Prelates of the Church their successors, who shall be to the consummation of the world. Your answer to this Text shall be rendered in your own words that you may not complain of foul play. Your words were, Although the promise be extendible to the end of the world, yet it is not necessary to understand it so, as that there shall always be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles, which is hard to affirm since we cannot see that there is any such necessity for such assistance. And by those words such assistance. Your last reply showeth that you mean assistance extended to Infallibility. Sir, stand to Scripture and show out of the Text that he promiseth to be with them, securing them from all error in the first age, and he promiseth not so much for the second or third age. Against your reasons we have our reasons, bring against my illimited text another text, teaching clearly that my Text ought to be limited to a smaller assistance in other ages than was here promised for the first. As for the necessity of the people (which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infallibility) it was greater in ages remoter from Christ, you ask why then be our traditions now equally infallible to those of these times. I answer that as it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles, was crucified, did rise again, than it was presently after these things happened, yet all these things be as infallibily true now, as they were then, and as infallilible; so I say of Traditions, which for all this do not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty. But to go on. What if there be no such necessity of such assistance for other ages; what Text have you to prove that God must needs give no more than is necessary, and cannot promise more, and give what he promiseth? I know you will say this infallibility in ages after the Scripture was not necessary, because the Scriptures alone would serve to decide all controversies. Sir, did not the Church alone serve to decide all Controversies before the Scripture was written. Yes, Why then was Scripture thought necessary by you even for this end, for which the Church was well provided before? Again, the old Scripture, did it not testify, as much as was necessary, that Jesus Christ was the true Messiah? Yes. To what end then was Saint John Baptist sent to testify this? To what end a voice sent from Heaven to testify this? To what end so many Miracles wrought to testify this? To what end did Christ and his Apostles still further testify this? Mark here how false your judgement is in thinking God will promise just what is necessary, and no more. Sir, in Ages after the first when the Church should grow from a Grain of Mustardseed, to be a Tree of vast extent, in such a vast compass, and in progress of many Ages a world of doubts would rise, which Books were Scripture, which not? Which corrupted Scripture, which not? Which was the undoubted sense of the uncorrupted Scripture, which not? Why might not Christ (for any thing you know by Scripture) think this a sufficient Reason to promise an assistance extended to infallibility for other Ages of the Church as well as for the first age. Will an authority so assisted to testify all this infallibly be less necessary than so many Authorities to Testify that Jesus Christ was the true Messiah, after it was infallibly Testified by true Scripture? And all these Testimonies were given to the Jews, as ill as they were disposed. How then can you say of the Church of Christ, that she, for want of this Disposition, was deprived of this Assistance in all Ages but the first? What you add of Traditions, hath been already Answered: See also Number Twelve. But what you add of Scripture having still the same certainty is apparently false, speaking (as you speak) in Order to assure us. For you yourself confess, that divers Books of Scripture (as the Apocalypse &c.) are now held certain, which were not held so before. Again, many, and a good many, books of Scripture are quite lost. How know you by Scripture only, that no necessary point for practice or belief (contained in those books only) did not perish with the books themselves. And as for the books we have, you see how uncertain we remain about the true sense of them in highest points. Then they had the Apostles themselves, or the known Disciples of the Apostles, to tell them the meaning of these words, This is my Body, is this so really, or figuratively only; These words, Baptise all Nations, do or do not, include Infants. To be a Priest, or a Bishop, was to have power to sacrifice, to absolve, or was it not? Now times make these held for uncertainties; whereas by and by you admit that by this promise of Christ, the Church is secure from damnable error, though not from all simple errors, for then no body should be left for God to be withal; you admit that which will destroy quite what you said before. For before you said, Heresy consisted in opposition to clear Scripture: whence all those must needs be Heretics who opposed clear Scripture. Therefore all those who held these prime points in which you and we differ, with us against you, were Heretics; for they held these points, which (as you say) are against clear Scripture; But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church baptising, teaching all Nations, etc. but those who held these prime points in which we and you differ; wherefore we must confess that Christ was with these Opposers of evident Scripture, or else you cannot show with what Members of the Church he was for all these last ages preceding the Reformation. Let us go on.  
30. What kind of assistance Christ promised, may be gathered (behold a fifth Text) out of several words in the 14. chapter of Saint John, there (verse 15.) he saith, I will pray the Father, and he shall give another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive. And verse 27. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name, he shall teach you all things and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say unto you. And chap. 16. ver. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you; How be it when the spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth. I ask now according to these Texts, How long is this spirit of Truth to abide with them in their successors? For ever; saith the Text. Shall he also secure those, with whom he for ever abideth, from all error? He will guide you into all Truth, saith the Text. Give me then leave, less to regard what you say to the contrary. Where there is all Truth, there is no error. If you answer there is no Fundamental error. I Reply, that all Truth excludes all error, either in points Fundamental, or not Fundamental. And being you cannot assuredly tell me which points be Fundamental, which not; which destructive of salvation, which not; which be curable, which are not; you must grant me that she is to be believed in all points. And fear not to believe her, She will guide you into all Truth. Therefore you may securely follow her in all herwaies. This promise of Christ made equally to the Apostles, and to their successors, the visible Teachers and Guides of the Church which were to guide people into all Truth for ever, must needs have been verified all this last thousand years before your Reformation. All this time, all the visible Guides or Prelates of the Church were led, and did lead into opinions contrary to the Tenets of your Church. But all this time the spirit of Truth did abide with them, guiding them into all Truth. Therefore the opinions contrary to your Tenets were true, and not errors. If he should be with your Prelates beginning this last age to hold contrary to the Prelates of the last thousand years) he should be with those who teach contradictions in points of belief, opposite to the former belief. Behold a clear reason why I appropriate this promise to our Bishops and Church, and not to yours, the Holy Ghost could not teach those guides of the Church forever, who for a vast long time of many ages were not in the World. Show me a succession in all Ages of the guides or lawful Pastors of any Church holding your Texts in points differing from ours, and then I must labour to find a reason why I say the Holy Ghost, ever since Christ's time, guided the lawful Pastors of our Church into all truth, rather than the lawful Pastors of your Church, which Pastors had no being in the Church or world and consequently no capacity to be guided into all truth.  
31 A Sixth Text to prove this assistance to be extended to infallibility is 4 Ephes. whence appeareth that the end and intention of Christ in giving us (who were visible in all ages) Doctors and Pastors for all ages was such an end, and such an intention, as could not be compassed by such Doctors and Pastors as might lead us into circumvention of error, even then when they where assembled together to deliver the truth from their highest tribunal in a General Council How pitifully would the Saints be consummated by such Doctors? How pitifully would the work of the Ministry be performed, how pitifully would the Body of Christ be edified by such Doctors and Pastors. Lastly how impossible would it be for us by the having of such doctors, and Pastors that we now (provided of such guides) be not children wavering and carried about with the wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, in circumvention of error. You see St. Paul affirms the Doctors and Pastors which are given unto us, to be given for this end (and consequently sufficiently assisted to the same) that we may securely rest in their doctrine, which we may not do in any erroneous doctrine, be the error little or great. For it were a ridiculous thing to say, we were to rest circumvented in error, lest we should fall into circumvention of error. The assistance therefore is such as preserves from all error, and such an assistance was proportionable to God's intention of Securing us from having reason to waver or to be changing, and changing, so to cure some curable errors, with which we feared to be circumvented, whereas by the unanimous doctrine of these Doctors and Pastors, God intended to preserve us sufficiently from ever falling into circumvention of error.  
32. A seventh Text to prove the assistance of the Holy Ghost given to the Church, to be extended to infallibility is taken from Esay chap. 56. verse 20. and 21. where God speaketh of the Church of Christ, to which after his coming many of the Jews were to unite themselves (according to the interpretation of Saint Paul 18. Romans verse 26. Thus God by Esay, The redeemer shall come to Zion and unto them who by uniting themselves to Christ's Church) shall turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. Note here that the words which our Lord is going to say are spoken to the visible Church, to wit, that Church to which the Jew's did unite themselves being baptised in it, instructed in it, governed by it, etc. Now our Lord to this Church visibly Baptising, instructing, governing, etc. saith, As for me, this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord, My spirit that is upon thee, and my words, (free from error in all points great and little) which I have put in thy mouth, (that mouth by which thou visibly dost teach all Nations) shall not departed out of (this) thy mouth. Nor out of the mouth of thy seed, Nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever. Behold, here the Spirit of Truth entailed upon the Church for all Ages, never departing from her mouth, Nor the mouth of her seeds seed, which not departing from the mouth (by which visibly she teacheth, instructeth, and governeth,) showeth this Spirit entailed upon the Church as Visible and not as Invisible as you would have it. And this not departing of his Spirit from her Mouth, is a no less clear, then eloquent expression of her infallibility in her doctrine, for God's Spirit or Word is not in a Mouth teaching error. Again, a promise of not departing from her mouth from thenceforth and for ever, maketh it evident that this last thousand years there was some visible Church, whose Prelates and Pastors did show their Heads, and open their Mouths, in teaching truth. And yet what was visibly taught all this while, was (in all points debated between you and us) opposite to you. By the way note how unjustly you not long since taxed those of coming near blasphemy, who said that God did speak to us and teach us by his Church. What mean these words, My Words shall not departed out of thy Mouth, Nor out of the Mouth of thy seed, nor of thy seeds seed?  
33 Hence (for an Eight Text) I may well allege what this Prophet infers from hence in the Next Chapter, where he triumpheth in the Church thus teaching all Nations, and there he addeth, For the nation and Kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish, verse 12. Because if this Church should ever at any time fall to teach error, Nations should do well, and should further their salvation by forsaking her erring, as the Protestants say, they did. And note how these words clearly show that the Scripture speaketh of the Church visible, which Nations and Kingdoms may find out, and serve and must perish, like publicans and Heathens, if they do not serve, and obey: she is therefore secured from error. Hence verse 20. Thy sun shall no more go down, Neither shall the Moon withdraw itself, For the Lord shall be thine everlasting light and the days of thy Mourning shall be ended. And in the next chapter to the Sons of this Church he promiseth, That everlasting Joy shall be unto them verse 7. And in the next chapter last verse. Thou shalt be called, sought out a City not forsaken. Had this Church been forsaken and left in such errors as are imputed to the Roman Church, Christ had not been an Everlasting light to here whom he had left in such darkness for a thousand years, and the days of her mourning had been these full thousand years, short of the end of her mourning. And there had been no reason why in such gross errors she should (to God's comfort) be sought for and a City not forsaken. These words I am sure are spoke of a visible Church, sought for, and found out, because inhabited and not forsaken, your invisiible Church was so desolate, that no body can tell where it was. And in this sense it is a City still sought for, but never to be found for a thousand years. Or else tell me where?  
34 For a ninth Text (letting all these last Texts of Esay pass as for one) I alleged that of Daniel 2.44. 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 another people. And that we might know that he speaketh here of the kingdom of Christ, which should be visible to us all, there is added a circumstance which must needs make it most visible, to wit. And it shall break in pieces and consume all those (Idolatrous) Kingdoms and it shall stand for ever. Now if this true Church of Christ, which so visibly hath broken in pieces and quite abolished all Idolatrous Kingdoms, be so visibly to stand for ever, than this visible Church cannot be said, for this last 2000 year to have been fallen; As it must needs be said of all visible Churches, which have been these last thousand years for besides the Roman Church you will not find one visible Church which hath not fallen this time into confessed heresy; therefore to verify these words, you must say that the Roman Church did not fall, that so you may find Christ a visible Church which did stand for ever. And thus also we shall literally expound what the Angel Gabriel said of Christ, And he shall reign in the house of jacob for ever Luke 1.33. This Roman Church then is the Church which hath stood ever since Christ's time. Whence it is manifest that it did not fall either into idolatry (as you intimate hereafter when you reply to this place of Daniel, nor when it proclaimed itself to have an infallible tribunal, by which all Controversies are to be truly decided, for erecting which tribunal you Page 22. say she is in peril of treason against God the judge, in setting up another judge in the consciences of men. And again Pa. 106. That for pretending to infallibility she is highly presumptuous and in this more than an usurper committing an insolent usurpation of the prerogative which belongeth only to God and Scripture. And P. 23. you hold this Infallibility as destructive to souls as uncertainty of true Religion, Nay (say you) uncertainty may be helped but infallibility hath no remedy. Surely if the Church should have universally fallen into uncertainty of true belief, it should no longer have been the standing Kingdom of Christ which shall stand for ever. But it had been a multitude fallen into the want of that faith, the want of which had put it in a state in which it had been impossible to please God. For uncertainty in faith is wholly inconsistent with an infallible assent, but all divine faith consisteth in an infallible Assent. Therefore where there is uncertainty, there is no divine faith at all without which it is impossible to please God, as St. Paul saith you put the Roman Church fallen (even by this one fall) into a worse condition. Can a Church in this condition be that Church raised in Christ and spread over the world destroying all Idolatrous Kingdoms by her visible preachers and teachers, succeeding with a visible succession one to another, administering visible sacraments, and by her visible decrees and such like visible Acts, destroying all Idolatrous Kingdoms and reigning in their place visibly, and thus in the light of the world verifying daniel's prophecy by standing for ever in quality of a kingdom. Yet if the Roman Church be not this Church, find me out (if you can) a visible Church, (for so many visible Acts convince that the Church verifying these words must be visible) distinct from the Roman, and agreeing with yours in the points debated between us, what you hereafter add concerning this place of Daniel, and my first place out of Esay, I shall answer in its place. Here I thought good to put all these nine Texts of Scripture together that their force might the better appear.  
35 This being done I must again put you in mind that according to your doctrine, Scripture alone is able by clear Texts to decide all Controversies according to truth, This Controversy of the fallibility, or infallibility of the Church erected by Christ, is one of the most important Controversies that can be raised in the Church. Now you (who pretend this Controversy to be decided for you against me by clear Texts of Scripture) are obliged by clearer Texts, than all these are put together, to prove that Christ's visible Church is fallible, I say Christ's visible Church, for all my Texts speak of that, and not of the Synagogue, and therefore the Texts you bring must be concerning Christ's Church. And you must bring Texts and not discourses, or else you decide not the Controversy by the sentence of the judge to which only you appeal. Observe these few things and give me these Texts, and I here give you free leave to proclaim me quite vanquished, and driven out of the field. And by this you will see that we adhere not therefore to the defence of the Church's Tribunal, because we fear to be tried by Scripture, but because upon trial made by Scripture, her Tribunal is proved infallible and in all things to be obeyed by us.  
36. What occurreth next is, to justify myself from the false slander with which you charge me of corrupting the Text in St. Austin Lib. de Utilitate credendi Cap. 19 Sir if I should do as you did, that is, if I should only regard that Edition of St. Austin which I have, I should not only justify myself but condemn you of corrupting this place. Now I only charge the Edition which you used, of corruption, yea of such corruption that a man could not but suspect it who would read the context with his perfect senses about him. For St. Austin in his 14. Chapter, having said that he first believed, moved by the authority of the Catholic Church, which there he showeth to have been done by him upon good reason; he cometh in the 51 Chapter to press his adversaries to the easiest way of freeing themselves from error by yielding to the authority of the same Church. And then in his Sixteenth Chapter he urgeth the wholesomeness of following this authority. Here come in those words which I cited, to wit, for if the divine providence of God doth not preside in humane affairs, in vain would Solicitude be about Religion. But if both the very 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. My adversary will needs read these last words thus. On which authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God. Velut gradu incerto innitentes attolluram ad Deum. As if an unassured or an uncertain step could help to lift us up to God, and were a thing to be relied upon to this end, and given us as a help by God to this end, that we may rely upon it, and we being so well provided of uncertainty in the authority appointed by God for us, ought nor to despair of coming by this authority to the certain truth. Is not this perfect and complete nonsense. And can you think in earnest that here you have reason to tell me that the scope of St. Augustine's discourse may discover my corrupting his Text? Doth it not evidently discover the corruption of your Frobenian Edition, An. 1569. which would needs read, Gradu incerto innitentes attellamur ad Deum, whereas other Editions read gradu certo innitentes even the Edition of Erasmus, whose judgement yours use to esteem most accurate. Yea, he in the beginning of his Edition professeth to put down such a Note as this is [] when he varieth from the Frobenian Edition, and yet here he putteth no such note in his Paris Edition, Anno 1555. which Edition of Erasmus, is ancienter than yours. So that your Frobenian Edition corruptedly differeth in this place from that ancienter Frobenian Edition, of which Erasmus made mention a dozen years before yours was printed. Neither can you make any thing like sense of S. Augustine's words by reading them as you cited them; that by the authority appointed by God we should as by an uncertain step be lifted up to God. So that here you may easily perceive how little reason you had to carp at infallibility. And again, you had as little reason to put me in mind that one part of that authority of which St. Austin here speaketh is drawn from the miracles which Christ did. Sir, do these miracles make this authority to be relied upon, as upon an unassured step, or as upon an assured step to lift us up to God. Now Sir, how shall you ever be able to secure me that you can know, and infallibly know, corrupted Scripture from uncorrupted, when I see this your talon in knowing corruptions so deficient, as I have here shown it to be, even when you are so confident of it that you charge your adversary of corruption, which had you not done, he had now made no use of this place so clear to his purpose. But he must needs now expect a better answer from you to this place.  
37. In my 24. I entreat you not to explicate the places which I had above alleged for the Church's infallibility, 
Of my 24. ●h. Number.  as if they were to be understood so as only to be true when the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture; for even in that sense the devil himself (father of Lies) is infallible, so long as he teacheth conformable to Scripture, and the gates of hell cannot by error prevail against the devil of Hell. Yea, as long as he doth this, he will be the pillar and ground of Truth, that is subordinately as you speak of the Church, to wit, so far as either of them rely on the written word. You answer first, that we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil, but we are enjoined to consult with the Church of God. I answer, that this hinders not his being infallible as long as he speaketh conformably to Scripture. And I am glad to see you acknowledge a command to consult with the Church, for sure I am that this must be understood of consulting with a visible Church and visible in all Ages. For people were in all ages to obey this command of consulting with her. But it is impossible in any age to consult with an invisible Church. Therefore there was in all ages a true visible Church. Secondly, you say we have always cause to suspect the Devil. I answer this hinders not his being truly infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture. In your third answer you seem to make the devil and the Church agree, for you neither believe the devil in point of truth upon his authority, nor the Church to speak truth upon her authority, wherefore for all you have said as yet, the devil may as well be the pillar and ground of truth as the Church, though I confess freely, it is not his office to be so.  
Again though you be not moved to think that the devil saith to be true, yet this hinders not his speaking as true as the Church doth, as long as he speaketh conformable to Scripture. And though I grant that you may in some respect make more account of what the Church saith for her authority, then of what the devil saith upon his authority; yet standing still in our case, which supposeth the devil de facto to deliver what is conformable to Scripture, you (who refuse to give an infallible assent to what the Church saith at all times but when you see that which she saith to be conformable to Scripture) you I say, must never build this assent as infallible more upon the Church then upon the devil, to whose saying you would give an infallible assent when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture. But whilst you are so busy in giving so many answers to what I said about the devil, you smother up that which clearly overthroweth the reply of you and yours, who say we must follow the Church only so far as we see her follow Scripture. For I shown that those who could not see at all how far the Church followed Scripture, were bound to follow that Church for the first two thousand years of the world, which were before all Scripture, or before what was known to be the Scripture in substance, or before it were known whether there should be any Scripture or no. So how could those many barbarous Nations, who never having seen the Scripture did truly believe, (as S. Ireneus testifies) what was taught them by the Church, though they could not possibly see how far that which was taught them, and that which they believed, did agree with the Scripture which they had never seen.  
38. Your two next paragraphs contend to take from me two of my former texts cited for the infallibility of the Church, by expounding those texts not to speak of the visible Church. But I have showed the contrary concerning them both. Concerning that out of Daniel I did show this even now Num. 34. Concerning that out of Esay I shown it Num. 32. And 33. As for all additional testimonies out of Fathers you know why I resolve to pass them. 
Of my 25th. and 26th. Number.  And so together with them I must let pass even that main and convincing place of St. Austin: this supposed, I have ended all which belongeth to this Chapter.   

The fifth Chapter. The Church which is our Judge, and Infallible, is the Roman Church.  
ALL that I am to prove here is, 
Of my 27th. Numb.  that upon Supposition that it is now made good that the Church is our judge in all Controversies and also that it is made good that she is infallible, that all this can be verified of no other Church than the Roman. Whence it followeth, that whosoever will say any thing against that which I did undertake to prove in this part of my discourse, must argue against me not by denying some Church to be judge of Controversies and infallible, but admitting that for truth, he must prove that I without reason claim this right of judicature, and this infallibility for the Roman Church, and only for the Roman, still understanding by the Roman Church, all Churches which submit themselves to the Bishop of Rome as to their supreme Pastor.  
2 That than which remaineth here to be proved I did prove and still do prove thus, the Protestant Church and all other Churches different from the Roman, do judge themselves, acknowledge themselves, declare and profess themselves, to be fallible, and that according to infallible Scripture. If then any of these Churches be infallible (in what they judge, and declare for truth grounded in Scripture) they are infallible in this their judging and declaring themselves to be fallible. Therefore infallibly they are fallible. Therefore, upon supposition that it hath been formerly proved that some Church is judge of Controversies, and Infallible, and it being by the former argument demonstratively proved that neither the Protestant Church, nor any Church different from the Roman can be judge of Controversies and infallible, it evidently follows that only the Roman Church is this judge and is infallible as she teacheth herself to be. Here you exclaim at my abusing others by ratiocinations, which notwithstanding, I confidently say you could not, nor cannot solve. Therefore prehaps you are pleased to wonder and then gibe at my argument, as if I only argued thus. The Roman Church claimeth infallibility, therefore by claiming of it she hath right to it. This argument you may freely scoff at, it is nothing like mine. And yet in undoing this fond argument you only busy yourself and say nothing, to that which I pressed and still press, that the Church which is appointed by God for infallible judge of Controversies, cannot possible be any of those Churches which teach themselves not to be this infallible judge. It had been very easy to have understood this right and not to make me say, that only laying claim to infallibility is a sufficient proof of infallibility. It is a very different thing to say, He that must be a Minister must be a Man and not a Woman, and to say, 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 teaching herself to be infallible and cannot be a Church which judgeth and teaches herself fallible; And another thing to say, that that Church is infallibly judge which teacheth herself to be so. This I said not, but I said, that Church that must be infallible must not want this condition, and therefore no Church teaching herself (even according to Scripture) to be fallible, can truly be this infallible judge. Against my argument truly related, you have not one word, without you think you have answered me by saying, that no Church of Christ is infallible, and therefore not the Roman. But Sir did not you always hitherto still importunely call upon me to prove that even upon supposition, that the Church was our judge and Infallible, that these great prerogatives belonged to the Church of Rome. You bid me still prove this even standing upon the supposition, that some Church was judge and infallible. Is it then any thing like a Scholar like answer to return no other answer to my argument but by now saying the supposition is not true, the truth of which, though allowed, you contended to be nothing to my purpose. If you will grant me that, if any Church be judge of Controversies and infallible, this is our Church I have done. Neither intent I any thing else in this chapter.  
3 You bring an argument to prove our Church fallible because either it erred in admitting, or in rejecting the Millenary opinion before admitted. Sir I call upon you to prove that ever our infallible Judge (that is the supreme Pastor of the Church defining with the Church assembled in a Council) did admit of the Millinery opinion. If this be not done you prove not our judge to be fallible and this I am sure can never be proved. Yea it cannot be proved that the Church diffused or Universal, did at any one age unanimously admit of this doctrine for a point of faith. For when this opinion began to get much ground, divers of the Fathers did oppose it. Even S. Justin (Dialogo cum Triphone circa medium) whom yours use so commonly to allege for this opinion, in plain words telleth you, Multos, qui purae piaeque sunt Christianorum sententia hoc non agnoscere. That many (note the word many) who are of a pure and pious Christian opinion do not acknowledge this. And your own learned Doctor Ha' in bis view of etc. Page 87. 88, 89. doth prove the weakness of that place in St. justin not to conclude any thing against Catholic Tradition. Nicephorus will tell you L. 3. C. 21. that Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was the first author of this opinion. The traditions of the Church have no first authors but the Apostles.  

Of my 28th. Number.  Wherefore by all you have hitherto said, my Argument remaineth unanswered and is really unanswerable the supposition being admitted upon which it is spoken. For tell me whether any Church, which teacheth herself to be fallible can be truly infallible. If any such Church can be infallible, and all Churches be such but the Roman, than Christ can have no Church upon Earth to be our infallible Judge but the Roman. Wherefore no tolerable Answer being yet given to this argument, I will be as good as my word when I said in this Number, That this being a demonstration I should hold myself bound to say no more until this argument were answered. Here than I end: yet when you shall have solved this argument, I shall be ready to make good my promise concerning what I said I could and would show of the Roman Church to soon as I should see this argument answered.  Petrae durities nulli magis, quàm ferienti notae. 
FINIS.   

An Answer to your last Paper.  
TItulus Libri saepe legendus est, as the Rule is, the Title of a Book is often to be read; as if it were not to be censured: yet in point of controversy, it may be considered. And surely your Title [How in these times, in which there be so many Religions, the true Religion may certainly be found out] might be found peccant: For, first it supposeth that which is false; that every difference makes a new Religion. 2. It doth not suppose that which is true; that there are many differences amongst yourselves. And thirdly, it doth, in a sort, infer that which is true and false together, and so a contradiction; that there are many Religions, and yet but one. And so we need say no more of it; for thus it should destroy itself.  
As for the dedication of the Paper to the Reader, what do you mean? would you have me only a Reader of it, as if I could not, or would not, make any return to it? Or do you, as I may conceive, intent it for public use? We are agreed; let the world have it and judge.  
In your first and second Paragraphs of your Preface to the last, you give a repetitional account of your former Treatise, and of the order of it, which you substrate to the order of your Answer to my Answer of that Treatise, and to the Application of it. Your order simply affirms nothing: therefore we say nothing to it.  
In the third Par. You excuse your not making a sixth chapter to answer my answer to your Conclusion, and to some personal debates which concern not the main cause. The Excuse shall pass with me; who, in regard of personal quarrels, am as ready to neglect myself, as he would have me. And surely if we did not seek ourselves in the search of truth, we should less lose ourselves and find truth sooner.  
So then all I have to do is to answer your five chapters, wherein you say you answer my reply to your Treatise.  
And in the first chap. you include the defence of your preface to the former Treatise.  
My first words did intimate, you say; that I did fear lest my silence should make you seem to yourself or others to have got the victory, you return; your reply is most welcome in this respect, that it doth more help me than your silence could. Not to seem to have got but really to get that victory which I desire not to myself but to truth. For the examination of your reply will serve for a touchstone to my Arguments. As to this answer of yours I have no mind to oppose much. Only I am well assured that you make the best advantage you can of your adversaries silence. And if you can make better advantage of any thing I have written to confirm you then by my silence, my words are in your power unto all reasonable use; let them have their natural liberty to speak no more than they are willing to. Do not strain or wrest them for your turn. For so you will alter the property of them and make them yours.  At male dum recitas incipit esse tuus. 
But whereas you say, the examination of your Reply will serve for a touchstone to my arguments, you will give me leave to make use also of the words, and I shall be of that opinion in this sense of mine, that, if you consider it well, it will indeed be a touchstone to prove your argument, not to be solid and true mettle. All is not gold that glisters.  
You say I will follow you as you desire step after step & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ans. If you do, this is the first time you have done so. Your first did not. Your second did not. If this does, you will be more punctual in the dispute than your party is wont to be. And whether so or not we shall see in the conclusion. And also then you wrong yourself in calling this paper also a Treatise.  
Par. 2. To show the necessity of treating the matter I had undertaken I said, that such a manner of reading the Scripture as is permitted by you to all sorts of people with so unlimited a licence to interpret them according to their own private judgement of discretion is a thing most apt to cause a numberless number of sects and heresies.  
Ans. Consider with yourself whether you deal honestly with us in reporting our opinion in this matter. Do I, or any of us, give such unlimited licence to interpret them according to their own private judgement or discretion?  
But this was necessary for your turn, that so you might make your argument better: and therefore, when you saw by my answer that your reading of the Scripture freely permitted to the people is not of itself guilty of those effects, you now add that which is false, that we give such unlimited licence to all sorts of people to interpret the Scripture according▪ to their private judgement of discretion. Now choose you which you will stand to; that in your Treatise, or this in the answer, and then put it into form of discourse; and we answer you. If you say, as in the Treatise, that if there were a free permitting of the use of the Bible to all sorts of people in their mother tongue, it would not fail, but multitudes of new sects and heresies would grow up; and as for the people's manners, they would daily grow worse and worse: then we deny your proposition, as before, understanding it in way of cause, or if you will hold it of us in this answer, that we do freely permit to all sorts of people to interpret the Scripture accorto their private judgement of discretion, we deny your assumption, for though we allow the judgement of private discretion negatively, that nothing should be obtruded upon us for point of faith which we see not in our judgement of discretion to be agreeable to Scripture: yet do we not give any licence to any positively to interpret according to the judgement of private discretion, but according to the analogy of faith, and also we commend to them the perusal of the judgement of others, Fathers and Doctors, in points of difficulty, private judgement herein makes not the interpretation; but is to make consent to it.  
2. we can distinguish of your predicate here [is a thing most apt to cause a numberless number of sects and heresies] There is a double aptitude either in the nature of the thing, or by accident of our corruption. The former is denied in the case, the latter makes no prejudice. For so Scholars should not read the Bible neither, because it gives occasion of differences and the Gospel should be taken away for fear of bad accidents. Sapiens non curate de accidentalibus.  
But you prove your supposition and first a priori thus you permit any Artificer who can reach to take the Bible into his hand and to take it for his sole and only Judge of all necessary controversies, etc. along unto these words falling into heresy, inclusively. Ans. If this your discourse a priori? To it we might say much: first, there is somewhat in the premises which we do not in their propriety affirm, as namely, that they are to take the Scripture for the sole and only Judge in all necessary controversies: we say properly and formally, Scripture is not the judge, but as the Law and rule by which judgement is to be given in controversies necessary.  
2. We do not allow him to make a review of what is decreed in a General Council as in order to any other but only for himself. He hath no autoritative judgement respecting others; but a rational judgement respecting himself. So you say that of us which we do not say. And then again, you will not say of us that which we do say, which should spoil the Argumentation: for though we say he may not (for he cannot) submit his judgement to a General Council, unless he sees what is determined thereby to be true, yet may he submit his person unto censure, and so not oppose the Church Representative. Again 3. In this your Argument you do not conclude home; for you conclude, this is but to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding the word of God and falling into heresy. So then, upon the whole matter, this argumentation of yours is not good; because somewhat in it, nay, much is denied; and somewhat not by you allowed, as it should be: and then it concludes but accidentally; if probably, not necessarily; if necessarily, not demonstratively; if demonstratively, not a priori; for it doth not, by way of a certain efficient cause, induce the conclusion of heresy; nor is heresy the final cause of our intending this liberty to the people. Therefore be not so forward in high terms of your ratiocination. Yea, if this allowance to the people did certainly, and by way of Emanation, produce heresy, it would not of itself produce any more than material heresy in points of necessary faith which need not be brought into question) not heresy formal, which imports opposition to the Church. And this respect of heresy you do surely bend the bow against. Indeed every opposition doth import descent: but every descent (which is more general) doth not actually import an opposition.  
So your long syllogism a priori is but lank, nor doth your reasoning a posteriori thrive: thus, In those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted, not only to the bare reading, but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow (I still mean when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleged on all sides) these and only these sects have multiplied, and do multiply, beyond measure. Ans. If the Scripture be allowed to every one's use for the knowledge of things necessary to salvation, it is no prostitution of it. Bellarmin, as before in his 1. b. c. 1. de Verbo Dei, affirms it to be our rule, than a rule to all; than it is necessary by necessity of precept, and by necessity of mean too, upon the account of a rule: if you speak of a prostitution of it to every one's interpretation according to his own fancy. This is not intended by us. But what power hath the Church to hinder them of their right? If they abuse their liberty, it is upon their own peril. They wrist the Scripture to their own destruction, as St. Peter said of some, that they wrested some things in St. Paul's Epistles which are hard to be understood. And as Dominion Civil is not grounded in grace special: so neither is the religious right of Scripture grounded in special knowledge. And if they be more ignorant, they have more need of it.  
2. The parenthesis you add to strengthen your argument or to qualify the state of your question, makes nothing for you. For if you understand the words [I still mean when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleged on all sides] as to strengthen your Argument, it surely weakens it. For if they hear or see what is alleged on all sides, they are not like to follow their own conceit, but what appears to be more reasonable. For your argument supposeth that after they have heard or seen all that can be said on all sides, yet they have liberty from us to interpret according to their own pleasure; which is more unlikely they would do, though they had our allowance after they had heard or seen all that could be alleged on all sides. If you intent those words to qualify the state of the question, than it seems before they do hear or see what is alleged on all sides they may not pass any judgement of the point for themselves: and if they must first hear or see all that can be alleged on all sides before they take that sense that is agreeable to plain places of Scripture, then surely they must be blind as to this point; for, when shall they be able probably to know whether they have heard or seen all that can be alleged on all sides in such a matter? This is such a yoke which the Pharisees (if we may say so) lay upon us which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear. But, 3. Whereas you say these and only these sects have multiplied & do multiply beyond measure, it is false on both parts; (not these always which you must mean) for why then did the ancient Fathers exhort the people so much to the study of the Scripture, as cyril of Jerusalem, and S. Chrysostom, the former in his Catechism, the later in his Comments, and also in homilies? And then not only there; for than you might propose a convenient way to take away all the differences amongst the Jesuits and Dominicans and those that divide from the court of Rome, namely, by taking away all use of Scripture. You see, not only by ignorant and profane men, there are bred differences where the Bible is in liberty; but amongst the learned men also. So that not always these, nor only these, these are sects. But 4. The multiplying of sects, and beyond measure, is not, as hath been said, the effect of the use thereof; because not necessary. And doth not your argument follow by consequence only? then not by necessity of consequent. And therefore is not this a demonstration a posteriori?  
Thus you have argued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us now see how happy you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in refutation of my answers.  
This we have in the third par. Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of heresy and bad life, which followeth heresy. Ans. Here we see you intended a full demonstration from the cause. But whereas you say none of my arguments do prove the contrary; you may remember that I had no arguments but in way of answer. It is not my office to dispute but answer. Whereas you say b●d life followeth heresy; that you mean inseparably, do you not? If you do not, it is inconsequent; if you do, it is false. How many Heretics have been more strict in their lives then orthodox Christians, that they might gain more credit to their error▪ by holiness of life as Socinus and others.  
You come then to refute my arguments. First it is so far from being contrary from that text, you err, not knowing the Scriptures, that it is most agreeable to it. For a most fit way to err against the knowledge of the Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures, as are most fit to err in the interpretation of them. And is this a good refutation? And therefore the meaning of our Saviour must be according to your use, they erred because they have the knowledge of the Scriptures, which they misinterpreted Shift you how you will you cannot evade, was the knowledge of the Scriptures the cause of their error? no: that is contrary to our Saviour, who said, you err, not knowing the Scriptures: was it necessary that those who did know the Scriptures should misinterpret them? no; for then that will, by a recideration, come into the same inconvenience; for then the knowledge will be a certain mean (at least in a large sense) of this misinterpretation. And so it would be our best way to know nothing of Scripture, that so we may not err. 3. Can we imagine that our Saviour Christ discoursed as you do, that because by our fault the Scriptures are an occasion of misinterpretation, therefore the people should not commonly use them? is this symbolical to the sense of our Saviour's words, you err, not knowing the Scriptures? 4. Our Saviour then by you rebukes their misinterpretation: then he would have them know the Scriptures better, not have the people deprived of them. 5. There is a double knowledge as to this purpose. 1. An habitual Knowledge, which is chief of the Principles in Scripture; this they had in their mind. Then there is an actual Knowledge, which consists in an application of those Principles to particular Conclusions of belief and practice. They were wanting it seems in the later; in that they did not so as they should consider that text in Moses, which our Saviour makes use of for the Resurrection. They might have inferred the Resurrection from that text, and so not have erred. Therefore had they more need to look over the Scriptures again and consider them better. The saying of the Jew is good. He that reads a book an hundred times is not like him that readeth it an hundred times and one. The oftener we read it, especially the Bible, the more we see in it.  
But you bring a corroboration of your answer, specially being licenced to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if they stand in their way. Sir, this will not do. 1. We licence them not to cross all Antiquity, & we need not give them such a direction, and surely if they should you would have no cause to blame them. We have liberty to use that of the Philosopher in his Rhet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do you look to that who contradict God and Fathers and Doctors. 2. They cannot intent surely the crossing of all Antiquity; for certainly they do not know all Antiquity; yea, if you speak all Antiquity with a full universality, there are few of your own learned men that know it. And therefore if any of their interpretations doth cross antiquity, it doth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is but by accident. And in things necessary they are not so like to do so. 3. Who is there of all your men that have proved this proposition, that the Consent of the Fathers (supposed) makes an argument of Divine Faith, therefore though we love their company, yet we desire to see our way. But object to us nothing but that which is proper. How shall your men know that what they hold doth not cross all Antiquity? The Authority of the Church gives them neither faith of it nor Knowledge. Yea some of yours say, omnes Patres sic, ego autem non sic.  
You go on. And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding the knowledge of the Scripture, etc. unto secondly. Ans. You make yourself sport with the Ambiguity of the word Knowledge. You mean it by way of a Science, as Physic: we do not say that Tradesmen make any knowledge of Divinity so, as to give an account of the principles of Divinity in the body of it: no, but they may have a knowledge of Scripture sufficient for their use, although they do not teach others. As if there were plain principles of Physic in our language; we might make use them for ourselves, as Tiberius said, after thirty years of age he would laugh at those who did need a Physician, you are deceived then, or would deceive in the fallacy of consequent, though all Science be knowledge, all knowledge is not Science; for knowledge is more general and therefore surely of itself doth not infer the most perfect species.  
You say, secondly, you in vain object that of St. Paul that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation, etc. unto thirdly; wherein you allow the truth of the text with your gloss; namely, not as they are interpreted by every giddy fancy, but by Tim. who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of by oral tradition.  
Ans. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; what will you get by this answer? If you understand by oral tradition such doctrines of the Gospel which were first preached, afterwards written, we grant you the use of such oral traditions: but this boots you not; for you must have traditions in point of faith, besides what is written: and such we deny unto you that Timothy had. And I prove my denial by your own words. For how could Timothy understand Scripture by what was beside Scripture? you speak of his understanding the Scripture by tradition: tradition, of proper name, is that which is beside Scripture in the matter of it: and how can he, by that which is different in matter, understand the Scripture? If you mean by oral Traditions, some traditive interpretations (as learned men call them) of the more difficult passages of Scripture, this indeed were more reasonable in the hypothesis as to Timothy: but this is nothing to us, unless you can tell us certainly how many and what they are. If there were such, and lost, than your Church is lost. 2. Again, we allow no giddy fancy to define the sense of Scripture; but in things necessary and plain their own knowledge may be sufficient, and their private judgement may be as safely exercised in the sense thereof as in the choice of your Religion.  
But thirdly by your own words, I will conclude against you a fortiori; for if the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise, who was a Teacher, much more others: since, as Mr. Cressy and you afterwards affirm, there is more requisite to a Minister to be believed than others. If then they be able to make a Minister wise unto salvation, than one of the People much more, who, according to you, is not bound to so much. Fourthly, whereas you say, They (so) will make him wise unto salvation, and to continue still assured of the doctrine of the Church, and never to contradict that. Do not you see that you add to Paul in the Predicate: for S. Paul says, they are able to make him wise unto salvation: and you say, [so] they are able to make him wise to salvation, and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church, and not to contradict the Church: who is it that wrists Scripture now? Do not you draw it to your own use? no, you will say; it is all one to make us wise unto salvation, and to make us continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church, and not to contradict the Church. Is it? then all who have not contradicted the Church are saved: & none that have contradicted the Church are saved. The former you will not say: the later you cannot prove. Pope Vigilius contradicted the Church in the 5. Gen. Council, about the three Chapters; was he damned? Fifthly, you say, the Scriptures so understood, would make him wise unto salvation, and to continue in the doctrine of the Church. How do you understand it, copulatively, or disjunctively? Copulatively, that the Scriptures and the oral traditions would make him wise unto salvation, and to continue in the doctrine of the Church? or disjunctively, that the Scriptures would make him wise unto salvation, and the traditions to continue in the doctrine of the Church? If disjunctively, than we may be wise unto salvation, and yet not continue in the doctrine of the Church; to wit, by the Scriptures. If we cannot have salvation without continuing in the Church, then prove your Church to be as infallible to us, as the Doctors of the Church were to Timothy, until that time you will be thought to beg the question. So, to end this answer, we note here, that you take special care of the Church. It seems by your stickling about the Church, that what S. Austin said, in his de Civitate Dei, concerning Rome-Heathen, is also true by you of Rome-Christian, Et major cura unius Romae quam totius Coeli: And there is more care had of one Rome than all Heaven. You go on. Thirdly, you say; You confess that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God, we may ground our faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered. You say yes, but I also say, that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture.  
So then, it seems you come down from your former universality, that whatsoever we do believe, we must believe upon the proposals of the Church, as the formal cause and motive thereof; and why then do you not allow the people the use of the Bible, as in order to those things which are plainly delivered? So that by this concession you open the way to contradict your own practice.  
But you would shut it again, by saying, that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in it. Be sure you take heed of this, that you do not grant this: for why then should all fly to the Church for infallible directions in way of supply? well. Are they not delivered, or not plainly? which? speak your mind. If not delivered, then surely not plainly; for of that which is not there are no affections, as the Rule is; but they may be delivered, and yet not plainly. Come out of the clouds, and do not make a noise, but lighten us. If not delivered, think upon the Argument you know well, If many things not necessary are plainly delivered in Scripture, than much rather all things necessary. If delivered and not plainly, then plainly not delivered; for if they be delivered, they are delivered for our use, as a Rule of faith and action: and how are they a Rule, if they be not sufficiently plain? for than we must have another Rule for the understanding of this Rule. And also think upon the former Argument, which proceeds upon your own distinction, that the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation, but not every one. If Timothy, then much more others, because more is required, as you say, to a Minister, in point of belief, than to others.  
But you would prove what you say S. Peter saith, that many, to their perdition, did misunderstand some hard places of S. Paul; so that misinterpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition. Ans. First you will excuse us if we note that the danger they were in, was not by misunderstanding, but by wresting of those places. You know the Greek is, as before was said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Syriack renders it, perverting, depraving: and so also your Translation of Rheims, depraving. This is not so much an intellectual error, as a moral fault, and the danger is by the later. Secondly, Here's but some things hard to be understood in S. Paul's Epistles, not all; not many: and from hence you cannot argue, that all things therefore in S. Paul's Epistles, and much less in the whole Scripture, are hard to be understood. If you syllogise so, you proceed a particulari, & a dicto secundum quid. Thirdly, the perverting and depraving doth more immediately depend upon their being unstable than ignorant. Therefore cannot you impute that to simple ignorance, which, at least partly belongs to another cause. Fourthly, how prove you that those things which were hard to be understood, were of those things which are necessary to salvation? If you say so, it lies upon you to prove it; if they were not such, than this text is not pertinent. Fifthly, it is to their own destruction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So than it seems hereby they had the liberty to read those Epistles: and why should you therefore hinder the people from the use of Scripture, since they run the danger of their own destruction by wresting them? And peruse your own Estius upon the place, who doth ingenuously note, that it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as referring to the Epistle (as some copies he said would have it) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, referring to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which respects the time of Christ's coming; although afterwards Estius would extend them to the point of justification by faith.  
Fourthly, you object heresy and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibility. If I should grant all, what prove you from hence, but that there be other ways to heresy and bad life besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit? etc. unto but to prevent.  
Ans. But do you remember what occasion I had to object this to you by way of recrimination? you charged us by the judgement of your learned Divines that the free use of the Scripture would be it upon which the people's manners would grow worse and worse. And to this I said, how comes it then to pass that some in whom you vested infallibility were guilty of heresy and bad manners? and I instanced in Liberius subscribing against Athanasius. So that the way your Church hath doth not free you from these crimes: and therefore you do unreasonably urge against your Adversary inconveniences of his principles, which are common to yours. And yet you will now complain of me because I am even with you.  
The debate betwixt us upon this point lies thus; you faulted our permission of the use of Scripture to the people as the cause, or the cause without which heresy and bad manners do not arise. I answered in defence of Scripture, this not the cause nor the causa sine quae non of them, since heresy and bad manners have been in those of your Church in whom your infallibility is placed, and therefore have you no cause to take it so ill that I answered you so home. All the causality you can pretend of heresy and bad manners by a free use of the Scriptures, is through misinterpretation of them; is it not? yea? is it so? then how come those who are infallible to be heretics and bad? You had best take away Scripture from all, that so there may be no heresy.  
Well, it seems you now begin to bethink yourself that heresy and bad life are not the properties of a free use of Scripture, as we understand them quarto modo; but as consequents, or inseparable accidents which are in a larger sense as properties, namely, as omni sed non soli; so I construe your last words [if I should grant all, what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresy and bad life] etc. you must then allow us to tell you, that you are somewhat disposed to go hence, and to deduct and refute the overboiling expressions of the danger of Scripture, as to the people at least as if all the heresies and bad life were to be grounded or charged upon the common liberty of reading Scripture. And let me come up a little more closely to you; I demand of you Whether you will or dare to say, that all those who have had the free use of Scripture have interpreted it [in difficult places] as they judged fit, and therefore were of bad life: if not then, is it not proprium omni? And so for, heresy, you cannot say, that every one who hath freely used Scripture hath interpreted or misinterpreted it unto heresy, for how then could he of your Church say, si fides in doctos solos caderet, nihil esset, occuperius Deo? Or did they believe without the use of Scripture by an implicit faith in the Church? Did they? But this implicit faith implies a contradiction in adjecto, for faith supposeth knowledge of what we believe in the object, though not in the reason: but implicit is divided against knowledge: and if you say, that it knows the Church which it doth believe, it will come to this, that all the faith of the people shall be shrunk into one Article of the Church; and no matter whether they explicitly believe God or Christ or any thing else, will this prove good Divinity? Or will good Divinity prove this? And besides, it is not implicit faith which believes the Church, but explicit; for they must actually believe the Roman Church to be it unto which salvation is obliged. Then reading of the Scriptures is not a cause to all, though not all the cause of heresy; for some have got salvation by it; and therefore were no heretics, unless you will say, they might have salvation and be heretics too. If you will say it, then why would you persuade our people that there is no salvation for us heretics? Then subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation; for although all Christians but you, according to your Principles, are heretics, yet they may be saved because heretics may be saved. However we may have faith by reading of Scripture; and if faith, than we are not heretics, by Knots argumentation; because he would have heresy destroy all faith. But you have reason to say that other ways of heresy there may be besides being conversant in Scripture: for you know that heretics have pleaded Antiquity, therefore by your Logic, you should not plead it for use and settlement of faith.  
Whereas you say, Again, had not David who was a Murderer and an Adulterer; had not Solomon who was an Idolater the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, in writing several parts of the holy Scripture?  
Sir, I thank you for helping your weak Adversary; for this makes for me, and proves for me what I said on behalf of Scripture, that heresy and badness were accidental at most to the use of Scripture, because those whom you account infallible were guilty thereof. You prove now, by other examples, the possibility thereof. The sense of the discourse, as to badness of life, is this. If bad manners be compatible to those who are accounted infallible, than the misinterpretation of Scripture, by the ignorance of the people, is not the cause of bad manners, but verum prius; and now you, not denying it to be true of your Pope, would confirm it by certain examples in Scripture. But I hope you mean to reflect this towards the proof of infallibility to be consistent with a lewd life. And therefore I answer to you that I deny not the distinction of infallibility in rebus fidei, and not in point of action. I deny not the distinction in the notion of it, but I deny it in the application of it to the Pope. I do acknowledge him in one part of it, fallible, in the latter; but you must prove him infallible in the former, as David and Solomon was: and we have done. We are agreed in the Thesis, that there may be infallibility of faith where there is lewdness of life, but we differ in the Hypothesis, as you intent it; not that the Pope may not be nought in life: but that he is not infallible in defining points of faith or manners.  
But you would avoid the danger of my former answer; therefore you say, But to prevent this and all that elsewhere you can say against the Pope: I (in my twenty first number) desired you and all to take notice of that which you here quite forget. I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige us no more than to believe that the Pope, defining with a lawful Council, cannot err. How then doth the belief or faith of a Church (I speak not of private men's private opinions) invest infallibility in a person heretical or bad?  
So then let my answer be put into this form. Liberius the Pope was guilty of heresy and bad manners. Liberius was (according to you) infallible; therefore the Subject of infallibility may be an heretic, and guilty of bad manners, and consequently heresy and bad life are not to be imputed to the misinterpretation of Scripture. Before you granted me the Conclusion, that heresy and bad life may come in otherwise; and therefore we cannot fasten them upon the misinterpretation of Scripture: and now you deny to me the Assumption, and you say the Church doth not invest infallibility in the Pope, but as defining with a lawful Council, general you mean.  
Well then, Liberius is not defended in the point of subscription as neither you nor Bellarmin can defend him: but yet you defend the Roman infallibility in faith; because, as you say, he was not the Subject of it. Rather than infalibility should be disparaged, the Pope shall be degraded from his infalibility.  
This you say here occasionally, to deny unto me the use of this instance: but this is not the seat of the matter; therefore we shall say here no more than is necessary. And first you had no great cause here to except against the assumption, since you grant the consequence of the Conclusion. 2. You should consider what you say, that the Pope of himself is not the Subject of infalibility, for by this you raise a war against you of your Roman Catholics, which did think they knew the sense of the Roman faith, as well as you; for sure you are not more than a private Doctor. All the Canonists you know are against you, and the Jesuits are against you, particularly Bellarmin in his 2 b. de Concil. Author 15. Ch. Where he maintains this position, that the Pope is the Head of the whole Church. Where he hath this argument. Ecclesia universalis est unum corpus visibile, ergo habere debet unum Caput visibile. The universal Church is one visible Body; therefore it must have one visible Head, otherwise it will seem a Monster. But we cannot imagine any other but the Pope. Therefore the Pope is the Head of the whole Church simul together; so he, and that is of a Council. And so it was determined in the Lateran Council. Now where shall be the infalibility of the Church placed then but in the head of a council? You are all wont to say, that the Church is infallible and a Council infallible, and that the Pope is infallible. Now how will you com-promise the truth of these, but by saying the Church is infallible by the Council and the Council by the Pope. Then the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this infalibility. The Church formally taken is the multitude of the Faithful; the Church representatively is the Council, the Church virtually is the Pope. If the first subject receptive of Authority be the people, then do you lay the ground of the Independents: if the Council, than the Pope hath his power from them, and so he is not the immediate Vicar of Christ, as Bell. in the former b. and ch. the 15.  
And then also what will become of the condition of the primitive Church wherein there was so long a time before any General Council? And then also in reason there should be a General standing Council, if infallibility primarily flows from them. And have the Council a coordinate power, or subordinate? Which will you say? If coordinate, then to be sure the Pope is not Head of the Church, which you will be loath to say. If subordinate, than he is Head, and therefore infallibility must be subjected in him as Prince of the Church, unless you will divide infalibility from Authority. And if so, what Authority will there be of this infalibility?  
But to go on. You tell me that those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope cannot err in defining out of a general Council, have other answers to your objections. So you put me to seek for their answers. You will not tell me who they are, nor what they are, nor where they are to be found. So then as to them my objections are proper; and their opinions may be as probable or more than yours, and it may seem more and therefore you will not condemn your own opinion by comparing with their answers: for if their Answers be solid, than your opinion is nought.  
And then you are pleased to put me off thus, but that which you say is nothing against our faith, which no man (though never so little a Frenchman) will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining out of a General Council.  
Ans. But that which you say is nothing against the faith of others which no man (though never so little a Courtier at Rome) will say obligeth them to hold the Pope not infallible in defining out of a general Council. But why do you say our faith? Is your faith the same with the faith of the Roman Court? If not, than you divide from them. If so, than you must hold that none are true Catholics (in your sense) but those who hold themselves such by Subjection to the Bishop of Rome; not as in a Council, but simply to him. Yea, do you not think that you must necessarily be subject to the Laterean Council which had the Pope's consent: and that determined the thing expressissime, as Bel. in his second b. de Concil. cap. 13. Namely, that the Pope is above the Council in a sense opposite to the Counsel of Constance and Basill who defined a General Council above the Pope, and could infallibly determine without him. And if you say that Belarmin said, there some did doubt whether the Laterean Council was a general Council, yet you must tell us your opinion what you hold of this Council; yea, in his seventeenth ch. he defends it for a general Council and holds the point to be a decree concerning faith, but says it is a doubt that the Council did not decree it proprie ut decretum fide Catholicae tenendum; and therefore they that think otherwise are not properly heretics, yet cannot be excused from great temereity. However I hope that Council was more considerable with you than the judgement of private Doctors: yea also, than the French Catholics. Yea, if you will be a right Frenchman in this opinion, you should hold that the Council may be infallible reclamante Papa, (and this comes up to the stress of the question) and therefore you do not speak determinately your opinion concerning the right state of the question: but you do latere post principia, in saying, that no Frenchman will say, you are obliged to hold the Pope infallible in defining out a General Council. If you be a Frenchman in this, speak out and tell us your opinion, not conjunctively, but disjunctively, whether the Council may be infallible without the Pope. But I commend your wisdom that you hold the safest way. For this Bellar. and all will say, that the Pope defining with a Council cannot err. But Bellarmin will also hold infalibility to be in the Pope, who is the head of the whole Church, even congregated, and that all Authority is in him, as the Monarch of the Church; but in this you are an Ephectick. So certainly you do agree amongst yourselves about the Capital point of the Roman infalibility. As one said in another case of action: so may I say of you in this dispute: you have first said you knew not what: and now you know not what to say. Tell us where the original of infalibility lies. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; surely it doth not become infalibility to be so reserved.  
To pass this, you tell me in your fourth Parnell that I lay to your charge the supposing of the question. And I am still of that mind. For if you say, that as things stand, we have no other assurance to ground our faith upon but the Church; you do plainly suppose that which is mainly in question; and so must do until you prove it. And I still say unto you, as I did, that you do not well consider what you say in saying, as things stand, as if the rule of faith were a Lisbian rule, and might alter upon occasions; and as if the Scripture must be accommodated to the use of the Church. Yes, intellectus currit cum praxi. And the Scripture is to follow the Church, and not the Church the Scripture, would you have it so? So it seems by what follows, for so you answer, that, though God might have ordained otherwise, yet as things stand, the Church is the ground of our faith in all points, speaking of the last ground on which we must stand; to wit, not an humane but Divine ground, the pillar and ground of truth. And what do you say here more than you said before; or more than we can say, mutatis mutandis? Though God could have ordained otherwise that there should have been a standing Council, or a singular person successively infallible, to have proposed and determined all things infallibly: yet, as things stand, the Scripture is the ground of our faith in all points necessary, speaking of the last ground on which we must stand, not a humane, but a Divine ground. Wherein are we inferior to you, but that we do not put in all points? But we put in all points necessary. And what need more? And the Church is not yet proved to determine any thing infallibly: the Scripture proposeth all things necessary infallibly. And me thinks you should, if you please, think the Scripture a divine ground rather than the Church.  
To take then your own principle.  
The ground of faith must be Divine.  
The Church is not a ground Divine.  
Therefore no ground.  
The Major is your own. The assumption is proved thus.  
The Testimony of men is Humane.  
The Testimony of the Church is the Testimony of men. Therefore,  
The first proposition, in the ordinary capacity of men is plain. For no effect can exceed the cause. And the second proposition is as plain, if the men that are of the Church are considered as private men, by your own grounds. But these men you say, being in the capacity of a Church, are inspired by the Holy Ghost so as they cannot err in any point. True, if they be assisted with the Holy Ghost. Well, but how shall I know what a Church is, and whether such men be of the Church; and whether such men be assisted with the Holy Ghost? Yea, whether there be an Holy Ghost? All these particulars I must be satisfied in before that I can believe by a Divine faith, that what the Church proposeth definitively, is true. A Church cannot be, in the nature of it, expressed without a profession of that Religion which directs man to his supernatural end. Now this Religion requires a supernatural revelation, as Aquinas disputes it in the beginning of his Sums. Then this Religion must be revealed, being not naturally intelligible either by principles or works of nature. Where, and how is this Religion revealed? you cannot say by the Church, for the question is of the Church. And so consequently how is it revealed that such are of the Church, and assisted by the Holy Ghost, or that there is an Holy Ghost? Expedite these questions. And again, consider, that S. Austin, and other Fathers have spoken freely of discerning the Church by Scripture; whe● in I am informed what Religion is, what a Church, which the true Church, and that there is a Holy Ghost. Again, I must believe, by a divine faith, that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, as you say. Well, but how shall I come by this divine faith? God infuseth it, you will say; well, but doth he infuse it immediately, as in respect of Scripture? So you must say; well then, cannot you think that he can infuse faith of the Scripture immediately in respect of the Church? Answer me, is this faith wrought in me by the credibility of the Church, or not? if not, how? If so, than the Church is naturally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the testimony of the Church must be resolved into the testimony of men, extra rationem Ecclesiae, then is it of itself but humane. Therefore must you come to this, that the Testimony of the Church is infallible by authority of Scripture. Well then, if so, than the Church is not the last ground on which we must stand. Nor yet is it the first ground, as we take it for a Divine ground, which you mean; for it is not Divine but by the word of God: yea, if the Church be the last ground on which we must stand, then why do you prove the Authority of the Church by the Authority of Scripture? And if you say, that you also prove the Scripture to be the word of God by the Church; yet not as the last ground, but the Church is resolved into the Authority of Scripture as the last ground: for if the Church hath no being as such, but by Scripture in the substance of it, than the Church must be ultimately grounded in Scripture; for that which is primum in generatione is ultimum in resolutione. So a primo ad ultimum the Scripture is the ground of faith.  
And so this will be contrary to what follows in your last, that we do not first believe the Church for the Scripture. If you speak of a general motive to believe the Scripture; so we may begin with the Church, upon the account of credible men as towards humane faith: but if you speak of belief as Divine, so we cannot first begin with the Church; because we must first be assured of the Church by the word of God, under the formality of Divine faith; the word of God must be first in genere credibilium, unless there were a resultance of a Church out of natural principles; which is not to be said.  
And in your following words you intimate as much, as if we might first admit the Scripture to be the word of God, and then prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church. If we may admit the Scriptures for God's word first, than first the Scriptures may be believed to be the word of God without the authority of the Church, which is contrary to what you have said formerly. Then secondly, the Scripture must be the last ground of faith, because, as before, that which is first in generation, is last in resolution. And then thirdly. Why do you dispute with us, concerning the Authority of Scriptures by the Church, since we have admitted the Scriptures for the word of God? And therefore should you not urge us to the acknowledgement of Scriptures by the Authority of the Church; but wholly to the acknowledgement of the Church by the Authority of the Scriptures.  

Paragr. 5.  In the fifth Par. you say, you charge me with abating from my first proposition, in which I said, Divine faith in all things was caused by the proposal of the Church, because now I say, that when by the infallible Authority of the Church, we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God, we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture.  
Ans. And I cannot yet bate you an ace of my charge. For your terms are of a believing (indefinitely) upon proposal of the Church; as if 'twere the immediate, formal cause of all faith: and so several of your Arguments would prove, that the Scripture is not at all our rule, but the Church. And this your first paper made to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and therefore if you had clearly intended the dispute of this point, whether we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, by the Authority of the Church; and so consequently, or causally, all to be believed for the Church, you should have made this the state of the main question.  
But, now you say, when by the infallible Authority of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God, we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture. And do you not go less now? Do but compare the quantities of your assertions, before all things to be believed upon, and for the proposal of the Church: now, some things may be believed for the Scripture, which are plainly contained in it. And the Church and the Scripture are in our case opposed: so then, if first all is to be believed by the Authority of the Church, and now, some things clearly contained may be believed upon Scripture, then do you not only abate but contradict yourself in effect; for, it will come to this, all is to be believed upon the proposal of the Church; & somewhat may be believed not upon the proposal of the Church, but of Scripture. For, when we are assured, you say, that the Scripture is the word of God, we may believe such things as are plainly contained in Scripture; then we are to believe it upon the account of the word of God. And your Church can have no higher Authority surely than God's word for it. Therefore, if you say we are to believe what is plainly contained in Scripture (when we are assured by the Church, that it is the word of God) for the authority of the Church, than I pray tell me why we should believe the Church, if not for the word of God?  
Again, to consider these words of yours; if we must be assured by infallible Authority of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God, before we can believe what is plainly contained therein, than either one of us must yield upon the case of the infalibility of the Church, or else nothing plainly contained in Scripture can be, by your opinion, believed. But you think that some things are plainly set down in Scripture (though elsewhere, you would conclude as if all things in Scripture were obscure; and so you now also abate in this) and herein we both agree: and we think the Church's Authority is not infallible: wherein we differ from you. Now which think you in reason should yield, you, or we? One would think you should yield rather: since we can prove, that whatsoever is contained in Scripture is to be believed without the Authority of the Church, and you cannot prove the Authority of the Church to be plainly contained in Scripture; yea, must yet believe, upon your principles, the infallible Authority of the Church, before you can believe it, though plainly contained in Scripture; because, you must first be assured by the infallible Authority of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, before you do believe, what is contained in Scripture.  
And again, thirdly, we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God; why may not we then have leave to believe things plainly contained in Scripture? Certa sunt in paucis, as Tertullian saith. We say, certain necessary truths are not so many. Why are not we then well grounded in Religion? surely in your account, because we do not go to divine faith, by your infallible Church. Even as the death of Remus, it was ordained by Romulus, that whosoever went over the trench at the building of Rome, any other than the ordinary way, should be put to death: so, 
Z●n. 2. An.  because we do not go the ordinary Roman way to the building of us in our most holy faith, we must die for ever. As if our faith were not true Divine faith, because it is not implicit by the Church. Which is as much as to say, the obedience of faith is not good, because it is not blind. And this is as much as to say, we do not see, because we do not see.  
And therefore, fourthly, since, as hath been showed, the authority of the Church is resolved into Scripture; and since you have confessed, that we may admit the Scriptures to be the word of God, and yet may need to be assured of the Authority of the Church, your apology for yourself, in this paragraph, must needs be insufficient.  
In the sixth Par. You begin with taking notice of my character of myself to be one of the slender sons of the Church of England, whether so, or whether he hath showed that Treatise of mine to be no demonstration, Let the indifferent reader, after the due pondering the force of all Arguments, determine.  
Sir, I dare not alter my small opinion of myself. And therefore the consideration of such matters should have dropped from a judicious head into a learned pen. And if your demonstration, as you call it, be indeed such as doth merit the term, you have proved me to be no better than my word. And if I prove it to be no demonstration, I do not yet falsify what I said of myself. For I shall impute the cause of it to our cause, the weakest hand may defend our cause: the strongest cannot defend yours.  
To pass this, you go on. Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you add, the Scripture is infallible, but the Church is not; therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture.  
Ans. But you leave out the scope of this Argumentation, and the formality of the conclusion. You spoke of as clear a Demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter. I told you it was hard to say, who does, optimum quod sic. Well, but then I wished you to put it to the test; and to try the debate of it by this rule of wisdom and conscience, tene quod certum est, relinque quod incertum, hold that which is certain, leave that which is uncertain; it is certain, that the Scripture is infallible, and you confess it: it is not certain, that the Church is infallible, and I deny it. Which then, should you take to be the rule and ground and cause of faith? So I in my last. But you leave out all notice of my disputing this with you, in point of wisdom, and cut off your own confession; and would have me to make this a Demonstration, absolutely in point of truth. You do wisely to shuffle it off, since you cannot well bear the dint of it in the way of discourse, ad hominem. And yet also is it necessarily certain, that if our grounds be more certain, then yours are not, because they are contradictory.  
But you making it to be in my account, an absolute Demonstration: answer, first, the Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God, without the Church be infallible, as I shall show ch. 8. But this was not now the particular question. I disputed upon your own concession. And therefore this is nothing to my Argument. Apply your answers to my proceeding with you upon your account of prudence. And then, secondly. Though it be not a Demonstration, that [the Scripture is infallible, the Church not, therefore, I must take for my ground the Scripture] yet, it concludes upon advantage: for, though the Church were infallible, in the testimony of the Scripture, to be the word of God, yet the Scripture were to be the immediate ground of all necessary points. Thirdly. Neither doth it contradict my assertions, that the Church is not the rule and cause of faith, though it were infallible in this Testimony; for, if it were infallible in this, yet would it not follow, it should be infallible in all; as I have told you, and you have not answered me yet. And then Fourthly. The Scripture may appear to be the word of God, though the Church be not infallible, as will be showed in answer to you.  
And therefore all you say upon this; hence followeth, secondly, that the Church must have infalibility sufficient to support this most weighty Article of our faith, that all the Scripture is the word of God: and therefore, upon her Authority I believe the Scripture to be most infallible; yet, because I ground this belief upon her Authority, her Authority is yet the last ground of faith. I say, all this hath no sound discourse, and will come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even into nothing, upon the two last answers: first because, if from hence I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God; yet, am I not therefore, ex vi consequentiae, bound to hold the Church the last ground of faith in all things; for, it plainly concludes, a dicto secundum quid. We can hold, that the General Council may be infallible in points necessary, though not in all points whatsoever, although you must hold infalibility in all or none; because you say, all is delivered by the Church, upon her Authority equally, without respect to the matter. And then secondly, upon the last answer, which was the fourth, we shall cashier all that is said here; for, that it will appear, that the Scripture is the word of God without the Church's Authority for the corroboration of the Title. And so there needs not the infalibility sufficient to support this most weighty Article of faith, that all the Scripture is the word of God.  

●um. 7.  And whereas in your next number, you promise such souls as have forsaken an infallible Church, an happy eternity, upon this ground, that those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture; I pray God, their Souls come not to be required at your hands.  
Ans. I am beholding to my Adversary for his good wishes, that, I may not answer for other men's souls. But, if he takes here forsaken formally, and an infallible Church really so, (not accounted only to be so by him) I deny it, that we have so forsaken such a Church, for neither is it infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides, they have rather forsaken us, and the whole Church, in pretending infalibility to themselves, and Domination over all that will be true Christians. No particular Church can be bound to another, more than as it doth comply with the Catholic Church: now, then if any do leave the Catholic (as the Roman hath done) we cannot join with them, wherein they leave the Catholic, either in point of faith or discipline. If we are to give respect to a particular Church, as an actual part of the whole, then, where it separates, we must follow the whole. A turpis est omnis pars universo suo non congruens. And yet, they first made the actual Schism, when the Pope's Bull prohibited communion with us.  
So then, take forsaken rightly, and an infallible Church really, we deny the charge. Take them otherwise, we deny the consequence of danger.  
But, my Adversary would prove our ground to be groundless, first, because no Soul can have infallible assurance of the Scriptures being the true word of God, if the Church be not infallible, etc. Whereof you promise more. Num. 20. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  
Ans. This we have had so often without proof, that it is to no purpose, to say any thing to words, for Arguments. Scaurus negat; as, Alphonsus de Castro opposeth his adversary. Yea, also you refer me here for proof in the third ch. Your conclusion is here: your proof there; so far is your conclusion from proof. Premises were wont to be before the Conclusion, but your opinion is already showed vain, as touching the ground of your certainty: and your vanity of my opinion I shall refute when you show it.  
And so you serve me for the second respect, wherein you say, my ground is groundless; for, you say, it is manifestly false, that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, as you show, ch. 3.  
Your conclusion here, that it is manifestly , etc. I believe will be too large for your Arguments, as it is now too soon. We follow your order, as having nothing to do, until you begin.  
In your eighth Par. You say, I find nothing in the next Par. which I have not here answered. Only, you still force me to say again, I would have every one to know, that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more, than to believe that the Pope, defining with a lawful Council, cannot err, what proceedeth from this Authority, we profess to proceed from the Authority of the Church. When the Church diffused, admitteth these definitions, her consent is yet more apparent.  
You say, you find nothing in it, which here you have not answered. And what can I find here, but, that you say, Only you force me to say again. Here is some ingenuity, that you seem not to love to swell your papers with repetitions. Therefore prove it once: say it no more. Quid verba audiam, facta cum non videam? But if I might be so bold, doth not your term force refer to the act say, not to the Adverb again, as if you had no mind to be put upon expressing where the infalibility of the Church lies determinately? I suppose by your words, if you were let alone, you would express yourselves in the safest way confusely, and in general, that this infalibility is in the Church; whether diffused as you say, or representative, or virtual. But it is very wisely determined by my Antagonist, that it is in the Pope, when he defines with a General Council, that if the Pope be convinced of error, it may be answered, he did not define with a Council; if a Council be deprehended of error, it may be said, the Pope did not confirm the decrees of the Council. And yet the needle doth not stand full North; it trembles yet, therefore, in omnem eventum, it is said; when the Church diffused admitteth those definitions, her consent is more apparent.  
May some questions be asked here, which may be in answer to this? when you say (immediately before) what proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the Authority of the Church: Does my Adversary mean that it proceeds from all the Authority of the Church? The Pope, with a lawful Council, hath Authority in the Church, and what comes from them, comes from the Authority of the Church objective; because this Authority is for the use of the Church, and comes from the Authority of the Church subjective, because it comes from them who have Authority in the Church. But is the Pope and Council the adequate subject of the Authority of the Church? If not, than infalibility must not be rested in them, without the consent of the Diffused Church. Secondly, If you mean the Pope and Council agreeing, as you do, what becomes of the Church as long as they do disagree, as the fifth General Council and Pope Vigilius did? Yea, that Council obtained against the Pope; and is accounted by the Church Universal, in the number of the General Counsels without the Pope; so that your opinion of the infallibility of the Church, to consist in a Pope defining with a Council, is not sound, because, if it be infallible, it may be infallible without the Pope; since it hath vim Consilii without the Pope; yea, maugre the Pope. Thirdly, If Pope and Council do consent, what if the diffused Church will not admit these definitions? what then? And I think I have reason to suspect, that such words are here cast out by my Adversary, as may insinuate as much as if the Church diffused might descent. If they may descent, than they may descent from that which is infallible, or else infalibility must also include their consent. If they may not descent, then what mean those words, when the Church diffused admitteth these definitions, her consent is yet more apparent? Me thinks somewhat is intimated here to such a purpose, as if the consent of the Church diffused (besides what is included in the Representative) should formally concur to the making up of the compliment of infalibility. So that the Church diffused, should not conduce to these infallible Decrees, by way of object, or as a passive principle, but also actively, by its consent, and this symbolizeth with Alphonsus de Castro, and others of your Church, who do settle this infalibility in the Acceptation of the Church Universal. And by their opinion, the Church diffused must have a freedom to descent, or no power.  
Par. 9 You say, as for your complaint, that your paper is not fully answered, I suppose, that if any thing of importance was left unanswered, you will tell me of it here, that I may here answer it.  
Ans. Back reckon are not wont to be very pleasant. But now it seems too late to return an account of my Adversaries omissions, if he was my Adversary who now is under the reverence of the dead, and the protection of the grave. Otherwise I might say, there needs not be any particular account in an universal Negative. Materially, little is answered; and formally, less. But a Treatise was sent me for an answer; yet in satisfaction to our own cause, and in respect to this demand, without disingenuitie, I shall, it may be, now and then note some defects. And if any should think that the fight is over when one of the parties is dead; and that actio moritur cum persona, I shall only say this, that this is no personal quarrel, but respects the common cause of truth, and yet also is it fit that I should return an answer to a reply, as it would be accounted. And when this is done I have done.  
And now comes my Adversary to a vindication of the manner of answering me before. Concerning my manner of answering you, I must tell you, that St. Thomas, and the chief School Divines, for clarity and brevity use to proceed thus. And then he gave me an account of their method, which is sufficiently known.  
To which I answer, St. Thomas and the Schoolmen do use a very good method in the way of their discourse, pro and con; but our case is not the same. For my adversary was not now upon a problem, to dispute upon either part; but upon an opposition to that which is defended against him. They had not one particular Adversary against whom they were to direct all they said; but my Antagonist had. My Antagonist sent me a challenge, which was fastened upon me; I answered in short: he replied; I rejoined with an answer; and he returned a Treatise in termino. And therefore this will not serve. How doth he apply his positive Divinity to my oppositive? How is the Treatise applied to my distinctions? Do his positives fall flat against my denials? This way the Reader, to be sure, shall know what he says, but not what I said, distinctly; because the Treatise is not punctually applied to my answer. Had Bellarmin produced his Adversaries Arguments not more fully than is done in that Treatise, there had not been such need of being so careful, that in all Italy (as Sir Edwin Sandys notes) we should not find a Bellarmin's Controversies, for fear any should peruse them, and not find his Adversaries Arguments satisfactorily answered by him.  
Therefore we may have leave to admire those words which come from the Treater, that your intention in rejoining by a Treatise was to have the most important matter, distinctly, orderly, and fully put down. And by having done so, I find this great commodity, that your Answer becomes more methodical, and my reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous, and the Reader seethe still how orderly the Combat is.  
I wonder much how this can be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can a Reply to my answer be more methodical than in following me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I followed the opponent? Or could my Answer again be more methodical than in following a Reply, had it been proper and formal and pat? could the most important matter in debate betwixt us have been more distinctly, orderly and fully put down, than to have shown from place to place, where I had not answered directly to the state of the question, or had hit the question, but did not sufficiently take off the Argument? And could his Reply be by this manner more clear and perspicuous, when it cannot appear plainly how he took off my Answers, or answered to the matter or form of my occasional Arguments? If this be an orderly Combat, then let us beat the air, and that will be sufficient to beat an Adversary. Thus much of the first Chapter; which is no hard Chapter.   

The Answer to the second Chapter. No necessity of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all should be bound simply to submit their assent.  

Num. 1.  MY Adversary says here, that I go about to persuade him, that he is most likely to take up his Religion by prejudice  
Ans. It seems he is pleased to forbear any Answer to my retortion of his similitude, but he takes notice of my returning to him the greater probability of prejudice in point of Religion, to be on their part. And he argues the contrary, because, being Recusants, upon this account are liable to lose two parts of their Estates, and what else we are, or shall be pleased to take from them, be it goods, liberty or life.  
Ans. The prejudice on their part, was as I said, upon the opinion of the infalibility of their Church: so that I spoke upon account of a religious interest; and he answers me upon a civil account rather. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And therefore this answer is not pertinent. And whereas he would seem to have good ground in Conscience for his Religion, for which he suffers so much; if he intends to vie with us in that kind, others of our Religion have suffered more from them. Surely he forgets the Marian days, wherein we dropped more blood than they have done.  
And whereas he says to me,— and what else you are or shall be pleased to take from us.  
As to this much might be said also without passion in the same kind. No man can take away more from us than our lives, one would think. Yes, Roman Catholics would take away from us Heaven too. They had almost destroyed me upon earth, saith the Psalmist: But these will destroy us in heaven also. Secondly. If he who was mine Adversary was a Native of England, he was as much included in the order of his deprivation as I. Thirdly, I will say more yet, that some of his Religion have had more favour than we. Yea, yet more than this; one (whom I think he knows well) hath lost more in proportional quantity (as Aquinas distinguisheth) than, any of them hath lost, who hath lost but two parts of three, and for Conscience too. Therefore that character which I gave the Romanist, he is to keep still until he can prove it doth belong more to us. Certainly this is not proved not to belong to them, because they have suffered so much for their Religion; for we have suffered more and therefore it doth not belong to us, but them rather. But this suffering de se is easily known not to make an Argument: for unless our cause be good before we suffer, we have no cause to suffer at all. The saying is common, Causa non passio facit Martyrem. Fourthly. As for the present sufferings of the Papists, they are neither rightly charged either upon our Church, or upon our Kingdom; for there is not yet proved any legal consent of either to what they or others have suffered. Nay, fifthly, At the day of Judgement we shall see whether they are not more like to answer for what we have suffered, than we for what they have suffered in these times. So that while they do not see what is true against them, they will seem to see what is not true against us. As Tertullian said. But let us come to the matter.  
To examine then your grounds in the second num.  

Num. 2.  That God hath made man to a supernatural end, and to be attained by supernatural means, we grant as Aquinas in the beginning of of his sums. Take men indefinitely and confusely, without exclusion of Infants dying before Baptism from Salvation possible; and those who are not compotes mentis; and we grant it.  
And also that amongst those means, the first is true faith, and that according to his merciful providence he hath provided us some way to this faith so easy, that all, if they pleased, might be brought to the knowledge of it; namely, exceptis excipiendis. And that the greater part of men are ignorant; yea, all naturally ignorant of the way to this supernatural end, as Aquinas, because it is supernatural; these things we yield to you. And that because the far greater part were ignorant, it beseemed his goodness (who is the lover of souls) to provide us such a way as that ignorant men should not be able (unless by wilful carelessness) to err by it.  
These things we do willingly yield. But we demur upon your assumption, that this way should be the Church, as you interpret that of Isaiah the 35, where you say, the Prophet speaks of a path and a way which shall be so direct that fools cannot err by it. Here we must stand a while and inquire what is the sense of this way.  
And first I must note that you do not rightly render the words according to the Hebrew verity. You say, and it shall be unto you a direct way, so that fools cannot err. But it is not so in the text. But thus. [He shall be to them or with them walking the way, and fools shall not err.] How is your Church like to be this way, when either you err in not following it, or it doth err in not right following the text. And you make it to be in the text a direct way, and so that fools cannot err. Whereas it is rather [shall not err,] which doth note so much infalibility as preservation from error. Now a negative of the act doth not prove a negative of the power; for then the Argument would be good, a non esse ad non posse. Therefore could my Adversary have proved, that the Church of Rome never erred, (which will never be proved) yet all is not yet whole; because infalibility is not yet proved by the not erring, but by an impossibility of erring. And if you may err by carelessness, as before, then when were any sure of being right; for who can be sure he hath been as careful as he should be? and therefore if this be the condition of not being deceived, yea, of infalibility, it is at least morally impossible, that any should be assured in their faith; because they may be wanting in their diligence; and so also may demerit a deprivation of Divine light.  
My Adversary goes on. To elude this text you say, sure we may be, that the letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from Captivity. Ans. And I see no reason to the contrary, if we consider several expressions in that place, which carry that scope; and also if we consider, that ordinarily at least when any thing is prophesied mystically of the Church Christian in the old Instrument, it is yet true in the letter of the Jews. And also thirdly, If we will take notice of the Septuagint, who render it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Those that are dispersed shall walk amongst them and not err. And if you take this version to be the Septuagints, you may know they knew the text as well as the Latin Church.  
Therefore this you would suppose and argue upon it. If he did direct the Jewish Church by a way so direct; that fools could not err by it, there can be no good reason why he should be less careful to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ.  
Ans. My Adversary did not consider, that if it be understood of the Jewish Nation, it is not presently to be understood of the Jewish Church under that formality. It may be intended of them in the civil sense, and not in their Ecclesiastical respect: and then we cannot argue from a temporal promise made to the Jew, to a Spiritual promise made to the Christian; though men are bold to make such accommodations. For than might we, of our own power, make a mystical sense of Scripture, wherein one thing should by Divine intention signify another thing, this we cannot do; for then mystical Divinity should be Argumentative, which is denied even by the Pontificians.  
Yet he goes on. Yet I think it is sure that this is not the true Interpretation. For when did the blind see, the deaf hear, when did then God come himself and save us? Ans. It may be understood in the letter, and yet some expressions be hyperbolical; Yea, those expressions may be understood in the letter without any hyperbolicalnesse; as that those who never thought to see or hear of such a Redemption actual, should see and hear of it, should not only hear of it, but see it. Secondly, When do we hear of vengeance and recompense spoken of, for 4. And dry ground and pools and habitation of Dragons and a place for reeds and rushes, spoken of, ver. the 7. to be in the Church Christian in a spiritual sense? Put one to the other: and which of them hath more moment? And to the other question, when did then God come himself and save us? We answer, this makes no Scruple of such an Interpretation of it to the Jew; neither because it is said he will come, nor because it is said he will save. Not the first nor the second, for the first is as ordinary, as the term save is usual in the old Instrument for the temporal sense. Wherefore had Joshua his name from the same root? was he to be a spiritual Saviour? It is true he was typical of Christ Jesus, but he was typical by a temporal deliverance, yea, even the Greek word is sometimes used for a temporal salvation, in the new Testament, as Mat. 8.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Master save us, we perish, yea, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which commonly is rendered Saviour, when applied to Christ, is sometimes applied to God in the new Testament in a temporal sense, as is noted rationally by some Critics; and particulary in that text some give an instance thereof. 1 Ep. to Tim. 4.10. Who is the Saviour of all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, especially of those that believe. He is the Saviour of all in a temporal sense, specially of those who believe. And thus Estius upon the text would carry it, for which exposition he names Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Ambrosianus, Anselme. And he said positively, constat autem ex aliis Scripturae locis, etc. it is manifest also out of other places of Scripture, that the term of salvation is understood of the good things of the temporal life. So he upon the place.  
He proceeds. And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way, as he said, I am the truth and the way; this self same Saviour said, I (who am this way) am with you to the consummation of the world; to wit, directing my Church the right way to Salvation: of which direction the Church now hath no less need than then. Ans. He supposeth that which is not granted, nor yet doth he go about to prove it, that it is to be understood by Divine intention of the Christian Church objective, This is not to be allowed, unless mystical Divinity were in the nature of it argumentative. And my second answer to this text, wherein I referred it to the time of Christ in way of supposition, (if it were at all to be referred to the time of the Christian Church according to Isider, Clarius and St. Jerom.) he cannot well deny; but will argue from it, that the Church hath no less need of direction now than then. Ans. This Reply hath no strength of reason in it, for the foundation of Christianity was then to be laid; which foundation personal was Christ, than it was to be built upon the foundation ministerial, the Apostles also, as St. Paul speaks, Eph. 2.20. The new Testament was not then written, the propagation of the Gospel was not then made, Christian Doctrine was not universally received. And therefore then was there more need of infallible direction by Christ and his Apostles than now. And this really answereth your supposition, that such an infallible direction which by our Saviour was promised to the Church by the Apostles should always continue in the Church; whereas it is not so necessary by necessity of mean or end. And therefore, can we not make a demonstration of it a causa finali, because it is not necessary for the end of Salvation. Deus nec deficit in necessariis, nec abundat in superfluis, as he said: he is neither wanting in necessaries, nor is abundant in superfluities.  
But this passage must be made good by them, or all is lost; therefore he goes on. And as we could not securely have put a limitation to those words of Joel (namely, concerning the pouring out of the spirit) if St. Peter had not secured us of the true sense: so cannot you limit these words, not having the like warrant for it. Ans. So then first, Are those words of Joel limited? Yes, he confesseth it, and it is so plain by St. Peter in the second of the Acts, that it cannot be denied. Upon this confession we dispute. If those words of St. Peter be limited, then also the other text [Mat. 28. last. I am with you to the end of the world] is also limited. The consequence is, it may be, demanded. It is given thus. If the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not now to be expected as then, then can we not now pretend infalibility as then, because this is a special gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore have we no such need of an infallible limitation of that text by some other passages of Scripture; for interpretative, as we may speak, it is here done by St. Peter in a text of the same kind; so that although it doth not follow, that because one text is limited by Scripture, therefore we may limit another text; yet if the text in question be of the same kind, we do not limit it, but show, that it is consequently limited. For secondly, All other extroardinary dispensations of the Holy Ghost are terminated in the event: no more Apostles, no more Prophets, no more Evangelists, no more gift of tongues; and why then should the gift of infalibility be held up? And why had not those (whom some of yours have spoke of) who were sent to preach the Gospel to the Heathens, the gift of tongues miraculously bestowed upon them, which might have been an argument and credit to their infallible Doctrine?  
Yet he would continue power of miracles too: to this purpose he urgeth the text, those that believe shall do greater works than these. John. 14.12.  
Ans. The subject of that proposition [those that believe] is considerable in the supposition, and in the opposition. In the supposition it is to be considered, how many it extends to; in the opposition, to what sort of men, whether Clergy or Laity: consider it in the supposition, and we say, If it be extended to the present Church, we deny it: If it be not extended, it concludes nothing. Consider it in the opposition, as to what sort of men it belongs; then, if you take it inclusively to the Laity, then by your Argument, infallibility should be in them. For so your discourse must run, those that do greater miracles than Christ, they may be infallible: then I assume, If you take it inclusively of the Laity, the Laity may do greater works than Christ, than they are infallible. And then how, or why do you state infalibility in the Pope and a Council, which are two things that do not easily come together? And so the subject of the proposition must be taken, for it bears no respect to holy Orders, secundum rationem specialem; it is said, those that believe, not those of the Clergy which believe. So it hath itself indifferently to all sorts of men that do believe: and if my Adversary took it as of the Clergy, let me pay him in his own coin, in telling him, we may not limit it without a warrant; since, if all their Clergy did work miracles; yet all that do work miracles are not Clergy men.  
Secondly, The Text is not ingenuously applied; for, it should not be applied to miracles, as he doth; but to works, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there refers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now all works are not miracles, though all miracles are said to be works. All Christ's works were not miracles: and Christ did not always at all times work miracles. And therefore doth your Ferus upon the place note, that it is not said, semper & omni loco signa faciet, he shall always and in all places do signs, nay, upon the same place, whereas some understand it of signs, he says, this were hard, that no man should be a Believer, but he should do signs, quandoquidem nullus nostrum hoc tempore signum facit. Therefore he saith, some understand it not of works of miracles, but of works of virtues.  
And therefore the following words needed not to have been added, If then this text was verified after our Saviour's time, you cannot say it is only spoken of his time, and that he did take away a way so necessary for us, his gifts being without repentance.  
Ans. This is nothing to the purpose, though we grant, it did continue sometime after Christ, unless it be drawn down to the times of the present Church it is inconsequent to your use: Yea, those words of Christ [I am with you unto the end of the world,] may be verified without any infalibility in the Church resident in men; much more without infalibility in a particular Church: It is a plain fallacy of consequent, his being with them infallibly is a way of being with them; therefore every way of being with them is a way of infalibility. And this is sufficient to destroy the hopes which the Pontificians have of this Text. Besides that, if infalibility were by this Text continually promised to the Church universal, the Romanist cannot come in for any more than a part; for this is said by Christ, and at his ascension too to all the Apostles in communi; and therefore from this Text they can challenge no privilege of succession to S. Peter. or Vicariate to Christ, because this is spoken to them all, which is also expressed in the Syriack. So that your discourse hereupon goes upon a double error in the Rule thereof: first, because you argue a genere ad speciem affirmative, for thus you must reason, he will be with them to the end of the world, therefore as he was with the Apostles, infallibly. Secondly, Because you argue a toto ut sic ad partem; because he will be with the Church universal, therefore with you who are but a part. And also, what if the Apostles did greater miracles than Christ? what is this to your purpose? Or if other believers should afterwards do greater miracles, your Representative Church would be less necessary, for they that could work miracles would not need your infallible direction. Or if they did, then cannot you conclude from supposed continuance of miracles, continuance of infallibility.  
Put then your reason into a form and it will be an Enthymem, his gifts are without repentance, therefore he hath not taken away a way so necessary: and what then? There might have been taken away a way so necessary to show Sophistry. To the antecedent therefore we say, there is an equivocation in the word gifts. The word sometimes signifies grace of gifts, sometimes gifts of grace. If you take it here of the former, it were more pertinent to your scope; but so it is not true to the text. If of the latter, it is true to the meaning of the place; but 'tis not pertinent to your purpose: and because he knew the text [Rom. 11.29.] not to be understood of the grace of gifts; wisely is there left out that which might hinder such appearance, namely, the calling, for so it runs, the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.  
And that which follows in his reply is also captious. For he did not find in my words, that I applied the text to the Jews in the spiritual kind, as of infallibility, and therefore he ought not to think it strange, that this gift should not in full dimensions be always extended to the Church: unless we might from the literal sense to the Jew conclude a mystical, to the Christian proportionably to the letter; which cannot rationally be done.  
He goes on. I cannot believe you trust your other Argument, if this way be promised to the Church, ergo, the Church is not this way. Suppose God had promised the Kingdom of France a Monarchy: Ergo, the Kingdom of France (say you) is no Monarchy. The true consequence is, the Kingdom of France is this Monarchy. Ans. I am not displeased with mine own Argument, if there can be no more said against it than is here. I know no difference betwixt a King and a Monarch sufficient to ground a distinction, and in the new Testament the greek word which signifies a King is usually applied to the expressing of Emperors. And therefore if God had promised the Kingdom of France a Monarchy, he should have promised it itself. And so if God had promised the Church to be this way, he should have promised it itself. I had thought, that as the object of the thing in humane speculation is before the act speculative; so the object of person had been considered before acts practic, otherwise the object of the person and the object of the thing do not differ. Thus, if the promise of this way to the Church, be the promise of the Church its being this way, than the terminus rei and the terminus personae is all one. Therefore must this way be distinguished from the Church: otherwise the Church hath nothing promised. And how can this way be predicated of the Church in such a proposition [the Church is this way] when according to your principles, the Church must have its existence by this way, before it can be this way. And so must have its being before its cause, which amounts to a contradiction, that it should be and not be; for it must be before it is. Yea; if the Church is to be supposed before it be the way, and yet is to have its consistence by this way, this is to make that which is to be, which also makes that which is not to be, because it must not be before it be.  
Yet he goes on. The Church is this way which God promised it should be. But to whom did he promise it? To singulars before they are aggregated in the unity of a Church? Then the singulars yet must be a Church before they be a Church, because this way was promised, you say, to the Church. If the diffused Church be the object of the promise to whom it is made; then again, how were the Christians without faith? Or how had they faith without a Representative, which is the way promised, as he supposeth?  
Yet again, and it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way, and is with his Church ruling it until the consummation of the world. And so Christ is regula regulans, and the Church regula regulata.  
So th●n at length my Adversary is come to my distinction; only, he will not apply it as I did. I said the Scripture is regula regulans, the Church is regula regulata: he says now, that Christ is regula regulans, the Church is regula regulata. So that in part he is come over to us, in that he says, the Church is the rule ruled: and he or any other could hardly overcome us in the other, that Christ should be the rule ruling, and not by the Scripture. Christ doth not now rule us immediately, but by the Spirit; and therefore is he said to be the Spirit of Christ. neither doth the Spirit rule us immediately, but by the word which the Spirit of Christ did inspire the Penmen of Scripture in to this purpose. So it remains, that the Scripture is the word of Christ by his Spirit. And by this word which was first delivered by his Spirit is Christ the way. He is the way of merit by his death. He is the way of example by his life. He is the way of precept and direction by his word. If he divides the word from the Spirit he makes it not the word of God: if he divides the Spirit from the word, so that the Spirit should direct beside the word, he runs into Enthusiasms. The Spirit hath itself to the word as the Dictator; the Apostles have themselves and the Prophets to the word as the Penmen. The word hath itself to us as the rule, which from God through Christ by his Spirit in the Penmen of Scripture is to direct us unto our Supernatural end. Therefore saith St. Paul, let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, Colos. 3.16. To conclude then this Answer, since Christ is now confessed to be the rule ruling, he is the rule ruling, either by his Church or by his word. If by his Church, as my Adversary, how is this Church to be ruled, since this is the rule ruled? By his Spirit they will say; well, but how? In a Council, they will say, confirmed by the Pope. But for the first three hundred years their was no Council; nor Pope in their sense, for more. How then? Then by his Spirit, causally, in the word; according to which the Archbishop of Collen resolved to reform his Church: for which he was cited before the Emperor: and excommunicated afterwards by the Pope, in the year 1546.  
But, being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the word of God, and you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedience.  
So my Antagonist goes on upon the Church. Ans. To this passage much may be said. First, that the former words are wisely put together: si non caste, tamen caute. For there is a reserve of sense in which they are true; namely, in sensu composito, whilst it is ruled by Christ, there is not the least danger of swerving from the word of God, but it is yet to be proved, that it will always be ruled by Christ. Make this sure and we have done. But if it had always been ruled by Christ, it would not have violated his institution of Communion under both kinds. Put this then into a form of discourse: that which is ruled by Christ doth not swerve from his word; the Church of Rome is ruled by Christ therefore: and we limit the major, so far as it is ruled by Christ it doth not swerve from the word; it is not true, that it never swerves, unless it be true, that it is always ruled by Christ; but then we deny the Assumption, for it is not always ruled by Christ. 2. We note here, that the rule Christ rules us by, is his word, for so it is said here, being ruled by Christ it will not swerve from his word. So then by his own words, Christ's adequate rule is his word; otherwise we might be ruled by him and yet swerve from his word. And also consequently if we follow his word, we follow him. And those that do not follow his word do not follow him. Thirdly, we must differ with him upon the point of blind obedience, therefore whereas he says you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedience, we say absolutely, blind obedience is not rational, it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any sense, and then we say again, this obedience he speaks of, would be rational obedience; and therefore not blind. For, to follow such a Guide which is always ruled by Christ, and therefore never swerves from his word (if this can be made good to me, that any Church doth, and cannot do other) is very rational and not blind obedience. If the saying and definition of the Church be assured by Christ and his word, to be according to Christ and his word, it is necessary to be obedient to it, as to what I find in Scripure; though I do not comprehend the reason of it, as the Scripture doth bind to faith without dispute: so would the Church, were I assured by the Scripture, that the Church could not swerve from it. But here are two things wanting; one is of a proof, that the Church hath not swerved. And a second, that it cannot swerve from the word of God. For my faith must build itself immediately not upon the former; because the power of swerving is not sufficiently secured by the negative; but it must be built upon the impossibility, and this should be demonstrated.  
And still I must mind you, that I speak of the Universal Church convented in a General Council confirmed by the Supreme Pastor.  
Ans. And I still say, that the Universal Church so constituted, is not free from the least danger of swerving from the word of God. And this in gross were enough, until it were made good by sound Argument. Yet also particularly. First, he means the Universal Church representatively; (for otherwise, all cannot come together) but then let us have an account why there could not be admitted to the titles of the Trent Council, that which the ●rench so much urged, namely [representing the Universal Church?] If it did represent the Universal Church, why might it not be said in the title? If it did not, how does he say the Universal Church convented in a General Council? 2. A Supreme Pastor in your sense should be proved and not supposed. For we acknowledge no Supreme Pastor but Christ, which can give life or law to all the Church. He the Pastor and Bishop of our souls. 1 Pet. 2.25. He the chief Pastor. 1 Pet. 5.4. And all Bishops under him do equally participate a Vicarial care of the Church. But thirdly, the Trent Council, according to you, was general and confirmed by the Supreme Pastor; and Vigilius was the Tutilarie Saint of the valley of Trent; and yet the Trent Council swerved grossly from the word of God, and particularly in the matter of half communion; as in the twenty first session, notwithstanding Christ his institution and the several interpretations of the Doctors and Fathers acknowledged against them in the first chap. of that session; and although from the beginning of Christian Religion the use under both kinds was not unfrequent, as is confessed in the second ch. Fourthly, if the Church so constituted cannot swerve from the word of God, why did the Trent Council fear to determine what is the nature of original sin, which Viga urged them to, upon good reasons? And why did they not determine whether the blessed Virgin was exempted from original infection, whereof the Franciscans so much urged the affirmative to be defined; the Dominicans the negative? And yet in saying, non esse suae intentionis, it was not of their intention to comprehend in this Decree, wherein original sin is handled, the blessed and immaculate Virgin, they do interpretatively exempt her, though St. Paul and all holy Doct●●● did not exempt her, as the Dominicans urged; and so they do in effect contradict their universal proposition, wherein it is said, Propagatione non imitatione transfusum omnibus: at least it makes that definition uncertain, as the Germane Protestants noted.  
Therefore that which follows in his Paper doth not follow in reason: This Church, guiding by her infallible Doctrine, is this way, the Church diffusive (guided now by this doctrine) was promised this direct way. Such a way we were promised, a way so direct represented, that fools cannot err by it.  
Ans. These words might have been all spared, for they are all as cyphers till one thing be proved, and that is, the infallible Doctrine as a property inseparable to the Church. If the Church goes this way to prove herself the way, she is not the way, because she goes out of the way, or else Christ was out of the way, and the Primitive Church was not the Church, when for so many years it is confessed, that there was no General Council: and is not proved that there was a Pope in their sense, as indeed there was none. So then the Church universal is not the way universally, so direct that fools cannot err: for, in all times there was not the universal Church so represented; nor the Decrees of the represented Church so confirmed, because there was no Pope. And therefore if yet the Church had another way then; we have more reason to go that way than the way which leads to Rome; and from Rome we know not whither but to darkness: and those that follow this way are not wiser by following it; for, they are not wise in following it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Hierocles said well. Both these things are good, to know that we do not know, and to know what we do not know. And surely, if we should go their blind way, we should neither know what wise men know, nor know neither that we are ignorant. Therefore Catarinus and Marinarus took another way to assert certainty of Grace, namely, by Scripture; as we have it in the History of the Trent Council, wherein they shaked the Adversaries of the opinion, and brought them to some moderation.  
And this example of theirs in following the Scriptures might (if we were doubtful of our cause) yet encourage us to give check to that which follows. The Scripture, as some may conceive, (for you dare not defend it) is not this way.  
Ans. All conceive that it is the way but your Church. Yea, all your Church are not for this Church way. Besides those named the Arch-Bishops of Collen, Catarinus, Marinarus, how many even in the face of the Trent Council have urged Scripture against all other Arguments. The ancient Fathers made the Scripture their way and rule, and therefore their authorities are not answered to by my Antagonist; for that they are unanswerable. Therefore we dare, and do defend it; for it will defend us in the doing of it. But this Campian bragged of our diffidence. We return as he did who was to be put to death, as Tacitus relates it, when the Executioner bade him bear it bravely; he replied, utinam tu tam fortiter feries. So I would my Adversary had as strongly opposed, as we are in hope to answer. But it were better for them to have either less confidence, or to add more strength. As Archidamus said to his son after an unsuccesse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So let them give stronger Arguments, or quit the cause.  
Let us see his reason. For we see with our eyes, not only fools, but also most learned men to err grossly, and to follow most contradictory opinions, whilst they profess from their hearts to follow Scripture as near as they can.  
Ans. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. First, because men do err, therefore is not that the way? The error is by them, because they go from the way: not by the way, because they go in it. It concludes as much, as if the way to Rome were not the way, because, some men do not find it. Secondly, they profess from their hearts, as they say, to follow Scripture as near ●s they can: but do they from their hearts profess it? Thirdly, if most learned men do err grossly and follow most contradictory opinions, etc. it seems then some most learned men think this is the way. Fourthly, if they follow most contradictory opinions and yet follow Scripture, the fault must be in them; for you dare not say there is any contradiction in Scripture. Fifthly, they may be in way of Salvation, though some do err in the sense of Scripture, as it is drawn down in application to some points of question. Sixthly, there should have been considered here a possibility of recrimination with more advantage against the Adversary. For how many of them do err in following the Church, and are more prone to err, because the Church is more variable, and their traditions (which, they say, are part of the rule) are not written? In particular, how many of them passionately differ from one another about the subject of Ecclesiastic power, about temporal power, whether the Pope hath any? then whether direct or indirect? How many of them hotly maintained contrary opinions in the Council of Trent? And yet I hope they followed the Church. For if they held Scripture the rule, they were Adversaries to my Adversary. Seventhly. Therefore since men may find your way, and yet err by it; and not find Scripture and yet err by it (for the Church may, for aught is proved, teach error, the Scripture not) let fools go that way, and most learned men go the way of Scripture. My Argument then is yet good. That way which the Church goes we must go. And this they will not deny. But the Church goes the way of Scripture, and this they cannot deny. Nor is there any direct Answer made thereunto. Therefore,  
Neither is my fourth Answer answered. Therefore may we conclude contradictorily to his conclusion of this number, the visible Church is not this Judge, by submission to the judgement whereof we are secured from all error.  

Num. 3. S. 2.  Whence what you say against my third Number is easily answered. For all Religions agreeing, that there must be one Judge of all controversies, which either be or may be in Religion, they must all give infallibility to their Judge.  
Ans. And from what was said before, all that you reply to my answer is easily answered, for no Religion but yours doth say, that there must be a formal, visible Judge of all controversies, infallible. And as for us, we say, there is no need of such a Judge: and our principles do conclude negatively to such a Judge. For whereas we say, God's written word hath plainly set down all things necessary to salvation, as you do relate it, we also by consequence infer, that there is no need of controversy in things necessary, because, the Scripture hath plainly determined those points which are necessary, already, which how true it is we shall show in answer to your third Chapter.  
All other Sectaries agreeing with you in that point, I understand not how you could say, that none but we hold an infallible Judge.  
Ans. If you include us here amongst the Sectaries, as you seem to do, we deny the charge. And we say, we are no more Sectaries than the Catholic was before Papacy had head or foot in the world. We say, as he, my name is Christian; my surname is Catholic. We have made no such change of Doctrine, as to be accounted Heretics, as you call us; nor of Discipline, as to be accounted Schismatics: but we should not appear so innocent, unless Romans should first accuse us. And secondly, there are no Sectaries but you that do maintain the contrary: unless they be Anabaptists and Enthusiasts, which make themselves infallible Judges, as your single Church makes itself an infallible Judge. For, Thirdly, those who hold the Scripture to set down plainly all things necessary, are not in this Sectaries, as seems to be intimated in the former words. Nor, fourthly, by holding the Scripture to have plainly set down things necessary, do they infer, that there is a necessity of an infallible Judge to decide all controversies which may spring up; For their opinion includes the contrary. And therefore upon the whole matter, the former words are not so rationally delivered.  
And what he says afterwards, that without an infallible Guide every man might proceed, as if your faith were fallible, and so give an infallible assent to nothing, is indeed gratis dictum. For if this discourse be resolved, as it must be, into this proposition, Without an infallible Guide, our faith is fallible, and we can give infallible assent to nothing, it will appear to be , because the proposition is false, as it is taken universally. For though in points of question I cannot give an assent infallibly to a Judge, unless I do give an assent infallible to this Judge's being infallible; yet we hope, we may give an infallible assent to those things which are plain in Scripture, and not questioned. Yea, secondly, I may give an infallible assent to that which is in question, without an infallible Judge external; because, by his agitation of it, I may see it plainly resolved into the sense of Scripture: which indeed is the formal rational end of all Councils, that by the conference of learned men the meaning of Scripture as to the case may be cleared. The former discourse therefore is plainly fallacious, a dicto secundum quid, or a particulari; as if because we cannot have an infallible faith of things disputed without an infallible Judge, we could have no faith in any thing but fallible. Yea, it is false in those particulars debated; for we may have a faith infallible of them by Scripture, though the Judge ministerial be not infallible. The faith objective is infallible in the Scripture, and the faith may he infallible subjective, by the rule of Scripture, and yet the Judge fallible, because we may make use of the Fathers of the Church as Consuls, not as Dictator's.  
In the next words he would vindicate himself from saying, that without such a Judge we should be free to follow (without any fault) our private Judgement, in holding what we will, as you insinuate. But I said otherwise, every man might be free to believe what he judged best; and so we should have as many Religions as there be private, and different judgements, etc.  
Ans. He doth me wrong in saying, that I put in such words as I knew how to answer, and leaved out his true words: I altered no words, but expounded him in them, as I had reason. For if every one might be left free (without such a Judge) to what he judged best, this freedom would be simple or moral. If simple, than it would be without a fault: and if moral, it would be without a fault; but now he denies that he meant a moral freedom. Yet is it best for him to understand such a freedom, according to his principles: for if we have not a moral freedom (without a fault) to believe what we judge best, then have we less reason of giving undisputed assent to an external Judge, since we are awed and commanded, under peril of a fault, to take heed what we do believe. And therefore cannot we believe this Judge with blind obedience, because it seems now, we may not believe what we will, but we must see good reason for what we do believe: And good reason it is, that good reason should exclude blind obedience. And indeed his consequence is false in terminis, for we have not a simple freedom to believe what we will, as I said; because the understanding naturally assents to truth apparent. But this he takes no notice of, as if I had said no such thing. How much of my words he takes away privatively, which must infer a variation of my sense, may be gathered by compare of my copy with his rehearsal: and it appears, that negatively he hath taken away a great part of my words; for he says to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so his argument is null: and his vindication nullified. Only I must also note, that he did not well weigh his own consequence [if every man were left free to hold what he judged best, we should have as many Religions as private judgements] for in principles of Religion we are not like to differ, if we believe the Scripture: and particular Controversies (which you direct your discourse to, if you speak ad idem; if not, you are more to be blamed) do not make different Religions; because than you must have different Religions amongst yourselves.  
In the beginning of this number my Adversary would feign take me tripping or enterfearing upon my own words by a consequence: 
Num. 4.  because (as he thinks) I take away all means of regulating our judgement, and yet say, we should not follow our own judgement of discretion, without means of regulating our judgement.  
Ans. His reason may well be put into this form; he that taketh away all infallible means, takes away all means able to produce an infallible assent: but I take away all infallible means. Then I deny his assumption. I do not deny all infallible means. I do not deny all means, because I deny some to be infallible, and I do not deny all infallible means, because I deny some that he thinks infallible; in both he would impose upon me the fallacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a particulari. All means are not infallible; and there may be, and is other infallible means besides those which he supposeth and I deny. The Scripture is an infallible mean, to hold to this, I deny the infallibility of Councils. And then again secondly, I deny a necessity of infallible assent to all points of question: either part of the contradiction may consist with salvation.  
For corroboration of his opinion about the infallibility of Councils, he brings in afterward St. Gregory the Great's saying. I do profess myself to reverence the first four Councils as I reverence the four books of the Gospel. And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council; whosoever is of another mind, let him be an Anathema.  
Ans. First, we do not think the judgement of St. Gregory to be greater than the judgement of the four Councils: if we do not think them infallible, we have no cause or reason to be urged with one Gregory. Secondly, we also reverence the learning of that Gregory, as he reverenceth the books of the Gospel, if the as be taken in similitude, not proportion; in the quality not equality. Thirdly, if the opinion of St. Gregory should prevail with me, why doth not the Authority of the Fathers whom I produced for our cause, and the answers I gave to his Authorities, before, prevail with him. Testem quem quis inducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se. Fourthly, let us mark his own words. And I also receive the fifth Council in like manner. Now the fifth Council was that of Constantinople, wherein Vigilius was condemned in his defence of the three Chapters: And the Council proceeded without his consent, yea, and against his mind. So that if St. Gregory's authority were authentic the cause were spoiled; for so infallibility should not be stated in a Council with the Pope's confirmation. Fifthly, oppose and confront Gregory with Gregory, Nazianzen with the Roman; and which of them shall we believe for Councils? Neither doth the whole machine of our Religion tople and tumble to the ground upon my former principle, as he imagined, though he would press me more strongly to show upon what Authority I take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God? This by the way should not have been brought into question with us, since we give more reverence to the Scriptures than they do; and therefore are like to have a firmer faith in it to be the word of God than they. The main design of my Adversary at first, I suppose, was, to debate the faith of particular points, the Scripture being supposed to be the word of God; although not supposed by him to be the only rule. But therefore let me return his own words changing the tables, that the whole machine of his Religion doth tople and tumble to the ground upon his ground, by pressing him to show by what authority he takes Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God, before he hath proved the infallibility of the Church.  
His reason follows, because there cannot be a more groundless ground upon which you, by rejecting the infallible authority of the Church, are forced to build your whole religion; to wit, that you by mere reading of Scripture can by its light (as you discover the sun by its light) discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted word of God, that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to that verity.  
Ans. First he is not surely right in this, that I am forced, by rejecting his way of believing Scripture, to this way. If he be, than I am right in the choice of my principle upon my refusal of his: but Mr. Chillingworth (whom he blames me for differing from in this point) does find (as it may seem, and as he himself professeth) a middle way of grounding faith in the Scripture to be the word of God, namely, by the authority of universal Tradition: which as any can distinguish from this way, so he doth distinguish from the Pontifician way, as is known: but this we shall have fuller occasion to speak of hereafter. Secondly, whereas he says, that I say by mere reading of Scripture, etc. he supposeth that which is not so. For I do not deny the use of other means to further us towards our assent, intrinsecall arguments from Scripture, extrinsecall of the Church: but that which privately we resolve our faith of Scripture to be the word of God in, is the autopistie of Scripture, which God by faith infused shows unto us. And by Catarinus his reasoning in the Trent Council about subjective certitude of grace, private faith is not inferior to the Catholic faith in point of certainty, but only in universality. Thirdly, the Church, according to my Adversary hath its power of binding to faith by a General Council with the Pope's confirmation of the Decrees: then let us know by what Council all the parts of Scripture were confirmed by a General Council with the Pope's consent for the first six hundred years; somewhat might be put in as towards the use of some parts of the Apocryphal books: but it doth not appear that they were canonised as to faith; nor any of the Canonical books declared by them, as quo ad nos, authentic. For they were wont to meddle with little but emergent questions; whereas of those parts of Scripture which were generally received, there was no question whether they were the word of God. And being not received by the authority of a Council establishing them, what ground have those who differ from us, to receive them; since they say, the infallible Authority is in the Church Representative with the Pope's confirmation.  
He goes on. And it must be a far surer discovery than that by which we discover the Sun by his light, for this discovery can only ground a natural certainty: the other must ground a supernatural, not certainty, but infallibility.  
Ans. The supernatural habit of faith hath it  more to intelligence than to science. Intelligence is known to be that natural habit, whereby the understanding is disposed to assent to the truth of principles, when the terms of those principles are known. And faith doth bear more proportion to this, as being the supernatural habit (in regard of cause) whereby we are disposed to believe supernatural verities; whereof the first is, by our opinion, that the Scripture is the word of God; taking the Scripture materially. Now as the principles natural are seen through their own light by the natural habit of intelligence: so are the supernatural principles seen through their own light by the supernatural habit of faith. And as certainly as I see the Sun by its light with mine eye; so certainly do I see the truth of natural principles by the natural habit of intelligence: and as certainly as I see the verity of natural principles by intelligence, so do I see supernatural verities by the supernatural habit of faith; yet not so evidently as I see the Sun by its light, or natural principles through their light. But it seems by my Adversary, that this will not serve, for he urgeth not only for a certainty but infallibility. To this we answer, first, Take certainty properly, and I think there is no fundamentum in re for this distinction.  
It may be, because we are wont to use the term of infallibility to points of faith, we think that whatsoever is certain is not infallible: and it is true, in regard of the manner or mean of certainty, so that whatsoever is certain is not infallible; for so certainty seems to be more general: but certainly, whatsoever is to us certain is also infallible, as we take it in a general sense. But secondly, if there be any degree of infallibility above certainty, we have it by this way of Divine faith infused by the Spirit of God: because we are most sure of this principle, that God cannot deceive, nor be deceived: therefore what we take upon his word we are most certain of, and more than by our own discourse and reason; for that is in the nature of it more imperfect. Thirdly, this is not so wisely considered, to strain our faith to the highest peg of utmost infallibility, as they determine the ground of it, namely, the Authority of the Church: because the Authority of it, as it is contradistinguished to the Spirit and word, is but humane, and as it is resolved into the word by the Spirit, so it comes into a coincidence with us. Fourthly, whereas he sometimes upbraided us with an essential defect of faith, because we take it not by their way of the Church; it appears yet, that some of our Church have in case of martyrdom held the faith of Scripture, and of points taken from thence, as infallibly as they have held Scripture upon tenure of the Church. And it seems ours did not hold the Scripture, or the points upon the authority of the Church; for they differed from the Ponteficians unto the death, about the Church and about points of Doctrine, which the Papist urged, they denied; notwithstanding they were Doctrines of their Church. Now, according to the Pontifician argument, if they had received the Scripture by the Authority of the Church, they must upon the same reason have received every Doctrine proposed by the Church. And therefore, it seems, they had a faith of Scripture infallible without the Roman infallibility. Secondly, the Spirit of God speaking in the Church is to them the efficient of faith. But the Spirit of God speaks also in the Scripture. If not, how do they prove, that the Spirit of God speaks in the Church? if it does, then may we believe him at first word and immediately, as to the Church.  
As to what he saith, secondly that he hath showed in his last chap. second Num. that a review of the definitions of a Council until they be resolved into the rule of Scripture, doth open a wide gap to heresy, I need say no more than what hath been said in answer thereunto. His mere saying so doth not surely make it so: nor is it probable, for it doth not open a gap to heresy material; because Scripture is the rule of truth: nor yet to heresy formal, because it may be done without opposition to the Councils. For simple dissent doth not include formal opposition.  
But yet further he saith. And for your importance of the matter I will here further declare in an example which hereafter will stand me in much use. Let us take an Arrian Cobbler to this man. This your Doctrine giveth the final review of the Council of Nice.  
Ans. Yes, (I must interpose in the several passages of his story of the case) it doth, but how? It doth not give a review by way of authority to others: but he is to take his own liberty for his own satisfaction in point of faith. Otherwise he believes he knows not what, and so in proportion he comes under the censure of Christ, upon the Samaritan woman, in the 4. of St. John the 22. Ye worship ye know not what. If the woman was not to be ruled by the judgement of the Samaritans, why is a Cobbler to be ruled by the authority of others; since, simply, the authority of the Samaritans was as good as the authority of others: and therefore our faith must be resolved into some higher ground than the authority of men.  
He goes on in his case. And you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council (defining God the Son to be of the self same individual substance with his Father) to examine them until he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture.  
Ans. Yes, we say he may take his own liberty to do so. But also we say, he ought to confer with those who are learned, that he may more easily find the sense of Scripture, the advice he takes from others doth not determine his assent: but disposeth it. It doth point him to it, but he must see it with his own sight.  
He doth examine them and chief how they do agree with that text, 
St. John the 10. chap. 30. verse.  I and my Father are one, on which text you afterwards confess the infallibility of this definition to be chief grounded.  
Ans. So did St. Athanasius profess, as I told him in my last rejoinder, and he doth not say any thing in denial. But as to the point as being clear in Scripture, there are other texts plain enough, as in the first Epistle of St. John the fifth chap. the twentieth verse, in his son Jesus Christ, this is the true God. Indeed the whole verse is for our purpose. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we should know him that is true. And we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God. He hath given us a mind that we should know. Here is faith infused, whereby we know him, and therefore is not this faith an effect of the authority of the Church. And this son is here said to be the true God, not only God nuncupatively, as the Arrians and Socinians: but the true God. So Bartholomeus Petrus, who makes the Supplement to Estius' Comment upon the Epistles, and subjects all to the holy Roman Church; Et nihil ominus etiam Filius ab Apostolo verbis expressis nominatur verus Deus parte hujus versus quarta quae sequitur, hic est verus Deus. So he. And notwithstanding also the Son is named by the Apostle in express words the true God in the fourth part of this verse, this is the true God.  
Now in the examen of the conformity of this definition with this text, the Arrian Cobbler by his poor understanding is easily able to see (that which a wiser man would yet see sooner) that he is put upon a necessity to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one; whether it be by affection only, as Arrians hold, or one in the self same individual Substance, as the Council defineth.  
Well. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; what then? This is no other than that which stands with our duty of obedience to that precept in the first Ep. to the Thes. 5.21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. And secondly, were we to rest in the definition of Councils, yet should we be put upon inquiry into the sense of their words which would make a trouble and a difference, as the words of the Trent Council did to Soto and Viga. And therefore if he could prejudice our cause with perplexities of ambiguities; neither are they certain, by their own Councils, which sense to stand to, since these learned men so eagerly combated upon different senses of the words of the Council upon the Decrees about  and Predestination: and though they had their interest in the Council for learning and estimation; yet, it seems, did not know the only sense and true scope of the Synod, as is said of them in the History of the Trent Council. p. 216.  
My Adversary goes on. And enquiring this he calls to mind that other text, John the 17.21. Where Christ prayeth, all his Disciples may be one thing, as thou Father in me and I in thee. So then let him proceed with the caution of this rule, res non est subject a sermoni, sed sermo rei. The thing is not serviceable to the speech, but the speech to the thing.  
Here will the Cobbler say (because he hath been often instructed by his own Doctors) Christ who said, I and my Father are one thing, demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing; but he doth not demand, that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individual substance, therefore (he concludes) Christ is not one thing in the self same individual substance with his Father, but one thing in affection only, as his Disciples might come to be one thing.  
Ans. But this Cobbler if he had more mind to find truth in Scripture than his own opinion, might go on and see, that the Jews (who were like to understand the words of Christ, as observing what was said by him to them) understood Christ not to speak that they were one by way of affection. For because of this speech they took up stones to cast at him, because he being a man made himself God, as it is in the 33 ver. of the 10. ch. of St. John. Which interpretation of his words our Saviour did not in the following verses deny; although he seemed to wave that sense; and yet also in effect brought it in by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 38 ver. Secondly, although, if there had been no other text concerning Christ's Divinity, there would not have been so clear a conclusion from the text, of the Divinity of Christ: yet if we compare it with other passages of the Scriptures, we may well believe that sense, and also if the text doth not afford that sense, how shall we believe a Council, when the Council of Nice (as Athanasius said) urged this text thrice against the Arrians? And therefore this exception against the sufficient clearness of Scripture in this point must be withdrawn, or else they must condemn themselves, because the Council of Nice determined the point not by their authority, but by the text. And therefore cannot the Cobbler say (as my Adversary prompts him) false therefore is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God, in which all things necessary to Salvation (as this point is) are plainly set down, as this place is not. My Adversary first might have spoken more moderately; not false is it therefore which the Council hath defined, but, not necessary, because the sense of the words may be such when they are spoken betwixt God or him and his Disciples, therefore they are such between his Father and him, this is no rational inference. Duo cum idem dicunt, non est idem. When two say the same thing, it is not the same thing said. So when one says the same thing in divers respects, it is not the same in sense presently, because in words. And if it be said, this is the question, whether it be said in divers respects? we answer, that we do not here speak of divers respects formal, but objective, for even according to the Principles of the Arrian, Christ is not an ordinary man, as appears by their position, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there was a time when he was not, and therefore there is no reason to expound the words in the same sense when they are applied to God and Christ, as when they are applied to God, or Christ and the Disciples. Secondly, the definition of the Council is not false, if this point cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God; but my opinion is false; unless he thinks my opinion is the same with the definition of the Council: and if so, than the Council holds, that all things necessary are resolvable into plain Scripture; and if so, then by his opinion he should stand to this definition; and if so, he should yield the cause. Thirdly, the Pontificians have no such cause to stand so punctually for the necessary belief of the Divinity of the Son of God, because according to their Champion, Bellarmin in his fifth b. de Mediatore, he holds, that Christ is not a Mediator according to both natures, but only in regard of the humane nature, ratione formalis principii, for though he says, Christ be a Mediator according to both natures, ratione suppositi, and as Principium quod; yet is not his Divinity so necessary as by being Mediator in regard of his Divine nature, as the formal principle, and as a principium quo: because thus the Divine nature is more necessary per se. But thirdly, either the definition of the Council is true or false; if true, then is it for us; if false, then how shall we trust any?  
He goes on. For this is the plainest place. And yet conferring it with the other, I find it not evidently agreeing with the definition of the Council, but rather evidently against it; by which I conclude (in this my Review) the definition of the Council to be false.  
Ans. Whether this be the plainest place is a question; since there are other texts, unto which this ambiguity is not incident, as, besides that named before, St. Mat. 28.19. Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; where the three Divine Persons have one name, namely, one authority and therefore essence, and this text doth not a little puzzle the Socinian. And yet secondly, if the sense of the text were, that Christ and his Father were one in affection, it doth not follow therefore, that it is evidently rather against the definition of the Council: because they may be said to be one in affection, since they are one in nature, that which affirms so much doth not always exclude more; therefore unless it were said they were one in affection only, it would not be evidently against the Council. But if the text, by compare with the other, did make this sense of being one in affection, it would not import exclusively, that they are one in affection only. Therefore though the text did not infer the Councils meaning; yet, upon the supposition, the Arrian Cobbler could not conclude the definition of the Council to be absolutely false, since the text doth not conclude a falsity of that position: because to be one in affection, and to be one in essence, it doth not imply; for if they be one in essence, they are one in affection. So then, if my Adversary makes the Cobbler to conclude the definition of the Council false, as to the matter, that the son of God is coessential with the Father, it is inconsequent: if respectively to the text, whereby they prove it, than it is indeed consequent, that the definition of the Council was false, but then we make a certain Conclusion of it for our use, that the definition of the Council of Nice was not infallible. And if so, my Adversary is undone.  
And now also I take leave to be even with my Adversary. He takes the Arrian Cobbler for his example. I take the Popish Collier. To this man the Roman Doctors (as my Adversary thinks) give no final resolution of his faith, but in the Church. They give him no leave to peep into Scripture for the settling his belief. Or if his Doctors do very tenderly let fall to him any intimation of Scripture so far as to confirm by it the infallibility of his Church, then surely that which seems to speak most for their turn, and is in the mouth of all of them, namely, St. Mat. 16.18. I say unto thee thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, etc. through the nineteenth v. Well, but will his Dctors give him leave to examine this Interpretation of the text with any other? Dare they? Very hardly. They tell him, he may securely rest his faith and soul in the Authority of the Church. But here is the question, whether the Church doth rightly interpret the text on their own behalf. If they say, it is plain that that is the sense; we reply, then may other texts be plain also for us. Yea, it is not plain: for the ancient Fathers of the Church have differed from them upon the exposition, therefore the Popish Collier should have leave for once from the inquisition, by a dispensation of the Pope, to inquire, as well as the Arrian Cobbler, into the sense of the text, and therefore by his poor understanding (which yet a wiser man would see sooner) he doth discern, by comparing it with the twentieth of John. 21, 22, 23. ver. That it is not reasonable to expound the former text of such an authority to be given to St Peter, which was not in the latter given to the rest of the Apostles; specially since Bellarmin is wisely careful, that the Princedom of the Church should not be given to St. Peter, till after his Resurrection, lest St. Peter's Successors should not be delivered from danger of succeeding him in the denial of his Master. Now then, if equal authority be given to all the Apostles, (as St. Cyprian plainly also in his Tract at. de simplicitate Praelatorum, hoc erant utique et caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis; and a little before says that Christ gave all the Apostles, after his Resurrection, parem potestatem, equal authority) how shall he collect from the other, that to be the Prince of the Apostles, and to be ordinary Pastor of the whole Church was given to St. Peter? Now then is this Collier at a plunge, he doth not see it in the former text by conferring it with the latter; and therefore he concludes (according to my Adversary for the Cobbler) that this doth not agree with the definition of the Doctors, but rather is evidently against it, by which he concludes (in this his review) the definition of the Roman Doctors to be false.  
And yet this is the plainest text for them. And therefore let the Popish Collier be convinced by some clearer Argument out of Scripture, to believe as the Church believeth: or else, to the eternal good of misled souls, confess, that if you give not private men leave finally to resolve themselves in Scripture, the Roman can find no means upon earth to put an end unto the main controversies, the Church not sufficing for this end: unless we should take the Church as commending us to Scripture for our direction, under pain of being accounted not Christians. For how are we bound, upon pain of Damnation, to believe that Jesus is the Christ without that which is written in Scripture?  
But it will be said, that the Popish Collier should not have leave given him to examine the Scripture's sense, no more than the Arrian Cobbler should have leave to examine the Councils definition: but both should absolutely rest in the definition of a Council. To this we answer several things. First, it is a mighty prejudice to the Roman cause, that they account blind obedience to the Church, a duty. This dark lantern, that none should see them but their own men, breeds great suspicion. The Roman cannot persuade the Arrian to rest in a Council, and therefore a Council will not make an end with all of all controversies. Thirdly; if the Arrian were to rest in a Council, he would say the Council of Ariminum were as considerable to him as the Council of Nice to the Homorsiasts. Fourthly, General Councils, for the purest times of the Church, were not celebrated: and therefore this is not the universal way of satisfaction and absolute determinative of faith. Fifthly, we have no prejudice against the four General Councils; we embrace them, and they make no prejudice against us, therefore if we hold, as they hold, points of faith, we are as saveable as they. Sixthly, the plainest Council they have for them is the Council of Trent, and yet the Popish Collier cannot acquiesce in that: because (although they say it was) yet he may doubt whether it was a free General Council. And I hope, since my Adversary says we must take infallibility from the General Council, we may have leave to examine whether that was a free General Council. And here we must contradistinguish the Church unto the Council, and we must not believe the Council for the Church; for then the infallibility would lie in the Church, not in the Council. Well, and must we take the Council to be right and good from itself? suppose we were to receive undisputedly the Decrees of faith in a General Council; yet we must be assured first, that this was a General free Council, than it is left us to examine the Council, though not the definitions: for if the Scripture cannot prove itself, as they suppose, than the Council cannot, and therefore the Popish Collier may examine the Council. And how shall he content himself about the Council in the generality of it, since there was so few persons in it, sometimes but forty three, Legates and Abbots being put in: and some titular Bishops only, sometimes forty eight; for a good while not above sixty; the Prelates of other Nations not there; not a Bishop or Divine of all Germany there; in the year 1546 no French Bishop could be there, and therefore no General Council. As the French King said, page 314. and by reason of the paucity of the persons then there, forty eight Bishops and five Cardinals; and not one of the Prelates remarkable for learning; and some of them Lawyers, and some Courtiers, the Decrees of the Council about Apocryphal books and making authentical a translation differing from the Original, did displease in Germany; as it is set down in the History of the Trent Council, p. 163. * And for the freeness of it, the Collier might deny that by several passages: for absolute authority was given to the Legates of the Pope to procreed without consent of Council, p. 113. Derogations from the liberty of the Council noted, p. 232. the Bishop of Fiesole complained of to the Pope for reasonable freedom, p. 167, 8. Amongst the three things the Pope admonished his Legates, one was, to take beed that by no means the Pope's authority be disputed on, p. 164, And yet this is the point which formally denominates the Popish Religion. And his being Head of the universal Church, as he presumes, is the point which denominates their Church the Roman Catholic. Yea, it was protested against by the French King; which was of force against it, according to some prohibentis conditio potior, as p. 320. And therefore cannot the Popish Collier finally resolve his faith in a Council upon its own conciliarie authority. And assuredly, if the Arrian Cobbler and the Popish Collier were both to dispute the same point; one by the Scripture, the other by the Council, the Cobbler would sooner convince the Collier by Scripture, which he doth acknowledge as certain, than the Collier the Cobbler by the Council, which he doth not acknowledge so: yea, if the Collier and the Cobbler were equally disposed to find truth indifferently to their opinions, the Cobbler might sooner settle his mind in Scripture, than the Collier in a Council; for the Cobbler hath no more to do than to find out the sense of Scripture, and then he is satisfied: but the Collier, when he hath found out the sense of the Council, is not satisfied; because, if he were assured that a free and general Council was infallible, he might yet doubt of the hypothesis, whether this Council were so. But it is false in these, that a general Council, though free, is infallible, and that we are bound to believe so; for why then would not the Pope put the main question▪ out of question? Either he did suspect the point himself, or did suspect his own Subjects in the Council, or did suspect, that it did not bind unto necessary belief, or else he was deceived in point of prudence, (which is most unlikely) to have that waved.  

Num. 5.  He proceeds. This your Doctrine maketh the definitions of true Councils, and their final determinations, to be indeed no definitions nor final determinations at all.  
Ans. This, in reasoning, would prove a Schism, a dicto secundum quid. Because I deny them to be final in your sense, therefore I deny them to be final in all sense, is not consequent. It doth not follow from the denial of one species to the denial of all. Final definitions, as to humane Tribunals, I acknowledge them: but final so, as to exclude the examination of them by Scripture, I deny. Final, as to peace, and not to be refractory, I grant: but final, as to necessary assent upon the Councils account, I deny. That we may find truth by them, I yield; because so many abilities united with God's blessing, may be like to pitch upon that true sense of Scripture which may determine the judgement unto certain assent. As by the conflict of hard things sparks of fire do break out: so by the industrious discussion of opinions, truth may appear eminently. But we cannot conclude the definitions, intuitively, and ipso facto, infallible. And why should we be obliged to stand to their declaration of truth, as if they did also make it to be truth? And why should we stand to their Conclusions, when their discourse is fallible, unless they go by Scripture? And if they by Scripture examine opinions, why should not we by Scripture examine their definitions, as to ourselves? Which should be last in the determination, Council, or Scripture, when Councils begin by it, and determine with it? Therefore I do not make them in no sense final; or none. That which follows, Now surely it is clear. etc. unto the end of the number, how little strength of reason hath it? This, in effect, was answered immediately before. My Adversary does us right in confessing our acknowledgement of the first four General Councils. And also may we confess, that we think they thought they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define, and finally to determine those Controversies; but what then? 1. What if they thought so? We have liberty by our principles to think that inconcludent, because we hold them not infallible in their judgement. Not because they thought they had such power, therefore they had it; unless we should hold them infallible, as we do not. Neither is this thought of ours, that they might think amiss of such power to be in them, any prejudice to our acknowledgement of those first four General Councils; because this opinion of theirs is no part of their determinations. Secondly, we distinguish: All plenitude of power is taken either reduplicatively, or specificatively for all that power which belongs to the whole Church; the former, if their opinion of themselves were infallible, would serve his turn: but we deny that they thought they had all power so; and if they did think so, we think they did not think right: the latter power they might think they had and not think amiss, but this serves not the turn; for all authority of the Church doth not bind us to receive the definitions thereof so as to sink all examination of the truth thereof by Scripture. Have not other courts a plenitude of power to hear and determine causes; and yet are sometimes defective in point of law? Their fallibility doth not proceed from want of power or authority, but from want of judgement or will to give a right sentence. And yet their censures also proceed. And therefore the excommunications (which my Adversary objects to me) may neither import their faith of their infallibility, nor yet wrong to all such as should gainsay what they had defined and determined, if error and falsity and contradiction to Scripture could be found in their definitions and determinations; for first it is not fallibility of sentence that doth the wrong, but falsity, either by ignorance, (and so ignorantia in Judice reputatur pro dolo) or else by wilfulness, (which formally makes the injury, because intended.) Secondly, the excommunications proceed against the person for an outward act of obstinacy, and not for a dissent of judgement (for cogitationis poenam in nostro foro nemo luit) so then there is no wrong to him that gainsays by excommunication; for that simply he might keep his judgement. And also thirdly, the Judge though he judgeth not well, yet may do well, if he judgeth with competent knowledge and due integrity, and therefore is it no injury if he does his best, since God hath not thought fit on the behalf of public peace, to disannul humane Judicatures for humane infirmities.  
His Answer to my instance of the Bereans (who searched the Scripture daily to see whether that which St. Paul said was true) my Adversary doth refer to another Chapter. We stay his leisure.  
Whereas you add fourthly, 
Num. 6.  that the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibility, do yet oblige unto peace, though their judgement cannot claim an undisputed assent, yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference, you teach by words what the deed of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid.  
To this it is readily answered, that Reformers may be glorious as to the general effect, though it's possible for them to be extravagant in modo. Sober businesses may be managed with too much heat. Secondly, whereas he supposeth that our glorious Reformers did notoriously gainsay the whole Church, I deny it; and if they did not gainsay the whole Church, it doth not come home to his purpose: for he is upon the authority of the whole Church. They did gainsay the Roman Church, but not the whole Church. That which St. Jerom said in his Epistle to Evagrius, is yet for our use; si authoritas queritur, orbis major est urbe, if authority be looked after, the world is greater than a City, which was also spoken in application to Rome. And put case there were no sort of Christians that did not profess obedience to the Roman Church, when those glorious Reformers did first appear, yet it cannot be rationally said by the Romanist, that they did gainsay the whole Church, because the Romanist doth take the root of his Church from the primitive times; which those Reformers did not gainsay. So then as we deny to them that they were all the whole Church, when the Reformers did begin: so if they had, it would be nothing as to the gainsaying of the whole Church, because the whole Church in their sense doth include all times, and specially the primitive; which they did not contradict. And surely if the Romanist proves his Church by conformity to the Primitive, (otherwise he hath the less reason for himself) then must he interpretatively grant, that there is more authority of the Primitive Church, than of that present Roman. And so then if the Reformers gainsaid not the primitive, they gainsaid not the Catholic in the best part of it for time; and that also which the present Roman doth most, as they say, depend upon. Thirdly, therefore we do not take our Religion from those Reformers as being worn into their words; and therefore we do not impropriate Christianity by any singular persons: we might take hints from them to consider those Doctrines which they preached, and conferring them with Antiquity and Scripture, we believe them to be Apostolical; and so is our Church, by Tertullian's rule in his book of Prescriptions, ch. 32. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae, those Churches that conspire in the faith are not less accounted Apostolical for the consanguinity of Doctrine. Fourthly, those Reformers, even according to my Adversaries Principles, did not oppose themselves to the authority of the whole Church: because, according to him, the authority of the Church is only binding in a Council with the Pope's consent; and no General Council can be found which did establish the points of Doctrine and Discipline wherein we differ, before those Reformers did show themselves: for the Trent Council (which also is not a general Council) was after their beginning, as is known, and it was called upon their occasion. Fifthly, as for our Reformation in England from the encroachments of the Court of Rome, it was first made by men of the Roman faith. So then my Adversary gets nought by this exception. And if the Romanists object to us reformation in Doctrine against the Church, as in the time of King Edward the sixth, we reply, as before, that we did not oppose the Church Catholic, we left the Roman as they left the Catholic Church. The whole is greater than the part, and therefore had we reason to leave them. Omne reducitur ad principium, which is a rule of Aquinas. We are in Doctrine as the Church was in the times of the Apostles. Our defence is in Tertullian in his book of Praesor. 35. ch. Posterior nostra res non est; imo omnibus prior est, etc. Our cause is not more modern, but more ancient than all. This shall be the Testimony of truth every where, obtaining the superiority. Ab Apostolis utique non damnatur, imo defenditur; it is not condemned by the Apostles, nay, it is defended. This shall be the indication of propriety: for those who do not condemn it who have condemned whatsoever is extraneous, do show it to be theirs, and therefore do defend it.  
The second inconvenience, which he urgeth, of my Principles, to draw me to his, is none. Secondly, seeing that a General Council (as you in your first paper confess) is the highest Court on earth to hear and determine controversies, etc. What then? unless, all were bound to confirm and subscribe to erroneous definitions, and all Preachers were silenced, and obliged not to open their mouths against their errors.  
This he attributes to me, as if I said it, or my opinion did infer it; whereas neither is true. Nay, nor did he find in my papers, that erroneous definitions of a General Council (though the highest Court) are to be accepted peaceably, reverently, and without disturbance; namely, so as to accept them in assent as true; for that would be impossible: they may be accepted, and reverently, and without disturbance, as to peace in not opposing; though not as to faith in submission of Judgement: and because they may thus be accepted, will it therefore follow, that we are therefore bound to confirm and subscribe to erroneous definitions? By no means. I do not remember that I used the term of accepting; and yet if I did, it might be construed in sensu commodo, so as not to disturb the peace of the Church, and quietly to endure the censure. But there is a vast difference betwixt not opposing and conforming or subscribing. For not to oppose, is negative: to conform, or subscribe, is a positive act. Not to oppose, respects the definition as a public act; to conform, or subscribe, respects it as true, which I cannot do, supposing it erroneous. Not to oppose, regards the Judgement of the Church as authoritative: to conform or subscribe, regards the judgement of the Church, as at least, not erring in the definition.  
And as for that he says, that by my confession, all Preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against these errors. I answer first, by distinguishing of the matter of the error. If the matter of the error be not great, as not destroying an article of faith, it might be better quietly to tolerate it, than publicly to speak against it: if the matter of the error be repugnant to an article of faith, than we distinguish of the manner of speaking against it; and we say we may soberly refer it to another general Council, if any be in view. If not, we may speak the truth positively without opposition to the authority of the Church, so as to vilify or contemn it. Yea, further, if the Council be free and general, it being so qualified, it is not like to err in any decree repugnant to a main article of faith: and therefore the question about speaking against it, is in this case well taken away. And yet further, admitting, and not granting, that such a Council should err in defining that which is contrary to an article of faith; yet must my Adversary have supposed by his principles that the truth contrary to this error hath been established by some other general Council; or else, according to him, the Church hath not sufficiently provided how to settle us infallibly in matters of faith; since, according to him, we must resolve our faith ultimately in the Decrees of General Councils, and then Council will contradict Council, and therefore will not a Council be a ground of faith, because one may contradict another, and also we may speak by virtue of the former Council against the error of the latter. And therefore the whole Church of God is not in a pitiful case by any thing of what I said in reverence to Councils without absolute obedience. But to be sure the Church would be in a pitiful case, if indeed we were bound to receive intuitively all definitions of Councils in whatsoever matters; for than should we be bound to submit our conscience to a Council against our conscience, since it is not yet proved infallible, and this makes for the inward act a contradiction; for the outward, hypocrisy. And surely, if that which is most hard is most easily broken, (as was said by one in the Trent Council) then that he urgeth is easily answered: for there is, to be sure, less danger in not speaking against that which is false, as he would have me say; than in yielding to all as infallibly true, as he would have me believe.  
And therefore that which follows returns with more force upon my Adversary, mutatis mutandis. A pitiful thing it would be, if the Church were bound to believe all definitions of a Council, which are not yet proved, nor ever will be, not to be fallible; and consequently some that may be false, which being by command from the highest authority upon earth preached by so many, and not so much as to be consiwered by one, would needs increase to a wonderful height. Would any wise Lawmaker proceed thus, if they could help it as well as Christ could by continuing in his word written that infallibility, which my Adversary hath confessed, or must, that it always had and shall have.  
As for the infallibility of the Church for two thousand years before Scripture was written, and that which this Church of Christ had before all the whole canon of the new Testament was finished, which was for the first forty years of the Church.  
This we have spoken to sufficiently before. And this doth at most infer (upon a supposition, that the Church was for that time infallible, which yet we grant not) a possibility of it to be infallible still. It doth not infer an actual infallibility still. Because God did so then, therefore he did so after the word was written, is as good an Argument as this; because God made an extroardinary light for the time before the Sun was created, therefore we must not now be directed by the light of the Sun. As if because God did sufficiently rule his Church without general Councils for the first three hundred years, therefore we should not make use of Councils now. And then we say, secondly, we must not compare the two thousand years before any word was written but only with the time of the Church when the Gospel was not written (as for forty years after Christ until the Canon was finished) and so it bears some proportion: but it is not to be compared with the other times of the Church after the finishing of the Canon. For then the word was to be the ordinary standing rule, without Prophets or Apostles. Thirdly, was there any thing necessary consigned by tradition to the Church which was not put into writing? This cannot be said; because than God should have provided for his Church worse afterwards by writing. And if it be said that the writing of the word doth not exclude the word not written, which is tradition, let them tell me why, when all was in tradition before, somewhat was put into writing, and somewhat left in the way of tradition. And then also let them tell me how that of our Saviour should be true, St. John the fifth. 39 Search the Scriptures, for in them you think to have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me., if any thing necessary were left in tradition, how could they have eternal life in the Scriptures? So then, since all that was necessary was committed to writing; why then was not that whereby the Church was ruled for forty years before the Canon was finished written also as well as before? and than your tradition (which you contradistinguish to Scripture) is evacuated. Or let me know why we may not as well deny the Roman traditions in point of faith after the finishing of the Canon, as our Saviour did the traditions of the Pharises after their Canon was finished? And why then should we not apply to them that of our Saviour to the Jews. St. Mat. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrine the traditions of men. Might not the Pharisees as well have put their traditions into their Mishna, which (as the tradition is) was delivered by word of mouth from God to Moses, from Moses to Joshuah, from Joshuah to the seventy, from them to the Church? And fourthly, my Adversary speaks this in favour of General Councils; does he not? If he does not, his discourse doth not well cohere, if he does, he does not consider, that for the two thousand years there was no general Council, nor for the first forty of the Christian Church. Nor much for the first three hundred years. And what consequence can be then drawn from his words against me for my denial of being obliged absolutely to Councils? If the Church were infallible, even without Councils, it would contradict me, who say, that the Church is not infallible, even by Councils: but since he says, now the Church is infallible by Councils, if it were infallible without Councils, it would contradict him, who says, it is infallible in and by Councils: because he placeth the infallibility in Councils, so as that he will not stand to any infallibility of the Church without them.  

Num. 7.  In the seventh Number he doth endeavour to free me from the fear of hypocrisy in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief. But his endeavour is not sufficient. To differ by my outward act of subscribing from my inward act of belief, is hypocrisy: but if I subscribe to that which I do not assent unto as true, I must differ by my outward act from my inward act: and therefore will it be hypocrisy. To the assumption he would now give me satisfaction, by persuading me that my inward act of assent may well go along with my outward act of subscribing. His reason is this, for any wise man may inwardly persuade himself, that although I, by my force of wit, cannot see how such a point defined by a whole General Council should be true; yet, if I have wit, I cannot but persuade myself, even according to humane wisdom, that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth, than my private judgement, and therefore rather to be interiorly embraced.  
Ans. And is this all he can say to move me to change my opinion? First he seems to suppose that we cannot see sufficient reason in all the determinations of a Council; and so far he speaks ingenuously, because it is a prejudice against himself. Secondly, there are so many doubts of a free general Council about the moral existence of it, that I had need of some Divine faith to believe, that such or such is a free General Council. And that there may be such scruples of such a Council he himself afterwards gives me intimation of. Thirdly, all this I can give you the free use of; for it will do me no harm. The discourse is peccant upon the ignorance of the Elench, for this is in terms reconcilable to our cause; yea, and also almost all that follows to the end of the number; for they do not prove a captivating of the soul into the obedience of faith, as the Apostle speaketh; but at most but a disposing of the mind of the person against opposition. As you do conclude, you conclude above your premises: as you should conclude from your premises before, you can conclude nothing against me. For fourthly, all that is said there makes no more than a probability of that to be right which is defined by the Council. For, put case it seems so to all in a generality, or to most, or to the wisest, and of them to all, or most of the wiser of them, this is but probable, according to Aristotle's account. And then I will deny it, that every Council is so qualified. If it were, this probability makes but a strong opinion, but not faith. And therefore the Romanist doth unadvisedly urge necessity of faith upon grounds infallible, before they can give us grounds infallible. And therefore fifthly, as for his Dilemma, it will not take. It is this: Either the places against the definitions of the Council are clear, or not: if not, they are more likely to hit upon the truth than I am: if clear and evident, than it is an evident and clear folly in me to think, that so wise an Assembly should have so universal a blindness, as that none of them should be able to discover that which is clear and evident even to my short sight; alas, how far comes this short of infallible satisfaction? And besides, how many may dissemble what they see? Who so blind as he that will not see? If the Chinites say, they only themselves see with both eyes; those of Europe with one eye; and the rest of the world with neither; surely those of Europe who will not see are blind of both eyes. The Council of Trent, according to them an Ecumenical Council, if they could see better things not clear, why did they not in all points declare, first what was to be held, and then what was to be anathametized? And if they were more like to see what is clear, how came they to abandon the use of the cup? Nay, how came they to establish a transubstantiation, seeing our Saviour after consecration said plainly, St. Mark the 14. the 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine? Was his blood the fruit of the Vine? But sixthly, to make use of his disjunction, places are either clear or not, namely, places of Scripture; if not clear, no absosolute necessity of a general Council, so as no salvation to be had without clearing the difficulty; if clear, what need then of a Council? we may be saved without some knowledge: we cannot believe without infallibility. Seventhly, let them reconcile this necessity of a Council to the say of Paul the fourth, who said he had absolute authority; that for himself he had no need of instruction, because he knew Christ did command; that he had no need of a Council, for he himself was above all; that he could remedy all inconveniences by his own authority; as is said of him in the History of Trent, the fifth book. And therefore my Adversary or the Pope is out. All he says here also for Councils makes no more than a moral assurance; which how much it is less than the certainty of faith, Mr. Knot will tell.  
Indeed he says, Again, I may, and aught to know, that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error, as I shall show, chap. 4. Yes surely; if this could be proved, there were no more to be said: this principle will beat down to the ground all opposition, which an humble soul can make. We confess it, when it is proved. But surely this is as much in question as any thing else. Until the supposition be grown into a proof, we have then yet but prudential Arguments to faith. And yet we say, secondly, if he would have been so wise as to have stated it with a judicious moderation thus, that we may and aught to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error, namely, as to destroy the foundation, that might have been better endured; but he hath granted that this will not serve his purpose, as Mr. Knot notes, he must have the Church secure from any error. These Catholics (as they call themselves) cannot speak under the form of universality; which is more easily contradicted. And we suspend our assent until the demonstration comes. We may not, nor aught to know this. We ought not, for we cannot. We cannot but by Scripture. For if they say we may know it by the Church, it is the question.  
Neither doth he prove our opposition of Councils in their most fundamental ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to sit as Judges, etc. 
Num. 8.   
For first, it doth not appear, that all Councils have supposed themselves to sit as Judges, with full commission to determine securely all controversies, if the term [security] be taken securely from all error. And if they have not so defined it, that they do so sit as Judges, or sit as Judges so, how shall we, according to my Adversaries principles, believe it, since we are to fetch all truth from the Church in a Council? And secondly, if all Councils did establish it a Principle, we yet expect a reason hereof; since neither Pope nor Council have absolute authority, nor both to together to bind our belief. Yea, thirdly, the Council of Nice did sit upon as good ground as any other Council: but the Council of Nice did examine all things by Scripture; so in the History of the Nicene Council prefixed in a Vatican Edition, it is said, Rebus itaque in utriusque partem jactatis, et ad certam Divinarum Scripturarum normam perpensis communi omnium suffragio Arrius et Eusebius damnantur. Things being discussed on both sides, and weighed and examined according to the certain rule of Divine Scriptures, by common consent Arrius and Eusebius are condemned. Therefore are not we to look for a Dictatorian sentence; but a rational determination out of Scripture: and if we find this, this doth oblige all Christians to conform to their definitions. But fourthly, we deny, that we are so obliged by such censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven. We are not obliged by them neither in themselves, nor because they were so held; nay, also we deny that they were so held to be ratified in Heaven, unless with this limitation, clavae non errante. Yea again, these do not oblige us to conform our judgement, their power respects the outward act. Yea again, if so. Honorius was rightly condemned in the sixth General Council, therefore was an Heretic; yea, and Pope Vigelius was an errand Heretic for defending the three chap. against the fifth Council. And the Romanists are bound to think the Condemnation just, or the Council to be null. And yet that Council thought itself sufficient in authority without and against the Pope; and therefore they all differed from my Adversary, who says the Council does not bind without the Pope's confirmation.  
He says further, others will tell you divers other opinions you have with Councils. But if he would have had me answer for myself, he must have told me the particulars. Generalia non pungunt, and they make no action. To distinguish infallibility from their authority, is no opposition, until infallibility be infallibly made good.  
And even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils, when you charge them with speaking contradictions.  
Ans. First, credit may be given in sensu diviso, to those that may possibly speak contradictions; if we mean by credit, a moral respect of humane faith: but if he means credit of faith Divine, I then grant it, that such credit is not to be given to them which may speak contradictions; for how are they then infallible, as they must be by my Adversary, if they ground faith? As was said of the Milisians, Non sunt stulti, sed possunt stulta facere; they are not fools, and yet can do foolish things: so a Council may be wise, and yet may speak foolish things: and I may give some credit to them in general for their wisdom; though it be possible for them to say that which includes a contradiction. Secondly, I may charge Councils with contradictions to one another, though not to themselves. For thirdly, I can charge the Council of Trent with contradictions to itself: and the Trent Council was a general Council, in the opinion of my Adversary; therefore that grace is voluntarily received, is their opinion; and that yet we cannot know whether we are in state of grace, includes a contradiction; as if we did not know our own will, what it does. This absurdity was urged by Catharinus in the Trent Council. Again (not to speak of some of them who had voted the Edition vulgar to be authentic, and yet did except against the interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for sin pardoned, in the History of the Council. p. 207) there is a contradiction noted by the Germane Divines in the sixth session, the seventh ch. Where it is said of justice, which every one receives according to his measure, quam Spiritus Sanctus partitur singulis prout vult, et secundum propriam cujusque dispositionem et cooperationem: Which the Holy Ghost doth impart as he will, and according to every one's disposition and cooperation.  
If according to his will, than not according to our disposition; for than it is not, as he will. And so in the thirteenth session, in the first ch. it is said of the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament, quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus; which although we can scarce express in words, and yet in the fourth ch. it is called of the Holy Catholic Church, Transubstantiation convenienter et proprie, appositely and properly. And in the second Canon of the same session, it saith of Transubstantiation, quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem apellat; which the Catholic Church calls most fitly Transubstantiation. Was the Council of Trent infallibly assisted, or assisted with infallibility in these contradictions? and yet it may be these not all.  

Num. 9  But number the ninth will make an end of our cause, if a Rodomontado of my Adversary could do the deed. Thus, And when you ask again, why you are charged as if you were opposed to the true Catholic Church? I answer, Christ had in all ages a true Catholic Church, and consequently he had such a Church when your Reformation, as you call it, began. But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and important points of Doctrine not only the Roman, but all other Churches upon earth. Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholic Church in very many and important points. And in plain English I tell you, this Argument which is in lawful form is unanswerable.  
Ans. So then. But is this Achilles? Is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Alas, if we come near him, it is but bombast. First, we deny it in the lawfulness of the form, which he asserts; for it is concluding in the second figure affirmatively, and in this regard only it is unanswerable: for it is not to be answered, for want of form. But yet secondly, lest they should think it is unanswerable in the matter, we answer to the major first, by distinguishing; if he takes the true Catholic Church, as in the Apostles Creed, he commits an equivocation; for so it cannot be taken in the minor; because we have in the minor the Roman Church and other Churches, now the Roman is a visible Church, he means, and so he means the other Churches to be visible; for we cannot properly oppose, he will think, any but visible Churches: but in the Creed is meant the Church invisible, which is the object of faith. If he takes it for the true Catholic Church visible, as always perspicuous and flourishing in visibility in all the parts of it, it is denied that the Church Catholic is so visible, and therefore we deny the major; and need not say any thing to the minor; and yet also we deny the minor, because, if it were not so visible, we could not be said to oppose it. And he cannot prove that we opposed all other Churches; because they were not in his sense, visible, and therefore how can he say, that we opposed all other Churches, since, if they were visible in the parts to some that were Neighbours, yet not visible to the world generally? Was the Church less the Church in the Primitive times, when it wanted candles to be seen in the night? or the seven thousand, which Elijah did not know of, less belonging to the Church of the Jews, because they did not openly profess the true Religion? How then can it be said rationally, that we opposed all Churches; for how could he or any one man under Heaven know all the Churches of the world then? Yea, thirdly, in how many and important points did the Reformers oppose the Greek Church; and the Waldenses, who as the Author of the History of the Trent Council says, had forsaken the Church of Rome then four hundred years before, in his fifth book. Yea, fourthly, the major proposition supposeth for all times and places: doth it not? for so the Catholic Church is properly taken, as including all times and places: and so we deny the minor: we did not oppose all Churches of all times. Dato non concesso, that we did at the Reformation oppose not only the Roman, but all other Churches, yet did we not oppose all Churches, or the Roman of the Primitive times: and therefore did we not oppose the Catholic Church. Yea, yet fifthly, we distinguish descent from opposition. Although opposition includes a difference, yet every difference doth not include an opposition, for then St. Cyprian had opposed the Church in differing from it upon the point of Rebaptization. And if it be said that the point of Rebaptization was not then defined by the Church: we say, that yet this consideration doth not make every difference to have in it the nature of opposition; for then, though St. Cyprian had not opposed the authority of a Church in a Council, yet had he opposed the authority of the Church; which then did bind him more than the Trent Council doth us. And that St. Cyprian did so oppose the Church, was not then held by the Church Catholic. Sixthly, to return the Argument upon them. Christ had in all ages a true Catholic Church, and consequently, he had such a Church when their deformation went on in the Trent Council, but they then in very many and important points of Doctrine did oppose all true Catholics; therefore without doubt they opposed the truly Catholic Church in very many and important points; as in communion under one kind; in Transubstantiation; in Purgatory; in the merit of works; in seven Sacraments of proper name; in invocation and religious worship of the Saints; in Images. Yea, the Roman Church hath more formally opposed the whole Church; because in the Trent Council it would have the Roman Church to be the Catholic; which supposeth that all Christians must strike sail to them, or else they are sunk. Seventhly, we tell him wherein the Romanist hath divided from the whole Church; but he doth not tell us particularly in what points we have divided from all Churches. Indeed it is the safest way not to come to particulars, for fear of discovery. In generalibus latet tot●s.  
But let us come up closely to him. Either the Fathers of the Primitive Church are on my Adversary's side in the points of difference, or ours; or have not expressed themselves sufficiently on either part: but the Fathers of the Primitive times are not on my Adversary's side. For there was none of those points which we have named held by them: and my Adversary did know that some of ours have confronted Campion's challenge about the Fathers, with another challenge to the Romanists, to show so much as one Father, one Doctor in the Primitive times that hath expressed himself for them in the points of difference. Then if they have expressed themselves, (and if not, we have not opposed them) they are on our side; because we are upon contradictions. Thus we see what is become of his unanswerable Argument. We see that we can differ from them without opposition to the Catholic Church, better than they can differ from us without opposition to the Catholic Church: because we in our difference from them have kept the Catholic faith, which they have warped from. And so that which is left behind in the number, will never come up to fight us to any purpose. For as for the Reformers opposing the Church, because they censured that which was proposed by the Papists, as opposite to the word of God, we take our Reformation from Scripture; and also we say, it is not necessary in points of difference to conclude, that what is by them urged, is opposite to the word of God. For it is enough to us to differ upon the negative to the word of God; since our principle is, that the Scripture is a sufficient rule of faith and practice. And therefore though a point proposed doth not oppose Scripture, as not being contradictory; yet we reject it from being any Article of faith, because it is not contained in Scripture: And thus, the negative authority of Scripture doth sufficiently conclude against any other article of faith than what is in it.  
And as for our not naming in this whole age, one age in this last thousand years, wherein Christ had a truly Catholic Church, agreeing with you in those many and most important points, wherein your Reformers taxed us to have opposed the Scriptures; This in effect hath been answered before; and hath not any thing materially new. But first, this is always an unreasonable demand; which goes upon a certain presumption of the Romanist, that the true Church must be always conspicuously visible; which is to be denied, and therefore it doth not follow, that because we cannot name any Church agreeing with us, therefore there was none. Secondly, if he means by a truly Catholic Church, one particular Church of the Catholic, those whom we have named did not agree with them in the most important points of difference, (as not in point of Discipline) nay, they have differed from them, and therefore have agreed with us in the questions betwixt us. And besides, if they mean a truly Catholic Church in this sense, as a part of the whole; then a particular Church it seems may be a Catholic, and a truly Catholic Church: and therefore have they no reason to vaunt of the title of Catholic given by the Ancients to the Church or Bishop of Rome; because other Churches may also be Catholic: and why then should the Pope usurp the title of universal Bishop over a particular Church? And if he means by a truly Catholic Church, the Catholic Church properly, than he doth imply a contradiction, that the Catholic Church, which includes all ages, should be limited to a thousand years. But thirdly, he did wisely stint the question for this thousand years, since he could not well go further, for the six hundred years before do show no disagreement to us in the most important points of difference. And let them assure themselves, that our agreement with the six hundred of the Primitive Church is more available for our defence, than the supposed disagreement with the thousand years after is available to the accusation. Fourthly, suppose no one Church could be named corresponding with us in most important points, for this thousand years; yet even in every age of the thousand years there might be (and some have) named several persons which have held the material points of difference betwixt us; and several of the Roman Communion have boar testimony to the truth; yea, even in the Trent Council; in so much that they have been complained of for bending to Protest●ntisme; as may be seen through the History of that Council. Fifthly, what Tyranny is this, to stifle and smother by their domination all other Churches, as much as they could, which were not of their faith, and then challenge us to show what Church agreed with us? Sixthly, Omne reducitur ad principium, as Aquinas' rule is, than we are to take a true Church from trial of Scripture: and we put it to this issue; All Catholic Churches agree with Scripture in the most important points of difference: we agree with Scripture, or Scripture with us in these points; therefore we agree with all Catholic Churches in these points; because we agree in tertio. Therefore if the Romanists differ, let them look to it. We differ from none but them in those points: and that we differ from them is their fault, and our security. If they had not left the Catholic, to be a singular plenipotentiary; we had not left Communion with them as a part of the whole; or rather they had not left our Communion. Delictum ambulat cum Capite.  
And as for that he says, And as for external division, you cannot name the Church upon earth from which you did not divide yourselves at your Reformation. We return it with the necessary changes; nor can they at their Deformation name the Church upon earth from which they did not divide themselves. And I challenge them to tell me, if they can, to what Church on earth then visible they did join themselves, or who acknowledged to be of their Communion?  
But first, as for external Communion, we say moreover, first, we divided not first Communion, but the Pope, when, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, he sent a Bill to prohibit his Subject's Communion with us. 2. We divided not from their Church simply, but so as corrupted and engaging us, upon communion with them to error and bad practice. We left the house as infected, with a mind of returning when it shall be clear and safe for us. Thirdly as before, we divided not from the Primitive times in point of Doctrine or Discipline: now then, suppose there was not at the Reformation any other Church unto which we might join; which is more agreeable to the duty and honour of a Church, to join with a corrupt Church in Doctrine and practice, or to leave their communion external and to follow the Primitive? If the person be to be esteemed by the Doctrine, not the Doctrine by the person, as Tertullian's rule is in his Praescrip. Then we may leave fellowship of persons for affinity with better Doctrine, if by the communion with the persons, we must also espouse the errors. Fourthly, as they have sunk their Patriarcate, and have arrogated an universality of domination (and so have divided from all the world, that they might reign over all) so we have resumed our ancient liberty of the British Church to subsist independently from them. Yea, this was acknowledged in effect by urban, when he called for Anselme in the Council at a plunge, Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam. And therefore, as to Communion upon subjections we are not bound; and as to fraternal Communion we are ready in mind, with any who are, or when they shall be found; since all the separation which was made by us, (if any made) was in our own defence. Fifthly, if Spalatensis and Erasmus were able to judge, many would have been of our Communion, durst they have been like those whom St. Cyprian speaks of, who were unconquerable; because they did not fear to die. And therefore, as Justin Martyr said of Plato, that he would as plainly have spoken for one God as Socrates, but that he was afraid of Socrates' death; so that he obscured his passages of Divinity, with other passages which did differ: so would many (besides those in the Trent Council) have spoken more freely for the Protestants, but for the Inquisition: and this hath made them blende good passages for us with some appearances against us. So then since we communicate with the first four General Councils in Doctrine, and with the Primitive times also in Discipline, this external division from you makes the quarrel; but as the case stood, no guilt; and therefore no danger. The Catholic Church hath the greatest promises; the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church. So then we may do well without their Communion, if we pray for them.  

Num. 10.  In the tenth number, he would wind himself off from the inconveniency of his own principle in the fourth page of the Treatise, True it is to submit exteriorly to temporal judges, they being able, and only to judge of the exterior man; but God who searcheth the reins and the heart, and who looketh most upon the mind (which is the seat of true or false belief) doth chief exact that those of his Church be of one faith interiorly, or else they are not of one faith: for faith essentially consisteth in the interior judgement, etc. Upon which words I did argue thus: We are bound to submit our judgement only to those who can judge of the inward act. But God only can judge our internal acts; therefore we must submit our assents only to him; and therefore to others no further than they speak according to him: so that we cannot absolutely adhere to whatsoever is said in Councils, which have erred, Jewish and Christian too.  
And now he says, I never said any such thing. He means, namely, that Councils cannot judge of the interior act. Nor do I say, that he did say so. But I took his principle, That God only searcheth the heart and reins, and looketh upon the mind, and exacteth that those of his Church be of one judgement interiorly, for my discourse. The Argument is out of its own position. And now, (if there had been need of his confession) he hath acknowledged the Assumption, that God only can judge of the internal act: for he denies this ability to Councils. And therefore it doth appear, that he is snarled: and that Councils cannot bind the internal act, because they cannot judge thereof.  
But now therefore he would evade thus. But God (in whose name the Church teacheth and commandeth all which she teacheth and commandeth) searcheth the heart and the reins. What then? Because they teach and command in God's name, therefore have they God's omniscience? If the Divine nature of Christ did not transfuse by communication of Ideoms a real property to the humane nature, of the Divine; shall they think to makes God's Court, which immediately obligeth in Conscience, to be theirs? They make God and the Council all one. As they have given to the Pope Christ's Chair: so they will give to the Council God's Tribunal. Whatsoever is taught in God's name hath not always for it, sic dicit Dominus, God's word pierceth the heart, as before, but every thing which is taught under God's name is not according to his word, as traditions. This is just such an Argument as that of the Pontificians to prove, that the Saints in Heaven see all things, because they see him who sees all things: Yes, and he that searcheth the hearts giveth them his authority, therefore they can bind in the intetiour act. Hath he given them this authority? Hath he given them this power? if they affirm it, it is high Blasphemy. If they deny it, the Argument of my Adversary to excuse himself, is a nullity. And my Argument is yet good against them, since his is no better than if I should say, because they see one who sees nothing, they see nothing. And therefore this did fully absolve the substance of the fourth page, or dissolve it; the Council may be assisted and yet not with omniscience, nor infallibility.  

Num. 11.  And therefore hath he no cause to say to me, but you skip to my admiration of your Doctrine. Let the judicious Reader judge which have skipped most; he that answereth punctually, or he that gives a treatise for an answer. I urged him pressely; and he answered me not so much as coldly, not at all. This was one skip for all.  
And then he goes on with repetitions of our Doctrine, and of his refutations of it before with references to the fourth chap. And then he tells me what shall be done in the next. But I should not hear of it until it be done. Laudari non potest nisi peractum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. this might have been skipped.  
Then he comes to say somewhat of St. Athanasius. As for St. Athanasius, did ever he oppose his judgement against the definitions of a lawful General Council? Nay, did it not appear by the Council of Nice, standing for his Doctrine, that he might well know, the true Church, lawfully assembled under the lawful Pastor, confirming their acts, would teach as he did.  
Ans. First, the whole argument is drawn but a singulari, and this will not conclude, if he did not oppose. Secondly, if it did conclude, it would not be contradictory; for we do not maintain opposition. Thirdly, though he did not oppose the Synod of Nice, yet doth it not follow presently, that he did not oppose it by reason of an infallibility, but because it was not deceived, as ruling itself by the word of God. Fourthly, St. Athanasius had the same opinion against the multitude, which the Nicene Council had, before the Council or after. If before also, than we see that one man is not to be controlled by a multitude; and therefore why are we upbraided in our Religion with the paucity of the Professors? If after, than we see that a Council is not an effectual means to put an end to all Controversies. Fifthly, he doth not advisedly put in these words, the lawful Pastor confirming their Acts. This is not discreetly applied to the Council of Nice; for, as to this, he was first deceived, in thinking we would swallow his supposition of the lawful Pastor in his sense of universality and singularity. We deny the Pope to be the lawful Pastor. Secondly, Liberius did subscribe S. Athanasius' banishment: and how shall we then take the confirmation of a Council from a Pope, when he subscribes against it? Thirdly, the Nicene Council was not confirmed by the Bishop of Rome more than by some other Bishop. Yea, as it was called By the Emperor Constantine, so was it confirmed by him. And therefore by my Adversary's principles, The authority of the Nicene Council should be but humane, because it had not its esse formale by the Pope. Yea, sixthly, neither is it necessary, that after the Nicene Council he should oppose a greater humane authority upon the authority of the Council, as if it had been more than humane: for he opposed the greater part before. Seventhly, he did not well consider what he said; for if he might oppose (upon his supposition) a greater humane authority; then, until they prove the authority of a Council to be Divine, so as infallibly assisted with infallibility, there may be a greater authority than of the Nicene Council; which is not true notwithstanding. And if he meant so, he opppsed a General Council more than I  
In the following words of this number, I was glad to find him so soberly defending the title of Roman Catholics. He says, To avoid this very strife, impertinent now to our purpose, I used that very name by which no others are excluded.  
This is ingeniously said, but he knew that the Romanists are wont to usurp this title. And I had good reason to take good notice of it, lest my silence should be misinterpreted. For some are wont to take advantage at what is said, and also at what is not said. But indeed doth he give up the title to the use of others also as not exclusive to them, neither in comprehension, (which would make a contradiction) nor in jurisdiction; then why do men contend so much for the Roman Church, as Mother and Mistress of all Churches? Why is added in their Creed to the Catholic Church the Roman? Why in the Trent Council was none accounted Catholics but them? Indeed also this is the wisest course, if the knot cannot be untied, to cut it off: so he, to avoid the proof of the appropriation of the title to them, hath denied the appropriation. But this confession I suppose the Priests of Rome would not well accept; for in very deed it goes near to the ruining of the cause. And this plainly contradicts himself in his own principles, thus; the Catholic Church is infallible: so he says still. The Roman Church is only infallible. So he said in the end of the former Treatise; then the Roman Church is only Catholic. Now he says he did not exclude other Churches: and yet no Church Catholic but the Roman.  
And in this impertinent strife you say many things, of which you prove not one. If such a put-off might be allowed to me, I might soon have done. I need not say much to what is said, because so little is said to any purpose. But he knew he was pinched by mention of the falsification of the Nicene Council about the superiority of the Bishop of Rome, and several other particulars, which needed no proof to an intelligent man, let the world judge, whether if any thing could be excepted against what I said solidly, my Adversary would have forborn the offering of it to consideration. And also to my former vindication of our Doctrine about the authority of Councils, which had four answers, he replies nothing but that of Athanasius, which might more happily have been left out.  
In the twelfth number he would refute me by noting a dangerous consequence flowing from the premises of our Doctrine, 
Num. 12.  his discourse is resolved into this Syllogism, Texts of Scripture are not able to decide all necessary controversies (unless as they send us to the Church) by themselves, as I shall show in my next ch. But I hold texts of Scripture only infallible. Therefore we shall never have an end of Controversies, unless we understand the texts of Scripture (which speak of Christ's promises to the Church) of assistance infallible: as St. Math. 28. ult. and others which we shall have an account of in the next ch. This is the sum of his ratiocination.  
Ans. We shall show the civility not to prevent the use and business of the next ch. but this reasoning will be valid no no where; it will not grow stronger by the next age. Therefore we say (not to repeat repetitions) that, as to the major proposition, we deny it upon our account of all necessary Controversies, although not upon his account. All things plainly necessary are so laid down in Scripture, as there needs be no controversy thereabouts. In things of question simple error doth not damn. But those who make no difference of belief by respect to object or use, but do take all upon the proposal of the Church, are apt to enlarge the number of things necessary, because, all upon that account are with equal necessity to be received. And yet, as hath been noted, they have no reason to multiply the number of necessary Controversies; for with them there is no necessity of believing any thing but this, that the Church is infallible. But than secondly, as to the major, if he mean by themselves so as the Scriptures should formally decide Controversies, he fights with his own shadow: for it doth not contradict, when we do not affirm: we say not that formally any Controversy is decided by texts of Scripture, but that in things plain there is no necessity of any such decision; and in many Controversies the Scripture doth as well in the principles decide it, as the Law doth differences civil. If he means by themselves therefore so, as that they do not decide them without sending us to the Church; we answer by distinguishing, that first in things plain there is no need of the judgement of the Church. In things of Controversy there is need of the Church; but not need of infallible determination. There is an ending of Controversies speculatively, when the judgement is resolved by infallible Scripture: there is an ending of Controversies practically, by authority of the Church, so as to bind the person against disturbance. Now the question betwixt us is of the former ending of Controversies which cannot be performed by the Church. And dare any man that soberly reads all the History of the Council of Trent, and observeth so long deliberations, so many interposals, so hot disputes, such changes, so many notable Contradictions of many of them, say, that all Controversies were there infallibly ended? As Tertullian to the Heathens, appello Conscientiam vestram; I appeal unto their Consciences when they are preparing for death, whether Cardinal, or Canonist, or Pope dare affirm it. This for the major.  
As to the assumption, I also may distinguish, if he takes texts of Scripture as principles in order to Conclusions, I hold them only infallible. If he takes texts of Scripture, as in terms, exclusively to Conclusions immediate, so I do not hold them only infallible, but also the Conclusions which do naturally descend by prime resultance from them. Now a Council may apply principles of Scripture which may resolve a question unto faith; but this is not done always and absolutely: and when it is done, it is done by virtue of Scripture. They do not determine things by Divine inspiration, but by humane disquisition, as was distinguished in the Trent Council; and therefore may they miss possibly in their discourse. Yea, to the assumption I also say, though I hold texts of Scripture only infallible; yet I only do not hold them so; but the Fathers, as before; the Nicene Doctors, as before; yea, and some in the Trent Council too, as we have noted. And again, if any thing else be infallible, than a Council; if a Council, then according to them, the Council of Trent; if the Council of Trent, why did they not determine of Bishops whether they were jure Divino or not? and why did they not determine of Residence, whether jure Divino or not? If they could not, how were they infallible? If they would not, how were they faithful? Again, If you be necessitated, as you say, to extend the texts of Christ's assistance to his Church unto infallibility, for the ending of controversies, otherwise we shall remain disputing without end, or possibility of end, and only for this, as he seems to mean, then there is no necessity at all. And the consequence is clear (without his absurdity) upon the former distinction; because plain things need not come into question; and points of question need not an infallible decision.  

Num. 13.  In the thirteenth number I have two things chief to consider; first, his charge of impertinency in my declaring the difficulty of assent by the unanimous consent of all the Fathers of all ages every where. Secondly, I am to consider his Apology for waving the authority of the Fathers in this debate. He asks me as to the first What connexion hath the perusal of every judgement of every Father of every age every where with that obligation which I put of following these Canons of Councils, which make to the decision of those most known Controversies about which we contend.  
Ans. First, there is a connexion of this discourse with the ground of that about which we are conversant, namely, the authority of the Church. For what authority can they produce for the distinction of the Church from no Church in any profession, or from a false Church, but the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church? What Council did make themselves by their own authority to be indeed Christians? the first Councils were not antecedent to Christianity, but Christianity to them. So then either the Church is distinguished by the consent of the Fathers, or by Scripture. If by Scripture, then is it the first principle and the last: and a primo ad ultimum, we have no more dependence upon the Church than from Scripture. If by the consent of the Fathers, than I spoke before to good purpose, though my Adversary said, it was nothing to our purpose. For the Councils we must be ruled by absolutely, as he supposeth, are the Councils of the Church, are they not? well then, if the Church be distinguished by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, (which I suppose they will not deny) then the discourse about the consent of the Fathers was not eccentrical to the point in hand. Let them remember the rule of Aquinas, Omne reducitur ad principium. Secondly, it bears connexion with the question about Councils per modum regulae, as the rule by which they go in their definitions. Either they went by Scripture, or by the consent of the Fathers. If they went by Scripture, then by my Adversaries opinion we must go that way: because we are to be infallibly directed by them. If by the joint consent of the Fathers, then surely our discourse was very proper and pertinent: or if they will not have the Father's consent to be considered so much as contradistinguished unto Scripture (because as the Legates and Precedents of the Trent Council said, the holy Fathers have no other grounds but Scripture) yet the consent of the Fathers is distinguished from the object upon which their consent is terminated. So then, as for the sense of Scripture, either the Councils went by the rule of the Father's joint interpretation or not: if by it, than we have our purpose of defending the reasonableness of our speech about the Fathers. If not, then by the common rules of understanding the sense of Scripture, and then why should we not go that way for our resolution which they go.  
So that my Adversary needed not to have given me an admonition of holding close to the matter. And yet I take that admonition very kindly, that my Adversaries might be obedient to their own law.  
That which he says, Is the judgement of every Father of every age the judgement of a General Council? is nothing. For though it be not the judgement of the Council in recto; yet I hope, it was in causa; not that they were determined by the judgement of one separately from the rest, but because it is supposed by my Adversaries, that they all agreed. If they say they did not, then let my Adversaries agree it as well as they can with the rest of their Church, who stand as much for our obedience to them, as to any other authority of the Church. And whether they hold the Fathers as Judges or as witnesses, it is all one to me; because I speak of their authority in general. So then, if the judgement of every Father of every age disjunctively or distributively be not the judgement of a general Council (which my Antagonists think unreasonable) yet conjunctively and complexively, I hope it is, or should be, according to their common principles. And if they lie at catch upon the ambiguity of the terms of every Father of every age, they commit a plain fallacy, in distribution and also are peccant in the ignorance of the Elench, for if they mean every Father of every age distributively, it doth not contradict me who speak of them in consent.  
And now shall I come to the second task, to hunt out the reason why he would not deal with me in this Controversy by the authority of the Fathers. He says thus.  
Since you bring the authority of Councils to a little more than nothing, and again the authority of the Fathers to a little less than nothing; in order to the ending of Controversies, this your violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning appeared possible; for it is evident out of your own words, that it is to no end to deal with you out of Fathers: and I am resolved to deal with no body but to some end. I will therefore humour you in this: and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the opinion of Fathers.  
Ans. Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem. My Adversary is so curious in this apology of his, that he is to be suspected. I gave no such occasion, but he takes it against the use of the Fathers in this point. I am not guilty, in any sober man's judgement, of any privative disrespect unto them. I do not bring the authority of the Fathers to a little less than nothing: what is due justly either to Councils or to Fathers I do willingly give. But because infallibility is not granted, therefore am I charged with disrespect. This is a fallacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that denies them this doth not deny unto them such reverence as is equal. And for the Fathers, I have not waved any testimony which hath been produced against our cause; I have not said, as he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea, I have used the same Argument against my Adversaries in triumphum. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he in his Rhetoric: but I have said nothing which is not conformable to the word of God, to the consent of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church: but because I will not make the word of the Fathers and of the Doctor's equal to the infallible word of God, therefore am I not reasonably accused of slighting the Fathers and Doctors of the ancient Church. But this was necessary for my Adversary, to colour his refusal of answering to those Fathers I brought against him, and to the answers which I gave to the testimonies of the Fathers which he brought against me. So difficulty is sometimes by Sophisters construed for impertinency. By this Argument I must say nothing proper but what may be easily answered. But it had been more ingenuous, first, to have exhibited solid authorities out of the Fathers of the Primitive antiquity; or at least to have given a sufficient answer to my refutation of what use he made of those he quoted against me; and then to have laid aside the urging of the Fathers upon my account of Refusal of them only as infallible Judges. To gather up then my exceptions against this part of his apology; I say first, I do not either in terms, or by consequence, bring Councils to a little more than nothing, nor the authority of the Fathers to little less than nothing, in order to the ending of Controversies. I allow them to be of great use in his terms, in order to the ending of Controversies. There may be an ordinability of them towards, or in order, to this end, without infallibility in them: they may find out and give us the infallible sense of Scripture; but we cannot take it so upon their word: their authority is moving but not cogent of our assent. Secondly, I except against those words wherein he imputes to me a violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers.  
This I deny. Neither in terms nor by discourse can they find such words or sense from me. I have used their own weapon against them. I have answered their objections from them. I renew the provocation and challenge which Bishop Jewel and others of our Divines have made to them, to show, if they can, any notable part, yea, any two, yea, any one of the ancient Fathers that clearly and constantly hath professed the points wherein we differ from them. And if the Fathers had been for them, why did they corrupt some passages of the Fathers which spoke against them; which they have not yet cleared themselves of? Yea, thirdly, whereas he says my refusal of the Fathers will give him leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning; I say (not insisting here upon the impropriety of a Treatise, if it be no more as to my satisfaction: or of the term, if it be more) that there had been room enough for all the Father's authorities he could produce for himself, and also for all that he could say to my answers about their testimonies, without Theremaking his Treatise so long, if he had left out impertinences, and references, and repetitions.  
Therefore hath my Adversary taken more liberty than I afforded him in his refusal of dealing with the Fathers: yet not more liberty than was necessary for him, lest he should be in necessity to answer what answers I made to his former testimonies of them; and also to what testimonies I have produced against him.  
And I find him wary lest I should make this advantage of his resolution to wave the Fathers. He would make it to be no design but a rational purpose, therefore he goes on.  
But do not think that I do this, as if what you here said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me, or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered, for you yourself cannot be ignorant that we allege plenty of the Fathers against you, as are confessed by yourselves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church.  
Ans. The rule is good, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And surely he is not damned that doth not believe, that all which is said by men on their own behalf is true. But secondly, they do not produce many testimonies of the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church; namely, not of the first 300 years; nay, nor of the first 600 years: others are Postnates and have not the honour of Primitive Antiquity: Yea, some they name as testimonies for them were not Fathers. And some works they cite for them which are falsely ascribed to true Fathers, as several of our Writers have demonstrated, even with the Confession of some of their Church. Thirdly, whereas he says [Do not think that I do this as if what you have said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me] he wrongs me with a fallacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he would have men believe that I spoke against the authority of the Fathers simply, because I spoke against their authority as absolutely convictive of the understanding in point of truth. And also, whereas he says it did not find credit with him, I am of his opinion: for certainly little is like to be believed by the Pontificians that is against them. But after this manner his Treatise might soon be answered; it finds not credit with me. One blot would serve for all the Treatise. Fourthly, what reason may this be called, the Pontificians use plenty of the Fathers against us; therefore he will not answer to my testimonies from them, nor to my answers to his testimonies against us. Do any of those Pontificians fully answer my testimonies, and do they sufficiently take off my answers? If they do, he should have told me which, and where. But were I as apt to brag as the Romans are I might not be far from crying victoria, that I should stand to answer the Fathers and bring them to stand for us (though my Adversary says, I bring them to less than nothing) and yet he that makes so much of them in show, should detract this way of plea by them.  
Whereas their small errors used presently to be discovered and cried down. This is not altogether true. For how many of their errors continued long: yea, great errors also, as the millenary opinion? And Infant Communion was not presently decreed neither. Therefore yet it remains to be proved, that any of the points of difference betwixt the Papists and us was a standing opinion of the Primitive times, which my Adversary would insinuate: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And it would make a learned man amazed to ask as you do, how few of them have touched upon our differences.  
Ans. There is no such cause of Amazement. Learned men in general wonder less, and learned men cannot wonder particularly at this, as knowing the reason, which was added by me, having not occasion by Adversaries: and therefore doth my Adversary wisely pass by any mention of the reason, as not being pertinent for his use. But also was that I said well guarded, first, how few, I did not say none. Secondly, I said touched, namely, as to handle, and this is necessary to be believed; because indeed there were few of them Argumentative: then though some of them might put out occasionally some expressions relating to our differences, yet is not this to touch argumentatively our differences; for, aliud agentis parva autoritas, as the rule is. And then thirdly, if many of them at least did not touch, so as to handle discursively all our differences, there is no cause of admiring my speech; for if they had handled some, not all, how should we have been directed in those which they had not handled? Now then let all be considered; then upon the whole matter let me say this, that if any Pontifician can prove, that many of them did handle argumentatively all the points of debate betwixt us, than I shall give leave for the amazement of my expression.  
Therefore as to the Authors he produceth of his side, who give account of the Fathers in our differences, as Coccius, Gualterus, the Author of the Progeny of the Catholics and Protestants, or any other named by any other; I say this, that he should have told me particulary where each of them doth produce any Father and in what point, and also should have showed in them, that many Fathers have all conjunctively spoken of the several points; and also that they have spoken of them directly on purpose where the seat of the matter was; and also, that not where they contradict what in one place they said, or at least, did not elsewhere speak doubtingly: otherwise he concludes not any thing of weight against me. And then secondly, I can return my Adversary number for number and weight for weight of our own, who have answered all the testimonies of the Fathers, which their learned Champions have produced, as Bishop Jewel, Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Reynolds, (besides Chamier of France) who have refuted the instances of the Fathers. Yea, the challenge of the first of them was never yet well answered as to the testimony of the Fathers. And thirdly, either the Fathers cannot be brought in with their suffrages for them, or they can: if they cannot, why doth Campian and others crack and brag of the Fathers? and then also my Adversaries Authors are disannulled. If they can, then either the Fathers speak contradictions, since we produce them as well for us, (and therefore cannot we be ruled by them) or else my Adversary needed not to have shifted the answering to them, but might have found other passages out of them to have commodiously reconciled the seeming variance. Yea, then either my Adversary had not such cause to rest infallibility in a Council, if all the Fathers of all ages agreed; or the consent of the Fathers might be a rule to the Council; and then my discourse of the Fathers had good conjunction with the Controversy about Councils.  
As for the Author of the Progeny of Catholics and Protestants, whom he brings in here, as handling a part all our main differences, and doth in all these points give us the very words of our own chief Doctors clearly acknowledging a great number of holy Fathers directly opposite to us in each one of these points.  
To this I answer, that it is possible some of our Church may not meet with right editions of the Fathers; might not discern their true works; might mistake the sense and application of some words, or not being able dexterously to reconcile their expressions to some other passages of the Fathers and to our opinions, might conclude them as opposite. If this Argument were good, then are they also bound to conclude the Fathers to be on our side, because Bellarmin produceth in his Disputations testimonies of the Fathers for us. Indeed he endeavours to answer those testimonies: but I dare affirm, that several of those testimonies which the Author hath produced from our own side of the Fathers, may as well be answered as some of those which Bellarmin answers. Thirdly, my Adversaries might have known also, that there is a book written by none of ours which is a Confutation of Papists by Papists: So then, if they will set our Divines against us, we can set their Divines against them; yea, also in several points were the testimonies of the Primitive Church urged against some of their points in the Trent Council by some of their Church. Fourthly, I have read Breerley through (it being commended to me by one who thought, I think, thereby to convince me in the case) and I can give no other account than as Mr. Chillingworth doth, that he hath not dealt exactly with the Confessions of those of our Church, as in the instance of some passages out of Mr. Hooker, as may be seen in Mr. Chillingworth, page 62. As also in a passage of Luther, as may be seen in Mr. Chilling. If the pages 79 and 92 be compared. And therefore have we no reason to be concluded against upon his word; yea, some of the authorities he bringeth do not respect the main points betwixt us: and as I remember, some authorities are not contradictory to our cause, and therefore was I rather confirmed by reading of that book. And therefore groundless is my Adversaries excuse for not meddling with the holy Fathers in this Controversy betwixt us. Though they did not professedly discuss and determine our questions (and therefore cannot their authority so much sway us) yet their expressions for us might weigh with our Adversaries; who so much boast of them at least, they might say somewhat to what answers have been made to their quotations of them. And if we must not make use of them, because we cannot account them infallible, than my Adversaries discourse might have been also well spared, for I am sure his discourse is not infallible.  
He having then dismissed the hearing of the Fathers sine die; he comes upon us thus. And indeed your Doctors would feign dispute out of Scripture only.  
Ans. If only be taken in order to the ultimate resolution of faith, we would indeed dispute out of Scripture only; because the Principles of Scripture are only to us infallible, but if only be taken exclusively to all use of the Fathers, we deny it. To show that our Doctrine is truly Divine, we prove it out of Scripture: to show that it is not new, we compare it with the say of the Fathers; yea, the judgement of the Fathers hath itself to faith as a rational dispositive; but not as an inerrable determinative, this Privilege we reserve to Scripture, which is to us the formal object and ground of Divine faith. And if they can show us sic dicit Dominus, for absolute credence to the Church, we have done.  
But he gives us his Crisis why we would feign dispute out of Scripture only. Because they find it to be true, that the Scriptures alone cannot decide many Controversies but by some Interpretation or other, they think themselves able to elude the force of Arguments drawn from Scripture only: the say which are not in Scripture are in no case receivable by them.  
Ans. Well guessed. Surely we have here a mere Cavil by a non causa: do not our Adversaries think that they are as cunning at interpretations as we? They are wont to brag of the brave Education and Learning: therefore likely they can tell how to elude an Interpretation as well as others, and there were those that told them they did do so in the Trent Council.— Catilina, Cethegum. And would not our Adversaries have all the dispute referred to the Church which they can order as they please as a Lesbian rule, either corrupting the stile or adultering the sense, as Tertullian said of the Heretics then, or prohibiting Authors against them to be read? Yea, what debates were there about the sense of the Decrees of the Council of Trent? Yea, some decrees were purposely put into such terms of ambiguity, that so the mind of the Council might be drawn into different senses according to the pleasure of the Litigants, as the Author of the History relates. Secondly, herein then appears our ingenuity, in that we dispute with you by that which is capable of other senses: whereas they would have us to be referred to the sense of the Church, which they think cannot be accommodated for us. Thirdly, we do not say, that no saying is receivable in any case by us but out of Scripture, but receivable equally upon necessity to salvation we still deny every saying: we receive sufficiently what is said by the Church in point of Discipline: and what is said in point of faith we receive with due reverence; not with absolute faith.  
And certainly we seem to give more respect to the Church than they do to Scripture, if all of them be like my Adversary; for so he goes on. Whereas indeed there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture, but either to make men sick or mad, as our Adversaries may daily see by their fruitless Scripture-Combates with the Anabaptists, the Sabbatharians, and other upstart Sectaries.  
Ans. Omne mendacium, quod de Deo dicunt, quodammodo genus est Idololatriae, as he said in his Prescriptions: and this which is falsely said of the word of God, is for the Idol of the Roman Church. The Scripture hath itself to the Church as the Emperor to the Pope in the Roman account: and as the Moon hath itself to the Sun, so hath the Emperor himself to the Pope; the Moon depends upon the Sun for light, the Emperor upon the Pope for authority; and the Scripture upon the Church for light and authority. But first, he argues from the denial of the act to the denial of the power; yea, from the denial of the effect to the denial of the power; because there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture, therefore, but our obligation to Scripture doth not follow from the effect, but from the institution. Secondly, as for those points which are necessary there needs be no disputing upon the texts. Thirdly, the unsuccesse follows from the perverseness of those who will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and have more mind to victory than verity. Fourthly, why had they then in the Trent Council the Bible in the midst of them? Why did the Divines urge Scripture? Yea, why did the Nicene Fathers determine the consubstantiality of the Son by Scripture? Yea, why did Tertullian combat with Martion out of Scripture in his de carne Christi, ch. 6. Si non probant quia nec scriptum est: and again, sed nihil de eo constat, quia Scriptura non exhibet: and again, ch. 7. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. And why did he proceed against Hermogenes by Scripture, in his 22. ch. against him, Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem: and again, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. But fifthly, if we should send the Sectaries to your Church for satisfaction, would this make an end of the differences? For the first question would be, how your Church was proved to be the infallible Church? The Scripture, all that do dispute out of it, do acknowledge to be the word of God: but all do not acknowledge your Church. Sixthly, if the Church could end so well all differences, why are so many questions undetermined, as about the Pope in relation to temporals, in relation to Councils: about predeterminations, about Immaculate Conception of the Virgin? Why are not these made an end of? Nay, seventhly, Heretics have combated with the authority of the Church, and many were not satisfied with the determinations of Trent. Therefore let them not prejudice Scripture by the obstinacy of Sectaries. Had not the Sectaries been set on and armed with their principles they might sooner have been over come: and if nothing should be made use of for our necessary direction but that which is convictive of all, my Adversary might in reason have sat still, or brought better Arguments. Sectaries are not apt to be ruled by the means of Scripture: but his mediums are not apt to rule me without it.  
But the Church of God is the King's High way by which a man is ever to travel to truth.  
Ans. I could smile at it, that Pontificians should use this expression, that the Church is the King's High way; when as some principles of some of the chief of them do dispose them as they think fit, to take Kings out of the way. But this by the way. Indeed their Church will lead us to Rome but not to truth. The universal Church will lead us sooner to truth than to Rome. But what way have we to lead us to this way? If the Church were the King's high way, how shall we know how to get into the road? If we had a mind to go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Father's sense, the middle way; we should make use of the universal Church to find that which is held to be Scripture; and then go in the way of Scripture, which is God's High way. And surely the Royal law is like to be the Royal way. And which is more reasonable, that the Scripture should be only a directory to the Church, or the Church a directory to Scripture: if the former, then when we know the Church, we may leave the direction of Scripture and bid it go back; for now we know th● way: and so the Scripture should not be necessary, which yet is held by the Papists generally, and elsewhere acknowledged b● my Adversary: if the latter, then is the Scripture the high way to truth. And therefore in the debate of truth the appeal lies from the Church to Scripture; not contrariwise. And so it must, for a distinct and perfect knowledge of the Church we must have from the Scripture, as before. So that that which is the rule of the rule must be the rule of that which is ruled, even in that wherein it is a rule. So then in the search of truth we must make the Scripture to be the way of our resolution, because by it we must know distinctly the Church. And not only so, in the search of this truth, which is the true Church: but in other truths too which are necessary; unless the Scripture should refer us to the Church absolutely for truth: which is not yet demonstrated. Therefore as to humane persuasion, we plead the Church; as to faith, we plead the Scripture. By the Church we come to know what goes for truth in it: but by Scripture we come to know, whether that which goes for truth be so indeed. In things of question and of discipline we are not stoical to the Church; but in business of faith we must be Sceptics notwithstanding; were there any need in such things to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Things of faith may prevent questions on either side; things of question require no faith by necessity of matter on either side.  
That he adds, since by that means (of Scripture only) either neither side will be victorious, or it is a hazard whether; is not necessary to be answered, since we have formerly shown the necessity of appealing to Scriptures and disputing out of them only (as to faith in things of faith) which my Adversary would deny me upon this ground, because this debate out of Scripture would not afford a certain and clear victory. And as for victory, we hope they intent it not. No body is to get the victory in these disputes: for they are undertaken for truth. And for what is necessary to be believed, we have in Scripture the plain truth, and what is not necessary, one may have that victory and not the truth; and so one may have the truth and not the victory. Let them show us truth and they shall not stay for the victory.  
That which follows in this Sexion is conveniently retorted, and more to my Adversary. These things he might have learned from the ancientest Fathers, as before, if he had regarded their Doctrine. Yet since their authority hath so low a place in his esteem in order to the finding out of truth, which is against them, he doth not lay aside all that might be said out of the Fathers to humour me, as he says, but upon some other good reason: methinks he should not so far spare his Adversary, if he did see him not to be well guarded on that part, But, it is like, the truth is, when they produce the Fathers for them, than we must be their Children absolutely, which is more than they would have us do: but when we produce the Fathers for us, than they will not be their children at all. They must have the Fathers come all the way to them: otherwise they have nothing to say to them. Surely we had more reason to refuse any dealing with the Fathers, because we cannot recognize them as infallible, than my Adversaries, who acknowledge them, when they please them, to be such. And if the consent of the Fathers be part of their principles they brag of, they are to stand to their own principles, when we dispute with them out of them; or else they betray them. We are not bound to stand to their principles, but they are bound by their own Laws, to answer to them.  
Therefore this declining of any return to what I say out of the Fathers, or to my answers to what he said, because I will not own them as unerrable, must be set down a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

Par. 14.  So the beginning of the fourteenth Par. wherein you say, I cut them off (by your own consent) all you say concerning St. Cyprian, and the Crisis of St. Austin concerning St. Cyprian, might have been spared. I have cut it off. I see he was ready to take all things for his advantage. If I had wholly refused to give any account to the testimonies of the Fathers brought against me, then though I had not given him a formal consent, it might have been thought on interpretative consent: but falsum prius. And therefore this is plain Sophistry in him.  
Yet I have a great mind, (ex abundanti) to tell you that St. Austin expressed exceedingly well, that Humility and Charity be those virtues which made St. Cyprian (and aught to make us submit to general Councils, as a prime point of our bounden duty.  
Ans. I take leave to say, that he hath skipped all my answers to the instance of St. Cyprian, but only this. And then I say, that I have also a great mind to differ from him as little as may be. If he takes to submit to General Councils, as controlling turbulent opposition, or in points of outward administration of the Church, I grant it: but if he takes it by an infallibility engaging faith, than I deny it. Those virtues are of use to the former submission, not to the latter. In the first sense of Submission Humility is dispositive; but not the actus Imperans, as he says of most submissive obedience. The actus Imperans of this external submission is an act of internal obedience to God, as commanding such obedience to the orders of those whom under pain of damnation we are bound to obey, but in things lawful and honest only. And no further are we obliged to obedience. Therefore whereas he speaks as if under pain of damnation we are bound to obey them universally it is not so. And it will not be Humility to obey them in all things reduplicatively, but Pride against God. Therefore the Apostles, who understand their duty, said, Acts 4, 19 Whether it be just to obey God or you, judge ye.  
But it may be a general Council cannot command any thing unlawful; so they say. No? They cannot de jure; but surely it is possible: were not the Apostles then commanded, after the Council had consulted, not to preach in the name of Jesus? And if they say the Council erred not in faith herein, but in point of action, we answer, first, they erred in the faith of a practical point: that practical dictamen, that such a command might be laid upon them, was erroneous. Secondly, they erred, ex consequenti, in this most fundamental point, that Jesus is the Christ. And therefore thirdly, they erred so far, as by their error they destroyed Christian Religion. Therefore infallibility doth not univocably belong to Councils: therefore may they err: therefore are we not absolutely to obey them: therefore Humility doth not dispose simply to an obedience of faith; such Humility is voluntary humility, and not a virtue.  
And the Devil's Rebellion he speaks of, for want of Humility, is not much to his purpose, though true: will this consequence be weighty, the Devil by Pride rebelled against God, therefore we by Humility would believe a Council in whatsoever they say? we are disputing now upon the obedience of belief, as he would have it: now the Devil did not rebel against God in point of disbelief, which respects the understanding; but in point of independency, which respects the will. The Devil's Rebellion was against God, as the Summum Bonum, not as the Summum Verum. For as to belief simple, if there were a proper obedience in it, they seem to believe still, and therefore to be obedient, if this were an obedience: because they are said to believe and tremble. And their Rebellion was a sin of malice; and this speaks a most free opposition of the will: but our unbelief of some things decreed in Councils, is necessary to the understanding as not seeing reason of assent; and therefore is it not to be charged upon want of Humility.  
Whereas then he says Pride is styled the Mother of Heresy, it is easily distinguished, that in Heresy there are two parts, the material part, which is, the holding of that which is contrary to an Article of faith; and the formal part, which is the obstinate opposing the Church in it. Pride is the Mother of the latter: but it is not absolutely the Mother of the former. For the Apostles did not disbelieve at first the Resurrection of Christ upon pride. And then St. Paul could not have excused himself in the persecution of the Church, that he did it by ignorance, and so there could be no simple error. So that what he says is not here pertinent: for we are now in dispute about the obedience of faith, in his sense; not about the obedience of peace. His argument concludes the latter rather than the former.  
And this he prompts me to in his next words, Now as Humility bringeth with her this necessary submission in the interior: so Charity is the virtue which will be sure to see that peace and unity be kept exteriorly in the Church.  
Ans. The former part is sufficiently evacuated, Humility and faith are not of the same Conjugation: faith historical (which we speak of) or dogmatical, is subjected in the understanding; Humility is a moral virtue. And a moral virtue cannot be a speculative principle. Neither are they always of a combination. For he that is humble is not always in the right opinion; and he that is proud is not always in the wrong opinion. And if Pride were but symptomatical to error, it would be ill for Rome. But for the latter part, that Charity will endeavour to keep peace and unity, is not like to be denied, yet we must see that our Charity and Unity be regular, we must not for Charity lose Truth; though in pursuance of Truth we must not lose Charity. We hold our own, and give good words of others. We would be one in judgement, and that is of Charity: but not by conforming to any in error; so we should forsake truth. However we will not differ in love; for we can love those that differ, and pray for them: and be ready to join with them when they will leave their error, or not enjoin it to us.  
Indeed the use of Councils is more respective to the formal part of heresy: and therefore we do formally satisfy them in reverence and peace; duly weighing what they decree, and decreeing to hold what is due. Grant no other submission; and urge no other submission to any Councils, and we have done.  
Here the first five lines do beg the question which we have been disputing of, 
Par. 15.  and if they did of themselves prove any thing, would prove more than that he speaks of, exterior unity. For if the Church did unerrably lead us into truth, as the King's High way, than we should have one judgement and persuasion, which would make interior unity. But though exterior unity, as he speaks, is not sufficient to his dispute, yet is it enough for the demand of the Church visible. The Church invisible (which, as such, hath a necessary connexion with salvation) consists of those who do agree as one in points proposed by God, because they are to be believed; and are ready to believe what is to be believed because proposed, when the proposal is clear. But the Church visible is contented with his exterior unity, which is not broken by private suspension of assent, for this exterior unity is sufficiently conserved, negatively, by a non opposition. Exterior unity is contradistinguished to interior, he provides for exterior unity, than he provides for that which is contradistinguished to faith. What then is become of the application of all his discourse to faith in Councils?  
But to let this pass. I see he doth not like my Syllogism for him. I put his matter in as good a form as it would bear in short and categorically: but he is not pleased with it; and therefore without further answer to it, he says, he will do it yet more clearly for himself in this manner: under pain of damnation all are bound to agree in this, that every one interiorly giveth an infallible assent to all such points as are necessary to be believed for salvation: but all can never be brought to agree in giving enteriourly this infallible assent to all such points, without they submit their assent to some living Judge endued with infallibility. Therefore all can never be brought to agree in that in which they are bound to agree under pain of damnation, without they all submit their interior assent to some living Judge endued with infallibility.  
This is his Syllogism. And an answer is expected to it, although he would give no answer to mine, which gave him a distinction able enough to save the text, he seems to build upon, from his impropriation of it. Yet we will give answer to his own form.  
And as to his major, we grant it, that whatsoever is necessary to salvation is so far necessary to be believed as it is enjoined unto salvation. And that proposition of his is clearer than his proof; for his reason doth not infer it, namely, because all are obliged to please God, and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God. 
Ebr.  For let the reason be put into form of an argument, and then let any one see whether it will be cogent thus: all are obliged to please God and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God; therefore his major is true, under pain of damnation all are bound to agree, etc. No, one and the other are true, but one is not proved to be true by the other: that axiom in the scope of it speaks of a faith as to that place only in this particular, that there is a God. And therefore doth not this text aptly prove a necessity of interior assent to all points necessary to be believed for salvation. It seems by the compendiousness of that text, that very few principles are necessary to be believed unto salvation, because (according to my Adversary) we may please God with the belief according to this text, which intends but that one main Principle, that there is a God, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. And so this will abate the plea of Mr. Cressy and of my Adversary, who contend, that there is a great number of things which are necessary to be believed under pain of damnation. And if he would extend that text virtually to a necessity of particular persuasion, that whatsoever we do is lawful (as if it should have the same sense with that of the Apostle, whatsoever is not of faith is sin) First, that is not the meaning of the text. And then secondly, so it would exceed his purpose, which is for points of faith: for so it would also have reference to things indifferent; unto which the other text is properly applied.  
Well, let us see his minor proved. He proveth it thus, An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority, and no other infallible authority sufficient to breed this agreement in their interior assent to all points necessary can be assigned but the authority of the Church. Well, the major of this Syllogism we grant: but first, how proves he the minor? (And yet we might also except against the form of it; for it should be thus for the minor, but there is no infallible authority but the Church; and yet so the form is not right neither; for the medium is not duly placed) But how proves he the minor? For this is yet to us the question: out of question he may prove what he will, if he can make the question proof. And therefore lest his minor should appear to be grossly false, (for he by and by acknowledgeth the Scriptures authority to be infallible) and lest that minor, as it should be form, should not fully infer the minor of his prosyllogism, he shuffles in in the minor of his last, more than should be.  
And let me now make use of his principles. Without faith it is impossible to please God. In all definitions of the Church I cannot have faith. Therefore in all definitions of the Church I cannot please God. The first proposition is Scripture, and a principle which he also useth. My second proposition I prove by his proof of his, thus. An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority. The Church is not yet proved to have infallible authority; therefore cannot we have infallible assent in the definitions of the Church, and by consequent, not faith; for faith is in the nature of it an infallible assent.  
Then towards the confirmation of his last minor, he comes over with the denial of this property to Scripture, The authority of Scripture, though infallible, doth not give us clear texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation, as I shall show in the next chap. This is begging of the question in the second chap. not in the third, if it be there proved, but here he affords me then that which is a positive minor to my last Syllogism against him; and completely it is made by his own principles now, infallible assent is not built but upon submission to an infallible authority. The Authority of Scripture is infallible. Therefore, Both his own propositions. Only the form of the discourse follows his.  
But notwithstanding its infallible authority, he says, It doth not give clear texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation. So that now all the question seems to be reduced to the debate about the clearness of the texts. He seems not to deny the texts in the subject, but denies them in the adjunct of clearness. Ans. First, if there be texts for all points necessary materially, then is that main opinion of the Papists about traditions sunk: for since they are said to come in upon way of supply of what is not set down at all in Scripture, and yet is necessary to be believed, then if all be set down in Scripture, but some things not clearly, then have we no need of any new matter of traditions, but only of traditive Interpretations, which what they are, and where they are, who can tell? Secondly, if he supposeth more points necessary to salvation than indeed are necessary, (as they are wont to do) then indeed the Scripture doth not afford clear texts for all things necessary in their opinion; yea, none at all for some of their opinions: but as to those things which are really necessary, so we deny it. The Scripture hath sufficient clearness for all things necessary upon due account. Thirdly, The Councils do give us no other sense of those texts which are not clear in themselves, than they are capable of: do they? No, he will say; for than they should not declare the sense of Scripture, but make it; which their greatest Doctors, when they are in their sober minds, do deny, then are we determined in the Controversies by those texts, and not by the authority of the Councils. The Councils do but rub the glass that we may see more clearly the sense, but it is the sense which decides the point. They do not make the way of truth, but show it, and therefore the Church is not the High way, but the Scripture. If they by their discussion and discourse add one degree of claritude to those texts, must the causality formal of the assent be attributed to their authority? They do but make clear the object; the assent of faith is not to the degree of clearness, but to the object cleared. Fourthly, what if some of the greatest Doctors do give all this power of explication of ambiguous Scripture to the Pope, and he constitutes the sense imperially, not expounds it rationally; and makes his authority antecedent to the sense, and not the sense antecedent to their definition; but ipso facto this must be the meaning thereof, because he saith so? Is this a clearing of the Scripture? Fifthly, it must be clear to me that the Councils have cleared the difficulty: otherwise I should deny my assent to the text, because it is not clear in the construction, and yet should give my assent to the Councils determination, and yet this not clear to me neither. Now then, if they will have us judge of the definition of the Council, that so we may determine our assent, (for we must by judgement conclude the Council clearly to determine the sense in question, or else we cannot give any due assent) why will they not allow us to judge also of the sense of Scripture, that so rationally we may believe it? Sixthly, as the clarity is wanting, (as I suppose he means) but to some texts, so also but to some persons; and therefore is there not an absolute need to all of this infallible Judge. Yea, how many took liberty to suspend their assents to the determinations of the Council of Trent: and yet they would have a Council to be binding to others? Seventhly, is the defect of the degree of claritude negative or privative? not privative; for that will charge God. And so that of Nilus will be true to be sure, he that accuseth the Scripture accuseth God: but if negative, it is no other than God thought fit for his word. And do we think that God would require, under pain of damnation, belief to his word, and yet not give unto it competent clearness respectively to the points of faith necessary to be believed? Eighthly, what then must we think, as towards their salvation, of all those ancient Christians for some centuries, wherein they had not a General Council? were they all lost? Or had they faith without a General Council? If the former, how do they say the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church? And why do they also not dis-acknowledge those times of the Church to have been the purest? And were so many of them Martyrs and yet lost? But if the latter, then also may we have faith without a General Council sufficiently to salvation. Ninthly, the senses of Scripture as to particular points were clear to the Fathers in the Council severally before they gave their suffrages on either part; were they not? If not, how came they to vote for that sense which was right? If so, than the product of the Councils definition is not it which clears the sense of the Scripture to them, and consequently not to us. Tenthly and lastly, if the Scripture doth not give us clear texts for all points necessary, and therefore we must stand to the authority of the Church; then also the Church shall not be it upon which we rely as a competent Judge; because the Church, even in a Council, doth not deliver the sense of Scripture so clearly as to end all controversies. And this manifestly appears by perusal of the Trent History, wherein it frequently occurs, that the Decrees and Canons were so framed as to give a liberty of divers senses for more satisfaction, and satisfaction to more.  
And this last account in this last particular doth make sufficient reply to what he speaks in the ten next following lines; wherein he objects to me the difference of those amongst us to proceed from our acknowledgement of Scripture to be the trial of faith. Surely he did not the same day consider the differences at home. It is not proper to object that which is common, we can retort it mutatis mutandis, And we see with our eyes those who submit to the authority of the Church as infallible, to disagree mainly in these very points, which the Synod hath spoken of: for one thinketh in his Conscience the Church is to be understood one way, another thinketh in his Conscience it is to be understood another way; and this other is licenced (interpretatively by the Synod) to differ even from the greatest authority upon earth, as the other thinks; because he thinks the Synod hath defined for him. And then he may easily have licence to differ from another private man, and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other. So our Adversaries incussion of our differences amongst us is patly repercussed upon them; and with more weight and edge too; because secondly, we holding a difference of points by the matter, are capable of more excuse for our disagreements in things not fundamental; than they, who holding all equally upon the proposal of the Church, must needs differ in that which is equally fundamental; because all that is defined by the Church is equally so. Yea, also he that errs in one point with the Papists, according to Mr. Knot's argument, hath faith in none. And one of them that differ about the sense of the Council must needs err, though it is undetermined which. And therefore thirdly, would not my Adversaries have been pleased with such an argument from me, The Pontificians do disagree, therefore their opinion is the cause thereof, and if that should be the cause, we should all disagree, and in all. Neither fourthly, do we licence any to differ, but they take their natural liberty to suspend assent till they see the word of God, as well as upon good reasons you move men to choose your Religion. And therefore, as to necessaries, Scripture is the possible means of Union in the interior man, in which faith only doth consist.  
And this Union we are to consider in order to Salvation; not the exterior union, which is not so necessary, though simply desirable. As far as truth will go, it must go with it, but not further. And yet this is now and then mingled in the discourse of my Adversary: and very politicly; because the Church hath more conjunction with an exterior union of peace, than an interior of faith.  
What you add of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture only is in this sense true, that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church, etc.  
Ans. Surely I do not owe, in ingenuity, any thanks to any Adversary of mine for this, that they seem thus to please themselves in a study how to make our opinion tolerable. If I do, I will soon be out of debt, as soon as I can say, that their opinion, about the Church to be the High way to truth, is so far true; because it was wont to send us to the Scripture for our rule of faith and manners; as hath been showed. Secondly, what Council ever determined the sense of that precept, go tell the Church to be understood of a Council as to bind absolutely to the belief of all that they propound? And if a Council had not defined this the sense, then how shall we know it to be the sense, by my Adversary; because he says, we must resolve our faith in the authority of a Council? and if it hath defined that the sense, how came they to have authority to define this to be the sense of the place? If not clear to this purpose, how came they to divine infallibly this sense? for the Scripture according to them did not appear to have this sense without a Council; then, who gave authority to the first Council to give this infallibly to be the sense? If clear, then have we no such necessity of an infallible Judge for umpiring of litigant senses, Thirdly, Tell it to the Church, ex vi authoritatis, as to teach: not ex vi infallibilitatis, in teaching: in regard of authority as to persons: not infallibility, as to truth. Representatively, in the office; not absolutely, in the matter. We are to hear them as authorized to teach: but not simply to believe them, as if they were assisted not to err. He that is appointed by Christ, and doth say that which is false, is not to be believed; because, if he says that which is true, it is not to be accounted true, because he says so, but he is to be accounted as to speak true, because it is so: yea, they may know that that text was applied by Christ as to censure in points of trespass, not to obedience in points of faith.  
Not that Scripture alone by herself endeth all our differences, etc.  
Ans. Who ever said so? Who is his Adversary? It were easy to have the victory without an Adversary, if possible. No; Nor the Church alone by herself. But we say also, the Scripture doth not formally end any, as they would have a living Judge; and yet is not deficient in necessaries; for by proposing plainly what is necessary, it concludes necessarily against the necessity of a living Judge infallible. What is necessary more than to believe that which is necessary? And therefore no need of traditions: and what more plain than that there is no need of an infallible Judge, as to salvation; since what is necessary is plainly delivered in Scripture? It is sufficient in the matter for necessaries: and it is clear enough in the manner, as to points of faith understood signanter. And would we be ruled by Scripture, there would be fewer Controversies in the Church, and of the Church. And were not their Church a party for itself, it would give all to Scripture. The interess of the Church hath brought in traditions, not for salvation, but for its authority. And the Scripture must not clearly have delivered all points necessary, because than what reputation would be given to the authority and magnificence of the Church?  
But we are invited much to the third chap. and expectation is raised, wherein he says, when I shall have fully set down the state of the question, you shall find all that you add in this place presently answered.  
Ans. This, he says, should be done before it be said. If he will prove, that we must err in point of salvation without obedience to their judge. If he will prove, that all error is damnative: and if he can prove, that their Church, or the Church hath not erred, yea, cannot err; then we will excuse him for repetitions in the third chap. for he cannot come off handsomely with answering in a third chap. what was said in a former, more fully, unless he says much more to what is said, than what he hath yet said. But we do not prejudice his Judge.   

CHAP. III Showing that since Scripture alone doth sufficiently propose all things necessary to salvation, there is no need of a living Judge infallible.  
HEre he says at first, 
Num. 1.  You deliver your opinion in your answer to my third Num. p. 12. thus. And then he tells me my opinion; of which he says, no proof was given by you until you came to this present place. For proof he hath had as much as could reasonably be required, and more, I suppose, than he desired. But I was to follow him: and therefore he was not to accuse me. And he might then have begun with the proof, if he would have made short work.  
He than prepares himself to reinforce the combat. And therefore he says, And first, I will take leave to state this question a little more fully and distinctly.  
Ans. He useth his own right, if he will state the question more fully and distinctly; and it is right to do so. All good discourse gins with a definition: and all regular disputes with the state of the question. And it will be a favour to me, if he does it well; for we shall have done the sooner. And so he ends his first number.  
Your assertion then is, 
Num. 2.  that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture.  
Ans. Yes, this is my assertion. And I am not ashamed of it yet: for it is not mine alone; but the Scriptur's; and St. Austin's, and others, as he hath heard before.  
In this assertion there be two things which needful, and distinct declaration; the first is to declare these words [necessary to salvation] the second to declare those words [plainly set down.]  
Ans. Content, let him be as good as his word, only let him take care he doth not, as some he knew, confound that which is to be distinguished, and distinguish that which is to be confounded. So let him turn his answering to what I said against his assertion into an opposition of mine.  
And first, concerning those words necessary to salvation, they must of necessity be understood so, that all things are plainly set down in Scripture, which are necessary, first, to the universal Church, as it is a Community. Secondly, all things necessary to all states and degrees that must needs be in this Community. Thirdly, all things necessary to every person bound to be of this Community.  
Ans. This way he thought to destroy my assertion, as Mr. Cressy does, to destroy the assertion of Mr. Chillingworth: but it will not do. For here is he faulty, in confounding that which is to be distinguished. He should have distinguished betwixt necessaries to salvation, and necessaries to the universal Church, as it is a Community: though all that is necessary to salvation is necessary to the Church taken confusely of the persons: yet whatsoever is necessary to the universal Church as a Community, is not necessary to salvation; for then before there was a competent aggregation in a Community, there was no possibility of salvation. And that Community is to be saved by the holding of things necessary, is it not? Yes, he would say, than this Community doth not come in to integrate things necessary to salvation: and if not, than those things which are necessary to this Community, doth not come in neither. Then he should have done well, secondly, to have distinguished betwixt a Church in its being, and in its well being. All things are not necessary to the being of a Church, which are requisite to the bene esse of it. Now salvation may be had in a Church which hath not its due well being. And thirdly, he might have distinguished betwixt necessity absolute and necessity of Convenience, with the Schoolmen. All things are not necessary in the first kind, which are necessary in the latter. Now we are upon necessaries in the first kind. And as to these, fewer things there are of this order. These things are confounded for their advantage. But also he seems to distinguish what is to be confounded; for he seems to make some things necessary for the universal Church, as a Community. Whereas more is not necessary to the universal Church upon the formality of a Community. This was touched before; but herein he doth distinguish where he should not distinguish.  
And thus by distinguishing what is not to be distinguished, and by confounding what is to be distinguished, he would confound me in the change of the state of the question. But this vain and captious. For the state of the question respects men in communi, not in a Community. Then secondly, suppose that the Scripture had not given us general directions concerning the constitution of the Church, and the Officers of it, and the power of those Officers, and obedience to that power in things of free observation in themselves, yet our assertion would be sound and good, that the Scripture doth set down plainly all things necessary to salvation. Some were saved before such a Community: some may be saved who are wrongfully put out of such a Community; and some may be saved after such a Community is obscured, and in the dark, as they confess the Church shall be in the time of Antichrist. But than thirdly, the Scripture hath sufficiently provided, and as much as is necessary to be sure, how the Church is to be provided in all times and places of lawful Pastors. And also what power the Pastors should have in respect of one another, or in respect to their particular flocks. And how those laws they make should bind without appointing how many should be assembled to this effect. And also who should call this Assembly, who preside in it, when there are Christian Magistrates; at least negatively, not the Pope, (who hath nothing to show for himself in Scripture) nor the Ancient Church. And also when it is to be accounted lawful, when unlawful. This is sufficiently determinable in Scripture by analogy to the Jewish Kings, and to the Assembly spoken of in the fifteenth of the Acts. As for the outward administration of these Assemblies will they say, it is de jure Divino? And as for the question, whether the Precepts of this Assembly oblige under pain of damnation, to the keeping of Feasts, or Fasts, or Eaves, we say first, it doth appear in Scripture, that obedience to lawful authority is due indefinitely and in general; when there is no real exception against the matter. And therefore by the Command of God are we bound in obedience to them, enjoining nothing but that which is lawful. But though they do bind under pain of damnation; yet is not this a point necessary to be known under pain of damnation. The question with us is not whether they do thus bind, but whether we cannot be saved without the knowledge whether they do thus bind. And if we may be saved without this knowledge, then is it not necessary to Salvation, that this should be determined. For though it be necessary for us to know that all sin is damnative (and this is sufficiently laid down in Scripture, as Rom. 6. last:) yet is it not necessary under pain of damnation that we should know every sin that is damnative; for than we should have no pardon for secret sins by general Repentance; and than who could be saved? And therefore though to every one that knows that this is a true proposition, that Precepts of the Assembly do bind under pain of damnation, it is necessary to exercise actual particular Repentance for those transgressions which he knows; yet to him that knows not the truth of this proposition it is not. And this is known to be a school question. And though they bind more than in case of scandal and of contempt, yet must their obligation mediate be understood to be qualified after the manner of the ceremonial law, not the moral; and therefore in competition with morals their binding is relaxed. Again, if it were necessary that those observations should be general, why did not the first Councils establish them? Yea, it seems, it was not necessary that all such observations should be universally practised: For then how came the Eastern and British Churches to differ from the Roman observation of Easter, notwithstanding their pretences of preeminence? Yea, one of the Ancients in application to the observing of Easther, which for the time he thought was free, gave this sentence, in Eusebius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the difference of fast commends the agreement of faith. And therefore my Adversary doth, amongst his Festivities he mentions, wisely conceal the mention of Easter, because he knew the differences from the Roman Church in that particular.  
And for the same form of public service, which ought to be imposed on all, and when all are bound to be present at it; would any one say, that considers what he says, that this is necessary to be, and to be known unto salvation? If he means to be imposed upon all, in the Catholic Church, what Scripture, or what Father, or what Council hath he for it? Indeed Ignatius in one of his Epistles, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this was spoken as to a particular Church. And some cannot come to Church; and may not they be saved? and some particular nations must have some particular passages which are common to all the parts of that nation and not to other nations. And do Canonical hours so bind, as, not to be where they are, or not to assist always, upon moral necessity, excludes de se from Heaven? When the time of Antichrist comes, according to them, surely their Canonical hours will not be in season; and yet they will say, salvation may be had in the Church. Whereas necessaries to salvation do not fall under a necessity to be dispensed with. And therefore if such observances are excusable by accidents, it is sure that they are not in our sense necessary. These are only juris positivi, as they distinguished in the Trent Council: but to be sure that which is necessary to salvation is juris Divini.  
But what Sacraments are to be administered the Scripture telleth us expressly. For time, it is not necessary to have it determined, nor how often; but for the essential form it is set down: the external manner is not simply necessary. Here he confounds cunningly, and mixeth somewhat necessary with somewhat not necessary. Neither doth he distinguish betwixt necessity of precept and necessity of mean, somewhat is necessary in the former way which is not necessary in the latter. And this latter is it with which we have to debate upon, in the right state of the question.  
All these things, he says, are necessary to a Church as a Community. To follow him again, we say, first, that we deny that all these things are absolutely necessary to a Church as a community: for several Churches have differed from one another in some of them; as in Fasts, and in the keeping of Easter, and in forms of Prayer: for as for the Liturgies they talk of, they are filii populi. Secondly, though necessary to a Church, yet not simply necessary to salvation. Thirdly, some of them may be necessary to a Church visible, not necessary to the Church as invisible: but he tampers about the change of the state of the question, to make what is necessary to salvation to be necessary to a Church as visible; and whatsoever is necessary to a Church as visible; to be necessary to salvation; which cannot be true. For as for that, that there is no salvation to be had out of the Church, (according to that of St. Cyprian, in his Tract. de simplicitate Prelatorum, Habere non potest Deum Patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet Matrem) yet this is to be understood of those that are desertors of the Church, as is to be seen there by the comparation of antecedents and consequents and the whole scope of the Tract. And therefore simply what is necessary to a Church visible is not necessary to salvation; because, without contradiction to the Father, it may be possible to have salvation without the Church. And therefore may I conclude that my Adversary did not well comply with his promise of stating this question a little more fully and distinctly.  
And yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture, whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians.  
Ans. All he says is not true. For the Sacraments are plainly enough set down in Scripture; for all that is therein essential and necessary. Then secondly, the Argument is not concluding, these things are not plainly set down in Scripture, therefore very many and very important differences amongst Christians. For first the unplainesse of them in Scripture is no efficient cause thereof; for they might in those things give every one their liberty in their particular Churches; as St. Cyprian doth plainly show us in his second B. first Ep. where having spoken of some who did hold those things which they did once take up, he speaks notwithstanding— sed, salvo inter Collegas pacis et Concordiae vinculo, quaedam propria quae apud se semel sunt usurpata, retinere; quae in re nec nos cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cum habeat in Ecclesiae administrationis voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisquae praepositus, rationem actus sui Domino redituras. So he: Therefore may they not all practise the same thing, and yet there be no moral difference: if negative differences, not positive contentions: if some, yet not many: if many, yet not important, in point of salvation, because each Bishop in his Church hath free power to establish what he thinks fit. And what General Council hath bound the universal Church in all these particularities? Yea, again, the unplainess of these things in Scripture is not the causa sine quae non of these differences: for there are differences with the Roman Church against others, even in some things which are plainly set down in Scripture: as in point of justification, against Images to be worshipped: against half Communion; and generally the differences betwixt us. And indeed what is there so plain about which some have not differed? And then again, how is this mended by a Council? Not by their Council of Trent; because in their Decrees the sense is not plain. Therefore let them find better provision than God hath made directly in Scripture, before they find fault with God's direction as to those things which are important unto salvation: for otherwise the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is beside the state of the question.  
Nextly, he objects the differences amongst us about Bishops with such and such a power and authority, and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons, and without these no true Sacraments, things so necessary to the salvation of all men.  
Ans. This is a question belonging rather to the Church than to salvation: and therefore we need not say any more to it. Yet secondly, the differences amongst us are for the most part stirred upon the occasion of the Bishop of Rome: and therefore the Pontificians have no cause to impute to us as a fault the disagreement of Protestants in this point; because it ariseth in great part from the domination of the Bishop of Rome. They thought by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they could never sufficiently gainsay the Roman Bishop but by cashiering the whole genus; and therefore to make all sure, they denied all Bishops; since the Argument is good a negatione generis ad negationem speciei; if no Bishop, than not universal. Indeed here they erred, if they thought that the position of Bishops did infer the universal: for it doth not follow a positione generis ad positionem speciei determinatae: and therefore they might have Bishops, and not him. Yea, the holding of Bishops by Divine right is as like a mean to destroy the Pope's authority as any other. And to this purpose was it so holty disputed in the Trent Council: and some lost their favour with the Pope for being eager in the affirmative. And in the promotion of Cardinals at the end of the Synod, the Pope professed he would pass by those who had stood for Residence and Bishops to be jure Divino. For this institution of them by Divine right made them not to depend upon the Pope, which would weaken his authority.  
And therefore as to the Controversy about Bishops, whether we derive them and their authority from Scripture, my Adversary might have done well to have said nothing: since if it be necessary to be determined clearly, than the Trent Council is to be blamed for not determining it. If it be not necessary, then why doth he put it in amongst necessary questions. To this therefore we say no more than thus, Had there not been Bishops there would not have been a Pope; (and therefore is this an argument that there were Bishops in the Ancient Church, for how otherwise could there have been a Bishop universal) so also had there not been a Pope, there would have been less contention about Bishops: as appears by this, that if Petrus Balma, who was the last Bishop of Geneva, would have turned Protestant, he might have continued Bishop.  
As for no true Sacraments without Priests and Deacons, we say, if he takes Priests in a proper sense, we deny that there is now any such to be; because there is now no real external sacrifice. If he takes it in the Analogical sense, we have no reason to doubt of true Priests; being rightly ordained. And for those who have not Bishops, some of them would have them, if it were in their power; as Bogerman said, in the Council of Dort, when that Government was commended to him, Domine nos non sumus adeo felices. And as for those who are ordained without Bishops (were this our case) we may be as sure they are true Ministers, as the Papists can assure themselves that they have true Priests; in respect of the uncertainties they are under of the due intention of the Priest in Baptism, and of the Bishop in Ordination.  
As to Deacons; they might have been left out of the rank with Priests as to true Sacraments, for it will not appear that Deacons are appointed jure Divino to assist the Ministers in the Sacraments; and if so, yet not to be necessary to true Sacraments, that they do assist, otherwise no true Sacraments. What shall this also with the Romans go into the account of articles of faith? And shall this be as necessary to be believed as that Jesus is the Christ?  
Sacraments, things so necessary to the salvation of all men. This we have spoken to before: and it comes in here under a simple diction, and not positively (as it may be interpteted) affirmed; or if [so necessary] be to be taken signanter, then is it more easily denied, as to all men. Our former distinction is yet good, necessary by necessity of precept, not by necessity of mean. Neither is the other Sacrament so necessary as that: and yet are they put together upon equal necessity. The Sacraments bind us, not God, to work only by them. And also are they administered as duly with us as elsewhere.  
Then he brings in a Syllogism against us out of my own words, What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary: but it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authority.  
Thus he would bring in some of those who differ from them, and us in this point, disputing against Bishops. But how would he conclude? Therefore not necessary to salvation? unless he concludes thus, it doth not contradict us in our debate. And if he does conclude so, he concludes beside their intention: for they would conclude no more than that they are not necessary to the Government of the Church: because it is not held by others, that this Government with such and such authority is simply necessary to salvation.  
But to the assumption, we say, dato, that the Government of the Church by Bishops with such and such power is not plainly set down in Scripture; yet let them show as much out of Scripture with the practice of the Church for the Bishop of Rome his being universal Bishop, as we can show out of Scripture for Bishops with some authority superior to Presbyters; and I shall think better of their cause. And therefore let them remember, Parvi sunt foris Arma nisi est Consilium domi. Let them make sure at home before they combat us with our own contentions. For secondly, as for such and such authority, if he takes it for the Mathematical point and indivisible degree, which the Bishop must have, of authority over the rest of the Clergy; who is there that so contends it, but the Roman? Some superiority in the latitude may be able to conserve the form: and this is more easily provable out of Scripture with the practice of the Church.  
But thirdly, since he hath brought the Antepiscoparians upon the stage to make sport for them; what will the Pontificians say, if this argument be in earnest brought against them, whatsoever is necessary is plainly set down in Scripture? Government by Bishops with such and such authority is not plainly set down in Scripture, therefore not necessary. The major proposition is yet true and good against all his batteries. The minor is to have their advice, whether they will affirm it or deny it; let them speak categorically: is it plainly set down or not? If it be plainly set down, than this instance is against them, if it be not plainly set down, than they have nothing plainly set down for the Bishop of Rome upon the former rule: if there be no Bishop plainly set down, than not the Bishop of Rome. This he gets by our contentions.  
As for the form of ordaining Priests or Presbyters, it is sufficiently set down, and we have it practised with us without the Patin and the Chalice: and that none but those who are Priests formally or eminently, as being more, should bless the bread and consecrate the Sacrament; this is clearly enough set down; and what kind of bread for the Sacrament, as much as is necessary, is set down. The Pontifician hath no reason, if he considers himself, to urge all particularities about the Sacraments, since he accounts them so necessary: would God pinch that which is necessary under so many contingences, which he doth not ordinarily provide against? Therefore either they are not necessary; and then why are they insisted in? Or if necessary; yet not in all the several circumstances: for then under how many accidentalities should salvation be included?  
He says then, he could add many more particulars to the former kind no less necessary to be decided. If no more necessary, it is not like to trouble us. Or if necessary, they should be decidable by plain Scripture. Yes, if necessary to salvation. And then your Doctors could not jar about them. This I deny, and he had better have taken our grant, that those of this sort are not plainly set down in Scripture, unless he had proved it more strongly than by our differences. It is possible to differ in plain things: but we need not. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, St. Mark the 6. 53. And again this is retorted. Many things might be named which were in the opinion of some Pontificians no less necessary to be decided, than the point of original sin, the immaculate conception of the Virgin, the point of Residence and of Bishops whether by Divine right; and yet are they not determined in the Trent Council: no nor those neither positively. But it may be they are not necessary: for if necessary they should be decidable by plain Decree of Council: and then the Doctors could not jar about them. But to give a further check to this unreasonable exacting of such particularities to be plainly decided by Scripture: let them consider generally how little was affirmatively defined and clearly in the Council of Trent. Yea, for further instance, are these severals which he hath pointed at more necessary to be decided than the point of Indulgences, which was the main point which occasioned the divisions of the Council consequently? And yet was not this sufficiently handled: yea, as the Author of the History says, the Protestants complained that the Synod had passed it over without clearing any doubt or deciding any Controversy. If they could not or would not, how shall we be bound under pain of damnation to take our infallible and certain guidance from them.  
But ecce iterum Crispinus— some of you will have no words at all necessary to the administration of Baptism, some will have such kinds of words, and others, words very different from them in substance. He makes our differences not only by occasion, but for aught I see by fiction also: for I know none that would have no words, or different in substance, or if they would; let them answer for themselves. The essential form of words as to Baptism is as plainly set down as can be by words in Scripture, in the 28 of St. Mat. 19 Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And if any differ from this form then my Adversaries argument was nought, whereby he would prove things not to be plainly set down; because there were differences about them; for what can be more plainly set down than the form of Baptism? and yet he talks of differences thereabout. In the third and fourth Paragr. he prosecutes the same impertinencies to the question in hand. And until he proves all the points he doth instance in to be such as are necessary to salvation in the same punctualities, I have nothing to do but to deny them to be such as without which in formalitatibus, there is no salvation. Vbi eadem ratio eadem lex. According to the proportion of their use is the proportion of their appointment in Scripture.  
As for such things as are of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church. It goes upon a false supposition, that what is of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church, should be of strict necessity to salvation: nothing is of strict necessity to salvation but that which is necessary to all unto salvation. Now it is not necessary to all unto salvation, to know what is of strict necessity to some certain men of certain states and degree. And secondly, little in reason can be said to be of strict necessity to some certain men of certain degrees and states in the Church; first, because many nations have diversified these usages, and secondly, because no general Council have descended to the binding of all absolutely thereunto, nay, indeed not to the proposing of them.  
And as for the form of ordaining Bishops in words or actions, the way in our Church is as full according to proportion in Scripture as any other, and our Bishops have been also Canonically ordained by three Bishops, notwithstanding the slanders against it: and let them prove, that what is in this case appointed in Councils is more necessary than what is done in our consecration, or else they do nothing.  
They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptise at all, or baptise in necessity only, and not out of it.  
Ans. First, it is plain in Scripture that no women did baptise. Secondly, that baptising and teaching are committed to the same persons, as before, St. Mat. 28.19, 20. Now women are forbidden to teach by St Paul, therefore may they not baptise. Thirdly, how can man's authority allow that which God hath restrained, so as to make it necessary to salvation that this allowance should be made, and also that all should know it? And fourthly, it is yet to be proved whether there be such absolute necessity of baptism, as to dispense herein in case of necessity, since St. Thomas was of opinion, as was urged in the Trent Council, that before Christ, children were saved by the faith of the Parents, and without the Sacrament; as it must be there meant, p. 239. of the History. I know some speak favourably in this point, not allowing it should so be done, but as not annulling it when done: but my Adversary should first have made the Substratum sound and good, namely, the absolute necessity to salvation. For if we should be ruled by St. Austin in this matter, than we should be ruled by him in all points: which they themselves will not stand to; for they withstand him in more particulars than we, as hath been noted by Mr. Chillingworth. And besides, his authority we might confront with Tertullian's.  
And whether they may permit women or Laymen to bless the bread and distribute the Sacrament, seeing that Christ said, do this all, not plainly expressing how far these his words extended themselves. Surely my Adversary intended me rather good measure, than good weight in such argumentations. St. Paul doth, one would think, determine this question, if any, in the first Ep. to the Cor. 4.1. Where he says of Ministers in general, that they are the Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God. And then is this their blessing or distributing, if it might be allowed, necessary to salvation? And for his argument, it is improperly produced; for it is spoken to them not as Officers of the Church in administering, but as members of the Church in receiving: and this might he have taken notice of if he would have quoted the text entirely: for it is said, Do this in remembrance of me, St. Luke. 22.19. This belongs to every one in the act of participation. And then again, as he leaves out fomething not for him, so he adds somewhat which should be for him, for he reads it do this all, whereas all is not in the Evangelists; nor in the first Ep. to the Cor. 11. Again, if it be uncertain whether our Saviour meant this for women and Laiques, do this all, then since by these words they would urge Christ's institution of the Sacrifice, Laymen and women should have the highest, or might have (if the Church pleased) the highest dignity in their account in the Church; and that is conficere corpus Christi. And then the story of Pope Joan should be accounted of by them as more tolerable. If she might do the office of a Priest, she might also do the office of a Pope.  
Whether lawful mission of Priests can be granted by Laymen or no. What? And must all we upon necessity of salvation know infallibly this, whether this Priest was sent by a Layman? though a Layman hath not, nor can have, any authority to send, and the Roman in this gives more liberty to Laymen than the Scripture or our Churches, yet is it necessary for every one to salvation to know whether such an one which doth the offices of a Minister is legally sent or not? Must every Layman examine his Commission? And our Saviors institution herein is our rule, who gave power to others by that authority which he had received from his Father, as St. Mat. 28.18. Authoritate mihi commissa, all authority is given me in Heaven and on earth, go ye therefore. Now Laymen have no authority, and therefore they cannot give any authority, according to the rule also.  
And what kind of ordination is necessary for their function, and what commission is necessary for their lawful missions, and also what power to make (that is to consecrate) and administer Sacraments; these are plainly enough set down in Scripture, if the Roman Church had not disturbed the clear waters for the chief Fisher; and if not, the Church by positive law cannot appoint that which is absolutely necessary to salvation. All things that are of Divine right are not simply necessary to salvation: to be sure than what is not of Divine but positive right, as the Romans have also distinguished, is not simply necessary.  
And therefore whereas he says, there are endless Controversies about them, I am of his opinion in my sense of the words; for they are to no end amongst those who have a sober mind to be directed in them by Scripture; at least they are to no end, as in order to our dispute; because they come not within compass of absolute necessity to salvation. It may be necessary to know how these are to be ordered, that they may be ordered rightly: but this is not absolutely necessary to salvation: yea again, if these things were left to the Church, we must take the order before the Councils: otherwise the Church before the time of Councils had wanted that which was necessary: and therefore indeed are they not necessary: or else God had been wanting to them in necessaries.  
A third sort of things necessary not plainly set down, as he thinks, we have in his fourth number. 
Num 4.  All being obliged to serve God in a true Church, etc. This is ambiguously delivered: either as in sensu composito, being in a true Church they are obliged to serve God in it; or are bound to find out the true Church, and then to serve God in it. Now though both belong to our duty, yet both are not equally necessary: because it is possible in that which is not a true Church (if so many things be necessary to a true Church as they would have) salvation may be had by simple ignorance and gerall repentance. And I hope some were saved before a Church, with all the integrants of a true Church, was framed. But in a true Church no man can be saved without serving of God. The Church of the Donatists was not accounted, by St. Austin nor my Adversary, a true Church, yet St. Austin did not deny but some might be saved in it. Now this is understood by my Adversary in the latter way, namely that every one is bound to find out the true Church and to serve God in it, for so it followeth.  
Having a lawful succession of true Pastors truly ordained themselves, and truly ordaining the Priests, who must be known to administer true Sacraments in their true matter and form, Preaching also the word of God by lawful mission.  
Ans. Now me thinks the Romans with their mountains should have relation to Montanus who fancied that the Paraclet did by privilege come into him, to make up what was wanting to salvation, by inspiration. For we must have infallible notes of a Church, which the word of God in Scripture hath not appointed to us. And we must have things necessary to salvation, which the Scripture hath not made necessary: yet they must be necessary to salvation, for their use. Certainly as he gives well the cognisance of a good man, so may we also make use of it for a good Christian, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we ought not to judge honest men by their performances but by their purpose: so we ought to esteem good Christians not by their happiness to find, but by their purpose to find out the true Church; which cannot reasonably be done by a lawful sucession. First, because this is accidental, not as to salvation only, but as to a true Church: and therefore can be no certain and universal rule: for how came the first Church, which was original to the Descendants, to be a true Church? yea secondly, how will the true Church be a true Church, according to their principles in the time of Antichrist, when there is not like to be, according to their profession, almost any face of a Church? How shall it then be discerned by a lawful succession of Pastors. Thirdly, this cannot be characteristical of the Roman Church (which they would have to be the only true Church) because the Greek Church may challenge this privilege also. Yea, fourthly, it is possible that a false Church may so fairly plead a lawful succession (as the Church of the Donatists who had also Bishops) as to those who should come a long while after them, that it could not be easily discerned by common people: and therefore this is not the way so plain and direct as that fools cannot err. Yea, fifthly, we are not to discern true Doctrine by the persons, but the persons by the Doctrine, according to Tertullian, as before: and therefore if true Doctrine be not proved by succession (as it cannot be, because than it should be measured by the person) we cannot conclude a true Church by the succession; since all sober men will rather argue thus; that is a true Church which professeth true Doctrine, than that Church professeth true Doctrine, because it hath a true succession of Pastors. Yea, sixthly, did my Adversary mean what he said of a particular Church, or of the universal Church? Not of a particular Church sure; for that cannot be the way and Judge of all Christians, as he intended: But then of the universal Catholic Church. Well then, he must mean that that is the true Catholic Church which hath a lawful succession of Pastors, namely, of Bishops of Rome, who is by them called signantly the Pastor of the Church: This must be his meaning in reason, because the lawful succession of Pastors in particular Churches is, by my Adversary, necessary for themselves; but not for the Catholic Church, which can consist without those parts which are not true (and therefore no parts.) And this is like to be his meaning by his opinion. So then the Roman Church he would have here by the premises to be the true Church, as being supposed to have a lawful succession of Pastors, namely, Bishops of Rome. But how shall we give up ourselves in absolute obedience to the guidance of the Roman Church, if this were an infallible and constitutive mark of the true Church, that it hath a lawful succession of Pastors? For no man can have so much as a moral certitude that there hath been in Rome from St. Peter an interrupted lawful succession of Pastors, much less can he have a Divine persuasion thereof. For first, it can never be proved by Scripture that St. Peter was at Rome. I do not deny it that he was ever there; but it is no object of faith. And the Romanists are shrewdly put to it for a proof, when, to prove it, they would interpret Babylon, from which St. Peter writes, to be Rome. But than Secondly, St. Peter should rather have derived the Privilege of universal jurisdiction and infallible direction to Antioch, as is abserved, where he sat first seven years, as Caranza sets it down, and where Christians had their name. Thirdly, it is a great question upon the supposition, who succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome, and Carranza cannot determine it. Fourthly, St. Peter was appointed rather for the Jews than for the Gentiles: and therefore the Trent Council in their comminations do very well to put St. Paul with St. Peter; for indeed St Paul was the Doctor of the Gentiles. Yea, fifthly, for six hundred years together there was no Pastors at Rome in their sense, not Pastor of the universal Church, as appears by Gregory's protestation against John of Constantinople, who would arrogate and usurp universal jurisdiction.  
And therefore there was not alwyes in the Church, in my Adversaries sense, a lawful succession of Pastors; because there was not Pastors in his sense: and so by his argument, there should not have been a Catholic Church for that time. Yea, Sixthly and lastly, how can we be ascertained, by certitude of faith, that there was ever a lawful succession of Bishops in Rome; because we are not certain, in that kind of certainty to be sure, nor indeed in any other, that the Popes were true Bishops or true Priests, or true Christians, because their principles bring it into question by the uncertainty of the qualifications of those who were to make them Christians by Baptism, or Priests by orders, or Bishops by consecration? And also secondly, because some, as it is known by History, have got into the sea by Simony; which makes it disputable even amongst themselves whether it did not ex vi Criminis make them no Bishops. And the thirtieth Canon of the Apostles (which they acknowledge as binding too) injoins, that such as get their dignity by money should be put out. Yea, thirdly, when there were Antipapes how could the Common people by assurance of faith know which was the right? For though they say, that he is to be accounted the right whom the Council doth accept; yet is it a question whether they can infallibly judge in the case; otherwise no certainty of faith. And then there is not always a Council; and how can the Council be called without a true Pope? If they may, then is not the Pope essential to the infallibility of the Church.  
This is answer enough to what he says about his lawful succession of true Pastors; that which appends hereunto is collaterally answered here; more particularly before.  
He goes on, It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and do some things, and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture.  
Ans. Not so necessary as it is not to beg the question so often. This proposition doth indeed plainly contradict our proposition, but doth not prove it to be false, unless it by itself did evidently appear to be true. Therefore it is enough for me to deny it, being the Respondent. But we see by the way, that those who make the Church its infallibility their first principle, are apt to make all it says to be as clear as the first principles of Sciences. He that believes, and does according to Scripture, is surer of salvation than all the Church can make him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Ignatius' phrase is, He that goes by the rule is safe; he that goes by Scripture in faith and obedience goes by the rule. Therefore, Now God hath proposed the Scripture as our rule, by Bellarmin's confession in the beginning of his Controversies, as before. And if it be not a complete rule, than indeed is it not a rule; for it comes short of a rule; and this will not serve Bellarmin's use; because than they whom he disputes against might have urged their revelations beside the rule, though not against it, as the Pontificians are pleased to distinguish. And as for point of faith, we have (besides what testimonies out of the Fathers for this I have given before) the plain authority of St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 4 Cat. p. 85. Edit. Gr. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concerning things Divine and the holy Mysteries of faith, there ought not to be delivered any thing without the Divine Scriptures. And therefore in another place he understands by traditions the sum of those things that were taken out of Scripture, as in the 5. Cat. p. 117. And so Tertullian in his Praes. cap. 13. His Regula fidei, is a sum of main points of Doctrine taken out of Scripture. And concerning this rule he says, Adversus Regulam nihil scire, omnia scire est. And so Irenaeus also means tradition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in several places.  
Indeed Tertullian, and Irenaeus, and Cyprian, and Basill, and Austin, are quoted by the Pontificians in the Trent Council, for holding that the Christian faith is contained partly in the Scriptures and partly in traditions. But for these Fathers (if their consent did ground infallible assent) are either misunderstood or else are contradictory to themselves? and therefore we cannot rely upon them; because one part of the contradiction must be false. As for St. Austin, I have formerly quoted him for holding, that all things necessary to faith and manners are amongst those things which are plainly contained in Scripture. And St. Basill I have produced too. And as for Cyprian, we will quote him for the other part, namely, of action (though we might also name him for Scripture to be the rule in things of faith; for he makes his proofs from Scripture.) In his second B. of Epistles, third Epistle, he hath these words, Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis Consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Wherein he opposeth the truth of God to whatsoever custom. And the truth of God he understands to be of the word written; for there he proves all about the Cup in the Sacrament to be mingled with Wine and Water, out of Scripture, which proves however he took Scripture to be our rule in Agents.  
Yea, also this point was agitated by Marinarus in the Trent Council: where he delivered his opinion, 
P. 151. z.  that the Fathers did not make Tradition to be equal to Scripture; and therefore was he reprehended in the Council by Cardinal Poole for not allowing, that Articles of faith are divided into two kinds: some published by writing: others commanded to be communicated by voice. And can any sober man imagine that God should by his spirit give order for the writing of the Mystery of the Gospel, and yet should also give order by his Spirit that somewhat should not be written, but kept in Mystery for oral tradition, and yet should be as much necessary as that which is written?— credat Judaeus.  
Every one is to believe some things distinctly. Now which these things be, or how many, Scriptures express not.  
Ans. Let this be taken for an antecedent: will it be concluced from hence, that therefore all things necessary are not plainly set down in Scripture? For though we have not the formal and material number of things distinctly to be believed: yet all that is distinctly to be believed may be plainly set down there. And therefore if we believe them, we believe sufficiently. Therefore if he takes the term, [distinctly] in this sense, that we must necessarily know, that this is one of the points necessary to be believed, we deny it, of every point that is necessary: although we may say so of some, as that Jesus is the Christ; because in Scripture salvation is denied any other way, as, Acts. 4.12. If he takes the term as signifying that some things are actually and explicitly to be believed, we grant it; but the consequence so is not valid. Secondly, this returns upon them, and therefore should they not have moved this stone. For where have they set down a list of all those things which by every of them are necessary to be believed distinctly in contradistinction to their implicit faith? And if they say, that they are ready distinctly to believe whatsoever is proposed by the Church: so we say, that we are also ready to believe whatsoever shall be sufficiently proposed out of Scripture. And sure we have as good cause for an implicit faith as to Scripture; as they have as to the Church. And if Mr. Knot's judgement be the sense of the Roman Church, there is but one fundamental point, of them actually and distinctly to be believed, in which are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation, in these words, we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholic visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God. If any be of another mind, all Catholics denounce him to be no Catholic. So he. And therefore why do they urge a particular and Inventory of all points distinctly to be believed, when they content themselves with one General? If the Church must be proved by Scripture, as formerly we have showed, and according to St. Austin, than one general comprehensive point might more reasonably be sufficient for us, and that is this, we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever plainly appears to be revealed by Almighty God in Scripture. But yet we do not content ourselves thus; for we say all points necessary are distinctly to be believed; and they may distinctly be believed, because they are plainly delivered; more plainly than the Decrees of Councils, at least the Trent Council. And he that says he is bound to believe all that is contained in Scripture, when clearly proposed to him as such, by consequent is ready to embrace all points necessary, because they are plainly delivered. Therefore indeed is our opinion more agreeable to a distinct account of what is to be expressly believed than theirs, because we make a distinction in point of credibility by the matter; saying, that some things are plainly proposed, because necessary to be believed, though all things are necessary to be believed when plainly proposed. The former sort whereof requires absolute belief; the latter conditionate to the competent appearance of them to be such as God hath showed to come from him by revelation.  
He proceeds. Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday. Every one is bound not to have two Wives at one time. Not also to marry within such or such a degree of Consanguinity. Where are all these things plainly set down in Scripture?  
Ans. Some things are neither de fide, nor de verbo fidei; as that the Bishop of Rome is the universal Bishop of the Church. Some things are de verbo fidei, yet not the fide, in propriety of phrase, as necessary in the matter; as namely historical truths, as that Jesus road to Jerusalem. Some things are de verbo fidei and de fide also, as that Jesus is the Christ, that whosoever believeth shall be saved. The question now betwixt us is of the last kind, whether Scripture with sufficient clearness sets down all those things which are de fide in this sense. So that my Adversary was to prove that these particulars are so necessary to be believed, that no man who doth not believe them distinctly can be saved. And while he saith so, that they are such, and doth not prove them, we need say no more than that he doth not prove them. Asserentis est probare. And I am not to answer unto words but Arguments. Yet secondly, these are sufficiently knowable by Scripture, the first by the equity of the fourth Commandment, and the intimations thereof in the new Testament. The second by God's own institution in state of innocency, and by the first Ep. to the Cor. 7.2. But for fornication, let every man have his own wife, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And yet if they will hold that this is one of the practic credibles in the foresaid necessity, they do endanger the condition of those Jews who had more wives. And also they will incur the danger of being engaged to answer for that Pope, who as before, gave liberty to take another wife. And for the third it is sufficiently declared, as to the necessity of knowledge and practice in Levit. 18. And if to the knowledge what is to be done in these we are so strictly obliged by the law of God, as that if we miss a degree we are damned, it must also be made as clear as whatsoever is necessary, that the law of God hath given unto the Pope a faculty and power of dispensing as to Marriages, within those degrees. If the law of God hath not made these cases of Marriage as plain as is necessary for those who are not so studious to know the utmost of their liberty, as to resolve a negative of practice upon any appearance to the contrary, than the law of God must as clearly, as to exclude doubt, show unto us that infallible directory, whereby we may come exactly to the knowledge of what is to be done herein. And if this can be made to appear, why is it not?  

Num. 5.  Other endless difficulties be superadded by those other words [plainly set down.] and first to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture, so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sense of it, I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted word of God, which as I shall show num. 20. cannot be known by Scripture. This we have taken away before so far as it concerns the present dispute: and we are like to meet with it again, it seems; and no sober Christian before he had proved an infallible Propounder of every truth to be believed, would have raised this scruple. But intellectus currit cum praxi, as the Romanist said, religion must be accommodated for their use. To this more upon the place.  
It cannot be known, at least by those who can truly swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers, for example, to discover in it any Divine light showing it to be true Scripture, more than they discover in the books of Judith and Tobit, showing them to be true Scripture.  
Ans. My Adversary here was very bold, to bring into equal compare the books of Judith and Tobit with the book of Numbers, one book of the Pentateuch, as to the Autopisty thereof. But the Jews who say that every letter of Scripture makes a mountain of sense, could see more in the book of Numbers than in those Apocryphal books. Therefore if we would resolve the acceptance of one and the refusal of the other into a reason of both, and ask why the Jew acknowledged the book of Numbers, not the other, we must find that the acceptance of the one and the disacceptance of the other cannot fall into the account of the Jewish Church its authority; because the question will rebound why the Jewish Church did authorise one and not the other. And therefore my Adversary gets nothing by this objection: for the Church cannot be the reason of the approbation of the one and the preterition of the other; because this difference made by the Church must be determined by a judicious act upon good cause. For do they dream that the Church hath an arbitrary power to receive one book, and to expunge another out of the Canon? Did they not excercise in it a judgement of discretion? Now he that discerns sees betwixt two, and sees cause why one should be taken the other left. Every elective act casts the balance upon more weight. And therefore must we not take the recension of books canonical from the power of the Church. And then again secondly, this avails not the Roman Church; because, if the discerning of books canonical did autocratorically depend upon the Church its declaration, yet as it is noted, not upon a particular Church, 〈◊〉 the universal Church for time and place. 〈…〉 the books of Tobit and Judith are 〈◊〉 numbered as Canonical amongst the rest by the Canon of the Apostles, as Caranza sets them out. And therefore, they saw nothing in them for their reception, and yet did in others. And if it belongs to the Church authoritatively to declare what books are Canonical; yet cannot the Church have authority to declare more than the Apostles constituted; if they take those Canons to be Canons of the Apostles: for otherwise they must challenge a power to the Church not only of declaring what is Canonical, but also of making it such; which is more than their great Doctors dare affirm. And if they will still plead those books Canonical, let them answer it to St. Jerom, and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and to the rest, whom they think not to have differed from the Church, and yet have differed from them in this. But those who will swear no difference, we may say, are not willing to see it.  
Secondly, they must infallibly show that this very verse in which I find this point is not thrust in amongst other true parts of Scripture, or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this verse, and this they must know infallibly.  
Ans. Again I must say, that we are upon the supposal of Scripture; and therefore this should not be called into question, which is the subject, but this for more tediousness must be brought in upon all occasions, or none. But for the uncorruptednes of the text, if they will not believe me, let them believe Bellarmin, as before, who denies any substantial corruption: but then again, we are as sure as they, for we have for it, all the authority the Church hath, if it be infallible, we have it. Again, the Scripture is corrupted, or not? If so, then by the Roman Church or by some other. Not by the Roman Church, they will say: then by some other is it corrupted? If by any other, than first, how well have they been keepers of Canonical truth? and how then shall we trust them? Secondly, if corrupted, then how do they know that those texts which are produced for them are not corrupted? If by the Church they know them not to be corrupted, this is the question, which is to be proved, and therefore cannot yet prove it. For as they say we cannot know the Scripture to be infallible by the Scripture: so neither can we know infallibly the Church to be infallible by the Church. Though it were infallible, yet this must be also known infallibly, according to my Adversaries argument. Indeed; if the word of God did leave witness to its infallibility, than we are satisfied: but, if the texts of Scripture be corrupted, how shall I be sure whether those they make use of be not corrupted? Therefore had they best for ever close their mouths against any corruption of Scripture; until they can sufficiently prove that the authority of the Church is principium primo primum in Divinity. For the testimony of the Church cannot exceed, of itself, its genus. It can make no more than an high opinion; which comes short of, and is too low for infallible assurance. But then moreover, this objection is retorted upon them. How can we be infallibly assured, that in the Decrees and Canons of Council there should be no corruption, that one thing is not thrust in, or somewhat left out; since we know that there was a falsification of the Nicene Council, as before? Since they have corrupted passages of the Fathers, as before? Since some words of the Decrees of the Council of Trent were changed after the vote, as appear in the History? So then in this respect, as in others, we may conclude, they have no reason to accuse our way of uncertainty: for we may be sure of this, that no way is so full of uncertainties as theirs. If the Scripture be true, they may be a Church; if false, they may be Heathens. What he says. Thirdly, after all this, etc. hath in it no such difficulty, as they imagine; for the words themselves (incorrupted) do show their own sense, as being for the things necessary, spoken in a plain and common acception. And also their Decrees and Canons, as before, are to be sure, more obnoxious to diversity of sense, because they were framed, at least some of them, for such a capacity. Neither; if some things be expressed figuratively, doth any such perplexity arise; because the figurative expression doth not oppose the literal sense so much as it doth sometimes illustrate it. And this kind of speech as to Sacraments, in regard of the relation betwixt the sign and the thing signified, is indeed natural and proper. Though the manner of speech be not proper simply; yet quoad hoc, as to Sacraments, it is proper. And my Adversary might have taken notice that St. Austin hath noted, as before, that things darkly set down in one place, are to be compared with other places where they are delivered more clearly.  
And therefore that which follows about the ambiguity in what sense we must take the words, if we go by Scripture only, might very well have been spared. For, as we do not argue in Divinity from texts mystically delivered, unless the mysticalnesse be rendered in Scripture: so we do not account those texts, which are ambiguous, to be such as to contain points necessary to salvation. Therefore is my Adversary very wide in this discourse, because it goeth upon a supposition, that every text is necessarily to be understood and infallibly in the sense thereof. This can be denied freely without any detriment to our cause.  
Might we not therefore smile at that which follows, as if we were bound infallibly to know the secret free will of God, for which we must have a revelation, or else our cause should be lost? What is this to the contradiction of us, unless we were either obliged to know infallibly all senses of all texts, or unless those texts, which contain points necessary were so doubtful in the sense thereof. We deny both. The Scripture is in the sense. And as to points necessary, the revelation is in the words? no need of a revelation of the sense after the revelation of the words, because the sense is revealed in the words. As if when our Saviour saith, This is eternal life to know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ, we must yet have an eternal labour to find out distinctly in what sense we must take plain necessary truths. As if when our Saviour commands us to repent and believe, we had need of another revelation or an infallible Judge to tell us in what sense we must take the words. As if when our Saviour says, that he hath revealed these things to babes, we must go to the Holy Father of Rome, and the Fathers of a Council for an uncontrollable exposition of these things. If then by the secret free will of God, God's purposes of binding us in our obedience; that, as to things necessary, is revealed in the terms. His voluntas signi, as they speak, as to these things necessary, is plainly delivered; and otherwise the expression were not good, if we needed another revelation of the sense. Indeed the voluntas bene placiti, as to his actions, that needs a revelation; but what is this to our purpose? The former will, how he would express himself, was free to him before he did reveal himself in such writings: but afterwards it was determined by the plain signification of the words, as to those matters of faith. And where do they find this revelation in Scripture, that we must go to the Church for a revelation of the sense of difficult texts? Yea, of those texts which concern the Church? How shall we know whether those texts be rightly interpreted, and know it infallibly? Not by the Church: For the question is of the Church. Not by a revelation made to particular persons: for than we might have a revelation of other texts in the sense of them. Therefore must they say they are plain. And if so, then so may other texts be, especially such as respect necessity to salvation.  
Therefore when we have tried all ways, as to faith we must centre in Scripture. And let them think upon that of Christ to St. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
What he says Fourthly, I have little to say to. The authorities of Sanctius and Sharpius, which he produceth, are more for my advantage than his. For my Adversary confesseth, that learned Sanctius confesseth, that holy Scripture in those things which are necessary, is clear. Secondly, as for the nineteen rules which he gives, as necessary to the knowledge thereof; this may respect other texts of Scripture which do not contemn necessary points. Thirdly, if those rules be intended as to the knowledge of what is necessary to salvation, (and not to the knowledge of Scripture in general) yet the difficulty must not be great even by those rules: for how then can Scripture be clear, as to things necessary? Yea, also St. Austin gives rules for the understanding of Scripture, and yet holds, that Scripture, as to faith and manners, plainly delivers things necessary, as before. Neither is it necessary for our cause to exclude the use of means for the understanding of Scripture even in things necessary. It is sufficient to us, that by the use of means, those texts are so plain as that we have no need of an external infallible Judge. But we can admit with Sharpius the means he names, to know original Languages, to discuss the words, Phrases and Ebraisms, to confer the places which are like and unlike to one another; as to the understanding of Scripture, de communi; and they are necessary: but he cannot mean these rules to be necessary for the understanding of every truth in Scripture. And therefore, if his authority were sufficient, yet cannot this he says be effectual to prove a necessity of all these means, as to the finding out of the sense of those texts wherein necessary truths are laid down. That Jesus is the Christ; that whosoever believeth shall be saved; that there is a necessity of good works, are truths so plain, as he that cannot use those means, may plainly discern: and therefore need we not the help of those rules, as to produce infallibility. To be even then with my Adversary for these authorities we may also urge as the Arch Bishop of Collen, who as before reform his Church by the rule of Scripture, so also the Cardinal of Rochester, who in the Trent Council said, It was better to take for our ground the Scripture, whence true Theology is taken; than the subtleties of Philosophy which the Schools have used. Hist. Trent Counc. Pag. 197. 8. And add hereunto the uncertainties of the sense of a Council, as appears by contest of Soto and Viga, Hist. Tr. Counc. 216.  
As for the saying of that so much esteemed Chillingworth, which he adds, fifthly, namely, no more certain sign that a point is not evident, than when honest & understanding and indifferent men, & such as give themselves liberty of judgement after mature consideration of the matter, do differ about. Unto which he subsumes, About how many points do you and your Brethren differ, which I have in this chap. shown to be points mainly necessary to salvation, which according to this rule of knowing what is evident, what not, are evidently not set down plainly in Scripture? What comes this to, but a confusion? For Mr. Chillingworth gives us the Maxim, and my Adversary makes the assumption upon presumption, that he hath proved many things to be differed about which he saith he hath showed to be necessary to salvation. By Mr. Chillingworth's rule those points should not be necessary, because we differ about them. But my Adversary would fain prove, it may be, that Mr. Chillingworth's rule is false. If it be false, how can he use it against me? If it be not false, than it concludes more against him, however, till he proves our differences to be about necessaries, his discourse hath neither form; nor truth, upon his part.  
Some twelve lines of this number he employs in repetitions, and references to the fourth chap. His repetitions have been answered in the matter, his References are referred to their place.  

Num. 6.  That which follows concerning texts which he thinks are for him, that the very reading of them showeth them to be no less plain and clear to this purpose than those places which you cry out to be evident for the proof of every point which is necessary to salvation, me thinks doth somewhat enterfair upon what he had said before, that we could not understand God's free will how to mean his own words without a revelation. For now those texts, which they fancy for them, by the very reading of them, show themselves to be as clear as those which we cry out to be so evident; we say so plain. So then some degree of clearness there may be in words without a revelation of the sense; since God hath no mental reservation. And if they grant some clearness, as it is necessary they must for those texts which concern the Church, then surely there may be more than they grant. Secondly, will they say, that those texts, they urge for the Church, are as clear for the Roman Church in point of infallibility, as this proposition is, whosoever believes shall be saved? Dare they say it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? We can prove the contrary by their own argument; that about which there is more difference is not so clear: there is more difference about the texts for the Church; therefore those not so clear. Therefore also let them no more object our differences: for our differences from them prove well that their way is not plain, and their differences amongst themselves prove better that their way is not plain. And our differences amongst ourselves do prove only that those points wherein we differ are not plain; but do not prove that those points that are necessary are not plain; because in them we do not or need not to differ. Thirdly, are those texts for them no more plain than our texts for things necessary to salvation? If not, then where is the ground of their infallibility. For the texts are not clear for it: are they? If they be, than our texts for necessaries to salvation are, I hope, as clear, then what need of a Judge infallible? And why then do they not as well believe the points necessary to salvation upon account of Scripture as they do the point of infallibility? Well, but our texts being not clear sufficiently of themselves, the authority of the Church adds clearness: doth it? Yea, but this is more improperly affirmed, if they do say so, than they think of: for the judgement of the Church is more influxive into the clearness of it as to us, than their authority. They first see the sense of the texts, before they do declare it by their authority. For if this be the sense because they declare it so, and they do not declare it to be the sense, because they see it discussively to be the sense; then God, inspiring the Penmen of Scripture intended but the words of Scripture, and that the Church should give us the soul, the sense, the Kernel of Scripture. And why then did the Trent Council make Scriptures the chief rule, as they say, of their proceed, if they did not determine of points and actions by their discerning the mind of God in the Scripture, as to those particulars? So then also, if their discerning of the sense of Scripture was substrated to their definitions, than the Scripture is discernible in the sense to us also. Fourthly, if those texts, he names, be no clearer than those we say which are necessary to salvation; then let them never endeavour by Scripture to persuade any to their Religion. For if the texts be no clearer for the Church, than points in Scripture are, as to necessity of salvation, then surely the Argument is equal on both sides; and then there is by Scripture no necessity clear of an infallible Judge.  
But he prefers his texts in clearness to ours in the following words. And I am sure you can bring no such evident texts for all, yea, or for any of these points which I have already said in this ch. not to be evidently set down in Scripture though they be of prime necessity, as others also which I will by and by add. The use of this to me is this, to say that the same was said before, yet also we can note that he should have preferred the clearness of those texts for the Church before the clearness of those points which we confess to be necessary to salvation; but he prefers it before those which we either deny or question to be necessary. If any one should say this were a Sophister's trick, I could not tell how to deny it. And yet also further we say, if those texts which are for the Church are so plain, than a fortiori, those texts which are for points necessary must be more plain; and my reason is this, because these are necessary for the being of a Member of the Church invisible, those for the Church, only necessary for the being of a Member of the Church visible. Now there is a greater necessity of the former than there is of the latter: for as before, it is possible to be saved without the finding of a regular visible Church; but it is not possible for any to be saved who is not a Member of the invisible. Yea, again he doth not speak according to the mind of Mr. Knot, in saying texts for the Church are so evident, for one of the qualities of the object of faith, should be, 
Ch. 6. against Dr. Pots.  according to him, that it is obscure; that so it may be capable of the obedience of faith. But to end this, we only note more the slavery of the Romanist; in that he is bound to be so disingenuous as to hold the texts of Scripture to be so clear only for the Church, which they interpret the Roman. But also herein they do not differ from all other sects, which they so much upbraid, that texts for them are clear, if any other. And we have the benefit of it (whom he takes to be a Sect) till he shows the Contrary. But the Scripture doth far more clearly set down a Command to go to the Church for our full instruction. So St. Paul was taught all things necessary for his knowledge by those few words. (Acts the 9.6.) Go into the City, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.  
Ans. And have they no better Arguments, St. Paul was commanded to go into the City, and there it should be told him what he must do; therefore we must go to the City of Rome and there we shall know all things necessary to salvation. So then. As the Cardinal Richlieu was flattered by a great servant of his, that God needed not to have extended his Providence to the lower world; but he might have left that to the Governance of the Cardinal: so God needed not to have indicted by his Spirit any more of Scripture than only to lead us infallibly to the Church. Go to the City of Rome, and there it will be told us what must be done, in order to life everlasting. Christ might have laid aside the care of his Church; & might have devolved that to his Vicar. If we would say any thing to such a reasoning, we might say, first, he should have showed us as fair a warrant for going to the City of Rome, as St. Paul had to go to the City. Secondly, he was sent into the City to know what was to be done; not known: for St. Paul denies to have had his Doctrine from man. Gal. 1.11, 12. Thirdly, this direction he was to have from Ananias, was rather in order to his Function than to his salvation. Fourthly, Ananias was extroardinarily inspired and endued with a power of Miracles for the restitution of his sight. But is the Pope thus? Can he give the Holy Ghost, as Ananias did; Indeed he may ordain; but can he give the Holy Ghost as Ananias did? At least, can he give sight? he can sooner take it away. If we being blind should take the guidance of such a Prophet, he would lead us into Samaria, and not set bread before us.  
Indeed Pope Anacletus (according to Carranza) tells us in the end of his first Epistle, that the Apostles did establish this by the Command of our Lord and Saviour, that greater and more difficult questions should be referred to the Apostolic sea, upon which Christ did build his universal Church (universam Ecclesiam) when he said tu es Petrus, etc. But when these Epistles are proved genuine; and then binding in his own cause, and when the Pope (who hath the same power) shall have determined the difficult question (which Carranza puts off) betwixt St. Jerom and others, whether Anacletus was predecessor to Clement; and when it shall be made good that Christ gave to St. Peter universal power over the universal Church, and not only power over every Church, as to the rest of the Apostles (as it was distinguished in the Trent Council) and when they shall have answered St. Cyprian, who says the Church was founded, not super Petrum, but super Petram, voce Domini; in the 8. Ep. of the 1. b. then we may be in greater necessity to say more to this instance  
That all might see this City of the Church, he placed it on a mountain, whence all necessary points are delivered from a living Oracle speaking so distinctly, that no doubt can remain of the true sense; or, if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance, this doubt will presently be cleared by some new declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastors and Doctors, which God gave us (as the Scripture saith) that we should not be children wawavering and carried about with the wind of false Doctrine with circumvention of error, We have put all in for weight: we shall answer now distinctly. First, as to the mountain; we must know what mountain this is upon which the City of the Church was built. Whether the mount Gerezzin, or whether is mount ebal, how shall we know? And which are the Samaritans and which the Hierosolymitans, how shall we discern? We must yet wander upon the Mountains to know which mountain is the right. Each will claim the Privilege of a living Oracle. Therefore if we were to take our resolves of all necessary points from the Church, we were yet to seek which is the true Church. And so the prime necessary would be uncertain, namely, which should be our infallible Propounder and Resolver of all necessary points. How shall we resolve this capital and cardinal Controversy which is the right Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches? Yea, the question is yet to be agitated and determined infallibly whether there is to be any such, it is not yet proved, but my Adversary here seems to suppose it. Well; give it, not grant it in the thesis, that there is such a Church. How shall it be made beyond all question, that this or this is the Church for the Hypothesis? Whether Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Allexandria, or Constantinople, or Rome is the City of that Church how shall we be ascertained infallibly? Must the City be built upon a hill in the letter? Then indeed there might be some discovery: and yet more Cities are so built, and therefore no certainty. And Rome hath too many hills to be a topical argument that it is the seat of Christ: seven hills are rather topical for Antichrist, as in the revelation. Secondly, if the Church be as fast to a place as the Heathen gods to their Temples, must the Church by virtue of the place always have the same privileges in the zenith? So than if the Roman Church was so faithful, as that for a time, they did flow to it for direction in doubtful cases; must it always be as the Oracular Virgin? Will Cassander believe it that Cassandra was always so clear in her Oracles? What says Lycophron?  
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And thirdly, may we not as well take God's direction, to go to the Scripture? Is not the word of God an Oracle? Let him speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4.11. Were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.2.? To them were committed the Oracles of God. Have we not a general command, to the Law and to the Testimony? If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, Es. 8.20. There is light in the Law and the Testimony always: but there is not always light in them that would direct without or beside them. But the word they will say is not a living Oracle, But the word is an Oracle, and it is a living word, as before in the Hebrews. And the living God speaks to us in this written Oracle. And therefore until we see in this written Oracle, that we have and are bound to a living Oracle, my Adversary says nothing. Thirdly, we deny, that his living Oracle supposed speaks so distinctly; that no doubt can remain of the true sense. This is sufficiently declared before in the Ambiguous decrees of the Council of Trent. So that indeed their living Oracle speaks after the old sort of the Heathen Oracles, as Loxias did, so as to preserve truth in one sense or other. Each party thought that the Oracle spoke for him. As he to Ulysses— Aut erit aut non they are within one of a true prophecy, yea, these Roman Oracles have a true sense in them, but we know not which. Well then also; as for necessary points we say fourthly, as before, that we have no need of a living Oracle, because the Scripture speaks so plainly and so distinctly, that no doubt can justly remain of the true sense. And what needs more, as to salvation? Yea also it speaks plainly, and so distinctly unto many other profitable points, as that no doubt can remain of the true sense. And fifthly, whereas they say, or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance, etc. this new piece takes off from the old, and makes the rent worse: for if the living Oracle speaks so distinctly, that no doubt can remain of the true sense, then what need of any further provision for doubts emergents, as if they durst not trust their own principles. And again, if they can assoil all doubts that shall arise; why do they not? why, since the Trent Council, hath there been no other to explain the sense of the former in several particulars? that which was never done and yet would be of such use is morally reputed for an impossibility; as St. Jerom disputed against the Pelagians. This would prove wilful ignorance in the Church Representative. And therefore cannot we be obliged to follow it absolutely: for it seems sometimes it will not lead us. And if they say that we may well be saved without the infallible dejudication of the sense of perplexed terms; why do they then include in the case a thing of importance? Yea, and also we can then by their allowance say, we may be safely ignorant of some points which are not of importance to salvation: and therefore are in a capacity good enough to give the negative to a Judge infallible.  
Nay, sixthly, neither can the doubt be presently cleared by some new Declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastors and Doctors. Not presently, first, because a Council must be called which the Roman Church will be well advi- of before, and if it costs them as much time to consider of it and to dispatch it as the Trent Council, this presently will not come within forty years, and more. And if he says the present Pope can presently deliver the sense, and notify it authentically; then why says he it may be done by Pastors and Doctors? Why doth he speak in the number of plurality to the prejudice of the one Authoritative Pastor? Well, it may be, he means Pastors and Doctors, in common, can authentically notify us the sense; then private Doctors may be authentic, which spoils all; and is contrary to Jesuit and Roman Catholics (as they call themselves) in general: and to his own opinion, who placeth all authority and infallibility in a Council confirmed by the Pope. For we are bound they say, to the sense of the Decrees: then if private Doctors and Pastors can authentically notify us the sense, then are we bound to them. Yea, and also why may not then our private Pastors and Doctors declare to us the sense of doubtful texts, as well as theirs; and then why an infallible Judge? Yea, can private Pastors and Doctors authentically notify us the sense; and not the infallible Judge? If he can, why doth he not? If he will not, how shall we take him for our Guide? They have determined the words of their definitions, but have either not determined or determined not to determine the acception and sense: but that must be left for Pastors and Doctors.  
And therefore seventhly and lastly, he had better have not have produced these passages in reference to those texts. For God gave us Pastors and Doctors; than not only one Pastor of the Church, as the high Romanist accounts; who makes all others to be as his Curates in all the universal Church. Why then doth one arrogate that which in common is assigned to more? Calvin in his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus, thinks it unreasonable, that the name of Bishop, which is common to many, should be appropriated to one, though he denies not there the superiority of one to the rest of the Clergy: and my Adversary would have the action of a Pastor authentical to be common to many, whereas the title others would have proper to one, and to be given to the rest but analogically. This text then by my Adversaries exposition derogates from the ordinary and universal Pastor, because it alloweth his privilege to many. But then again, he commits a fallacy of division, in attributing the end to a part which is applied to the whole: for it is said there, And he gave some Apostles; some Prophets; some Evangelists; some Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, the work of the Ministry. They are all given complexively for that end, and he takes it distributively and of the last. As if all faith were to be resolved into the dictates of Pastors and Teachers whereas the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone, Eph. 2.20. Yea, and again, there is to be made a difference between the Pastors and Doctors then and now, there having been then better gifts given to them than now, and they having been then nearer the fountain of Evangelicall truth than now: and therefore though the office is continued, it is not necessary, that when the Christian Church hath been so long settled, there should be such perfection in the successors. Distingue tempora, as the rule is.  
His seventh number might well have been spared: 
Num. 7.  for he seems to charge me with not doing what in the eight number he says I go about to do. Only whereas he says for me, that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation: the terms may admit a distinction. If he takes the terms all alone so as to be understood contradistinctly to an infallible Judge, so we stand to them, if he takes them so as to exclude all use of Pastors and Doctors, so are not we bound to them, we can in our opinion exclude the infallible Judge without exclusion to the direction of Pastors and Teachers; which although not exempted from possibility of error, yet may also be consulted even in texts sufficiently plain. Besides, as he states the point for us, that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation, we can easily subscribe unto, upon another distinction, which we, have in metaphysic about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the unapprehensivenesse of them doth more proceed from the weakness of the faculty, than the nature of the things themselves: so the Scriptures by themselves alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary; although we were not able to perceive infallibly the sense of them. All things necessary yet are infallibly taught there; and therefore this serves to the evacuation of their verbum non scriptum; because that this is not pretended for the clearing of Scripture, but for the supply of matter defective.  

Num. 8.  To come now to the discussion of the texts. And first, you press the second time that of St. Paul to Tim. 2.15, 16. And here he says, Take for my first Answer that which I gave you when you first alleged this place, ch. 1. num. 13. And you must pardon me if I say that which he had said before. But how can I take it for full satisfaction, that before, I am referred to the third chap. and here we are sent back again to the place from whence he came, This, if we might say so, is plain bo peep. He hath my answer there which is yet good. The Scriptures thus Profaned and by such interpretations truly discanoned (as I may say) are rather subject to that effect which St. Paul's Epistles (according to St. Peter) had with some men, i. e. they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters.  
But what is this to us? And yet will they say, because men are subject to deprave the Scripture, therefore is Scripture subject to be depraved? And after the same manner that the Scriptures may be discanoned by such interpretations, so may also the Decrees of the Councils, if men have a greater reverence of the Decrees and Canons of Councils than of the Holy Scriptures. And if Scripture be discanoned by a false sense, than Scripture is canoned by a true; and so then by giving a true sense of Scripture, the Church should make Scripture; which yet is denied by the learnedst Pontificians. And also if we must put upon Scripture the corruptions of men, as he doth by a fallacy of accident, then have we less reason to esteem of Scripture by the authority of men.  
Whereby the way you are again to take notice, etc. unto it was then true. To that which he says here we answer again, (since he will have it so) that the act of wresting Scripture is damnative, not by the error of the understanding, but by the perverseness of the will; whatsoever the matter of that Scripture be, whether necessary or not. And he does well to conclude for us, Consequently these places did not (according to your Doctrine) contain points necessary to salvation, namely, because they were hard. It is right, yet not because they were wrested they did not contain points necessary: for points necessary may possibly also be wrested: but rather because they were hard to be understood. Points hard to be understood are more like to be wrested, than points wrested hard to be understood. And the perdition follows not upon the ignorance of the things not necessary, but upon the depravation of the texts. And therefore our allowance of some liberty of Interpretations even in hard points, may not easily prove damnable. First, the liberty is not so much allowed as necessary. Secondly, the liberty is not damnable, but the abuse. Thirdly, the allowance is not so much to hard points, but things plain, where the Lamb may wade. Fourthly, it is necessary that the people should know that which is necessary to be known: it is accidental that they should misinterpret the text which doth not contain that which is necessary. Now shall he be deprived of that which is necessary, upon a contingent inconvenience; which also, if he hath a sober mind, cannot betid him? Felix periculum in necessariis. Sapiens non curate de accidentalibus.  
It was then true which I told you in another place, that though the Scripture be a most right rule. yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied, that we stand in need of a better security of the Interpretation of it (in which the very kernel of the letter doth consist) than we have of the Interpretation (finally stood unto) made by the private judgement of our own discretion.  
Ans. My Adversary, by his fallacy of accident, is falling upon another question, namely, this, whether it be not dangerous to let men have the free use of Scripture: which although it seems to conclude for him, yet doth not punctually conclude against me in the particular point of Controversy, namely, whether the Srcipture doth plainly deliver things necessary. As it is said by some, that some Hares when they are hotly hunted will squart before another hare, to put the Hunters upon a new chase: so he would start as it were another question to put me off from the prosecution of the right question. But secondly, we will follow this also: and we say that he here grants as much as which extensively concludes against him. For if the Scripture be a most right rule, as he confesseth, then are we to be ruled by it. Let me ask, why did God give us this most right rule? what, to be laid aside, because by some it is crookedly applied? Is this a good consequence? Because the authority of the Church hath been urged by Heretics; therefore we should not urge the Authority of the Church. Because the Gospel doth harm to some by their corruption, therefore we should not have it preached. Because Dudithius, the Bishop of five Churches, said of the Trent Council, that the Holy Ghost had nothing to do with the Council, and that he was carried in a Carriers Portmantle to Trent, and that the Spirit of God which moved upon the waters could not come to Trent, because the waters were up; therefore we must not make use of Councils for the ending of Controversies. Such consequences his argumentation affords; let them own these, or retract their reasoning. Thirdly, where shall we have a better security of the Interpretation of it? Let them first secure a better security of the Interpretation of it. It is true, if the Interpretation of a Council be compared with the Interpretation of a private judgement, it is probable that the Interpretation of a Council should be better, but the question is, whether we can have security for faith by the Interpretation of a Council. This we deny, since Councils may possibly err in the Interpretations of some texts; and particularly the Trent Council did err in some Interpretations, as some of the Divines therein have signified. And then fourthly, he doth freely or inconsiderately mistake our cause in the allowances we give to the private judgement of discretion: for we do not say that we should finally stand to our private Interpretation, either as to determine others thereby, or to prefer our own Interpretation before that public judgement of a Council; but this we say, that the sense of Scripture cannot be obtruded to us as to believe it upon their account, unless we see good reason out of Scripture for it. The private judgement of discretion hath not itself in this case, as in a contrary competition to the Council; but hath itself negatively, and is upon the suspense, till it sees God's word for it.  
But he knew my answer, as it seems. I know your answer is, that it is accidental to this rule to be misapplied, and this cannot infringe the authority of Scripture. Yes, this was in substance my answer before. But now it will not serve, as my Adversary would persuade me by his distinction. It doth not indeed infringe the authority of Scripture useth as God would have it used with due submission to the public Interpretation of the Church. Otherwise, etc. unto neither.  
Ans. He means private judgement of discretion doth not infringe the authority of the Scripture used as God would have it used: but the misapplication of it (which he should have spoken to) doth infringe the authority of the Scripture so used. So we see he did not discourse properly. But secondly, he seems here to make nothing almost of Scripture unless used with due submission to the public Interpretation of the Church. And this also in effect begs the question, whether we cannot make use of Scripture well, as unto necessaries, without submission to the public Interpretation of the Church; and also again it begs the question, whether we are bound to stand to no sense of Scripture without submission to the public Interpretation of the Church. Yea, thirdly, we may also crookedly apply the determinations of the Church, as hath been showed de facto; and therefore why doth he argue against the use of Scripture as the rule because it may yet be crookedly applied? This argument is to us common with them: we can use it against the Church, as they use it against Scripture and therefore this cannot determine our particular Controversy. Yea, fourthly, the Scripture which is acknowledged by my Adversary a most right rule, is a rule to the Church too, is it not? If not, then have they no Divine authority to show for the authority of the Church: if so, than we can make use of Scripture without the authority of the Church, because we make use of Scripture for the authority of the Church. Omne per accidens reducitur ad aliquid per se. So we may make use of Scripture by itself; and therefore the authority of Scripture may be infringed without respect to the authority of the Church. And therefore all he says comes to nothing, unless he proves two points. First, that Scripture needs an infallible Interpreter for things necessary: The second this, that God doth provide us of an infallible Interpreter with infallible knowledge who it is.  
Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scripture than St. Peter spoke of St. Paul's Epistles. He says, the Scripture is a most right rule: good. He says, it is infallible: good. He says he speaks no more irreverently of it, than St. Peter spoke of St. Paul's Epistles: good. Good words. and we give good words for his good words. But doth St. Peter put in the authority of the public Interpretation of the Church to be necessary to the right applying of St. Paul's Epistles? This did not St. Peter. Did he say that St. Paul's Epistles doth not plainly contain any thing necessary to salvation? this did not St. Peter. Did he say, that St. Paul says in his Epistles, that the Church is our infallible Guide, and the way so plain that fools● 〈◊〉 err? This did not St. Peter. Did he sa● 〈◊〉 were so hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles? This did not St. Peter. If they will believe him without the attestation of his successor, let them consider what he says in his 2. Ep. 1. ch. 19, 20, 21. ver. We have also a more firm word of Prophecy. More firm, or most firm; as sometimes the Comparative for the Superlative. More firm surely than the Church (which in part, is built upon it, as St. Paul) Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as to a light shining in a dark place, etc. And if a light shining in a dark place, than it hath not such need of an infallible Interpreter: we see light by itself. It is not so dark and obscure as my Adversary would have it: for it is a light shining in a dark place. And certainly if that a light and shining in a dark place, than the whole new Testament is a light so clear and sufficient as that we need not the help of an infallible Judge either to this light; or in this light. And can it be well imagined that Scripture, being not of private exhibition or delivery, because Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; can it be imagined that this should be by the Holy Ghost so obscurely or ambiguously proposed, as that we must have necessity of a living Judge to make the sense of it sufficiently plain to salvation? If the Holy Ghost can clearly give us the sense as speaking by his Church, could he not as plainly give us the sense as when he spoke by the Prophets? Have we need of another Prophecy and Revelation of the sense? But it seems by them God must accommodate the stile of Scripture for the use of the Roman Church, and must invelope it in cloudy difficulties, that we must go to Rome to see the Sun of Righteousness shining there, as in Delos, without a cloud.  
And this also is enough to answer what follows, which is so much out of the way, because we cannot find our question in it, whether things necessary are plainly contained in Scripture. For what is this to it, that nothing more clear than that the words of Scripture are capable of several senses? If he means in all Texts, he is as easily contradicted, nothing more clear than that some words of Scripture are not capable of several senses. If he means of some: what is this to the Elench? We can say some words are capable of several senses consistently to this, that things necessary are plain. And as to his question, how shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention (in which sense, or whether in both he intended them) but by an Interpreter having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit, who assisted those who did write the Scriptures? We answer, first, as before, it toucheth not the question unless it be applied to words which speak of necessaries to salvation: and then we deny it, that such texts are so perplexed. Secondly, some texts we may take in divers senses not contrary. Thirdly, as he hath not proved to us an infallible Judge: so here he doth not prove a need of an infallible Interpreter; unless he could prove that it is necessary to salvation, that we should know the intended sense of every doubtful passage in Scripture. Neither again fourthly, (for they shall have it toties quoties) the definitions of the Councils are, some of them, ex composito, so framed, as that we do not clearly see the intention of the Council in what sense or whether in both the words should be taken. And must we not then, according to my Adversary, have another infallible Interpreter of them? And if they deliver not the thing clear, than another infallible Interpreter of them? and if they deliver not the thing clear, than another infallible Interpreter of them: and so in infinitum. And if they say, it is not necessary in points of question indubitably to decide in plain terms which part is to be held, than we ask why they do not allow a latitude to us: since the Council by them is intended for a remedy. And therefore need we not again say, that we do not give so much scope to such poor creatures as ignorant men are. They have but their rational liberty to find the way of Salvation in the Scripture, unto which it was appointed, in things doubtful, we say they should consult with learned men. We do not invest them with so ample a faculty to interpret it without any interior submission to the Church. They take their own freedom and right to see reason why they should submit to the Church, either as clearing the sense, or proving its infallibility. They are bound to see good reason why they differ from the Church; but they are not simply bound to believe upon whatsoever reason the Church gives or none. Neither do we say, that he may stand out in his judgement against the Interpretations of whole General Councils; not stand out in an heady opposition, but yet may say, Salvo meliori judicio, that he must see how, what they define be correspondent to Scripture, in points of belief. Secondly, how shall poor ignorant creatures know what several General Councils have agreed in, since some have differed from others, as hath been seen? They must know by infallibility that the Councils have defined this; and than that they have defined it infallibly. And so they put poor ignorant men upon greater difficulties. And if it be said that the ignorant men should believe the Church, that such a point is defined by the Councils: it is answered, no: we are to believe, according to my Adversary, the Church only as it is infallible; and that is in Councils confirmed by the Pope. Thirdly, if the Church be the way for poor ignorant creatures, because of the difficulty (pretended) of Scripture; yet as to learned men, it seems it is not necessary that it should be the way to them, because to them, being so learned, the Scripture is not so difficult: and therefore upon the matter, we may conclude, that it is more reasonable, that ignorant men should go the way which learned men should go in, than that learned men should go the way which fools and ignorant men go in.  
So than that which my Adversary says after, immediately, needs not be traduced, And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister. Any Minister of the Gospel, say you (but) I must not say any General Council is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happiness. This, and more of this kind he hath with some undue reflection upon his Adversary with an Irony; but if all be weighed, and the reflection not weighed, all will come to not much. For, first, I never gave him occasion to think that I preferred the judgement of a single Minister before the judgement of a general Council. But that which I said, if he would have taken notice of it, doth infer a great deal of respect to the faculty of a general Council. For if I say that a single Minister may competently inform us of so much as is necessary; then much more a general Council. And this is employed in the words of him that doth give a due respect to Councils. Secondly, he might also have remembered that this use of a Minister of the Gospel was spoken upon occasion of the text, or may be grounded thereupon, that the Scriptures were able to make wise unto salvation; therefore upon the place it is to be restrained to things necessary to salvation, which do not need so judicious a debate of a General Council; because there is no such difficulty in the sense of them. If I say that my Adversary could have told us, that the authority of the Church is in the Pope and a Council, do I prefer my Adversary before a Pope and a Council, or a Council and a Pope; (for it is a mighty question which is superior, since they have no mind to be ruled by the Council of Constance?) And if I say, my Adversary could have satisfied such a scruple about the number of Orders, do I say that my Adversary could have assoiled all doubts in Theology as well as a general Council? I did not speak of a Minister exclusively to a Council in their judgement and authority; but exclusively rather to a Council in the necessity thereof. And this sets the accent upon the Council, ex abundanti. Therefore he doth not drive the compare ad idem: for I spoke of the ability of a Minister as to things necessary, which are sufficiently plain of themselves: he brings me in speaking of a Minister, as to things of question which are not necessary: and this therefore is not logically done; for comparation must be in the same kind. Now surely a Minister of the Gospel may as well inform us as to things necessary which are sufficiently plain, as a General Council in things of Controversy, which are not necessary to be believed on either part. For suppose the judgement of the Church were not divided from the word of God, but we take the word from the Church, as Stapleton says in his Epistle dedicatory of his Doctrinal principles (and yet herein he seems to beg the question, whether the Scripture was intended only to bear that sense which the Church gives of it) yet as to things sufficiently plain, there is no need of consulting the judgement of the Church; because they are such, then, as they will say, that the definitions of a Council are so plain, that any Priest of theirs may instruct the people in the rignt sense: so the Scriptures are so plainly delivered as to things necessary, that any Minister of the Gospel may make a man wise unto salvation by them. And we may well say that the Scriptures were inspired for this purpose.  
And therefore have I yielded him what he desired; yet it being so ingenuous, I shall also rehearse it, Do but allow me this to the Church, that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people to their happiness, and we will not contend with you, whether this competent direction shall be called an infallible direction or not.  
Ans. I could be content to stand to such an issue, and to compromise the dispute unto such terms. For we can freely allow unto him all this, even pendente lite. And we have formerly allowed as much: therefore have they either no mind to accept of our respect to the Church; or my Adversary of his own accord is coming to move moderation, that which he says here hath three importments: first, an authority and faculty of the Church; which we have granted. Secondly, that this authority, in the exercise of its faculty is directive through the Scriptures. Thirdly, that this direction to the people is competent to their happiness. Only let it be provided, that the Church its direction of the people by the Scriptures doth not derogate from the people's use of the Scripture; thus we can afford all this: for this is no way contradictory to our proposition, that the Scripture doth contain plainly all things necessary to salvation: or not this also, that a Minister of the Gospel may competently inform the people in the necessaries to salvation. And if a Minister can do it, surely the Church. But the stress of the discourse lies in this, whether what the Church can do may not sufficiently be done without the Church: And then secondly, if not without the Church, whether it may not be done without the Church its infallibility. Now to this last my Adversary speaks thus, that he stands not upon this, whether this competent direction should be called an infallible direction or not. No? doth he not? Then he seemeth to yield that which he hath so much contended for, the infallibility of the Church; that that is not necessary. He hath formerly urged the infallibility of the Church to ground faith; now he either grants, that we may be saved without faith; or, that faith may be grounded without infallibility: which indeed in my opinion doth yield the cause. But then also they will give us leave to note that the cause betwixt the Romanist and us, as to verbum non Scriptum, is also yielded hereby: for if he will sit down with this postulate, that the Church may competently direct us to happiness through the Scriptures, than the word not written is secluded from a competent direction to salvation. For the word not written is absolutely contradistinguished to Scriptures. And therefore I see no reason we should go further in this work. which is not so hard, as tedious.  
But that he calls us back with an Epanorthosis, Though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happiness. Well, will they stand to this? Where shall we have them? If it can, then as before. If it cannot upon their second thoughts; then we say, absolute loquendo, we grant it; thus, that the Church not proposing any infallible direction cannot competently direct us; and therefore until they prove the Church infallible in their traditions infallible too: or as to the interpreting of Scripture, they have no cause by their own argument to obtrude so often the authority of the Church; because it is no competent direction to happiness, unless it be infallible, as they now think. But take the Church as proposing Scripture, which we have hitherto made plain sufficiently as to things necessary; so, though the Church be not infallible in its own direction, yet being considered, as bringing Scripture which is infallible, it may competently direct unto happiness. And so these great magnifiers of the Church, upon due account, have left us in the field to defend the Church when they have left it. We can make use of its competent direction, with the Scripture, which is certain and infallible. They cannot make use of the Church without infallibility. So then, as the Catholic Moderator says of the reformed religion, that it cannot be blamed in the point of justification, since it lays hold upon that which can certainly save us, namely, the righteousness of Christ: so also to be sure, here we are on the surer hand, because we make use of that which is certainly infallible, the Scripture; and also of that which gives us some competent direction, the Church; specially taking the Church universally for place and time. It is no question that the present Church cannot end the present controversies.  
Now because, by the way, I did say our Church could not err in damnative errors, you conceive me to grant that it may err in points not damnative.  
Ans. This is well put in [by the way I did say] he spoke it more than once; and it appeared also to be spoken provisionally, that there might be some refuge for the Church, if it should be convicted of some error; yet not damnative. And surely it were better for them to lie close under the buckler of this distinction unless they had better arguments to prove universal infallibility. But since, it may be, Mr. Knot's inconveniences of that distinction have been found prevalent, and so it is quitted.  
He expounds himself thus, When I said these words I did only take and subsume that which you yourselves most commonly grant unto the Church, that it cannot err in damnative matters.  
Ans. This but one degree from a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He says he meant it as we. If he meant it as we, how doth he conclude against us? We hold it distinctively, upon the case of the whole Catholic Church; though a particular Church may err in points damnative. So then he, meaning it as we, leaves the way plain to infer that he held that the Church might err in points not damnative. If he did take it as we, we are agreed: and then by Mr. Knot's argument infallibility is extinguished. He used it formerly in way of distinction, and specificatively or not. If not, than the use of it formerly is none: if so, than he is lost. And they may very easily persuade themselves that we can allow unto them this privilege of the Church, that it hath a main advantage over any Minister, or private Interpreter. This we can afford unto them without absolute infallibility of the Church. If they will be contented with such a privilege to the Church as no Minister or private Interpreter can have, they need not exceed the distinction of the Church's not erring in damnatives, specifically taken. For a private Minister or Interpreter may err in damnatives. Yea, also this exemption from errors damnative (in this sense) gives a demonstrative reason why we should not follow our own interpretations, without apparent cause, because the Church (universal) cannot err in damnatives, therefore we should prefer that, when we see not plain cause to the contrary: and because it may err in other things, therefore cannot we absolutely yield the Church obedience of faith for its own sake. And our differences from the Church in interpretations are not therefore damnative simply because we differ from the Church, but if we contemn the Church which hath authority and more faculty, and if we wrist hard texts, as some men did in St. Paul's Epistles to their own perdition, as St. Peter saith. Interpretations may be flatly contrary and not damnative. till the Church be proved without possibility of error, to be without possibility of error: let them then hold the former distinction until they can make good these two points: first, that the Church cannot err at all: the second, that all error is damnative. These are two hard propositions; and therefore, if that which is most hard is most easily broken, as the rule is in the Trent History, they should do well to break them. When the Church shall show her Commission for her infallibility, she may 〈…〉 Commission for our obedience intuiti●●.  

Num. 9  Here he gins, I will press again your text and give a second answer. Namely, the second Ep. to Tim. 3.16. So then now we shall contend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He says we render the word for correction; so your Bible reads it. And why doth he note this? Because it is right? Will he correct the Magnificate? This is ad verbum to the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Yea, he cannot find fault with our translation in this without condemnation of the Rhemish: for so they, to correct.  
From hence he says, You should conclude thus, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. But all Doctrine given by inspiration from God containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation; Therefore all Scripture containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation.  
Ans. I am easily brought to St. Basil's rule, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to teach without envy, to learn without shame. But I need not learn from my Adversary how to order my discourse in this particular. The forenamed text, which I used in my second rejoinder, was produced patly against his assertion, that, If God had not left us the infallible direction of his Church, he had not well provided for the salvation of men. To this I opposed the text in the 15, and 16. v. that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation: And by consequent, God hath well provided for salvation of men in general. Then I urged the particulars, in which it is able to make us wise unto salvation, in the 16. ver. And now, because I did not conclude punctually against the terms he hath in this paper, (and yet, nemo temetur divinare) he tells me, that I and ours have a notable talon in not concluding contradictorily. As he said in Tacitus, utinam tu tam fortiter feries. To the business then, we say, first, that my Adversary did, or might know, that in a discourse every Syllogism, or proof, or answer, doth not formally, and in terminis conclude against the main question. It is sufficient if it concludes against the last instance: for if that be rightly made, the virtue thereof will rebound ultimately to the principal question. And secondly, as to his Syllogism, which he thinks concludes absurdly upon our opinion, we say it is unanswerable, because it hath neither mode nor figure. He had better have put it into an Enthymem; or a full Syllogism thus: Whatsoever is inspired by God contains plainly all things necessary to salvation. All Scripture is inspired by God, therefore all Scripture. Now he had the wit not to put it thus, because we should, so, easily have denied the major, as it is to be taken in the note of universality, [whatsoever] distributively; yea, also and because whatsoever so is inspired doth not contain any thing necessary to salvation: for every thing in Scripture doth not contain any necessary point. And therefore like a Sophister he wraps it up in an obscure form; yea, none, that it might not be discovered. Thirdly, if All in the propositions be taken collectively or complexively, so we own the matter of the propositions, and the Conclusion hath nothing in it but sound Doctrine without his consequences of teaching submission and obedience to the Church, and by her all things necessary to salvation. And fourthly, he should discreetly have taken all Scripture complexively: for if it were to be understood distributively, then, if every part of Scripture were profitable to all those ends, what would become of their additions of verbum non scriptum? If every part could make the man of God perfect, what use of the merchandise of traditions, as of necessity to salvation? And yet fifthly, it is like he would have swallowed his own discourse for the Church thus, All definitions of the Church are inspired by God. All Doctrine of the Church inspired by God contains all things necessary to salvation; therefore all definitions of the Church contain all things necessary to salvation. This would have pleased him well, since he says the Scripture teacheth all things necessary to salvation, eo ipso, by this one article, because it teacheth us submission to the Church and by her all things necessary to salvation. Therefore sixthly, he mistakes me simply, or worse, if he thought that I meant to conclude contradictorily by every particular unto which the Scripture is profitable. He commits herein a fallacy of division, making that to be concluded severally which is to be concluded jointly. And seventhly, we will now join issue with our Adversary upon the text, and first, upon the 15. ver. thus, That which is able to make us wise unto salvation contains plainly all things necessary to salvation: but the holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. Therefore the Scripture contains plainly all things necessary to salvation. And if there be exceptions made as to the major, that Timothy was not an ordinary man, and therefore though they might have that effect upon Timothy, yet not upon every one; we say as before, that it follows ex abundanti. If there were enough to make him wise, than a majori, others; because he, as a Minister, needed more direction, as my adversary affirmed with Mr. Cressy. And I hope they will not say, that they were able to make him wise unto salvation, because he had learned them from his youth; for than if they would learn them from their youth they might make them also wise unto salvation: and therefore they should also learn them from their youth, as the saying of the Jews was, a boy of five years old is to be applied to the Bible. Again, a fortiori, if the old Testament was able to make him wise unto salvation, then surely the old and the new together: but the old was able to make him wise unto salvation; the new not being yet for a great part written, as the Rhemists' note. And when they can find as much reason for the addition of their word not-written to the new Testament, as there was for the addition of the new Testament to the old, then let them say that this text doth not exclude Traditions. If they did say, it did not exclude Traditive interpretations, it would be more reasonable; because the new is added to illustrate and declare the old: but it excludes traditions of new matter; because the new adds no new matter to the old. And yet again, as to the manner of delivery of things necessary in Scripture; if the old Testament, which was more obscure, was yet able to make Timothy wise (as to point of knowledge) unto salvation: then certainly in the new Testament is there sufficiency of plainness, because the new is the old revealed, as St. Paul speaks, 2. Ep. to the Cor. 3.18. But we all with open face beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same Image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord.  
And now we will put into the argument all the ends unto which the Scripture is profitable. That which is profitable to all those ends spoken of in the 16. ver. to Doctrine, in things to be known; to redargution of errors; to correction of manners; to instruction, in Righteousness, that the man of God might be perfect, furnished for every good work, doth sufficiently provide all unto salvation, because Timothy, as before; and also with sufficient plainness, since the old Testament could do it before the new was consigned: but the Scripture taken in complexo doth so. Therefore this text is sufficiently full and clear against them.  
And his argument out of this text against me, wherein he says he hath a contradictory conclusion against me, we will now hear: this it is. That which in this text is said only to be profitable for these ends, is not thereby said to be sufficient to these ends; and yet much less sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by itself alone: but the Scripture in this text is said only to be profitable to these ends here expressed: Ergo.  
Ans. The Answer unto this of his may maintains the major of my last Syllogism. For thus Estius and my Adversary distinguish upon the major, that the Scripture may be profitable and not necessary for these ends; and so in effect, the Rhemists upon the text, that the reading of the Holy Scripture is a great defence and help of the faithful, especially of a Bishop. And this is the ground of his Argument. We answer therefore, first; if he means his major thus, that what is not said in terms to be so, is not said so by consequence neither, his minor is not true. And if he mean it otherwise, it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench; for we can acknowledge his Conclusion without prejudice to our cause: for though it be not said so in terms, yet by equivalence, and interpretative it is. Secondly, to the minor we say, though it be only said to be profitable: yet since it is not said that it is only profitable, it doth not exclude sufficiency: that which affirms so much simply doth not simply deny more: for than we could no way reconcile divers historical passages of the Evangelists. But that it doth include sufficiency, Bellarmin and my Adversary do deny; Bellarmin to Chemnitius; my Adversary to me. Yet Bellarmin stands not so much against the term, as if it could not be understood sufficient; but contends that the Scripture is not sufficient alone: as meat, though it be profitable to nutrition, yet it is not sufficient alone. For if natural heat be wanting or any other Instrument of the body necessary to nutrition, it will not nourish, in his fourth B. de verbo Dei non scripto, cap. 10. But what is this to the purpose? For we do not maintain the Scripture to be sufficient to salvation, alone; for there must be faith and repentance and obedience. And therefore St. Paul adds upon the place, through faith that is in Christ Jesus; but we say it is sufficient in suo genere, as to direction of us: this satisfies our cause. If this be confessed, we have done. As meat is sufficient as to the matter which should nourish: so the word of God is sufficient, as to the matter of things necessary to be known; yea, for our comfort too, as Isid. Clarius upon the text: and therefore he says when St. Paul had used many consolations, he useth here the greatest. For surely it is the most strong consolation to have the Scripture sent from Heaven, quae et tantis in tenebris lumen praeferat, et gravissima quaeque efficiat ut fiant levia. And these comforts (he says) he did seasonably give him when he was to tell him of the sad news of his departure. And as for the word there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if we would take aim of the sense by the Syriack (since the Greek intimates the Hebrew in the new Testament, and the Syriack is called the Hebrew in the new Testament) it seems to be so profitable as is sufficient; because the word for [profitable] in the Syriack is taken from a word which signifies to abound and exceed. Thirdly, although all that is profitable is not sufficient (though all that is sufficient is profitable) yet that which is profitable ut sic, as to perfection, seems very sufficient. That which helps him to perfection helps him sufficiently: quoad hoc, as to point of knowledge. And if it extends not to sufficencie in the expression: the reason may be, because other things also are profitable practically. And therefore is sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by itself alone. Because there need not be any controversies necessary to salvation: yea, rather necessary it is that there should be no Controversies about things necessary to salvation: because possibility of error in those things is so dangerous. And therefore he supposeth that which is not to be supposed. For the man of God may be perfect by Scripture; ready furnished to every good work. The man of God; to wit, the Minister. So St. Paul of Timothy according to proportion to the Jewish Title, but thou man of God fly these things. And this we strengthen with St. Crysostom's note upon the text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply partaking, but with accurateness furnished: and again before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of me thou hast the Scriptures (not traditions) if you will learn any thing from thence you may, so that the Father's comment imports the Scripture to be sufficient, as to learning. If any thing else could be pretended as equally profitable, then either St. Paul's teaching him: but he was to departed; and in stead of him he was to have the Scriptures; or traditions: but he saith not, thou hast the word not written; but thou hast the Scriptures; and that the man of God by the Scripture may be with accurateness furnished. Therefore until they can find any thing sufficient without Scripture, or any thing necessarily conducing to the sufficiency of Scripture, we rest contented with our cause upon account of this text; wherein also, as usually, by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, less is said: more is understood. If the Pontificians had such a text for their cause; this profitable text would have been made sufficient.  
As for the third answer, that St. Paul doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture; whence he is most weakly cited to prove that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation; We may not say that this is weakly urged. For the argument proceeds a fortiori, as before. If part of the Canon; if the old Testament be sufficient, than the whole much more. And if Traditions were necessary to be added to the old Testament, as happily they will say, why did God give us the new Testament? And to be even with them again; when they speak of the Roman Church, we might also say, this is weakly urged, to prove the opinion of the whole Church; because they do not speak of the whole Church.  
Again, when this is proved, it is manifest that part of the whole Canon is lost. How then know you the same necessary points not delivered in other parts of Scripture were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which are perished, and so are come not to be extant in writing?  
Ans. The former is, I suppose proved more than they desire. And to this we answer, first, if it be manifest that some part of Scripture is perished, he might have told us, which: otherwise it seems it is not manifest. No certain and manifest knowledge of the general but by some particulars. Secondly, If any part be lost, it is either of the old, or of the new Testament: if of the old, the new hath the same matter, as to sufficiency, with clearness. If of the new; the old was able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. And my Adversary might have known, that not only Mr. Chillingworth affirms that there is enough in one Gospel precisely necessary to salvation: but also that their Bellarmin in the former B. and Ch. says that all the utilities of Scripture which here are rehearsed, are found in the second Ep. of St. John. If any book then be lost, (which we are not certain of, nor they neither, because, for aught we know, not defined by the Church) yet by nis opinion (namely, Beauties) that which remains may be profitable, (yea, sufficient) for those uses without an infallible Judge. And again, if any book of either Testament or any of both be lost, this will redound to the prejudice of the Roman; because they account that they only are the Church, and that the Church is the keeper of Divine truth; then they have not faithfully preserved the truth of God; and therefore, if they were infallible in what they do propose how should we trust them, that what is delivered as truth, they would keep; since through their negligence they have let some book or books of Scripture perish? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? But it may be they have kept traditions more faithfully. Then surely the books of Scripture were lost with good discretion, that it might reflect honour to the integrity of Traditions.  O sanctas Gentes quibus haec nascuntur in hortis Numina! 
Your second Text to prove this is Heb. 4.12. Here is the text; 
Num. 10.  but where is the contradictory conclusion in terminis, and that evidently? that it is plainly set down in Scripture that the Scripture by itself alone is sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies, etc.  
Ans. Omne reducitur ad principium, as Aquinas' rule is. The occasion of this began thus. I was to dispute against the Judge's authority to bind upon his own account; as he might have noted, had he pleased. My argument was this, the Judge determins by Scripture or not. If not, than he makes a new law; and the authority of the Church in proposing Divine truths is immediate by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and not by disquisition; (which Stapleton denies in the beginning of his sixth general Controversy) if by Scripture, then doth his determination bind by authority of Scripture, whereof he is but a Minister. This my Adversary says not a word unto. Then ex abundanti; I put this text to him to give him a check in the course of his exceptions against Scripture. We do not say that the Scripture is formally a Judge: but yet by this text we have so much said as amounts in effect, to be a Judge internal by mediation of conscience; which is more than their Judge infallible can pretend to.  
And therefore as to the demand of a Contradictory Conclusion from hence, I say, this text was pertinently produced to that purpose I intended of it; which was not that it should be a directory weapon against my Adversary, but that it should be of use to cut off their Pleas against Scripture, as that it is a dead letter, not a living Judge; it is living, quick: that it can do nothing; it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it cannot decide controversies; it is sharper than any two edged Sword. As the law decides cases of right, so it decides Controversies of faith. And those points of faith (pretended) which are not contained therein, it doth cut off. If they say, it cannot reach the Conscience: What then can? It is piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. If they say it cannot judge, it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, critical, exactly judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart.  
But, to come to the point, he would have me show that this sharpness is in order not only to decide Controversies, but also all necessary Controversies, and to do this by itself alone. And if not, where is then your Contradictory Conclusion?  
Ans. It may decide Controversies, and not necessary Controversies; but if it decide necessary Controversies, then, to be sure, it doth decide Controversies. Our question is whether it determins necessary Controversies. Yea, neither are we bound to dispute the question, because we said it not, nor are we bound to make it good in their sense. In our sense yet it doth sufficiently decide all necessary Controversies; because it doth so plainly deliver things of necessary faith, that there needs not be any decision of them by any inerrable Judge. And then also secondly, because, if there be any question about necessary points, the Scripture is the rule according to which it is to be determined. And thirdly, it doth in effect examine and judge in the inward man cases of opinion and of action, which an external Judge doth not, as such: because they are not known to him. And in this regard, I conceive, that the heretic is said as before, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the law of God, or of the Spirit of God in the law, doth by his own Conscience condemn him in holding a material error against his own light. Yea, let them answer to their own Estius, who upon the place saith, that the Scripture hath the properties of God attributed to it; and because God speaks to us by Scripture: and therefore he saith,  Gladius penetrate et laedit: ita sermo Dei intuetur et punit: Itaque significatur cognitio non nuda sed qualis est Judicis examinantis et cognoscentis ut puniat: As the sword pierceth and woundeth: so doth the word of God take notice and punish; therefore is signified not a naked knowledge, but such as is of a Judge, examining and taking cognizance, that it may punish. Now because that which is not intended sometimes proves better than that which was intended (as the rule is, Melius est aliquando id quod est per accidens quam id quod est per se) therefore may we draw an argument in form from hence, thus; That which judgeth, and infallibly, is an infallible Judge. The Scripture judgeth; so the text: and Estius upon it: and infallibly; as they will confess; then the Scripture is an infallible Judge. Now if it be an infallible Judge, it is very reasonable that it should be an infallible Judge as to points necessary: and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is no necessity of an external infallible Judge as to determine faith; for that is done by it: there may be need of a Judge external, as to peace; but for this there is no need of a Judge infallible. If any thing would content them but a spiritual Monarchy, this might: yea, neither, it may be, if such a Monarchy were necessary, were this infallibility necessary; because Ministerial authority doth not essentially include such an infallibility.  
But he goes on, and useth an argument against me. The word of God according to your own Doctrine was not sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies before the whole Canon of Scripture was completely finished: but St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon of the Scripture was completely finished. Therefore St. Paul said this of the word of God before the word of God was of itself alone sufficient to decide all Controversies. Therefore than it had been false to say the word of God had been sufficient to this end. Therefore St. Paul did not then say so.  
Ans. Besides what I said before concerning the use which I made of this text; and to say nothing of what is here supposed, that St. Paul was the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrews; I answer to the major, that that part of Scripture was then sufficient, before the whole Canon was completely finished, in our sense to decide all necessary Controversies as well as the old Testament was sufficient to make Timothy wise unto salvation. and for those uses which are there spoken of in that text to Timothy: therefore he mistakes us if he thinks we hold that that part which was then written, was not sufficient. And yet more might be added by God though not by man; for the Canon then did not restrain God but man. Therefore we answer also to the assumption, that if he takes completely finished, simply; then indeed St. Paul said it before the Canon was completely finished; but if he takes the words so as that part which was written was not sufficient in our sense, we deny it. For then God had not sufficiently provided for the Church of those times; neither had the Scripture been able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. So the terms in the former sense do not conclude: in the latter they are concluding, but not true. So this specious argument is at an end without its end. Only, we will now make use of the argument against him, turning the mouth of the Canon, as we may speak, and it is thus; St. Paul said this of the Scripture before the Canon was completely finished; therefore now much rather after it is thus completely finished, is it sufficient. Or more fully thus, The word of God according to his Doctrine is not sufficient after the Canon is completely finished: St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon was completely finished: therefore his Doctrine is contradictory to St. Paul's, ex abundanti, for St. Paul says the word was sufficient before the Canon was completed: and he says it is not sufficient after it is completed.  
Again those words speak not of the word of God blunted with those interpretations which your opinion licenseth.  
Ans. This is a plain cavil, or a slander: we licence not any blunting of the edge of Scripture by any misinterpretations. We do not deny the use of Scripture, as the Romanists do to the people. Neither is it fit for them to complain of blunting the edge, who take away the Sword of the Spirit. We only allow the people to be persuaded in their own mind concerning the sense of Scripture: and if the Pontifician authority or arguments be able, ex vi fua, to persuade them, that what sense they give is authentic, let them be persuaded. But it is very usual for them to quarrel first who are most guilty, that so they may least be discovered. But who blunt Scripture so much as they who say the Scripture is like a nose of wax, which may be turned any way? Let him that is without sin in this kind cast the first stone at us. How they have adulterated Scripture is known to all the world.  
But of the word of God applied according to the Divinely-spirited interpretation of the Church, in whose hands, hands guided by the Holy Ghost, this word of God is managed for the decision of Controversies, that it is sharper than any two edged Sword.  
Ans. How often must we be forced to tell them that we exclude not the use of the Church in a due Representative towards composing of differences: and also that the Church is not now infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost. And therefore that their decision is not the last resolutive of faith: and that there is no need of any such infallible Judge for necessary Controversies, since there is no necessity of Controversies about things necessary. And also that, if there were such a Judge infallible, we must know it, and who it is, infallibly. And also then hereby are excluded the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of traditions: for if the Scripture interpreted by the Church be to decide all Controversies, then what need to have recourse to the word not written, as to that which equally binds in things of faith? And so then they destroy themselves. And therefore whereas they say frequently that Scripture alone doth not decide all necessary Controversies, we can easily distinguish, that alone hath respect either to the Church or to traditions; as it opposeth traditions, so alone; and it doth exclude them: and as it doth respect the Church, so, though it doth not exclude the use of a Judge, yet it doth exclude the necessity of a Judge infalble.  
His other lines unto the eleventh num. might have been spared. Si non verum prius nec posterius. And they have also been answered.  
And here wisely he joins to the examination of my former texts, 
Num. 11.  another text which I produce against him in answer to the fourteenth number, that he might handsomely decline an answer to that, which, if he would have dealt punctually, I should have been answered in its place, but we follow him at the running leap. The text is, that of Christ, Search the Scriptures. St. John. 5.39.  
His exception is this, To prove this to be understood in the Imperative mood evidently is impossible, therefore, evidently they do not contain a Command, This is the sum of that discourse.  
Ans. First, evident proof they had not best urge: for than what will become of all their faith and all their discourse; which doth not amount to so much as probability? Secondly, if it be more probable to be understood in the Imperative, it is sufficient to weaken their cause; since I am to be considered, as proposing the text by way of a respondent, not as an opponent. Therefore if I name a text which is but probable against them, it is enough for me against them, specially in the cause of infallibility; for a probable contradiction undoes infallibility. Thirdly, it is in the Syriack in the Imperative mood: and this interpretation, if any other should weigh with us. Yea, also, so do the Rhemish Translators read it, in the Imperative. Are they also decived? then how shall we be ascertained of the sense of Scripture by Rhemish Interpreters? So Ferus also upon the place expounds it to be a direction to the Jews of searching the Scriptures out of a greediness to know the truth. And again, upon the latter words, They are they which bear witness of me, he says, that Christ citys no place, but speaks in general, tam ut ad quaerendum incitet, both that he might incite them to seek. And so also Stapleton reads it in his Principia Doctrinalia, in the Imperative. And also besides, not so often do we find a verb of the Indicative mood to begin a sentence. But then also fourthly, the reason concludes it a duty: and the duty concludes a command. It concludes a duty thus, that which bears witness of Christ, being in doubt we are bound to search: and they bear witness of Christ, and were then in doubt; therefore for that our Saviour should not affirm it but upon their opinion (in that he saith for in them ye think to have eternal life) is no material scruple, because the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in other Authors, so in Scripture is used by way of elegancy: and then our Saviour says himself that they bear witness of him, and therefore we have in them eternal life Doctrinally. And so St. Austin in his 45. serm. de verbis Domini, says, as expounding the place, queritis me et non invenietis: quare? quia non scrutamini Scripturas quae testimonium perhibent de me, ye seek me but shall not find me: why? because you do not search the Scriptures, which bear witness of me. Therefore may we conclude (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that it is to be taken in the Imperative.  
And therefore his exception, that it follows not, because they testify clearly this one point whereof he spoke, therefore the Scriptures testify clearly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversy necessary to salvation, that exception falls down before my argument, as Dagon before the Ark; because it is not only grounded upon this, that the Scriptures bear witness of him, but also in that [you think to have in them eternal life.] And this proposition, if there were need, we might prove by what was said before, that which is able to make us wise unto salvation hath in it eternal life: the Scriptures (of the old Testament) were able to make wise unto salvation, therefore, they have in them eternal life; and by consequent, they contain all things necessary to salvation. And therefore though this excluded not the hearing of John or Christ's Miracles, as he would infer, as upon duty; yet it excludes them as upon simple necessity to salvation. Otherwise those who died before Christ and John could not have been saved. The force of his ratiocination comes to as much as this, as if because one had a great estate, he could not live of less; or as if, because he can live of less he ought not to follow his calling, whereby he may get more. This is not the question, whether we ought to hear whatsoever God says: for this we affirm; but this is the question, whether it be said because it is necessary, or necessary to be heard because it was said: the former we deny. The necessity was not antecedent to the diction: but hearing hath itself to the diction, as a necessary consequent. So this text is yet good against him.  
Only he urgeth me with St. cyril's opinion of the mood, and also Beza's. I had thought he would have made no mention any more of any Father of the Church, because he says, I do not allow infallibility to their testimony. It seems their authority must yet be good against us, though not for us.  
To Beza's judgement we will oppose, quoad hominem, the interpretation of the Rhemists and Ferus, as before. To St. cyril's authority we say, we can confront it with St. Chrysostom's: and yet we do not build upon the mood; for the reason binds us. Yet because he seems to have his mind turned in better affection to the Fathers, it will be reasonable to set down St. Crysostom's words hereupon: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he sends them to the Scriptures. And again also, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; And we therefore, when we are to fight with Heretics and are armed against them, are strengthened from henee: namely, from the Scriptures; for so it follows in him as a reason, for all Scripture is given by inspiration, etc.  

Num. 12.  Your fourth text is, You err not knowing the Scriptures. And from hence he demands a Contradictory Conclusion: shall it be this? Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture? Or rather this, Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture? For this is the far stronger consequence.  
Ans. Indeed he seemed to love rather to baffle his Adversary than to answer him. For here again he dislocates my answer, that where it was proper it might not be answered, and where it is not formally contradictory, it may not seem opposite. Doth this become men that would lead us the right way by truth to happiness?  
The citation of this text comes in to give him satisfaction unto his argument, that if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge in all Controversies, he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly; this importing so exceedingly, as it doth, and yet he hath not done so. To this I said, we answer, Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures; in that he saith, ye err not knowing the Scriptures; and also adding the other text to Timothy: All Scripture is given by inspiration; and also 2. Ep. Pet. 1.19. We have a more sure word of Prophecy: thus I said: and also allowed him the use of external Judges without necessity of infallibility; and also I retorted his argument, If Christ had intended the Church should have been the infallible Judge, it importing so exceedingly, he would have told us so clearly, which he hath not done, etc. Now if all my texts be able to give a full account of our being obliged to Scripture in point of faith, and not to an infallible Judge external, it is enough for me, and my purpose, to which I used them: but he cunningly draws that text from the proper use, and shows it here not to be fit for a contradiction to that which formally is another question than that to which it was applied, but let these tricks go.  
I will now take the texts together, and from thence conclude contradictorily to the present question, Whether all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in Scripture, thus;  
If we be referred to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge, than the Scripture doth plainly set down things necessary to salvation. But we are referred to Scripture (as appears by those texts) and not to an infallible Judge, (for aught appears clear by my Adversary) therefore the Scripture plainly sets down all things necessary to salvation, the consequence is plain as denying the reason of an infallible Judge; which should be, because we are not sufficiently furnished in Scripture unto things of faith: then if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith: as there is no need of tradition to supply our faith in the matter; so neither is there an infallible Judge necessary, to supply the want of the Scriptures manner of expression. For all the Controversy betwixt us, in point of Scripture, must be reduced to these two: either that all which is to be believed, is not contained in Scripture: and this brings in tradition with them; or, that which is in Scripture is not plainly enough set down; and this brings in the question of the infallible Judge. So then, if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith, we need no infallible Church, either for object or infallible resolution of faith. Now as for the minor, that we are referred to Scripture, those texts prove sufficiently, and he cannot deny it: that we are referred to an infallible Judge, he hath not yet proved: and I deny it.  
Yea, what will they say, if the last text only proves an Elench; Thus. If the cause of error be not knowing the Scriptures, than the Scriptures do plainly contain all things necessary: but the cause of erring assigned here by Christ, St. Mark 12.24.28. is the not knowing of the Scriptures. The minor is Scripture, the consequence also would be able to maintain itself, but that they think that we cannot draw a consequent universal from an antecedent particular: for the text there is applied to a particular point of the Resurrection. To this we answer, first, simply, we cannot argue an universal conclusion from particular premises, because the genus contains, potentially, more than one species: but they know that the resurrection is a main point and comprehensive of more: so that Aquinas might well conclude him to be an Heretic that denied the immortality of the Soul, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he denied the Resurrection. It includes also the Resurrection of Christ, 1. Ep. Cor. 15.13. If there be no Resurrection from the dead, than Christ is not risen. So then, if by the Scripture we may be right in the knowledge of our Resurrection, and consequently in the knowledge of Christ's Resurrection, which supposeth his death, that his Incarnation, his Incarnation God the Father, (as he speaks, if ye had known me ye had known my Father also (than it doth plainly enough set down that which supposeth as much as was necessary for those in the time of the Law: because they had enough to bring them into the hope of the Resurrection: unless we say with the Socinians, that they had no hope of the Resurrection. And secondly, if the Resurrection was sufficiently declared in the old Testament, it being so fundamental a point, what reason can be given why other points which are also necessary should not likewise be plainly delivered? And thirdly, if that and other points were competently enough revealed in the old Testament, that the cause of erring was the not knowing of the Scriptures (not the not knowing of the Church) then surely the new Testament, which is the old revealed, doth set down that and other points with sufficient plainness unto salvation. And this is sufficient to our purpose.  
As for the consequence then from the former Text, which he thinks more probable, that because they did err, therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture, I answer, first, he argues ab esse ad probabile, which is not rational: ab esse ad posse, is good: But we cannot argue, that because such a thing is come to pass, that therefore it was probable it should: for then because Adam did sin, we must say it was probable he should sin; and so he had not been created with a posse peccare and a posse non peccare in equal freedom: for probability must arise from an inclination. And if they say that the case is different from the fall of man: and therefore depravation by the fall doth none incline the power of erring to an actual error, as the power of sinning unto an actual sin; we answer, first, that they had not best enlarge the corruption of nature by the fall, lest they bring the Trent Council as to this point in danger of error: and secondly, we say that if they exclude not the grace of God from taking direction by the Church, so neither do we exclude the grace of God from taking direction by the Scripture: and if they say men cannot err, if with grace, or by it, they take the guidance of the Church: then surely with grace, or by grace, it may be as probable not to err through the knowledge of the Scripture; and therefore his consequence of more probability that the Scriptures are not plain because they did err, is vain. Secondly, if those who erred were but a part and sect of the Jews, and those that did not err might be the greater number, (if not the soberer,) than it will follow by his own argument, that this was plainly enough set down in Scripture. Thirdly, he supposeth that which is not to be supposed, if he thinks that we hold things so plainly delivered in Scripture, as that we cannot err whether we will keep the way or not: for Scripture doth directly work upon the understanding, grace upon the will. It is therefore sufficient to us to say, that things necessary are so clearly proposed in Scripture, as that if we be diligent to know and follow Scripture, we need no infallibility of the Church. Fourthly, he might have been advised that this discourse of his will return upon him to the prejudice of their Church: for it should seem then, as hath been often noted, things are not so plainly defined by their Church, since there are such differences amongst them; even in grand points. Fifthly, we distinguish betwixt knowledge in habitu, and knowledge in actu; their habitual knowledge of the Resurrection in Scripture might be good, and it might be plainly enough exhibited: but they were defective in the actual knowledge, in not considering those principles of Scripture which might have concluded it, according as our Saviour doth upon the place. And surely, as the not considering is the moral cause of most of our evil actions (according to that of the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore also saith David, I have considered my ways and turned my feet into thy Testimonies) so also is the not considering Scripture, the cause of all, or most, of our errors: at least the cause of the danger in the errors we have: and if they would study the Scripture affectionately they could not err as they do. The Principles of Scripture are sufficient unto habitual knowledge; and yet error may come by want of actual knowledge: either negatively, by not applying them; or worse, by misapplying them, they take such opinions first as are of use to them, then will draw Scripture to them, as is observed: but they should apply their opinion to Scripture; not Scripture to their opinion. Sixthly, and lastly, he did not consider how near he came to Blasphemy by coming so near to a contradiction of Christ: for Christ says to them Ye err not knowing the Scriptures; and his consequence says by consequence, that they might err though they did know the text, because it doth not plainly set down the Resurrection, whereby he makes either our Saviour to affirm that they could not know the Scripture which our Saviour plainly supposeth; or else that the cause of not erring is not to know the Scriptures, as to that point: which how he will answer at that great day, I know not.  
And so his Syllogism comes to nothing, or worse than nothing. For if all things had been plainly set down, they should not have erred: but they erred: therefore all things are not plainly set down. His major is false. If he takes should not have erred, ex parte officii, it is true; but not to his purpose: if he takes it ex parte event us, it is to his purpose, but not true. It is not false, that they might not have erred: but that they could not err, it is false: A posse ad non posse non non valet. Means are not always used; or not as they should be. We know our duty plainly in many things, yet we do not do it. This argument is good against him; men have erred about the sense of the Trent Definitions, as hath been said; therefore all things are not plainly set down by the Church: but this Argument is not good against us, because we do not allow the form or rule of the argumentation.  
His other answer is as uneffectuall, that they might err in the knowledge of the Scriptures, because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretation, which is the most ready way to err, specially when men oppose the public interpretation of the Church.  
Ans. And doth this conclude contradictorily to this proposition, that they might not err if they attended to Scripture? Secondly, they might err if they attended to the Church; because, (for aught is yet confirmed) the Church may err: and therefore the surer way is to attend to Scripture, which they confess is infallible. Thirdly, if he speaks of opposing the public interpretation of the whole Church, we allow more reverence to the universal Church than to theirs. Fourthly, is it necessary that every one who cannot submit intuitively to all the definitions of the Church in points of question, should oppose the public interpretation of the whole Church in plain points of faith? Fifthly, Maledict a glossa quae corrumpit textum, This gloss corrupts the text: for there is here a limitation of Christ's words (which else where he accuseth us of) without any colour from the words of the Text. The Text disertly represents the cause of erring in this matter of the resurrection to be the not knowing of the Scriptures, without any mention of the Church: He will not afford it right, unless we take in also obedience to the interpretation of the Church; and his Church too (for otherwise he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which was not then surely invested with the privilege of infallibility; which was not invested upon them, as some of their most learned affirm, till after the resurrection of Christ. And therefore if this were true, it were not pertinent. Sixthly, upon this whole matter, it comes to this, that it is with them better to believe the Church without the Scripture even in plain points, than the Scripture without the Church: for otherwise he comes not up to the state of our question. And how good this Divinity is, let those learned ones of their Church judge, who will thus distinguish of the Scripture, that it is necessary but not sufficient: which also in my opinion is by them intended on the behalf of the Church indeed; but not to bring in a new necessity of an infallible Judge in matters of Scripture expressed, but to bring in necessity of Traditions in matters of Faith not expressed.  

Num. 13.  Your fifth text is 2. Pet. 1.19. We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto you do well, that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the daystar arise in your hearts.  
His exceptions against the validity of this text are two. One, that all things necessary to salvation are not there set down, when S. Peter spoke those words, because the Canon was not finished. This we have fully taken away before. The other is thus, how will you prove that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, because one thing is plainly set down?  
Ans. To this first, take that which was said before about the concluding all points necessary to be plainly set down because that of the Resurrection is so, with the reason thereof: and the reason is good here also, because he seems to confess that that one point of Jesus' being the Son of God and the Messiah, might clearly be found in Scripture. This me thinks than we have gained, that one point is clearly set down in Scripture. And this it may be conceived he might grant me, because I could draw no consequence from thence against him, for so he insists, how will you infer ergo all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture? We make use of it thus. If this point be plainly set down in Scripture, than other points also necessarily concerning his being the Messiah must also clearly be set down: so then here is a wheel in a wheel, yea, many inclusively in one: and those also clear: but verum prius; as it seems by his own confession. Secondly, if I should serve them with a quare impedit; why do they not as well admit other points to be clearly set down in Scripture? what will they say? surely they will say that this point is plainly set down, because it is so necessary. Well then, we reply. If there be degrees of necessaries, than we may be saved in any degree of necessaries. Or, if this be set down only as necessary; why not all necessaries? For the rule is good, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: If that clearly set down as necessary, than all things necessary are clearly set down. The same reason is the principle of universality; surely with God; who doth all things in number, weight and measure. For although that Axiom, Idem quae idem semper facit idem, doth not always follow as in finite Agents, because they may be defective in their power, and there may be want of disposition in the matter they work upon; but it cannot be said that God wanted ability to set down other points as plainly: and there is no repugnance ex natura rei, that other points should be as plainly set down as that; therefore if God in his wisdom and goodness, caused by his Spirit that verity to be clearly delivered for our salvation; how can we believe that he did not also direct the Penmen of the Spirit of God to deliver all other points necessary to salvation with necessary plainness? Again thirdly, if the word of the Prophets was a more firm word than the Testimomonies of the Apostles (as Estius upon the place) as to the Jews for the faith in the Messiah, then where we have that and the writings of the Apostles in the new, why should we not account this a more sure word than the word of the Church in this point, or any other contained in Scripture? Why may not we as likely doubt of the Church, specially a particular Church, as well as the Jews might doubt of the Apostles? And is not the Doctrine of the old and new Testament more sure than the Doctrine of the Church? To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this, it is because there is no light in them; as the Prophet speaks: then the Scripture is the rule of their Doctrine, and therefore more sure: that which gives credit to others must be more credible. Yea, and until they prove that something new in substance was added to the new Testament above what was contained in the old, that text avails also for Christians, against any thing not written. Neither can the Romanist say, that that word of Prophecy shines in a dark place by the hand of man in the Church: for it is spoken of the word as written: and the Prophets who then wrote the word were dead. If the Prophets had been then living, it had been reasonable for the Jews to have taken their direction from their mouth, as it might be reasonable for us to take the word of God from the mouth of the Apostles, were they now living: but the Prophets are dead, and the Apostles are dead; by whom we know God spoke: but that God speaks now by the Church as he did by them, we are yet to deny until it be better proved; or these texts better answered. But we have one more.  
Your sixth and last text is Acts the 17. where it is said of the Beroeans, 
Num. 14.  they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scripture daily whether those things were so.  
Against the proceed of this Text he brings several Pleas: some common to former Texts, as at the latter end of the number: these are answered already: those that are new we shall here examine. And first he calls for one evident clear syllable which saith the Beroeans did search the Scripture before they believed St. Paul. Nay, is it not first said, they received the word with all readiness of mind?  
Ans. First he says that which is to be proved, that those words, they received the word with all readiness of mind, do infer rather that they did believe St. Paul before they did search the Scriptures: For though St. Paul was infallible in his Doctrine, and therefore might be believed, and aught, yet it doth not appear that they were persuaded of him: and therefore it is not said they received St. Paul with all readiness of mind, but they received the word: and they might receive it with all cheerfulness as good, though they did search it, whether true. Secondly, they might receive it with all readiness upon appearance of probability, although they did not believe it, until by search they found it agreeable to the Scriptures. Yea, somewhat may be received without probability, and with all readiness of mind too, as an Adversaries paper: And that they did not believe it until they had compared it with the writings of the Apostles appears more probable by the following words, that they did daily search the Scriptures, if these things were so: their search was an sit; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If they did believe, why did they still search and daily search? Do we search for that which infallibly we believe? Then where is certainty, which Mr. Knot makes necessary to faith? But he himself will ingenuously confess as much as seems requisite for our cause, in these words, upon those motives which St. Paul proposed to them before they searched the Scriptures, and being by those motives and Instructions well enlightened to understand the Scriptures, they for their further comfort and confirmation, searched the Scriptures daily, to see whether they testified the same point, and this one point of our Saviour's coming being clearly in Scripture, perhaps St. Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it.  
These words we must take great notice of: what motives they were he doth not express; but such it seems, as upon which many thousands did receive it (whose proceed you can never prove less laudable than the Beroeans) But this his parenthesis does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He might have left it out better. For why then are these Beroeans commended? If there was not in them somewhat of excellent ingenuity, why are they commended for this, that they received the word with all cheerfulness, searching the Scriptures daily? Doth not this belong also to their commendation, that they searched the Scriptures daily? Nay, it may be, further, if we may have leave to be critical, their receiving of the word with all cheerfulness was concurrent with the searching of the Scriptures daily: and so the participle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is to be taken per modum medii; whereby they came to embrace the word: the use of Participles is not, it may be, infrequent in this sense. However, it is not comely for him, when the Scripture doth give a reputation and honour to these Beroeans, to equalise many thousands to them.  
But we must a little more reflect upon his words. Motives these Beroeans had proposed by St. Paul before they searched the Scriptures. But what motives? That is not expressed by St. Paul, nor indeed that they had any: Well, but we give it, that they had motives. And if the authority of the Church had been one of those motives, my Adversary would not have omitted it. And yet also we can grant motives before the resolution of faith: So that those Beroeans might have motives, and yet not believe before the searching of the Scriptures.  
But this how loath is he to come to, that they did search the Scriptures, as in order to believing: Therefore he doth substitute other ends of their searching of the Scriptures; namely. for their comfort and confirmation. What? For their comfort and confirmation, and not for their faith? But if the searhing of the Scriptures be of use to our comfort and confirmation, than also to our faith: but not to beget it, it may be. No? As in naturals so in spirituals, we may be said to be nourished by that by which we consist, Therefore it is said, Rom 10.17. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And if it be said that it comes by the word of God spoken: It is answered, the word of God spoken is to be measured now by the word of God written, unless we had as good reason to believe those that now speak in the Church, as the Jews had to believe the Prophets, or the first Christians the Apostles. But secondly, if the searching of the Scriptures was of use for the comfort and confirmation of them, than this brings more honour upon the Scriptures, because this is more to be comforted and confirmed by them: for comfort at least, respects the application of the Gospel to us; and if the searching of the Scripture be of use hereunto, as in the way of a particular faith: then surely to a general faith much more. Thirdly, therefore if he means by comfort particular assurance, than he turns Protestant in this opinion: if not, he will be little differing from faith. But fourthly, these Beroeans were here commended for searching the Scriptures, whether to comfort and confirmation, or to faith: and therefore surely we cannot be discommended hereafter for allowing the use of the Bible to the people.  
But this he occurrs to: Neither hence is it made evident, that the old Testament was thrust into every man's hand of the Beroeans, but that they deputed their chief Doctors to make this search, and that for this point only: namely, our Saviour's coming, which, he even now said, is clearly in Scripture: Well, as we have noted, we have here the main and denominative point of Christians, by his confession, clearly in Scripture: but the old Testament was not thrust into the hands of every man of the Beroeans, no, not to search them as to this one point: Oh, how tender they are here in this matter! Si non caste tamen caute. But was it put into the hands of any of the Beroeans? if so, why not into the hands of all? If not, shall the Beroeans in the text suppose only for the Doctors, and for none of the People? But some it may be would have abused the Scripture: and would none of the Doctors? no, will he say, not in a clear point: but would the Doctors then in a controverted point? If so, how should we be ruled by them? Yea, neither the people would have abused the Scriptures in a clear point, by his own Argument: because they erred, therefore it is not plainly set down. So than if this point, about our Saviors coming, be plainly in Scripture, as he cannot but acknowledge; it seems then the people could not err in it. But then again secondly, it is not like to be meant of the Doctors, because it being a plain point in Scripture, there was no need for them to search the Scriptures daily: Therefore most certainly it is meant of the people: for the Doctors also are not wont to be spoken of in a common notion of the nation. Thirdly, it is to be understood of these Beroeas in opposition to the Thessalonians, as appears by the text, these were more noble (or more ingenuous) than those of Thessalonica: now these in Thessalonica were not of the Doctors: for it is meant of the Synagogue there, as appears by compare of the first verse of the ch. and the fifth with the rest. And so also those who are spoken of in Beroea, were also of the Synagogue of the Jews there, as appears by the tenth verse: now the Synagogue was not a Congregation of Doctors, but of the people, with a Master. And so it was a rule with the Jew, ten make a people: and where there is a people, there is to be a Synagogue: and where a Synagogue, there a Master. So then this being spoken of them of the Synagogue per so, it is most like to be understood, de communi, of the people. And fourthly, if it were to be understood of the Doctors, I hope the people should have believed them upon their own word, without the Doctors searching the Scriptures daily. For if the Doctors be not to be believed without their searching of the Scriptures daily, then, for aught I see, we have done; and the Controversy betwixt us is at an end: because it is to no purpose, that their searching of the Scriptures should be a condition of the people's belief, unless also the people be allowed to give their belief conditionately to the search: and how can this be done by them, unless they compare what is said by the Doctors with the Scriptures. For how shall we believe the Doctors upon their bare word that they have searched the Scriptures? so then, in effect, upon this account, the main principle and last resolutive of the people's faith must be the Doctor's mere word: and why then should they discourse fallibly, and conclude infallibly, as Stapleton would have it?  
To conclude then the debate of this text; we may have, I suppose, clearly, these two corollaries from it. First, that it is not only lawful, but commendable, whatsoever the Church says, to search the Scriptures whether those things be so: for the Church cannot have greater authority upon us than St. Paul: (no, nor so much neither, till they prove it better) and yet these Beroeans were commended for it. And if in a point clearly set down in Scripture, (as this was by his own acknowledgement) then in other points much rather, because (by his own argument also) in such the Doctors may be more mistaken: Yea, because also, according to our principles, positive faith in such points is not so necessary to salvation until we see it plainly proposed. Yea also, when a point controverted appears plain, the disbelief is not damnative by the nature of the verity; but because it destroys God's veracity; which is the prime tenure of all truth. Secondly, we have also this Corollary, that faith comes by searching of the Scriptures: for so it follows (which my Adversary had no mind to take notice of) in the very next verse, the twelfth, many of them therefore believed. Therefore; namely, upon searching of the Scriptures: so that they did not believe blindly, and then searched the Scriptures; but searched the Scriptures first, and then rationally, upon principles of Scripture, believed. And these two propositions are sufficient to unhinge the Pope and all his Cardinals, and all their Religion, as differing.  
So that now the texts (whereunto he would wisely have answered out of due place) being vindicated from his batteries, and standing against him in their full strength and force, we may now, after this reinforcement of them, make shorter work: having already given him more than he brings.  
And therefore as for his Argument in this Par. 
Num. 15.  That this is not plainly set down in Scripture, [that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture] and therefore not all things, is answered by our denial of the Antecedent; and the proof of the contrary. For the moment of those texts defended doth sufficiently confirm the Scriptures sufficiency in matter and manner to this end of salvation. We do not say, that all things necessary to decide all Controversies are plainly set down in it: that is not our assertion, nor the state of the question betwixt us. Our position may be true, and yet this false: for all things necessary to salvation may be plainly set down in Scripture, and yet not all things necessary to decide all Controversies. Neither can they maintain this of their Church, which they think more fit to decide Controversies than Scripture, for then why did not the Trent Council clearly determine on which part many questions should be held? But the plainness of things necessary is in Scripture sufficient against the necessity of any Controversy; as the fullness is sufficient against the necessity of Tradition, which is their word unwritten. And therefore are not we bound by any necessity of our cause to find any Text wherein we are obliged to take the Scripture for our only Judge of Controversies: for the texts before maintained are good to prove us obliged to Scripture for salvation; whereunto things necessary are plainly set down. If he might have made the state of the question for his own turn; my discourse should have been impertinent. A ruffling Adversary would have said that he had shifted and shuffled in the change of the question, as if we had held, that the Scripture did contain all things necessary to decide all Controversies. All prime Controversies necessary to salvation, if there need be any, it doth: and that is sufficient for us against them.  
But he thought he had devised a way how this opinion might be made good, that the Scripture doth suffice for the deciding of all Controversies; thus; Yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable Controversies, because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church built upon a rock, the pillar and ground of truth, having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truth. O excellent provision for the honour of Scripture! One in the Trent Council, as I remember, did not like references; but would have all done uniformly by the same hand: but we must from Scripture refer to the Church. And as it is said of Cardinal Bellarmin, that being asked a question too difficult, said, he could not tell how to answer it, but he would show the party one that could; and then shown him the picture of an excellent Divine: so the Scripture cannot answer all Controversies: but it hath reputation in this, that it can show, and doth, an infallible Judge of all imaginable Controversies, the Church. To this, first, methinks then, if it were but for this use, the Scripture should be more common to the Laity: because it showeth so clearly this Judge. Secondly, let them show unto us where the Scriptture doth plainly show unto us this Judge; that they may no longer beg the question. And Thirdly, let them tell us why the Church doth not determine all Controversies, as we have said before; not imaginable only, but real Controversies; as concerning the Pope's power in compare with a Council, and concerning his temporal power: and concerning the right of Bishops: concerning original sin: concerning the conception of the Virgin: were these determined with satisfaction to all the Members of the Council? Fourthly, doth the Scripture give the denomination of this Church, which is the pillar and ground of all truth, that should be the infallible Judge? Fifthly, if they think the Spirit of truth doth abide with the Church, to decide all Controversies by way of an habitual gift, then must this Church have more privilege than the Apostles had; for they had the Spirit by way of a transient gift, and therefore some particular questions they did not decide by the gift of the Spirit: but the Church must have a standing faculty to decide all imaginable Controversies. Sixthly, may not we as well say, this is for the glory of the Church for necessaries to salvation, that it sends us to the Scripture which is infallible, and clear enough in things of necessary faith? This honour the Fathers, before the universal Bishop, gave to the Scriptures: the Romanists now would arrogate it to the Church. If they must be brought to a Competition; which, in ingenuity, should carry the honour, the Scripture according to the Fathers, or the Church according to the Romanists?  
But he thinks, according to his principles, he is not engaged to find a plain Text, where this is set down, that the Church should decide, with infallible authority, all our Controversies; because, according to them, all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down.  
Answ. Then first, according to our principles, we are not bound to believe it: and we must account it no necessary to salvation, because it is not plainly set down. And how then shall we know it? what by its own light? or may we know the Church by Scripture, and not the infallibility, which is the privilege? Secondly, How then could he say by Scripture, that God hath provided a way so direct that fools cannot err? Thirdly, if he confess that there is not a clear text which showeth this privilege of, and our duty to the Church, than the disputation is at an end: for he will not dispute with me from the testimony of the Fathers, for causes best known to himself. And if he says, we must be judged by the Church; it is the question. Fourthly, therefore are we in this agreed, which is the main point of the question; namely, that the Scripture doth not plainly set it down, that the Church is to decide, with infallible authority, all our Controversies. For, if it were plainly set down, we also should be bound to believe it, as being plainly set down, though it would not therefore be necessary to salvation, simply because it is plainly delivered. All necessaries are plainly set down, according to our opinion: but all that is plainly set down is not necessary to salvation, ex natura principii. And then fifthly, if he doubts of this point, as to be plainly set down in Scripture, than his principles are less capable of certainty than ours: for he hath no ground certain of his faith, upon the account of the Church; because, if the Church did ground her infallibility upon her own authority contradistinctly to Scripture, she could not, by her own authority, contradistinctly to Scripture, prove that she is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet neither hath the Church, or their Church, (for aught I have read) in any of their Councils, determined itself by Scripture, or otherwise, infallible to the decision of all imaginable Controversies. Nay, neither do Bellarmin or Stapleton, if I be not mistaken, assert the infallibility of the Church in this extent; therefore my Adversary in this walks alone.  
Yet he says the texts he will produce hereafter are an hundred times more clear, that the Church is to decide all our Controversies, than that the Scripture by itself alone is to decide them.  
Ans. This comes not home to the point. For first, we go not upon degrees of claritude, but upon infallibility. Can they tell us how many degrees of claritude will make infallibility? Secondly, All our Controversies are not so much as all imaginable Controversies: there are other Controversies imaginable besides ours. Thirdly, he supposeth that of us which is not true of us, that we affirm the Scripture to decide our Controversies formally: which we say not: we say again, that for things necessary to be believed there is no need of Controversy, because they are plainly delivered: for other Controversies there is no need, as to salvation, that they should be decided, because they are not necessarily to be believed. And also for some of their opinions, they are in effect decided, namely, in a negative manner, because they are not mentioned in Scripture: and therefore percutit Dei gladius, as the Father speaks; the sword of God strikes them off. Fourthly, he is brought to a pinch: he would fain have the authority of the Scripture for the infallible decision or the Church: yet because the point is not so clear as to amount to our infallibility of their infallibility, he puts it upon degrees of claritude.  
But if it comes to degrees of claritude betwixt the Scripture for the Church, or the Scripture for itself, who shall compare and judge? the Church? this is the question, and it is a party. And persons are partial▪ the Law not. And would not they have men determine for the Church? Yes verily: and he thinks with good reason, than he allows them, as is observed by Mr. Chillingworth, a judgement of private discretion for the Church out of Scripture, but not for the Scripture out of Scripture. Fifthly, he differs from his own party in this, for they think it demonstrable out of Scripture, that the Church is with infallible authority to decide all Controversies. And how else can [the Roman] in their Trent Confession, be added to the Catholic and Apostolic Church? And how did they by their Authority determine that the Latin Bible, which came out first by Sextus Quintus, afterwards corrected by Clement the eighth, (though the former by them infallible) should be the Judge and Decider of all Controversies? So that, by the way, although the Scripture in the original be not a Decider of Controversies, yet in Latin it may.  
— sed te.  
Nos facimus [Romana] Deam coeloque locamus.  
His texts of more claritude for the Church come in afterwards, as he says, n. 58, etc.  
To pass by here that which is not material, 
Num. 16.  and also that which is spoken of here to be managed by him hereafter in other numbers of this ch. (which might give us an Alarm, when they come nearer us.) He says here, he might have added to other points necessary not plainly decided by Scripture, that great point, whether it be necessary to rebaptize those who are baptised by Heretics. And this we will not here pass by unsaluted, because we give reverence to St. Augustine's testimony produced by him upon the point. We therefore answer, but with some expostulation, why doth this come in here? was the latter written before the former? There is some mystery in it: but we pass it. We must answer therefore, first, that he mistakes the question which he is upon: it is not this, whether the Scripture doth plainly decide whether such a thing be necessary or not, but whether it doth decide plainly that which is necessary. Now here he lays it down as a question undecided by Scripture, Whether it be necessary to rebaptize those who are baptised by Heretics. To determine a thing which is necessary, and to determine whether the thing be necessary, are surely two things; the former respects the thing as in itself which part is true: the latter respects the thing in modo, and in order to the end, either of obedience or salvation. Therefore secondly, we distinguish of [necessary,] it hath relation either to duty, or to salvation: the former is the necessity of the precept: the latter of the mean. The former (if supposed) doth not infer the necessity of the knowledge of this point: because we may be saved without the knowledge of every thing which is commanded by God, by general Repentance. Otherwise no man could be saved: for no man living knows every thing which is commanded, therefore invincible ignorance must excuse actual repentance. Now the second necessity doth infer a necessity of knowledge; because, without the knowledge of necessary means, we cannot obtain our end. He is therefore to prove it necessary to salvation to know which part of the Contradiction is right, to rebaptize or not; which he cannot do, because the practice on either part is not necessary by necessity of mean. And the practice on either part is not necessary by necessity of mean; because then either those Churches which differed from St. Cyprian, or those that held with him, were in extreme peril of damnation; which I think they will not say. Wherefore, if either part be necessary to be believed, the necessity is not ex vi materiae, but ex vi proponendi; upon the clearness of the proposing it. Now that which is necessary to be believed in the latter kind, doth not belong to our question: for the question is of those things which are to be believed necessarily in order to salvation, not necessarily to be believed in order to the proposal; but this clear proposal is not necessary, because the practice on either part is not necessary to salvation; and therefore this is no necessary question. And this distinction is sufficient to destroy at least the most of all his instances of this kind. And thirdly, my Adversary needed not, as to himself, to have made this a question, by reason of the practice of their Church: for they account us Heretics; and yet when we come over to them, they do not rebaptize us. And if they say, it is now determined by the Church in the negative; we answer, it is not yet determined by the Church whether it was necessary to be determined by the Church in order to salvation: for than it was necessary to salvation not to be rebaptised; and it was necessary to salvation to know it: the former putteth St. Cyprian in danger for the evil practice: the latter puts him in danger for want of necessary knowledge. And therefore the former part of St. Austin's testimony hereunto is not appositely produced: for the question now is not whether it be openly or evidently read in Scripture; because we confess it is not: but the question is of the necessity of it to be known. Let then the moment of this discourse be resolved into form, thus: This is necessary to be known, on which part the truth stands: this is not known by Scripture; therefore somewhat not known by Scripture is necesry to be known; we answer, first, we deny the syllogism, because it is not an Elench, a contradictory syllogism: for it should conclude something necessary to salvation which is not known in Scripture: And if this be put into the major proposition, that it is necessary to salvation to be known, we utterly deny it until it be well proved; which we think will never be.  
And to that which follows of St. Austin's testimony in the nineteenth ch. (not the twenty second) de Vnit. Ecclesiae, we, consequently, can easily make answer, even by saying as he, that, If there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony that he should be consulted in this question, we would make no doubt to perform that he should say, lest we should seem not to gainsay him so much as to gainsay Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended, now Christ beareth witness to his Church: therefore. But what then? What is this to our purpose? For first, this informs us what should be done, but not upon what necessity, whether to salvation or not. In things of question we deny not all due respect to the Church: but we are upon things necessary to salvation; and amongst such, this point is out of question no question. But secondly, those that should be consulted with, should be believed in proportion to Scripture; should they not? yes, surely because Christ hath given testimony to his Church, in Scripture; and if we are to take the testimony of the Church from Scripture, then are we to give credence to what is said in analogy to Scripture: Now though it be not openly and evidently read in Scripture, as he says: yet there may be some seeds as it were, in Scripture, of it, whereupon the Conclusion might rise. And therefore where Scripture hath the principle, we give belief to the Conclusion in respect thereunto. Yea, the prime and formal reason of believing the Church must come from Scripture, by which there in that book, St. Austin doth prove the Catholic Church: so that if the Church be credible by the Scripture, than the Scripture is more credible. But thirdly, this is said by the Father of the Catholic Church, not of a part of it: and therefore they cannot conclude from hence to the Roman Church. For it being understood of the whole Church, as such; a part as a part hath no part in it, but as it agrees to the whole. Neither is it said of the Catholic Church for place then, but also the Catholic for time: and yet if for the Catholic then, we cannot equally draw it to the Catholic for place now; for the Catholic morally was more credible than than now. And fourthly, as he hath excepted against the concluding unto all points from the Scriptures concluding one: so we, ad hominem, deny that he can conclude from the Church unto all points, because St. Austin useth it for one point against the Donatists. And as he argued from the Catholic against the Donatists a perverse part which would have salvation only within their circuit in Africa: so may we argue from the Catholic Church against the Roman, which will have all subject to their Communion, or damnation.  
And then also may we limit that which follows, Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself, who by his testimony commends the Church. This, respecting things of Discipline against Schism, may be good: but what is this to universal and absolute assent in point of faith? And it concerns the Catholic Church, as before; not the Roman: or, if it did concern the Church of Rome then; yet dato, non concesso: it doth not at all avail to the Church of Rome now.  
As for his distinction of using this Testimony, Not for the authority of S. Austin, (with whom I am so little satisfied) but for the convincing reason. We answer, that this is but a flourish, yet wisely made, lest he should be as well engaged to answer the testimonies of the Fathers against them: I say then, that we give more respect to the Fathers than indeed they do when they differ from them: and we give as much as the Father's desire for themselves. And why have they themselves then left some practices of the Church: as unction with Baptism; standing up in prayer betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide; Infant Communion, and others? But I shall conclude this Number with S. Austin's Reason, mutatis mutandis, Whosoever refuseth to follow the Doctrine of Scripture in things necessary, resisteth our Saviour himself, who by his testimony commends, and commands to us the Scripture. Let him think of this who is an Impugner of the sufficiency of Scripture.  
To pass by his suppositions of his proof, 
Num. 17.  which are already nulled by me: he doth here take notice of my charging him with a contradiction in adjecto, for saying, we should submit to the infallible Judge, whatsoever Reasons we have to the contrary: But this he doth not ingenuously deliver, as it was delivered by me; and yet, in effect, says nothing to it, but that I do ill suppose any solid Reasons grounded in Scripture against such a Judge. And this is all he would say to make out my charge against him of a Contradiction in adjecto; leaving out those words of mine, for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary, etc.  
May I not say, that this was not fair dealing? but to let this pass: if he can yet prove, or any for him, such a Judge to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth, whose tongue is directed by the same Spirit who directed the Pen of those who writ the Scripture, than indeed I should suppose that which could not be: but this I deny to be provable by all the wit of Rome; and therefore I still hold my supposition: and yet if this could be made good, I should yield my supposition; yet I could not reverse my charge against him of the contradiction in adjecto, which lies not in the supposition of Reasons out of Scripture against such a Judge; but in this, that we must submit to such a Judge, whatsoever Reasons we have out of Scripture to the contrary: For if there could be any such Judge proved, there could not be Reasons out of Scripture to the contrary. And Reason out of Scripture will bind belief against any proof. It would not only put a demur against proof, but prevail against it: and if the proof were out of Scripture, than there should be a contradiction in Scripture: for there should be reason for such a Judge, and reason against it; and so the Scripture should not be infallible: which they confess.  

Num. 18.  But this not right dealing with what I wrote shall not answer for the misusage of Bellarmin, that he here accuseth me of; because I said, If we are by duty to go the way of absolute obedience to the dictates of the Judge, we must then, if he says vices are virtues, say so too, as your Cardinal Bellarmin determins.  
This he makes a calumny; because he thinks it as impossible for the Pope to say that vices are virtues, as if God the Father should say, such a thing was a virtue, and Christ should preach such a thing was a vice.  
Ans. It would do well, as he said, to use soft words and hard arguments; waving therefore his reflections, we say, first, the calumny is not in saying of him what he says not: but in the misinterpretation how he speaks it. And to this we say; it is not necessary to be a calumny, for, it may be spoken of him, as it was spoken by him, in way of supposition, and may be spoken of him to be spoken by him. And therefore if it was no calumny in the Cardinal to say so, it may be no calumny in me to say of the Cardinal, that he said so. They will think a notional supposition makes no slander, whosoever be the subject, and whatsoever the predicate; and therefore if he thinks that I must speak it of Bellarmin slanderously, he must also think that Bellarmin might speak it so too.  
Secondly, if it were as impossible to suppose any such thing of the Pope, as that God should say such a thing is a virtue, and Christ should preach it to be a vice; Then why hath the Pope such a Council to assist him? It is well put into more hands for fear of a defectibility in one. And if it be said, that this was spoken of the Pope only hypothetically to his saying so, as being assisted with a Council; it is easily answered, that this is not the Jesuits opinion, that the Pope is infallible only with a Council. And by the way, if a Pope be infallible only with a Council, why did Pope Clement say, that a Council was always good, but when it meddled with the Pope's authority? Is there any point more considerable than the Pope's authority? And is he only infallible in a Council? and yet is he afraid that this point should be meddled with in a Council? Then he must suspect his own cause in their opinion.  
Well, and can God err, or can Christ err in precepts, and particular judgements, as Bellarmin confesseth in the same chap.? it is not absurd that the Pope should err. And can God or Christ err in commanding any thing unprofitable, or under too heavy a punishment? It is not absurd to say this of the Pope, although it belongs not to subjects to doubt of this, but simply to obey, as he says in the same chap.  
Nay, if to speak so of the Pope, as Bellarmin says, in way of supposition, were a slander, than Bellarmin slanders the Pope also in his second b. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 29. Itaque sicut licet resistere Pontifici, etc. Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope invading our body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls, and troubling a Commonwealth; and much rather, Si Ecclesiam destruere niteretur, if he should endeavour to destroy the Church. Thus he. Then he shall defend me: therefore may I be clear of slander against Bellarmin; or he guilty of slander against the Pope.  
But than thirdly, put case I account it no slander against the Pope to affirm a possibility in him to say that vice is virtue. The Consequence, I hope, is good ab esse ad posse, he hath done so, therefore is it possible. To command disobedience to Christ, under colour of obedience to him, is to say really that vice is virtue: and this the Pope hath done in the injunction of his dimi-Communion; as before. And let them, before they press this slander any further, first, help Bellarmin to purge the Pope of all those errors in faith, and determinations affirmative against God's precepts negative in point of practice. And when they have done this, than we shall be afraid to suppose a possibility, if we cannot find further instances of fact. And therefore they shall not scare us with a charge of calumny, until they have strongly asserted such an impossibility. Indeed impossibilis conditio facit negativam: we cannot err in obedience if we cannot err in commanding; but that he cannot err in commands, is yet sub judice, and not himself.  
All Protestants do say (as I noted) that the Scripture, 
Num. 19  and only the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge to end all Controversies.  
Ans. This is no genuine account of our opinion. They do not assert the Scripture to be a Judge in formalities. They say there is no need of such a Judge, as Papists would have; since all necessaries unto faith and hope and charity, are sufficiently delivered in matter and form, without any exigence of such a Judge. And in this they agree with all right Catholics; not with Heretics, as he would have it. And Heretics, he may know, as before, have urged the Church for them: and St. Austin hath dealt with Heretics by Scripture, and therefore if Heretics use the Scripture, must we not? since Heretics urge the Church, by his argument, they must not, they know the rule, Duo cum idem faciunt non est idem.  
It is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points, and another thing to say Scripture, and only Scripture, must be the Judge for all Controversies: To what end then is all you say against me as against one misliking the use of Scripture?  
Ans. This is all I have from him in account to five or six answers I gave him to the charge against me, for using Scripture as Heretics do. Thus easily he puts me off. Well, to this put-off, we say, first, that this distinction of his imports a confession of his to use Scripture in some points; then is not the proposal of the Church necessary to all points? and this is some abatement of his former universality. Secondly, those points he allows the use of Scripture in are necessary, as was intimated before, since Bellarmin doth own the Scripture for a rule also. And if Scripture doth deliver some points necessary, quatenus taeles; then all necessaries, as before, neither need these necessaries be many, as Mr. Chillingworth hath observed: and Tertullian also in effect, Certa sunt in paucis. The rule of faith used by the Fathers was not numerous in particulars. Thirdly, we say, not that the Scripture is a proper Judge, much less for all Controversies. And therefore if they will stand to what is here said by them, and withdraw that which is not duly said of us, let them take the Counters and cast up the difference betwixt us. They allow the Scripture in some points: we allow the Church in some points: they allow the Scripture, I suppose in some points necessary, we allow the Church much in points not necessary. If they would extend some points necessary, to all points necessary (which are not many; we, not upon condition, but freely would give the Church due reverence in points of question, and thus there would be soon an end of the Controversies betwixt us, and in all the world also. For all differences do arise either in Doctrine or Discipline; (if we take Doctrine as extendible not only to points of simple faith, but also to points of practice.) For then the Scripture should rule us in points of Doctrine: and the Church in point of Discipline, unto peace.  
But his fair terms will not grow into a composition. For he argues, that the Scripture cannot be the Judge of Heretics, thus. All Offenders against the Law will never be so much their own Condemnors as to choose, on their own accord, a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned: therefore when we see all Offenders against God's Law in point of Heresy, choose on their own accord to be judged by Scriptures, it is a manifest sign that they know they shall never be condemned clearly by Scripture.  
Ans. This discourse in form seems an Enthymem, but in effect is a Syllogism, if we take a minor out of the consequent. To the major therefore we say, we are not here to examine what an Offender would do to save his life, but what we should do to save our souls. The question is of duty, which we should be judged by. Nay, secondly, the Offender ought morally to refer himself to his right Judge notwithstanding his danger: and in heresy we offend against the fundamental Law of God in Scripture. For though there be a respect to the Church in the common definition of heresy; yet this opposition to the Church doth not constitute heresy, but rather schism. Heresy hath in it more of the matter about which the error is. Schism hath more of the form in opposition to the Church, because it is neither in things clearly commanded, ordinarily: nor in things necessary. And so his argument from a manifest sign seems to be such a sign that he had no better; but besides, the minor, which is couched wisely in the Consequent or Conclusion, is also in part false: for Heretics have also pleaded the authority of the Church for themselves, as hath been said: and by his argument, this is a manifest sign that they cannot clearly be condemned by the Church. And then again secondly, to the minor, he supposeth heretic's rational men, because they do wisely decline, as he thinks, such a Judge as would clearly condemn them. Well then, they may desire to be judged by Scripture, not because they cannot be clearly condemned thereby; but because they know that that is the standard whereby their opinions are to be authorized and made good, and because they are to deal with those who know there is no other way of solid reviction for the matter of heresy, but by Scripture. Thirdly, the Adversaries might have known, that as they have appealed to Scripture, so also to the Scripture they have been sent by the Church: so St. Austin dealt with Maximinus: so St. Athanasius said the Nicene Fathers determined against the Arrians by Scripture, as before hath been said. If therefore they, who in his opinion should have judged them, judged them by authority of Scripture, than Scripture is the Law by which they are to be judged. And then the whole argument will be returned upon them, mutatis mutandis, thus, All Offenders against the Law of God of their own accord would not choose such a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned; Therefore my Adversaries who are Offenders against the Law of God in Scripture, of their own accord have no mind to be judged by Scripture: and therefore they choose to be judged by the Church, which they interpret to be themselves: thus, as Heretics, of their own accord, would be their own Judges: so would our Adversaries with all their hearts; then they agree with Heretics. And so it would pose him to find any one Heretic; as it would pose me to find how my Adversaries Church should be condemned.  
And as for the false glosses and interpretations whereby he thinks Heretics may evade; why should we again say, that notwithstanding they were dealt with by Law of Scripture, but also, so there are false glosses and interpretations of former Councils and later too; else how could some definitions be so set down as should please different parties? And why so many differences still? But is this an argument for Theologie? they may use false glosses and interpretations, therefore they are not to be judged by Scripture: as good an argument will starve him, for fear of poison in his meat.  
And as for our giving of scope to these kind of glosses and Interpretations, it is not so, In maxima Libertate minima licentia. Regular permission to search the Scriptures is no giving of scope to such glosses and interpretations; then, if so, in stead of the Beroeans commendation for searching the Scriptures, we must read condemnation. For if Ministers may not give this liberty, the people ought not to take it.  
Neither do I against any Council firmly believe my own particular interpretation to be true, but by consequent: because that which is so interpreted by me according to lawful rules, I may judge to be true. And he may allow me a power of discourse upon the propositions of Councils; because he, as others, may hold Councils to be fallible in their discourse, but not in the Conclusion. And is not this very disputable? Can I be as much assured of it as that Jesus is the Christ? And may not I consent to the ancient Fathers against the Fathers of Trent? 
Trent Hist.  And did not some Divines in the Trent Council complain that some determinations crossed the minds of the Ancient Fathers?  
And now, if they will consider that the Arrians upheld an opinion, which they know condemned in a lawful General Council, namely, the first Nicene; and also that the Arrians knew, and that others ought to know, that nothing, in point of faith, could authentically be urged but out of Scripture, they may think they have satisfaction enough to this Paragraph.  
And may what Christ and his Apostles have expressed, for the use of the Cup in the Holy Communion, be extruded; and what the Trent Council determined for the omission not doubted of? Call they not this presumption? Was ever any before these days so presumptuous?  

Num. 20.  Here my Adversary would maintain a supposition of his, that they do only believe the Scriptures, not we.  
Ans. This varies from the state of the present question: and therefore, when he goes from the question, we need not follow him, for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with us is this, whether the Scriptures do plainly contain all things necessary to salvation: yet, as he said, Non sum piger, usque sequor. His argument is this, No body can believe this with Divine faith, who doth not ground his assent to this truth upon Divine revelation: but our Adversaries do not ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation.  
Ans. Some of our Divines have been charged with too much charity: but we are now charged with a total want of faith, and consequently hope too. Yet we may hope to make his charge nought, and our faith good, but we need not say any more than what hath been said, whereunto he hath said as much as comes to little: yet now he diverts hither.  
We must say therefore again, that this should not be a question betwixt us, how we believe the Scriptures to be the word of God: for this is supposed betwixt us as the subject of the question. And we say, that the sense of this argumentation is to as much purpose as if, when we are at London we must go back again, because we did not go the new way. As to the Assumption then, we deny it. We do ground our assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation, Yea, moreover we return him his argument in terms, and therefore they have no Divine faith, so natural it is for those to speak most who have a mind to cover their own defects. They cannot ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation, because they ground it upon the authority of the Church: for they must either have an immediate revelation that the Church is infallible; or else they must ground it upon the general sum of revealed truth; and that is the Scripture: for as for Tradition, that which is of a particular Church is of no weight, as to this business: and universal Tradition must go upon account of the Church: now then, if they say that they have a Revelation immediate, that the Church is infallible in proposing those books to be Canonical, they make that to be of use to them which they deny to us, who have as good reason to say, that we may as well have an immediate revelation that the Scripture is the word of God: but if they ground their faith upon some texts of Scripture which concern the Church, than they must believe the Scripture for itself. So then either they must come to us, or else indeed they have no Divine faith.  
And therefore had he no cause to be offended with that I said, that the Canonical books are worthy to be believed for themselves as we assent to prime principles in the habit of Intelligence. To this he says in a parenthesis, And so is the book of Toby and Judith as well as these.  
But doth he say, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? and doth he not then find fault with the ancient Church, who did not, as hath been shown, give equal reverence to these, as to the books Canonical? If they be as worthy to be believed as the books Canonical, than they erred in not receiving them with equal belief: And if they erred, than our Adversaries are lost.  
And now as for our assent to the Canonical books in the manner of assent to prime principles, by the help of the Spirit of God; they are not like to prosper in the abuse of it. First, it is to be noted, that we are not now to deal with one that denies the Scripture to be the word of God: for to an unbeliever hereof we should use other arguments rationally to induce him to a good opinion hereof, but when we are demanded by a Christian what is it that grounds our faith of Scripture, one would think we might say, that we are resolved to a Divine faith hereof by the Spirit of God, disposing our assent to them as of themselves worthy to be believed, which is the reason of assent to prime principles. And therefore secondly, we do not say, that our assent to the Canonical books is by a natural light, as our assent to prime principles; but that our assent is made to them by way of Intelligence, through the Spirit: the light of the Spirit, as to show us the Scripture to be worthy of belief for itself, is supernatural: but when that comes, we believe it, as we do prime principles; not by discourse, but because it is credible of itself. Faith herein bears more proportion to intelligence than to science: because we do not in faith use a reason to the act, as we do in science: And this is intimated in the common reading of that text of the Prophet, Si non crediderint, non intelligent: if they will not believe they shall not understand; so then, since faith is a supernatural habit, as the Schoolmen, the Spirit of God doth infuse it into us, as being an habit infused, as they speak: and this doth dispose us to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, as by him indicted, And one would think that it is a better ground to believe it to be the word of God, because he saith so, than to believe it because the Church saith so: and it is more about, because I cannot believe it upon the account of the Church, but because God gives testimony of the Church, and why cannot we then believe God, teste seipso. So all the assent we give to them is made upon the veracity of God, which is the centre in which all lines of Scripture do meet and terminate.  
Therefore might he have spared that which follows, Have you brought all the infallibility of Christian Religion unto this last ground to be trampled by the Socinians?  
Ans. First, I do not see what reason we have to lay the foundation of Religion so as to please the Socinian. One who maintained the Protestant cause was prejudiced by suspicion of being inclined to Socinianism: and I am now found fault with for not providing for their satisfaction in our principles. Well, but secondly, I do not find that Socinians do abhor this tenure of Scripture. And thirdly, they, to be sure, do trample upon the authority of their Church, as infallible. And therefore this is to be returned home to the Romanist.  
And also upon the former grounds might he have omitted what follows from [do you expect, unto all that you believe;] for although the object is to be believed for itself, as a prime principle; yet is there not a natural light for it: that comes supernaturally; and therefore faith is a supernatural habit. But if they would be accounted such rational men in the faith of Scripture, they do deserve from the Socinian a negative reverence by a positive favour to them. But again, how far is that which I have said different from the determination of Ratisbon in their fourth session, Scripturae dicuntur perfectae quoad perfectionem eredibilitatis et exactissimae veritatis; The Scriptures are said perfect, as in respect of the perfection of credibility, and most exact truth. And the perfection of credibility belongs to the first principles, which are indemonstrable. And as those principles have themselves immobiliter unto Sciences, as Aquinas: so the Scriptures have themselves unto Divinity. Here we must rest. And if every one doth not believe them to be the word of God upon this account, this doth not derogate from the credibility of the object, thus we say, that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God, is evident of its own self, needing no further proof for the requiring an infallible assent no more than the first principles, which are the object of intelligence.  
And also therefore upon the premises, that which concludes the number might have been forborn, Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitiful a case as your Adversaries could wish it.  
These braving words do not hurt a solid cause, they are to be returned to the place from whence they came, who hath brought Religion to so pitiful a case as the Pontifician, who must have religion made accomodable to their pride and covetuousness? No case of Religion so pitiful as uncertainty: no such uncertainty of Religion as with them. For if they ground their Religion upon the determination of Councils, wherein only Bishops have their vote, and the Bishop of Rome his confirmation thereof; no man can, according to their principles, be certain whether there be a true Pope, or true Bishop; as hath been said. Moreover, we can make use of intrinsical arguments for the truth of Scripture to be the word of God, as well as they. We can make use of extrinsecall arguments better; for we make use of the authority of the whole Church, and do give it, in this point, as much reverence as is due thereunto. But therefore, till that which is here said for the settling of our faith, be disproved; and also till it be proved, that we do not make use of these arguments towards our faith of Scripture, because we do not pitch our final resolution in them, our ground of faith and of Religion is as good and sound as theirs; yea, in respect of our own subjective faith, more. Yea, the Romanist might know, that he hath been told, that Estius doth differ from them upon this point? and says, that it is not necessary to faith to be begotten by the proposal of the Church, in the third B. of senten. 23 dist. Yea, also Stapleton in his Triplication against Whitaker saith, p. 103. Ego igitur quicquid in haec causa Spiritui sancto tribuendum est, plenissime assignavi, etc. I have most fully assigned what is to be attributed to the Holy Ghost in this cause, asserting these two things; both that by faith infused alone, or by the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone, all faith may be begotten, when it pleaseth the Spirit of God to teach any extraordinarily immediately; and also, although ordinarily a thing is delivered by the testimony and authority of the Church, yet no faith doth efficaciously follow, without the gift of faith infused by God, or without the internal testimony of the Spirit of God.  
And again the same in the next page, to the same purpose, to clear himself of the suspicion of giving no more to the Holy Ghost in this point than those who put the last reason of believing in the testimony of the Church, he says disertly, Ego enim, etc. For I have denied and do deny, that the last reason of believing is to be put in the testimony of the Church; not only upon that head, that that last proposition or resolution [I believe the Church to be governed by the Holy Ghost.] is not had without the inward gift of faith, or that he who believeth this, believeth this by a gift of faith and not by humane faith or acquisite; but especially upon that head, that without any testification of the Church or notice of the Church or of the knowledge of that proposition [That the Church is governed by the Spirit of God] by the only magistery of the Spirit of God, one may believe all that is to be believed, as the Prophets and Apostles being taught by the Spirit of God alone, did believe many things, for from hence it follows invincibly against Durandus and others, since there can be but one formal reason of our faith, and some believe without the testimony of the Church, but none can believe without the testimony of the Spirit, that the proper and formal reason of faith is not the voice of the Church, but must be the testimony, the Doctrine, the Magistery of the Spirit of God. So he. And therefore there is less between Stapleton and me; than betwixt my Adversary and me. When all is done therefore, we must come to this of the Father, Cathedram habet in coelis qui corda docet in terris: He hath his Chair in Heaven that teacheth hearts on earth; and with the heart man believeth unto salvation. Rom 10.10.  

Num. 21.  Therefore in the following number he needed not to take notice of my differing from others of our own Church in this point: let them agree with their own men. Let Bannes and Stapleton agree with Durand. or if they cannot be reconciled, let them never hereafter make any difference amongst ourselves a prejudice to the cause. It is then no more reproach to me to differ from others, than for some of them.  
As for the three then, whom he says, I differ from, Mr. Chillingworth, Dr. cowel, and Mr. Hooker; if they do not agree it, it is no infallible argument against me even in the opinion of those three, But also, as to the first, I say, and my Adversaries might have known, that he held not faith in the high notion of a Divine assent, as they do: But that a moral assurance was sufficient to it, and sufficiently influxive into necessary practice. And therefore having this opinion of faith, he conceived no such need of an infallible ground hereof, but took therefore a common principle for his motive hereof, namely, universal tradition. Secondly, if he takes not his grounds from my Adversaries, what do they get by him? For in his sixty sixth page, he says, that it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that the Gospel of St. Matthew is the word of God, as that all that the Roman Church says is true. Yea, moreover the same p. 135. doth fairly show that the Spirit of God may give assurance hereof, which he says indeed, is not rational and discursive, but supernatural and infused. An assurance it may be to himself, but not to any other: and again, p. 211. that the Doctrine itself is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God, Nec vox hominem sonat. And is not then in his opinion the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; If then he had raised faith to that height of a Divine assent, as my Adversaries do, it is very like he would have thought better of this assurance by the Spirit to be more ordinary; since universal tradition, if it hath any weight, must rest in Scripture, as it is the tradition of the universal Church, (which also he contradistinguisheth not only to the Roman Church for place, but to the present universal Church for time) because we cannot prove the Church but by Scripture.  
And as for the other two whose judgements he opposeth to my opinion, I think they may receive convenient satisfaction by what is said to the former: that they did not deny this assurance by the Spirit of God, but that it is not argumentative to others. And therefore as to the question about the sufficiency of Scripture, Mr. Hooker says, that this is to be supposed, that the Scriptures are the word of God. And notwithstanding he thinks this is not to be proved by itself, yet in his first book. 34. p. he speaks enough, in that he says, the Scriptures do sufficiently direct us to salvation. And he quotes for it Sotus in the margin. And if it sufficiently directs us to salvation, then must it be sufficiently clear of itself that it is the word of God: for otherwise, the principal point unto salvation must be known otherwise. And if they think to argue well, that we must have all faith from the authority of the Church, because we have the faith of the Scriptures from the Authority of the Church, we may as well conclude, that since we have sufficient direction to salvation from the Scripture, we are also sufficiently directed to this main point of faith from the Scripture, that the Scripture is the word of God. Yea more; the Scripture doth give better evidence of itself to be the word of God, than the Church can give testimony, of itself, to be infallible: because the Church as such, in religion, is a non ens without Scripture in the substance of it. But to make an end of this exception against me in varying from others; this is the common Protestant principle; or else Stapleton was decieved, who makes account that every one of us ad unum do hold the Scripture to be known per se et sua quadam luce propria. 
In Analsiy principionem.  Therefore if the question be how we are privately assured ultimately that the Scripture is the word of God, we say, with Stapleton, that we are assured hereof by the testimony of the Spirit: if the question be how we prove it to others to be the word of God, we can, for extrinsecall proof, make use with Mr. Chillingworth of universal tradition.  
His exception then against our private assurance of the Scripture to be the word of God, in his following words, comes to nothing: for we need not, from what we have said, say, that the assent of faith is evident, as to an object of sense: but yet the assent may be more firm and certain. The formal object of faith is inevident: yet may we more fastly hold to what we believe than to what we see, because what we see depends upon our fallible sense: but what we believe, hath an infallible ground, namely, the word of God, that this is his word. For this ultimately must settle our personal faith: or else we have no faith, of proper name which is infallibly grounded: All believe that what God says is true: but if to the question, whether God says this, God cannot bring his own testimony, there can be no authentic ground of Religion in subjecto. And those therefore who would not have died to bear witness to a thing of sense, have died to bear testimony to the Christian Religion: and also have died for it, assuredly, ex vi habitus, by the power of the habit of faith, not ex vi traditionis, by the credibility of the Church.  
And as to that, which he takes ●●●tice of, that I acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare by infallible authority which books be the true word of God, which not, than to declare any other point: I answer, that it is not very ingenuously taken here by him, what I said; for I spoke by way of supposition, that it would not follow, if the Church were infallible as to propose, or tax and consign Canonical books, (as Stapleton speaks) yet that we had need of the Church infallibly to propose every other point of faith. He, it seems, took positively, what was spoken upon supposition. Every thing which is given in discourse is not granted to him: but this he refers to num. 43.  
For the ending then of this Paragraph, and sufficiently for the Controversy, upon the whole matter, it remains, that the Scripture must be credible for itself, or else the Church. Not the Church, that must be known by the Scriptures, as before, therefore those texts by which the Church is proved in the truth and infallibility, must be worthy to be believed for themselves, or not: if so, then why not other parts of Scripture; and so we have our purpose? if not, then are we in a circle; and must beg the question and never be satisfied.  

Num. 22.  Here another argument is drawn against me from the effect negatively; which, in the kind of it, doth not conclude, A non esse ad non posse non valet. And we may as well argue, that some have this way attained faith; therefore this is the way: however, the possibility proceeds from the effect to 〈◊〉, but it doth not proceed against a possibility from the denial of it to some. Because Pighius and Hermannus have not found assurance this way, therefore this is not the way for final assurance, is inconsequent. Secondly, the cause of non-assurance thus, doth not arise from the defect in Scripture, (which Stapleton says, and some others is true and holy and authentic) but God doth not give by his Spirit faith to all. All men have not faith; as the Apostle, as commonly we expound it, and though they are said to believe in the sense of the Church because they profess the Christian Religion: yet by an internal act of faith many not. Thirdly, neither are we bound to maintain this proposition of theirs, Facienti quod in se est datur gratia ex congruo; and therefore, if upon the use of means, they have not this Divine faith infused, it is no prejudice to our cause: for not only gifts are gratiae gratis datae, but also the gratiae gratum facientes are also freely given: and therefore is their distinction, by the way, faulty. And therefore, if there be many millions (which is yet more than he could know) who can truly and sincerely protest before God, and take it upon their salvation, that they are wholly unable by the reading these books to come to an infallible assurance that this is God's word; This infers nothing of moment against us, because, although we have not ordinarily the effect without the means, yet because we use the means therefore necessarily we shall have the effect, doth not follow, if the graces of God be free. Yea, fourthly, those millions he means are of their Church, we may suppose: and they, we may think, are instructed to find no resolution but in their own way, by the proposal of the Church: So that as St. Paul says, Rom. 10.3. of the Jews, that they going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God: so also may we say of these, that they going about to establish the authority of the Church in this point, have not submitted themselves to the authority of God. Yea, fifthly and lastly, (to be even with him in kind) it is said in Eusebius, that for some time in the Church, some books were doubted of: now let me ask how came the Christians afterwards to be assured of those books to be also Canonical? Not by the former Church; for they doubted thereof: not by the latter Church; that was impossible. How then came the Christians first to be persuaded of those books to be also authentic? If it be said by the present Church; we suppose a time before the Church then was thereof assured. Yea, if it be said, that private Christians were therein resolved by a Council, we say that some were assured of books, before doubted of, before there was any General Council: Yea, how came those of the Council (upon the supposition) to be so determined of them? It will be said by them, that they were assured by the Spirit of God; then, as Stapleton's argument is, since there is one formal reason of faith, the last resolution must be by the Spirit.  

Num. 24.  In the twenty fourth number he argues against me thus, that if my opinion were true, then let but an Heathen or Turk or Jew read the Gospel, he must by reading of it see it as clearly to be God's word, as he might see the Sun by his light.  
Ans. If they must be answered toties quoties, we say, they suppose that which is not to be supposed, that we say the Scripture may be seen by its own light naturally. We say not so. Supernatural objects are not seen by natural faculty: for than what needed the testimony of their Church? The object is fair; were the faculty fit. The Spirit of God doth not relate to the object directly, but to the faculty enlightening it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristotle in his Metaphysics: and much more therefore is our mind unable to look up upon that which is not only removed from sense, but also from reason: therefore is the apprehensive power raised by the Spirit of God to make a proportion betwixt the faculty and the object: and the difficulty of apprehension is more from the weakness of the faculty than the sublimity of the object: therefore if an Heathen or Turk or Jew were by the Spirit of God enlightened, he would by reading of the Scripture have such an eye as might discern the Scriptures to be the word of God. And also neither can any one by reading of the determinations of Councils see that they are the word of God. Hath God provided better for their clear conversion by the voice of the Church than by his written word? Doth the Turk and Jew run to the Church of Rome as naturally as the Lamb to the dam? Doth the Jew think he hath reason to receive the Scripture from the Roman, as to the old Testament? Or doth he not think that the Roman should take the Bible from him? and therefore, in course, the Jew is said to offer it the Pope, as he goes to his Palace.  
If this were true, it is impossible thousands should not be yearly converted by this means.  
Ans. No, if the Roman could help it: for he would not suffer them to have the common use of the Bible, yea also may we say the same, if they could not but believe by the knowledge of the Church at first sight. Yea, surely the reason why so few of them do believe, is not because they are not disposed to believe by reading of the Scripture, but because they are not disposed to read them.  
This effect indeed he vaunts is to be performed by the Preachers of the Church: who have found the concurrence of God's grace to the conversion of millions.  
Ans. It is well that they have so good reason to magnify preaching: and yet this action is not by their great ones so highly esteemed; and this practice I think they took from their Adversaries, who had the first fruits of this office: and therefore if it be so; the argument is available as well to them. But secondly, the conversion was not, it seems, ex vi ministerii; but by the concurrence of God's grace: and surely the concurrence of God's grace is sufficient to conversion by reading. But thirdly, if the Preachers of their Church (as Xavier) with the concurrence of God's grace did convert millions, than I hope infallibility may be even in private Doctors; or else we have no need of infallibility in order to conversion.  
But he supposeth that reading of the Scriptures alone did never find the concurrence of God's grace to convert any single man (that we could hear of.)  
Ans. More may be done than they know: and more may they say of their Preachers than was done. Secondly, were their Preachers Preachers of the Church objective? If so, than they had other denominations than did become them who had a mind to follow the Apostles, who rather commended Christ to the Church, than the Church to Christians. Yea; if St. Paul, 2 Cor. 4, 5. says, We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake; how could they preach themselves or the Roman Doctors to be the Masters of their faith, and the Roman Church not only to be the Mother, but Mistress of the Christian world? Thirdly, if any did believe by them, they did not believe for them, and therefore was not their authority the ground of their faith: nay, not the authority of the Roman Church; for that can have no greater authority than St. Paul had: and what said he of himself, 1 Ep. Cor. 3.5. For what is Paul, and what is Apollo's, but Ministers by whom ye believed; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And fourthly, is not reading of the word an ordinance of God? and therefore was the Law read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, and is there any ordinance of God with which he doth not at all concur? though he is not bound to it: yet he doth it graciously. Yea, fifthly, was not Junius converted to the Christian faith by reading of the first Chapter of St. John, with the concurrence of God's grace?  
N. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. In all these he prosecutes the same discourse, against the clearness of the Scripture to be the word of God by its own light. And all the arguments therein do, in effect, hang upon one string; which is a supposition, that we should hold this principle, of the Scripture's being the word of God, to be as clearly assented to by a natural faculty, as a principle of Science. Only in the 29. number he doth dispute against the help of the Spirit to see the Scripture to be credible for itself.  
That supposition we have already taken away: and so the string being broken; all those arguments must fall, yet what in them is new and of moment I shall touch and remove.  
As to the want of suffrages from the Ancients for my opinion in this point, which he chargeth it with in his twenty fourth Par. I say no more than that I have said more than he had any mind to make any answer to; the reason whereof I have given before.  
And as to his imagination, that if the Fathers had persuaded the Heathens to believe the Scripture by its own light, they would have scoffed at them, we have answered before, that we use not such an argument to persuade others: but this we have for our private assurance, as we cannot assent to Christian Doctrine but by the Spirit (for no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Spirit;) so no man can give a Divine assent to the books of Scripture, but by the Spirit, as Stapleton hath affirmed: therefore though we cannot argue to others the reception of these books as Canonical by that inward testimony of the Spirit, which we cannot make known to others infallibly; yet surely we may be able to prove to the Pontificians, at least, that there is such a testimony of the Spirit of God in thesi: they will not argue from the denial of it in Hypothesi to private Christians, to the denial of it in universali: for they say that the Church which is to commend these books to private men (if they think they are to be commended to them) is assured, that they are books Divine and Canonical, by the testimony of the Spirit: so that, upon the point, we agree for the kind of assurance, and they come to us for the last assurance: only they will have us to have this assurance mediately, by the Church. So the whole ratio and account of a Papist is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, delivered by Stapleton, Dei verbum per os Ecclesiae intelligimus; both the faith of the Scripture, and faith out of the Scripture we must have it from the Church. And yet the Church Representative must have it severally from the Spirit immediately too: and so there is less difference. And yet there was no Council or Pope surely for the first three hundred years; in which time notwithstanding men did believe the Scriptures to be the word of God; and then no difference betwixt them and us in the persuasion of Canonical Scripture. Secondly, Dato non concesso, that there had been nothing said by the Father's touching this point (which yet, as before, is not so) yet cannot we argue from them negatively as we do from Scripture; because even the chief of their Doctors will say, that the Scripture is a rule of faith, and the principal one too, some: but so is not the consent of the Fathers with the Papists in communi, (for they will differ from them as they did in the Trent Council) and specially with my Adversary who hath, before, contradistinguished the Fathers to the authority of the Church. So then, as we cannot solidly reason from their use of arguing from the Church, that there is no better assurance absolutely; so neither could we from the silence of the testimony of the Spirit, argue, that we must only depend upon the Church. But thirdly, he might have observed in St. Austin the reason why they urged the authority of the Church for the confirmation of Scripture, in lib. de utilitate credendi cap. 5. Scripturae populariter accusari possunt, non possunt populariter defendi, namely, otherwise than by the Church: yet he also doth suffragate for us in his book against the Epistle of the Manich. Non jam hominibus sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante; not men now, but God himself confirming and enlightening our mind within. And for triumph, Canisius and Hosius (besides Stapleton) of the Romanists are brought in with their testimonies to the same purpose, that we have a greater testimony of the Scriptures than the Church, 
Dr. Whit. De Eccles. p. 254.  namely, that of the Spirit of God.  
As for that which follows, Really I think if the Doctors of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens, etc. to the end of the Paragraph, how little doth it weigh with us. Really we may think that they think any thing will serve to make up weight. We can use, to such, the same argument with the Fathers without any derogation to our cause. And secondly, they did not plead the Church upon the Roman account: and therefore, if they will have all, they have no share. But to serve them in kind: Did the Doctors of the primitive Church tell the Heathens of our ordinary Pastor, which should be the plenipotentiary of the whole Church? Did they tell them of Transubstantiation? And had they told them that these things were as credible by the authority of the Church as by a light as evident as the Sun, the Heathens surely would have scoffed at them for saying them to be so visible. And again he argues from the visibility to the actual sight, not considering what is requisite in the subject, namely, faculty and will.  
This number is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Num. 25.  the argument is this, there are as many rays observable in the book of Toby or Judith, as in so many chapters of the book of Numbers.  
Ans. Would any one have expected so bold an assertion? But then why were these accounted amongst the rest Deuterocanonical? why were they not accounted by Jerom, by Eusebius, by Cyril of Jerusalem (as before) equal to the books Canonical, as to confirmation of faith? Why rejected by so many learned men, as Doctor White in his Defence of the true way doth cite, p. 32? Well. And how came the first Christian to distinguish them? Not by the authority of the Church: then by some difference in the books by the Divine illumination. For secondly, the Church hath not, as to the Canonicallnesse of books, vim operativam, but vim declarativam, as at most, even according to their greatest Doctors: and therefore this they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but ex officio: then either they were not declared in the primitive times, or were declared by some discrimination from the books: if they were not declared, there is no necessity now neither that they should be declared; if they were declared upon reason of the difference, than there are not such rays in the books Apocryphal. Thirdly, if these books were always to be received as Canonical, than the Church in the Primitive times erred in not receiving them. If they be not to be received as Canonical, as they were not received so, than the Roman Church erreth in the receiving them for such. And this Dilemma is destructive of their infallibility.  

Num. 26.  A sixth argument is drawn from a possibility of some omission of some words in Scripture, as the little word [not,] to an impossibility of my discerning this omission only by the reading of Scripture.  
Ans. The Scripture is either corrupted or not. If the former, how can we trust the Church of Rome, which pretends itself the Keeper: if not, the argument is void, and Bellarmin holds the latter. Secondly, Conditio impossibilis facit negativam: if it were false it could not be the word of God: therefore since we both acknowledge it to be the word of God, we cannot, ut sic, suppose such an omission. Thirdly, if there were a [not] left out, how should the Church have power to put it in? For then the Church would have power to contradict the old reading, and so to make Scripture: if the Church had not power, than it would be as uncertain as we. Fourthly, if there were a [not] left out in things substantial and necessary, it would likely make a contradiction to other texts where the same matter is delivered (for it would be very hard to find  point necessary to be one of those which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) now since we both conclude no Contradiction in Scripture (for then it would not be true and infallible) we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conclude that there is no such omission. Fifthly, if we may he persuaded by the Spirit of God, that the Scripture is the word of God, then consequently we are assured that there is not such an omission: but verum prius, ergo posterius.  
Here we have a seventh argument, 
Num. 27.  Luther who had the Spirit as well as I, if not in a larger measure, contradicts me in the Canonicallnesse of the Epistle of St. James and in this book of the Revelation; therefore this ground of believing Canonical books is fallible: since in a Contradiction one part must be false. And thus he thought to pay me in kind for my disputing the error of Councils by a Contradiction; which, he says, If you could prove, you should prove, that Councils are fallible.  
Ans. As for the Metaphysical Law in Contradictions, that one part must be false, if we hold any thing certainly true, we differ not.  
And concerning the proof of Councils to be fallible by one's contradicting another, it comes in here but collaterally; this is not sedes materiae: and therefore as he brings it in we may pass it with a light foot.  
In point of fact they will confess they may as well contradict one another, as err.: and therefore we will not now insist upon the contradiction of the Council of Chalcedon and the second of Nice about the Epistle of Ibas. But did not the Council of Francford contradict the second Council of Nice in point of worship of Images? But also to give them exemplum utile; the Council of Laodicea rejected the Apocryphal books, as not Canonical: the Council of Trent receives them for such, Sesse. 4. So one contradicts another. And if it be said that the Council of Laodicea was not General; we answer, that it was as General as the Council of Carthage, which he urgeth below for he book of Maccabees: for this was but provincial, by Carranza's confession. But than secondly, we say, though it was but provincial, yet was it established by the sixth General Council, as Carranza also confesseth; and then consequently, the sixth General Council and the Council of Trent do contradict.  
And now as to the contradiction betwixt Luther and me upon the case, I say first, that the argument is not yet valid to his purpose; the objects have themselves equally to all: but all have themselves not equally to objects: and yet, though Luther had a greater measure of the Spirit than I, it doth not follow nevertheless, that this book could not be seen to be Divine by the Divine illumination; no more than it doth follow, that because St. Peter had a greater measure of the grace of God's Spirit, he could not deny his Master. As a larger measure of grace doth not exclude all possibility of sin; so neither doth a larger measure of the Spirit exclude all possibility of error. Secondly, was not the Church of Christ as quicksighted, by the help of the Spirit, before the Council of Carthage, as then? And yet it seems by my Adversary, that the Church did not clearly propose the book of Maccabees to be Canonical before that time: and therefore non-acknowledgement in some doth not prove against possibility of certain knowledge. And thus, if Luther's exceptions against those books were always continued in the height of terms (which yet is denied) he gains nothing against us, since also, Thirdly, we return the Adversary his own argument, if the determinations of the Church be so clear, how do they contradict one another?  
Next follows the instance he puts of those two prime Doctors of the Church, St. Jerom and St. Austin, about the book of Maccabees. St. Austin, as he would have us think, held it for Canonical: St. Jerom not. So then, here is Father against Father: and therefore consent of Fathers in all points is scarce a possible argument. But the cause, he says, of this difference was not our ground, (this we have spoken to) but because it was not clearly proposed in St. Jerom's time by the Church, But the third Council of Carthage (in which St Austin was present) declared these books to be God's word, and so St. Austin held these books infallibly to be God's word, etc.  
Ans. Not to pass it, that St. Austin might be more likely to swallow the account of these books, because he had not skill in the Hebrew Canon, as the Greek he learned late. And not to pass it, that my Adversary names not the place where St. Austin held these books to be God's word, and infallibly too: it may be he held them so as the book of Wisdom, of which before: but my Adversary speaks one word here ingenuously, that the third Council of Carthage did but declare: well, and the Council of Laodicea did before declare the contrary. This was before St. Jerom's time, being celebrated in the year 364. as Carranza reckons: and the reason then, why St. Jerom refused that book, was not because he had not seen this Council of Carthage, as my Adversary says, but because he had read the Canons of the Council of Laodicea: for this was of equal authority to that of Carthage; being both provincial; and both confirmed by the sixth General Council, as the former Author observes: and if so, then, by the way, the same General Council was guilty of a Contradiction, as establishing the Canons of those Councils, which in this point about the books of the Maccabees, are repugnant one to other. Again, if the authority of the Council of Carthage did bind St. Austin (who subscribed it) as to the acknowledgement of these books for Canonical; then the twenty sixth Canon of the same Council doth equally bind, That the Bishop of the first sea should not be called the Prince of the Priests, or the supreme Priest, or any such thing, but only the Bishop of the first sea. Therefore let the Roman either not urge this Council against us, or receive it against himself. Nay, lastly, we can better answer the Canon against us than Carranza answers the Canon against Rome's Supremacy. For, the reason which my Adversary gives out of the Canon for reception of those books, doth not oblige to receive them equally to Canonical books, namely, because we have received from our Fathers, that they were read in the Church. The strength of this reasoning is resolved into this proposition, Whatsoever is read in the Church is to be taken for Canonical: and this proposition is false by the practice of the Church of England, by St. Jerom's distinction: yea, also by the Canon itself, for it says, Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum, cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur: Itmay be lawful also to read the passions of the Martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. And also if that reason did bind the Fathers in the Council of Carthage to establish them as Canonical, why did it not as well bind St. Jerom in whose time the books also were read, if they were universally read? And if the Church of God was sufficiently instructed in point of faith without them till St. Austin's time (which was above four hundred years after Christ, as Bellarmin confesseth) why may not the Church be well enough without them still? For either there must be nothing in them material or expositionall, which is simply necessary for God's Church: or else the Church of God for the purest and best times must be unprovided thereof, as Canonically to ground faith. If they confess the former, we have what we would: if the latter, besides other consequences, they destroy the rule of faith to Councils themselves; or as some now will say, by succession of tradition. Therefore by this instance he gets nothing, it is neither proof nor disproof.  

Num. 28.  Here he triumphs before the victory, he doth here put a new face upon an old argument. If you say that we must have a special Spirit (that is new eyes) to see it, than you who have this Spirit are all Prophets, discovering, by private Revelation made to yourselves, that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover.  
This argument prophylactical preserves them little: A special Spirit is considerable two ways; either in ordine ad subjectum, or in ordine ad objectum: it may be special in the first sense; and not in the latter: Now it is the special Spirit in the latter sense which makes the Prophet; when some new thing is revealed: thus we deny any special Spirit; which rather belongs to them who will not have all things for necessary faith and manners revealed in Scripture, that so they may find in the Church, by tradition, the points of their Religion which they cannot find in Scripture; as is noted. But also the special faith in the first sense may be subdistinguished; it is considerable either as oppositly to those who have not faith; or respectively to those who have faith: in the first way, we say it is special; for all men have not faith, as the Apostle speaks. 2 Thes. 3.2. but if it be taken respectively to those who have faith, we say it is not special; but common: for there is no true dogmatic faith but such; as Stapleton and their Schoolmen confess. Yea, this argument may be returned to them too, if they say they are enlightened by the Spirit to see all truth infallibly to be delivered by the Church, they have the new eyes; and they are all Prophets, discerning by private revelation made to them selves that which all mankind besides could not discover. So then the other old argument, which here he incrustates, that if the evidence of Scripture to be the word of God were such as of a prime principle, as this [It is impossible that any thing should be and not be in the self same circumstances] then all should assent to it, as they do to this principle, is again slighted: for first, every one hath not that supernatural light or eye to see the truth of that first principle, that the Scripture is the word of God; which we have said before: but than secondly, the prime principle in Metaphysics are not so clear as to exclude all necessity of means of knowledge of them, though they do naturally persuade assent: so there are means of knowing the Scripture, which do not prejudice their autopisty through the Spirit of God: and therefore there may be a failing of belief. Yea, thirdly, the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, John 3.8. Yea, fourthly, many truths are assented to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he said, which are not prophorically acknowledged. And yet some of their own men have confessed this truth, being overcome by the sovereignty of it. Fifthly, it is retorted, if the authority of the Church were the prime principle for the evidence of faith, than all would assent to it: but all do not assent to it: therefore by his own argument, the Church's authority is not the prime principle.  
But the assistance of the Spirit he then pleads a fortiori for the Church, the Church having far more proof of her assistance than every private Protestant.  
Ans. First, we have not to need be put upon the compare with the Church. If the Church have infallible assistance herein: yet private Christians may have it too; and that would be sufficient for us in this point. But secondly, the Church is no otherwise infallibly certain hereof than we: for this is assured to every one that votes it in the Council, the same way; if indeed they do give their suffrage upon a ground infallible. Thirdly, the private Christian is assured hereof by the Spirit for himself: therefore the Council needs not be infallible herein as to teach it, because we are thus taught of God. If the compare were thus, if the private Christian were thus assisted to teach others, much more the Council, this would be somewhat like: but the private Christian doth not undertake this: and yet doth it not follow that this infallibility doth attend the Council which doth undertake to teach others: because there is use of its teaching without infallibility: and no need of its teaching infallibly this point, which we are infallibly persuaded of by the Spirit of God. And fourthly, we deny that there is any points of as much consequence, wherein the Church should be assisted with infallibility, as this, that the Scripture is the word of God: because, if we be assured of this, we need not depend upon any infallibility in the Church for other points, since all things necessary are with sufficient plainness set down in the Scripture. Fifthly, as before, the Christians were assured hereof before Pope or Council, in which he placeth the authority infallible of the Church. And again, if the universal Church had this privilege they speak of, they are to prove themselves to be first a true part: and then also, that the part hath the property of the whole: and when they have done these, we can say as much, yea, more for our own Church. And lastly, they are yet to show their clearer proofs of assistance to the Church, than a private Christian hath for the hardest of all points: namely, that the Scripture is the word of God: which indeed, if it be compared with the points of Controversy in Divinity, is not the hardest point: and is therefore assured us by the Spirit, not because it is the hardest point, but because it is the ground of all faith. Perhaps, because our Divines often call the Scriptures, an undoubted principle, the first principle, you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences, which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident.  
Ans. No, I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines, although we need no more, if they in effect confess as much as will serve us in the dispute. But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground: or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith, than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works. Yea, moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture, because it is true of it: it is not true, because they say it: and yet if it were true, because they say it: we make use of the Conclusion. Or if it be an unquestioned principle, because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties, then why doth my Adversary call this into question, which is the subject of the question, and by all parties granted? And also this makes it to be a common principle, that it is granted by all parties. And therefore are we to be tried by it, as by a common principle: and not by the Church, which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tried by; specially, if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the only Church: for then there will be a double Controversy; one in thesi, whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church; and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church.  
But we now put together that which he distinguisheth, the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle, but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable, etc. We discourse thus, That which is indemonstrable is as the principle of Sciences: but that which is as evident as any reason can be brought for it to make it more evident, is indemonstrable; therefore is it as a principle of Sciences. The proposition is with my Adversary the property of the first principles in Sciences. The Assumption is with my Adversary the very ratio formalis indemonstrabilitatis: so then, if the Scripture to be the word of God be as evident as any reason that can be brought for it to make it more evident, than we have what we now contend for: Now than if the Scripture cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God by the Church a priori; then is it as evident as any reason can be brought for it: but verum prius: for the Church must be demonstrated by the Scriptures, as we have often proved. And if the Scripture were demonstrated by the Church a priori, then were the Church the cause of Scripture; which they themselves do not say: and therefore may we give a reason of the Church by the Scripture, and not infallibly of the Scripture by the Church; and therefore is it as a prime principle in Sciences, indemonstrable.  
And yet my Adversary would circumvent me in the next number, and bring me into a circle, thinking that I am bound to give another proof by the Spirit why by the Spirit I do believe that the Scripture is the word of God: but we stop him at first before he goes his rounds, for he supposeth that which is not to be supposed, that the testimony of the Spirit is not sufficient to make itself good to us of itself, and that therefore we need another revelation secure from all illusion, to ascertain me the former.  
Ans. This is little less than trifling: for first, we say, not this internal testimony is provable to others: faith objective is provable by Scripture; but faith subjective is not proved: but somewhat showed by a good life: for faith works by love, as St. Paul. And optimus Syllogismus bona vita, as he said, the best argument, to others, we have of faith, is a good life. But secondly, we are as secure of the not being deceived in the testimony of the Spirit, as the Apostles were in the kind. Yea, if we cannot be ascertained by the same testimony, then how can the Council be assured that they are infallibly assisted by the Spirit. Yea, thirdly, we are upon the higher ground for the assecuration of our faith, because we resolve it into that which is antecedent to the Church: and therefore have they less cause to put us upon intergatories why we believe the Scriptures: for if we do not believe it for itself, we have no reason to believe the Church.  
To his Dilemma then, Either I try the Spirit whether it be of God or no; if I do not, how am I then secure? If I do, by what infallible means? If I say by the Scripture, you must needs laugh, because you speak of the first act of belief, etc.  
Ans. We say first, that he misapplieth the text of the Apostle, Try the Spirits: 
1 Joh. 4.1.  it is not meant of the Spirit of God I hope he thinks, but of the Spirits of men; which is our argument against them: and therefore can we not sit down with absolute belief to what is proposed by man till we see it centred upon the word of God, which we believe infallibly came from God. Secondly, the trial of the Spirits there enjoined is by examining the matter whether proportionable to the word of faith: but here he draws it to the trial of Scripture itself, which is the rule of trial. Thirdly, though we do not try the testimony of the Spirit attesting to us the truth of Scripture, yet the matter of Scripture may we compare with universal tradition; which serves us for our use in the ministry of the Church; not for our faith in the causality thereof.  
Fourthly, to be even with my Adversaries: we return them their Dilemma; they say we must believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Church, which, they say, is infallible, but we must infallibly know that this testimony of the Church is infallible by the Spirit of truth, which leads us into all truth. And this cannot be infallibly known but by a Revelation secure from all illusion. And how come they by this revelation? Either they try the Spirit or not: if not, how can they be secure? If they do; by what infallible means? If they say by the Church, we must needs laugh, because we speak of the first act of belief, by which we first begin to believe the Church to be infallible. Therefore all his agains are sent back again: and the issue of all will come to this; either this faith of the Scripture to be the word of God must be resolved into the testimony of the Spirit, or of the Church: not of the Church, because the testimony thereof is resolved into Scripture, of which the question is, yea, if the testimony of the Church were infallible, it must be infallibly proved by the Scripture; and also that it is our rule of faith. But thus we see the importunity of the Pontifician for their cause: if we should say we resolve our faith of the Scriptures into the testimony of the Church, they would never ask us a reason of our faith: but when we say we resolve it into the internal testimony of the Spirit for our own private assurance, they will not let us sit down with that, but will demand a proof thereof; although the testimony of the Church, if it were the formal reason of our faith must be infallibly made good to us by the internal testimony of the Spirit, but that which they would have us rest in for the Church, we may not rest in for the Scripture. And yet also have we other arguments from Scripture itself which have more moment in them unto the belief of Scripture, than the mere testimony of the Church, as Dr. White notes in the twenty sixth p. of the way to the true Church which is worthy to be perused also upon this account, that there are several testimonies collected even of Papists for the belief of Scripture without dependence upon the Church: as of Canisius, Bellarmin, Biet, Gregory of Valence, Stapleton; some whereof we have quoted already. So then by my Adversaries own argument, if we need not depend upon the Church for belief of Scripture; than not for other points of faith.  
The thirtieth Article hath nothing in it considerable but for us, first, that he saith it to be that most fundamental Article, that such and such books be infallibly God's word. So than if it be the most fundamental article, than it is also fundamental to the Church: otherwise it is not that most fundamental article, but the Church must be the most fundamental article. And if it be fundamental to the Church, than we resolve our faith in the highest principle, and that which is primo primum: and the Papists resolve themselves into that which is at best but secundo primum. Our faith then being rooted in Scripture, we can give a check to their vaunting of the privilege of the Church, as St. Paul did to the Jew; but if thou boastest, thou dost not bear the root, but the root thee: so the Church doth not bear the Scripture, but the Scripture it.  
And secondly, we note in his thirtieth number what he saith, Take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane; We assume: this infallible assistance is not yet proved; and till it be proved, the authority is but humane: and yet do we not scoff at the authority of the Church, as he chargeth us: but do make good use of it without infallibility.  
And thirdly, we might note that if some other had the answering of these papers he might tell them that they are mendicants of the question: for first, here they say, that they ground this point upon the authority of the Church as being infallible. And then again, she hath an infallible authority, which we account a fancy: and yet again, this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth not this persuasion but this infallible assent. And yet again, take the Church— without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane. These things so nearly belonging and essentially to the question are to be proved, not supposed: yet all must be supposed by them, that so they might not seem to run at the ring and hit it, as we may speak, only the last hath a truth in it, but also it supposeth in the drift a supposition for their use.  
But at the last we have an appearance of an argument, We have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of the Church assisted by the Holy Ghost since the Scripture hath no where revealed which books be Scripture, which not.  
Ans. To this we say three things: first, that the argument is no way cogent, because there is no necessity of either, if we can be assured by the Holy Ghost that these books be Canonical. And if we cannot how did the Church at first assure itself that they were Canonical? So then Omne reducitur ad principium, as Aquinas' rule is. Secondly, unless they prove the authority of the Church better, they had better have left this out; for otherwise there is no ground of faith, unless our ground be admitted, if this be a true Dis-junctive proposition, that either the Scripture must set down which books be Canonical, which not, or else the Church in the proposal must be infallible. And yet if the Scripture should have set down which books were Canonical, it must be resolved whether that book, wherein they were set down was Canonical, by the Holy Ghost also. Then thirdly, if the disjunctive be not true, than his discourse is false: if it be true in the proposition, than we assume against them that the Scripture hath no where revealed whether the Church is infallible; and therefore there is no other way to know it to be infallible but by itself: So than it must prove the testimony of the H. G. by itself: and if it can, then may we prove the testimony of the Holy Ghost concerning Scripture by itself: if not, where will they set up?  
In the 31. Num. he would squat, 
Num. 31.  and deceive the chase by a distinction, which will not stay him from running round in the proving of Scripture by the Church, and the Church by Scripture. He says, No Sir, you never heard me give this reason, unless it were when I spoke to one who independently of the Church do profess himself to believe the Scripture to be God's word, as you do. And this is the effect of this Number for his defence, and of those Divines, who do not deal thus in proving the Church by the Scripture with all those who have not admitted the Scripture as infallible: for they first prove the authority of the Church (and that independently of the Scripture) to be infallible.  
Answ. This covering is too short, and indeed not sound; for I am not bound to take notice how they prove it to others, but how they prove it to me. If they prove it thus to me, then, by their own confession, they are included in a circle. And they prove it thus to me, because I hold the Scripture to be God's word independently of the Church; and so he saith of me, [as you do.] Secondly, whereas he says, If I be a Scholar, I may know that their Divines do not answer so when they are put upon the question, Why do you believe the Church? I do answer, that for my part I never pretended to be a Scholar, as they do, signanter. I have neither head, nor heart, nor body, nor books for the Controversies: but yet this I know, that de officio, this is the way of constituting, and so of distinguishing the Church: and de facto, this is the way that S. Austin, and also some of their own Divines do prove the Church by: yea, this is the way which my Adversaries must take and do. And thirdly, neither do we say, that we believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit, but to those who do profess the belief of the Scripture to be the word of God. And therefore are we even with them in this kind: for as they deal with Heathens as to the proof of Scripture by the Church: so do we also, as the Fathers were wont by the Church universal. And I can use the authority of the Church as an inducement unto the Heathen, although the Pontificians cannot use the authority of the Church to me as the determinative of faith. So than if they can prove the authority of the Church infallibly to be infallible without dependence upon the Scripture, they shall indeed speak to the purpose: Otherwise they are shut up in a circle, out of which they can never move their foot.  
The thirty second number hath in it much and little— longae, 
Num. 32.   
Ambages: sed summa sequor fastigia rerum.  
The intendment of it is to fix the wheel, by assuring the Church to be infallible without running to the Scripture.  
In the beginning of it it would prove their faith good, because they believed those, who delivered it, had Commission from God. But this satisfieth not, because the question rebounds upon them, why they believed that those, who delivered it had Commission from God. If they say they had assurance thereof by the Spirit, than they come to our kind of assurance.  
Therefore they determine this belief upon two motives; one coming from the Doctrine in order to God, change of life; the other from God in order to the Doctrine, in miracles, and there he amplifies in two leaves, which might have been dispatched in three words. Indeed the first he says not much of; for it is no concluding argument. For first, it doth not distinguish Doctrines: for thus the Jew, the Arrian, the Socinian, the Sectary might prove his Doctrine infallible. Secondly, the good life, if it were a result of Doctrine, yet not from the points of difference, but the general fundamentals of Christian faith, wherein the Controversies lie not. Yea, thirdly, if this new life did proceed by way of emanation or absolute connexion from the points of difference, we might join issue with them and have the better. Yea, fourthly, Judas had a right Commission and yet no good life. Yea, fifthly, the manners are rather to be proved good by the practical Doctrine, than speculative Doctrine (if any Doctrine ultimately be such) proved good by manners. Therefore good life is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine Doctrine; nor yet of a Divine Commission. Yea, sixthly, Dato non concesso, that we mighr know the Church, and Doctrine of it to be infallible by good life; yet this is not conformable to their postulate, that God should teach us all verity by the mouth of the Church, as Stapleton speaks.  
Then as to the other motive of faith in the true Church, namely, miracles, we can say several things; first in thesi, miracles are no certain distinctive of a Divine Commission, because the man of sin may deceive by lying wonders, as St. Paul speaks 2 Thes. 2.9. And also Moses, Deut. 13.1, 2. Then this is no infallible motive for the believing of a Commission from God, because we may be deceived in it. And although upon supposition of a true miracle we might conclude a Commission from God, yet this is not the way infallible because we may be deceived in the truth of the miracle, whether it be such or not: since the miracle cannot fidem facere de se, as the testimony of the Spirit can. Secondly, the gift of miracles was a gift common to those who were not all Prophets as to penning of the Scripture; and also not common, for aught we know, to some who did, as St. Mark and S. Luke, therefore this is not sufficient to resolve our faith in their Commission, because not given Omni nor soli: for whatsoever doth distinguish must have itself per modum differentiae. Thirdly, therefore since we must have faith to believe the miracles to be true, we ask how we come to this faith: if by the operation of the Spirit; then faith ultimately is fixed upon our foundation, namely, the testimony of the Spirit, by which we may as well be assured that the Scripture is the true word of God, as that miracles are true. Fourthly, the gift of miracles was temporary and accommodated for that season of the Church. And therefore cannot we prove by miracles new Doctrines, as Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, Communion in one kind, Transubstantiation, Supremacy of the Roman Bishop: therefore if miracles did infallibly ascertain the divine Commission of the Prophets and Apostles to speak and write: yet are not we satisfied by them in the question of new Doctrines, which the Scripture gives us no account of; but therefore he comes to Oral tradition. For, as for his reasoning in form thus, in hypothesi, The Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church; God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles: therefore the Doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For first (not to carp at the form of his syllogism) we say to the proposition, that if they preached the Doctrine of the Roman Church as differently from the whole Church, they preached what they ought not to preach; and so the minor proposition is false. If they did preach the same doctrine which the whole Church received in Scripture from the Apostles, than we grant the minor and the conclusion too, as much as doctrine can be confirmed by miracles; but we distinguish of the time when the miracles were wrought; namely in the time of the Apostles, and by them. For, as for miracles done by S. Austin to confirm the same faith which we abolished in our reformation; we say that Bede and Gregory and Brierly, whom he quotes for testimony hereof, are not to us surely of sufficient authority in their own cause. Nay secondly, they had best not add the testimony of the learned Magdeburgians, lest they be ashamed to slight them in other matters; but also chief upon this consideration; because, if the points of difference were confirmed by many miracles, (which he refers us to Brierly in his Index for) then by the Argument before, those points of difference were new: for as miracles have themselves to faith; so new miracles to new faith. And if it was a new faith, than it was not received by oral tradition from the Apostles successively: and then they are undone. Therefore let them speak no more to us of the miracles of S. Austin the Monk, who shown nothing so much wonderful as his pride in obtruding upon old Christians, ancienter than Tertullian's Prescriptions; therefore it is too much courtesy to take any notice of what he says about the faith brought into England by S. Austin: and yet we can make use of it too: for if it be so as he says, that the faith brought into England by St. Austin was the same faith which was abolished by our reformation than we have abolished none but the Roman faith: and the Christian faith in the general principles of it we had before. And this might be enough for the virtue of miracles: but that he says miracles are called a testimony greater than John the Baptist. Are they so? then we take leave to show what his words in two places will come to, even in the same page 72. before in the same p. he had said that a miracle doth not make a thing so prudently credible as universal tradition; here he says that a miracle is a greater testimony than John the Baptist: whence we argue thus; That which is greater than that which is greater is greater than that which is less: miracles are here said to be greater testimony than John the Baptist; and John the Baptist's testimony was greater than of Universal Tradition; then miracles are a greater testimony than of universal Tradition. But let this pass.  
And now we shall touch upon what he says about Tradition: saving that we must smile at what he says about the truth of their miracles, that there is as little to be said against them, as against the miracles of the Prophets and Apostles. This is not to be answered until the miracles of the Maid of Kent may be compared with those of Elijah and S. Peter, and until their Doctrine, which they would have confirmed by their miracles, be found as good and authentic as that of the Apostles, which was confirmed by their miracles. But to Tradition we come. Thus was the first age assured of God's word by the oral tradition of the first Pastors of the Church, who had received it in the name of God from the Apostles, who gave their Writings to them.  
Ans. This is not much to their purpose. For first, unless oral tradition did exclude the divine testimony of God's Spirit, they cannot say that the first Age was assured by this and not by that. And this testimony is not excluded neither by oral tradition nor by miracles simply: for God's Spirit might assure them of the truth of each: and then the last ground of faith is the testimony of the Spirit. Secondly, let oral tradition be restrained as to object of thing: or let it equally be proved of the new points forementioned, otherwise they have not by oral tradition sufficient benefit. Thirdly, notwithstanding the Apostles own preach, which were more than oral tradition, and notwithstanding all miracles done by the Apostles, which both equally had themselves to all then hearers of the one or spectators of the other yet as many as were ordained to eternal life believed Acts 13.48. So that the belief did effectually follow upon the efficacy of the Spirit of God applying the means of faith home to their Consciences. It is not said as many as did believe were ordained to eternal life, as if the belief foreseen had itself antecedenter to the ordination; but as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Fourthly, as for the Jews and Proselytes they had also, who lived in the time of Christ, for the means of their assurance, Moses and the Prophets; who had prophesied of Christ and Christian Doctrine.  
And as for that which follows, that the first Pastors (besides their oral tradition) did assure them that the Spirit of God would abide with the Church, teaching her all truth, etc. We answer, first, if the first Pastors did teach any thing, they could teach nothing but what they received from the Apostles who gave their writings to them, as before: and why then may not we take it better from the writings of the Apostles than from their teaching? for primum in suo genere est mensura reliquorum. But secondly, where have they sufficient inducement of belief either by oral tradition, or miracles, or whatsoever prudential motives, that this respects the Church under the formality of a Representative? Yea, thirdly therefore, if so, how was it made true to the Church in those Centuries wherein there was no formal Representative; namely, for 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church, as himself says in this Paragraph? Fourthly, if this promise attended the Church under the account of a Representative, yet of the whole Church: and what is this to the Roman Church which is but a part even in St. Jeroms judgement in his Epistle to Evagrius? Yea, also fifthly, that promise was not spoken by the Apostles to the Church, but by Christ to the Apostles, and therefore can it not be drawn down in a parallel line to all the ages of the Church: and therefore that which follows in the 71 p. is without any foundation. Debile fundamentum fallit opus.  
But he reinforceth the power of universal tradition. Now there is nothing which can make any thing more prudently credible than universal tradition, and so he prefers it to a miracle.  
Ans. And have they vouched universal tradition? by universal tradition they may be cast: for they cannot find universal tradition for their supernumerary points: and there was universal tradition for some points which they have cast off, as before; namely, the millenary point, and infant baptism. So then, by their own argument, they are unprovided of such a proof than which nothing can make a thing more prudently credible. Secondly, if he means by the terms [prudently credible] precisely such, than he derogates from infallibility: and so all this discourse comes short of the state of the question, which respects infallible assurance. If he means it subordinatly to that which makes infallible assurance, then why doth he insist upon this as the primum mobile of all faith? and than let them tell us what that is which doth absolutely fix belief, and determines doubting. And surely the terms he useth per se do seem to be termini diminuentes, that which is urged as prudently credible abstracts necessarily from that which is infallibly credible: for they are sub diverso genere. And so when all comes to all, upon the whole matter, and at the foot of the account, all faith goes no higher than a prudential assent. Then thirdly, therefore as to the force of the Argument, he hath no Adversary; for we can say so to, Nothing can make any thing more prudently credible than universal tradition: and we can make use of this motive as well as the Roman, yea, somewhat better, because he will shrink the whole Church into one City of Rome. But fourthly, suppose nothing in the kind of that which is prudently credible, as such, were above universal tradition: yet this concludes not rightly that absolutely, or in an higher kind nothing is more credible: for this testimony of the Spirit, which is not yet disproved, makes a thing not only prudently credible, but necessarily and in the way of Divine faith. And that which is prudently credible doth not include this: but this eminently includes that which is prudential credibility.  
Yet he goes on. Yet here I entreat you to mark how they resolved their faith then, etc. namely, in the space of the 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church.  
Ans. This I have marked and not precariously. But what shall I see in it that will give a sober man any satisfaction? For first, what if they did believe the soul to be immortal, because God said it by the Church; and the Church, because it said that it had Commission from God, is authorized with infallibility; and did also believe this because the Church said so; and why so, because they would do so? what of all this? therefore we are not infallibly assured that the Scripture is the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit? If they did believe indeed in way of a Divine faith, than the Spirit of God did assure them by tradition. For otherwise they forsake the ancient Theological account of faith; and they must either say, that faith is not an habit infused; or that it may be an habit infused without the Spirit of God, but if they believed improperly, or in the way of humane faith, (as we do believe there are seven hills at Rome, without universal tradition or a miracle) than this is not to the purpose; for the discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench: we can say as much without contradiction to our cause. Secondly, they cannot surely expect that we should gratify them so much as to say there is as much reason to believe tradition now as then, because now they themselves will say, that we have the benefit of what assurance the general Councils can make. And also 3. we must here note out of their own words, for the use of our cause, that for the space of 200 years and more they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church: So then for the same space they had not the coroboration of general Councils: and therefore these do not make the reason of belief simply as they would have it, because the Church was so long without them. 4. Though the universal comprehends particulars, yet a particular doth not comprehend an universal: therefore whatsoever assent is due to tradition universal is not due to tradition particular of Rome. This is their trick to build all upon the common ground of the whole Church: and then to enclose the universal Church within the walls of Rome. This we must enter our plea against upon all occasions. 5. We see they are come off unto some latitude in their conception of faith, because the last resolution in this quest of faith they make to be thus, and they would do so because they would do so, and again, because it had been more folly not to accept of this Church's Commission to teach them infallibly all truths: So that now the acquiscence of the soul in the deep mystery of faith must be terminated and determined upon the variable point and principle of prudence; and that which must eternaly settle our mind in the first and last ground of infallibility, must be this; we do so because we will do so, or because it were folly not to believe. So then, since, currente rota, the discourse is come to this; let us have our liberty to believe as we do believe, because we see it to be folly (for aught can be seen by them) to accept the Church's Commission to teach infallibly all truths. Sixthly, if they say all truths, than they seem to be fallen from their former Concession, and also Stapleton's, that some truths may be believed without necessity of the Church. Seventhly, as for the immortality of the soul, which they insist in to have been believed, because God said it by the Church, we say easily, that this might with less difficulty be received from the Church, because it is surely probable, and some will say demonstrable, by reason: and therefore is not only asserted by Plato, who might have it from the Jews by redundance in Egypt, (whither he and Pythagoras and some others traveled for wisdom, as Justin Martyr witnesseth) but also in effect, as I think, by Aristotle. And also here certainly they must be put to distinguish betwixt the Church of Rome and the whole Church; or else his words are not true; or else Pope John the 22. did not belong to the Church; for he did not commend to others the Faith of the Immortality of the Soul.  
And yet he goes on. Which Commission, to teach them infallibly all truth they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as Divine by all good people. This reason, if I may say so, is surely full of itself, but not solid, for it doth in effect run round again; and the Faith of the Church is proved by the Church: for they make all good people to be convertible with the Church: and therefore they make the holy Catholic Church to be the visible. But how then is the Church Regula regulata, the Rule ruled, as hath been confessed before? Secondly, must we content ourselves with this in the grand concernment of faith, because the Church did accept this Commission as Divine, which we know by Tradition? but how shall we know this Tradition to be of the Church, before we know the Church? Are they advised of this? then must we come to be assured of the Doctrine before we be assured of the Church. And this Doctrine we must be assured of independently of the Church, because we cannot know the Church but by the Doctrine; and by the Doctrine of the Scripture too, as S. Austin discourseth against the Donatists. Thirdly, if all good people know by tradition this Commission to be divine, than my Adversary needed not to have pinched the last resolution of faith so as to have said, they believed, because they would do so, or because it had been mere folly not to accept this commission: for though universal Tradition cannot transcend its sphere unto a causality of proper faith divine; yet hath it more reason in it than to make a general belief arbitrary, or to preserve the act of it from folly in the negative. A Divine assurance will not be compared with a negative prudence: but universal tradition doth surpass it. We had best then compound the difference betwixt himself by a kind of division thus, negative prudence was suitable to his former proof (Aqua ascendit quantum descendit) but Divine assurance (which I suppose he urgeth by tradition) is necessary for the question. For the certainty of faith is such as cui non potest subesse falsum, in which there can be no falsity: and therefore probability cannot make faith; and negative prudence can amount no higher than probability. Fourthly, if we must now set the basis and the foundation of all Divine faith in universal tradition, than Mr. Chillingworth carries the victory clearly from the Romanist: for this he disputed for in opposition to the Roman. Fifthly, All good people cannot make a demonstration or faith of a Conclusion. And we have cause to note this as invalid, because if goodness of manners were simply probative of true faith, than we should be all nought in the Roman opinion, because we differ with them in faith: for if we had been all good people, we should have accepted their grounds; and hence we see their pretended reason of uncharitableness to us; wherein they communicate with Sects or Sects with them. But if goodness of life be so profitable for proof of truth, than my Adversary with the rest of the Pontificians do not so wisely distinguish betwixt morality and infallibility in their Popes: For surely than Gregory the seventh had been no good head of the Church; nor Alexander the sixth, who surely laughed▪ in his sleeve when he said to an Ambassador, Quantum lucri nobis peperitilla fabula de Christo, I had thought goodness had not belonged to a professor of Divinity, as such. Indeed it becomes all Scholars to be very good: but this is one of the first times that I heard of this argument. Let them therefore put in some formal principle of discerning truth, as goodness is not; unless the will can prescribe to the judgement, as the judgement to the will, and if it can, they have the worse cause. Therefore may we conclude this long Paragraph with a sober denial of what he concludes it with: the ground upon which you believe Scripture to be the word of God, is thought to be Chimaerical by some of your best Writers. It is proved otherwise, and that it is not accounted foolish or Chimerical by some of the best of our Writers, we have seen before; neither Mr. Hooker nor Mr. Chillingworth: nay, nor by some of their best Writers neither, as Stapleton; besides some others quoted by Dr. White, as before. But if he would stand to St. Austin, he might have spared this dispute about Scripture; for we are not to dispute the truth of Scripture, he says, as of other writings. To conclude then this number in kind, we might as well take the boldness to say, that their ground upon which they stand in the maintenance of their faith as different from us, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
A Lion before, a Dragon behind, and a Chimaera in the middle.  
In this number he urgeth unsecurity of our grounding faith, as to the ignorant, in translations: 
Num. 34.  but this hath been by him pressed before, and by me answered: and nothing is here replied by him: but somewhat more is promised, ch. 4. n. 9 And therefore might we skip it, but it may be he would interpret our omission to his advantage. He says then. How unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith, because they must trust the translations of private men, and believe them rather and use them rather than the translations used by the Church in General Councils.  
Ecce iterum Crispinus— but we answer, in this he would have three propositions granted him; one, that General Councils did use their Latin translation. Secondly, that our translations are the offspring of private men. Thirdly, that most of us must ground their faith in the trust of private men's translations. To these we answer in three words, and in general, denying all of them. As to the first, we say that the General Councils which were celebrated in Greece did not surely make use of the Latin translation. Nay, secondly, their Latin translation, which they would have to be Jerom's for antiquity, was not at first received in the Church, but denied by St. Austin. Yea, thirdly, their Latin translation, which now they use cannot be St. Jerom's: for I hope it was mended by Sixtus Quintus, and again refined by Clement the eighth and surely though it was Canonised by the Trent Council before it was made; yet surely it was not made currant in the Church for use before it was born. And if they say, there is no real and material difference betwixt their Latin as now and in ancient times, we say first, absolutely, that Isider Clarius, who came after Clement, will then find fault with both in several thousand places: But then also we say in compare, neither are there any real and material differences in our English from the original. But fourthly, did the General Councils use the Latin translation for their Judge in Scripture, then are not the General Councils infallible, because that translation was not infallibly made; nor made infallible by the Church even in the Trent Council, as some of their own have intimated, as before.  
To the second proposition, we give also a denial. Our English translation is not to be accounted the translation of private men; because it is authorized by our Church, although at first made by private men: And what if they yet made good to hinder as great an assistance of the spirit of God to the establishment of this Translation, as they find for their Remish Testament. That which is made by private men is made more than private by authority of the Church. And if they deny this distinction, they undo all their Councils. And if they say our Church hath itself, as a private part, to the whole: so we say doth the Roman, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, As to the third proposition, we deny it also: the most do not trust in the Translations: nay, none do trust in Translations, simply; because they are not Scripture, as per se; but analogically to the Scripture in the original. So that ultimately they are assured, that the translation is in the matter agreeable to Scripture, as they are assured that the Scripture is the word of God, namely, through faith infused by the Spirit of God. So they do not believe the Translation, but that which is translated. The Translation formally is no mean to assure their Faith; but is a mean of conveyance of it to their knowledge. And surely our people may as well believe that the Translation is as free from all damnative error; as their people may believe what their Church proposeth to be free from damnative error: first, because they rely upon a Translation that teach, and a Translation not so good, Secondly, because our people can consult the Translation: so cannot their people understand the Vulgar Latin: and therefore if those who translated it were not deceived, yet those who propose it may deceive the people: and thirdly, because the authority of their Translation were far greater, yet was it made by those Priests of theirs deeply interessed in this cause; as well as he says our might be by private Ministers deeply interessed in this cause: and also because yet is not their Translation infallible, as hath been proved: and therefore cannot the people believe the Church. And the Argument is thus: If the Church of Rome were infallible then in the Translation of the Bible; and the reason of the consequence is demonstrated from the end of it appointed in the fourth session of the Trent Council,  in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur: this the end of the institution of it, that in all readings, disputations, preach and expositions, it should be held for authentic; and therefore if ever they would put out all their power of infallibility, then surely in this translation; but now falsum posterius; this translation is not infallible, as hath been proved and confessed by some of their learnedst men; as also might be instanced in the reading of ipsa for ipsum, attributing that to the Virgin which all the translation, (with the Hebrew) in our great Bible attribute to the Seed, namely, to Christ, Gen. 3.15. Therefore may we surely as well believe our translations as they their Church. Therefore let them hereafter not send us such arguments as will be returnable with use.  
This thirty fifth Paragraph he might also have forborn, wherein he thought to pinch me with uncertainty of true copies of the original. For this will fall upon them in the full weight, for we have as good Copies of the Originals as the Romans; If we had ours from them, than I hope we have as good▪ if not, than we depended not, at first, of them. Whether we believe the Copies we have to be true by the Church, this question hath itself accidentally to the truth of the Copies, because if we have not the true Copies, the Church cannot make that which is not true to be true, as the Papists themselves confess, and if we be led by that faith which is certain, though we are not so assured of it to be so, we may attain Salvation, may we not? If not, then have the Papists no such reason to pick a quarrel with us about certainty of Salvation in the Subject.  
To speak then more punctually, we can use the Roman Copies if we had none other, without their infallibility: Utile per inutile non vitiatur, and if we have any others, as it should seem we have upon the true account of the antiquity of the British Churches, than we comparing them with theirs, can find that ours are true Originals; if theirs be. For as for the knowledge of them to be undoubtedly true Originals by the credit of the best Churches, this cannot rationally do it, because (if there be a doubt of the true Originals) we must first know which is the best Church by the true Original. Therefore let them tell us which Church is best to be trusted in this case, they will say, the best; but the question returns, which is the best? This we must know by the true Original, and this is it which is in question, so that we must be primarily assured some other way either of the Church or of the true Original: and what way can that be but by the testimony of the Spirit, by whom all Faith is ingenerated? and than they come about again to us in genere: either to be assured by the Holy Ghost that this is the best Church, or that this is the true Original. If the latter, then by this we are assured of Scripture, if the former, then however the last resolution is by the Spirit of God.  
This in general concerning the true Originals, He descends to the original of the Old Testament, as for the Hebrew all must know that the ancient Hebrew Copies were all written without points that is in substance, without vowels.  
Answ. If the Romans could determine all controversies by supposition as they do this, they then indeed might pretend to be Judges of all controversies: he might have considered that this hath been a mighty question as appears by the discourse about it on each part of the contradiction.  
And as to this, they are wrapped into as great difficulty as we, until they can prove two points, First that their Church put the Points or vowels, Puncta vocalia, to the words. Secondly, that their Church did it infallibly, for though the Church did it, yet if theirs be not the Church, they are never the whit the nearer; and if theirs be the Church, and they did it not infallibly, they are not yet Masters of their end. Secondly, we except against his presumption of all Copies to be written without points; there is not the same probability as some learned men will think: because though ordinarily the words were not pointed with Vowels in every Copy, yet the King's Copy had Points to it. And thirdly, Do they think that the Moral Law was written by the Finger of God without Points? If not, than they knew commonly what Vowels should be put without the Church: for the Church did not put the points thereunto as the Pontificians think, and if the Decalogue had Points put to it by the Finger of God, then All not without Points, and why not the rest of the old Testament with points? Fourthly, Let any of my Adversaries say Shibboleth, and if he doth pronounce it right, let him tell me how he knows he doth pronounce right, he will say by tradition; well then yet he doth not know it by the credit of a particular Church: but let him tell me how, at first, this came to be pronounced by the Gileadite, and not Sibboleth, as by the Ephramite, Judges the 12? If then they knew that the Punctum samin was right, why did not the Jews know a pari the other points? Fiftly, Though the points were put to the Consonants afterwards, yet is it not necessary that the Epach hereof should be 476 years after Christ at the well of Tilerias, as Bellarmin would have it: For he himself says, That some thinks the Points were put to (the Pentateuch) by Moses or by some excellent Doctor of the Law before the time of Christ, it may be Ezra, as some may think. Sixtly, If the Jewish Rabbis did fit vowels to the Hebrew Letters, yet surely did they not put false Points to corrupt the Text, because then surely they would have corrupted the Text in those places which speak of the Messiah to be such as Jesus was: which being not done, Bellarmin takes it to be an Argument that they did not corrupt the Scripture in his 2. b. de verbo dei 2. chap. And therefore, as for that famous Text in this kind Psal. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarmine saith, That it is evidently inferred that it was an error of the Scribe in the same Chapter, because St. Jerom, who did profess that he did render the Hebrew strictly, renders it foderunt. Therefore however the controversy goes betwixt Buxtorfivi and Capellus, what can from hence be concluded which concerns us in specie? Let Bll be Bill, or Bell, or Ball, or Bull, yet is there nothing in Hebrew for the Pope or his Bull, whether then the perfidious jews had honesty enough to deliver to us true Copies, with true Points, and Vowels, Let their Bellarmin be judge in the former Chap. And yet moreover, surely it is more probable, that if the Points were first put by the Jews, to the Consonants, at the well of Tilerias, yet they were not put by the perfidious jews, if he took it for the unbelieving Jews, but by the believing Jews.  
But yet my Adversary must needs object an expression of the most Reverend, and Learned Archbishop of Armah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning the variety of Sections in the New Testament, which Cressy also takes notice of. But as to this, upon supposition, this concerns Christians, Secundum rationem generalem, and therefore one would think that we should not be bound to give an account of it as to an Heathen. But so the Roman adversaries must order their attains, that either there must be no Christian Faith but theirs only. Secondly, those various Sections, do they make any substantial change in the matter of sense, or any contrariety to the Analogy of other Texts, or not? If not, what can be the consequence from hence to the Church? If so, then how can the right reading be restored by the Church but through the Holy Ghost? Well then, in a Council also or not, if in a Council, how was the Church herein assured for the first three hundred years? if without a Council, then why is infallibility tied to a Council confirmed by a Pope, as my Adversary says? Thirdly, we have no reason to depend upon the Roman Church for our security, in such variety of readings, since we have the more variety for them; and in Manuscripts too, as Dr. james asserts in his corruption of Fathers, Councils and Scriptures, so this comes to the Proverb, Ovem lupo commisisti. But fourthly, they make a very ill Argument for themselves, for if it be so uncertain, which is, not only a true Translation, but also which is the true Original, then how shall we be certain whether the Church be infallible since the An sit of this point must finally be determined by Scripture? Fiftly, we may be certainly as certain as they; for we have the true Original from them, or not; if we have, than we are as well as they: if not any Original from them, then how do we depend upon them for the Christian Faith as they? If we had the Original Language from them and not the true, than they deceived us by ignorance or worse. And how should we be bound to believe in them then, as our infallible Guides? Sixtly, That admirable Prelate did me the Honour himself to tell me upon an application to him, that as for the variety of Sections, they were observed by him to be of divers sorts, and some inconsiderable: and those of any moment not so many as there will be such danger to have them appear, for they are intended to be Printed with the great Bible.  
A touch we have also in this number of St. Matthews Gospel, but this hath been agitated before. But yet I cannot but observe how confidently these Romanists speak, As for the new Testament, St. Matthews Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, & that original is quite lost▪ as if it were as sure as Gospel that it was written originally in Hebrew not preached only, but written in Hebrew, and also that it was quite lost, if lost, we may, or may we not think upon the rule in the Trent History, he is to be suspected to be Author of a mischief who hath the interest in it?  
So then, we see nothing to the contrary, but that yet the term infallibility is an unfortunate term, for it loseth at all turns.  
Neither will they be able to get off clearly from all inextricable difficulties, whatsoever they say of us. 
N. 36.  For first, they suppose that they receive the vulgar translation upon as good authority, as those who received the first Original copies. And have they no better certainty for the first original copies? Then they take a course to make Christianity ridiculous, but this they will say for the honour of their Church, Ridente turcâ nec dolente judaeo, let Christianity crack so Rome stands. So then, by this principle of theirs, if the vulgar Latin hath no certain credibility, neither the original copies, as if the original copies had came only from Rome, as the vulgar latin, but for this latin Bible we are referred to the fourth Chap. Yet here he gives me a perstriction for objecting to them Isidor Clarius, correcting of it in so many places. If Isidor Clarius in any one title importing Faith and Manners, differs from what we receive upon this infallible authority, we have nothing to do with him. And is this all?  
But first, he needs not make an if of it, for if he will peruse but his Preface, he shall find him to profess that he used a great deal of moderation lest offence should be taken, and that it might not seem to be a new Translation; and yet he saith, Loca tamen ad octo millia annotata, atque a nobis emendata sunt, eight thousand places have been marked and mended by me. And do none of them, think you, respect faith and manners?  
Secondly, Me thinks they are warping and coming off again to the former distinction, that the Church could not be proposer of any damnative error, importing Faith and Manners. And this in Mr. Knot's opinion, as before, spoils all. So then the Church might err, in this translation, from the Originals, but not in things importing Faith or Manners.  
Thirdly, Do they then think there was any fault at all in the Original Copies which the first Church received▪ If so, then there must be faults in Original Scripture: If not, now can they receive the vulgar Translation with an equal Faith of infallibility, as they do the Original Copies? Let Cardinal Bellarmin rebate somewhat that high Conceit of the Authentiknesse of the vulgar Latin (which they know was but a product of a Council) in his 26. the Author. Council. the 12. ch. Let them, from thence, consider whether the Scriptures are not to be preferred before the Decrees of Counsels in many regards, where he will tell them, at the latter end of the Chap. that that of Gregory, reverencing the four Councils General, as the four Gospels is to be qualified, illud [sicut] sonare similitudinem non aequalitatem that that [As] doth signify similitude not equality, indeed, as justin Martyr says of Plato, That what he had said well in things Divine, he doth mingle and confound with contrariety, for fear of Mars- hill, lest he should suffer for it, as Socrates; so this the Cardinal doth seem to retract in the following words, (for fear of the seven hills) as to equality of infallibility, but yet in judiciis particularibus, & in judiciis morum, quae non toti Ecclesiae sell uni tantum aut alteri populo proponuntur, in particular judgements, and in precepts of manners which are not proposed to the whole Church, but to one or another people, he says they may err in the same Chap. but so may not Scripture, therefore can they not receive the vulgar edition absolutely, as the first Church did receive the Original Copies, so that either my Adversary hath overshot, or the Cardinal under; and if they will have nothing to do with him, that in any title importing Faith or Manners differ from them, than they have many to excommunicate on Monday Thursday, though they absolve them again on Good Friday, as they do the King of Spain for detaining part of St. Peter's Patrimony.  
And as for the other exception I made against the vulgar, by the varieties of the Edition of Sixtus 5tus and clement the 8th. he refers me to a Famous Book, called Charity maintained, written against Dr. Potter, See it Part 2. c. b. n. 3. as I take it in his Copy, but he saves me the labour, in telling me the effect of it thus, That, by Authentical testimonies of persons beyond all exception, is showed (there) that the decree of Sixtus 5tus about his Edition was never promulgated, and that he had declared divers things to have crept in, which needed a second revew, and that the whole work should be reexamined though he could not do it, being prevented by death.  
Ans. according to their principles, no Authentic testimony but of a Council confirmed by the Pope, let them show such: And then we say, Secondly, what if the decree of Sixtus 5tus was not promulged? was not this Sixtus 5tus' Edition? And it seems there was a decree for it, but not promulged, and the promulgation makes it but legible, the decree, I hope, makes it credible; the promulgation attends the binding of it in, actu exercito, but the decree attends the constitution of it, in actu signato. And was there no error in it because it was not promulgated? Or rather was not it therefore not promulgated because there was error in it?  
Thirdly, the Authority of the Trent Council was engaged, rather for this than for that of Clement the 8th▪ for the Trent Council, (as they know) speaks of it as in verbis de presenti, haec ipsa vetus & vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu, in ipsa ecclesiâ probata est, this very same old and vulgar edition, which by long use of so many ages is approved in the very Church, as if it had been so long before born, and now when it was of age, should be only Christened.  
Fourthly, How did divers things creep in which needed a second review? what, while the Church slept? then how can we believe the Church, in tradition and purity of Copies, for she may sleep while they are stolen or corrupted. Therefore have they no cause to triumph that Mr. Chillingworth hath said nothing to this point, in defence of Doctor Potter, as they say, in the following words. For if the Citation be right [Part 2. Mr. Chillingworth did not publish, for aught I knew, what he had against the second part. And he gives an account thereof, why he did not, in the latter end of his Answer to the 1 part p. 390. And therefore they did not ingenuously charge him with this omission, since it was forborn in the whole, upon ingenious reasons. And if they think to save themselves because Sixtus his decree was not published: surely Mr. Chillingworth may be excused, because the second Part of his Answer was not published, However he had said enough against the perfection of the Vulgar translation in his answer to the first part 77. Even upon the opinion of their own men, Lyranus, Cajetan, Pagini●, Arias, Erasmus, Valla, Steuchus, who in many places have rejected it, and differed from it. And to these he adds the judgement of Vega (who was present at the Council and was instructed therein by the Precedent of the Council, the Cardinal S. Cruse, as he says) and of Dredo, and Mariana, who had the opinion of Laines in it, the General then of the society, and in a sort of Bellarmine also. But also if they might boast of not being answered in one point, than some body might boast that they have given Treaties for Answers. Lastly, will they be confident that the decree was not published for the authority of the vulgar edition? why then doth it go under the name of Sixtus 5us' Bible? yea also Dr. james, who hath written Bellum Papale to such a purpose, in his third part, 36. p. hath asserted that all the shifts they have made herein will not serve; For both Bull and Bibles are in many men's hands, whatsoever Gretser saith to the Contrary.  
This Paragraph might have been spared, 
N. 37.  and I might be excused surely for sparing it; it gives me a former reason why my two places out of St. Austin are not answered, he tells me that I have given him leave to have no more to do with the Fathers. This is his reason, and my reason is, because he will have more to do than he can do to answer them. We deny not a trial by the Fathers though their Judgement be not infallible: and since we produce the Fathers for us, we are bound to answer them against us; as contrarily, if they produce them against us, they are bound to answer them against themselves, and this is a rule of Reason, Testem quem quis adducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se, the witness which one brings for himself, he is bound to receive against himself. And therefore whatsoever Coccius says ad faciendum populum; we may, I think say well as Nilus did in his first book of Ecclesiastical dissensions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is altogether absurd that those who have not the Fathers for their examples, should of themselves discern that which is better; and that we who have the Fathers should not so neither understand. So he, of the Romans also, so that my Adversary should not have stopped this gap, with an exception against my opposing of the Council of Ariminum to the Nicene Council towards proving the contradiction, and consequently the fallibility of Councils, but this he hath nothing new to say against; and therefore I have nothing to answer more then formerly, only he chides me because I proposed the Council of Ariminum, as if it had been a lawful Council, and so would deceive the people which knoweth not which councils be lawful, which not, No? This spoils all, infallibility is in Councils, the people do not know which are right councils, and those that are not right are not, and where then shall the people find their infallibility? where the way so plain that Fools cannot err, as they have told us? It is better to be without a guide than to have one we cannot trust. So we bid the Roman people good night, and take our leaves of this number.  

N. 38.  But this also makes number, it comes in in form of a transition, and so let it pass.  

N. 39  In this he gins to resume his discourse of such particulars which are necessary to Salvation, and yet not plainly set down in Scripture. And the first instance is about the necessity of the not working upon the Sunday without any necessity. But to this and to the other instances of this kind, it would be sufficient again to settle the state of the question; and it is thus, whether any thing necessary to salvation by necessity of mean, without the knowledge and belief whereof, in points of Faith, or without the knowledge and practice of in things of action we cannot come to salvation; is not with sufficient plainness set down in Scripture: This is the state of the question which very few if any of his instances come near to; there may be as errors, so sins, which are not clearly forbidden in Scripture: and therefore the ignorance of them will not damn where there is general repentance. And to hold and do any of these against our belief of the Truth therein, or duty, is acknowledged to be damnative without particular repentance; but this comes not up to the question, whether there is no possibility of salvation without the belief of the truths and the practice of the duties, for so neither of us could be saved, unless there be any of us who knows all truths reduplicatively, and do all duties also.  
And this might have satisfied my Adversaries▪ for this and other examples; if it had became men pretending infallibility to receive any satisfaction but in victory.  
But in particular, You dare not say that he shall be saved who doth weekly work, and resolveth to work upon the Sunday without any necessity. And what then? First let it be returned home, they dare not say that he shall be saved who resolves to be absent from high Mass without necessity. The point betwixt us is, whether necessarily he must be damned who doth work upon the Sunday, not knowing whether it be such a sin; when they determine this, than we may determine by Scripture which part is to be held, whether it is destructive of Salvation or not. But Secondly, as to the necessity towards Salvation, the intimations of honour which are put upon the first day of the week and the practice of the Apostles is sufficient to incline our practice on the safer hand, to wit, in the Negative; and if in contempt hereunto any should resolve to work without necessity, his case would be more dangerous: but the question concerns not sins in subjecto with all the circumstances, but in specie. Thirdly, as to the clear Text of the fourth Commandment, the determination of the day to the Jew was positive and Ceremonial, and therefore with other Jewish Ceremonies never to cease, or if that also was moral, why do we not hear of it by their infallibility and practise? And if this had been intended for a case reserved to make work for the authority of the Church, why was it not absolutely determined in some general Council? The Laodicean Council give not absolute order, but under a condition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fourthly, Therefore to conclude this Number, whereas he says I bring my own Discourses in stead of clear Texts, let him bring either clear Text or clear discourse for these two Propositions, 1. That this Point is absolutely necessary to be known: And 2. That it is not clearly set down in Scripture, than we shall leave him in the field for this time: but if he will not answer to my Discourses, because they are fallible, he gives me leave to think more, and to say no more to his Discourses upon the same account.  

N. 40.  In this Number he seems to be courteous, in receiving some satisfaction to my Answer about things strangled. But it may be he thought himself bound to it upon the general supposition of the Romanist, that the Scripture was written but for particular occasions, and to particular persons: and therefore that Precept of the Apostles in the 15 of the Acts concerning the case, should not upon their intention be always binding. And yet I shall have nothing from him but I must pay for it: for he says, Though we seek for Texts and not Reasons. But reason upon Principles of Scripture binds by virtue of the Principles. If not, how many of their Superstructions must they discount. But let them give us Texts or Reasons; and until they do so, we may have done with them.  

N. 41.  Shall we have either in the next, Whether the King be Head of the Church: This hath been sufficiently spoken to before? what is new I shall touch upon. He says, This controversy must highly import that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head by whom they are to be governed. To this we answer, Whatsoever is necessary in our sense, highly imports: but, whatsoever highly imports, is not necessary in our sense. Therefore, whereas he says afterwards, Is not this a necessary point? we deny it necessary in our sense; for then God should tie salvation to accidentals. It could not be necessary when and where there is no King, and this is to be numbered amongst accidentals: but those things which are absolutely necessary, do not vary their nature upon contingencies.  
But then as to the other Proposition, which it is necessary for them to prove, namely, that this is not clearly enough delivered in Scripture, he says, reflecting upon our difference from ourselves, as he supposeth, this point was before evident Scripture, now it is no longer evident Scripture. To this he brings in my Answer. Your Answer is first, What is infallibly decided by Scripture, will ever be so, although we do not always find it. To this he returns, If you mean what is infallibly decided by Scripture evident, is not always to be found, it is manifestly false, etc. Answ. If it be decided infallibly by Scripture evident in terms, that which he says is true: but who holds this point so evidently decided? If he means it infallibly decided by evident Scripture in way of consequence, that which he says is manifestly false, is pertinent, but manifestly false. For how then could some Divines in the Trent Council assert many things to be decided by Principles of Scripture, which the adverse party there could not find? And why do they hold, that the Determinations of Councils are Prophetical, that so they may be infallible; if what is discoursed out of Principles could always appear to all to be infallible? And why doth Bellarmin say in his 1. b. de Baptismo, cap. 9 add lit. B. that the Baptism of Infants, satis apertè colligitur ex Scriptures, ut supra ostendimus, the Baptism of Infants is clearly enough gathered out of Scriptures, as we have showed before: although if my Adversaries were upon the Jury for this controversy they would bring in an Ignoramus.  
Then he comes to my second Answer. You add secondly, That you do not say every point is infallibly decided by Scripture, because it is not at all decided. Well, and what to this? Sir, is not this a necessary point? Answ. And is not this, in another man's expression, to be a beggar of the question? Let them prove it to be necessary: but it seems rather by them, that it is not necessary. For since the Scripture doth not clearly decide it, as they suppose, therefore the Church should, because otherwise it will be wanting in things necessary where the Scripture doth not determine. Now if the Church hath determined for the last three of the first six hundred years. it hath determined against the Pope for Kings (not as we take them to be Heads of the Church, as they take the Pope to be Head, but) as Supreme Governors circa Sacra. And so the Church for that space, which is most considerable in this business, is against the Pope's being Head of the Church, and the Scripture doth not declare it for him, as my Adversaries confess; for than it should declare by consequent negatively against Kings (as I have said before) and therefore, upon the whole matter, they have nothing for the Pope's being Head. And then again, if the Scripture hath not declared for the Pope, it must be declarative sufficiently for the King; because no other pretends to be competitor; and this is their own argumentation. The Church must be infallible, no other Church pretends to infallibility but theirs; therefore so Government of the Church must be. The Scripture speaks of Government; they dare not say that the Scripture declares for the Pope; therefore, it must declare for Kings. Or, since all agreement is resolved into common Principles, let this difference be mediated by these four Propositions.  
1. Government of the Church is necessary.  
2. This Government must be in the Pope or the King.  
3. The Scripture doth not declare for the Pope.  
4. The Scripture declares all Points necessary; therefore it declares for the King. The three first Propositions they consent to. And the fourth is not yet disproved; therefore  
This Paragraph is a supernumerary. 
N. 42.  To make short work, we have no need of repetitions. But he will urge again S. Matthews Gospel, and again tax me for holding it no point of necessity to believe that it was S. Matthews. This, he says my learned Brethren in Ratisbon durst not say. Plato's rule is good, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not so much who speaks, as what; yet this is necessary for us to believe, that it was written by one inspired, indefinitely. But it is not equally necessary for me to believe by whom: for than I cannot believe the Epistle to the Hebrews, because I cannot certainly believe it was written by Saint Paul. Again, my learned Brethren dared not deny it to be an Article of Faith. But first an Article of Faith may be taken largely for whatsoever is to be believed. Now though all Articles of Faith in a special sense are to be believed: yet all that is to be believed, is not in the sense of the question, an Article of Faith. But than secondly, Not to dare to deny it, is not to affirm it. One is a negative act: the other a positive. But a pari, if I must be bound to their opinion, why is not my Adversary bound to his learned Brethren in Ratisbon, who did not state infallibilities as my Adversaries do, with the necessity of a Council? And why do my Adversaries differ from Bellarmin, and others of their Brethren, who will be scandalised by them, because they dispute the Pope's being Head of the Church from Scripture? for they would be loath to want the Authority of the Scripture for so capital a point, which concerns not many millions only (as the other, and therefore it seems not absolutely necessary, because than it would concern absolutely all) but even all: for in Bellarmin's opinion, as in his Catechism, a Christian is defined by union to the Church under the Pope, as Head thereof.  
As for his provoking me to believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew upon account of the Church, in this number also, by the Authority of S. Austin; I say only, he might have been so modest as to have left this out until he had answered me in what I have said to that Testimony of Saint Austin at large before.  

N. 43.  Here he runs mightily upon a mistake, for what I spoke by way of supposition, he construes Categorically. I said, we might suppose more assistance (not assurance) to the Church in commending Books Canonical, than in other cases. He takes me to have spoken positively, as if God had given infallibility to the Church in this matter, though in none other; and therefore we are obliged to believe the Church in this absolutely. Whereas what I said comes to no more than what is usually said upon such cases, dato non concesso. And do not the Schoolmen dispute upon hypothetical questions? As if I should say, If the Pope were infallible in person, what need would there be of a Council? Or, if my Adversaries had a mind to be contented with common Principles of Christianity, we should soon have done. These Consequences are upon mere suppositions. So, if we were bound to receive the Canonical Books from the Church, we might suppose more assistance as to this than to other Points. Doth this affirm that the Church had infallible Assistance herein, and that we were to take the Books ultimately upon the Authority of the Church? Again, if we were to take the Books upon the account of the Church, what is this to the Roman Church? Is not the Universal Church of all times and places more credible than the Roman? The whole bears them, not they the whole. Nay, when he had abused my Supposition in p. 86. he doth acknowledge that I do not make belief of Scripture to depend upon the Authority of the Church.  
So then my Adversary needs not to triumph and say, This spoils all, your only shift, etc. He runs away with the line, but he will be hooked as well. My Adversary hath granted me, that the Scripture may be said to contain all things necessary, because it sendeth us to the Church, where we may have them. And may not I as well say to this, that this spoils all? may I not return him the fruit of his Discourse, mutatis mutandis? Will he grant that we have direction to the Church from Scripture? Then the only shift they have to avoid our Position of the Scriptures containing all things necessary, is still to say that the Scripture sends us to the Church. And will they now suppose this most necessary point of all points, which is not clearly set down in Scripture to be admitted with infallible assent, upon the only Authority of the Scripture? That we are universally to hear the Scripture, in things necessary to salvation, we have many pregnant places in Scripture, as hath been showed: but that we are to learn this one point, and none but this, from the infallible Authority of Scripture, hath no colour or shadow of Scripture, or any thing like Scripture. You must therefore ground your faith not upon Scripture but upon Reason. Now the reason upon which you reject the Scripture, is, because you have a necessity of an external infallible Judge ever since the whole Canon was finished. And for this only reason (without any Text,) you put the Scriptures sufficiency to expire and give up the ghost even after the finishing of the Canon. Now if the reason for which you discard the Scriptures sufficiency, be this, because all points are not sufficiently cleared by Scripture, than there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may suppose the Scripture to be sufficient than this, that that one point (namely, that we are to repair to the Church for all things necessary to salvation) cannot be infallibly ascertained by the Church. And therefore there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the sufficiency of Scripture undoubtedly infallible in all points, which doth not causally bring forth their opinion of the Church. Let me put them to it. Doth the Scripture bring forth their opinion of the Church, or doth it not. If it doth not: what hold have they for the Church? And why do they make use of the Scripture to give Letters of Credence to the Church? If it doth, than there is an end of this Controversy.  
Now the two inferences he would have me mark as clearly deduced from my principles, are grounded but upon a supposition: and therefore not to be marked, but returned upon his concession; First, That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture: for no point more necessary than this, without which there is no coming to the belief of any thing in the Church: and yet this point is not plainly set down in Scripture; nor that the Church is infallible, obscurely. Yea, whereas he says the Scripture sends us to the Church: the Universal Church doth send us to the infallible Scripture for our necessary direction. And this would give them satisfaction, if it could serve their turn.  
Moreover, the second thing which he would have me mark, halts upon the same unequal ground, of supposing me to affirm what was but supposed. Yet also we can send it home again: and I can say that their former concession, spoken of before, doth overthrow that principle which is the groundwork of their faith. For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the direction of Scripture in things necessary for as much as concerns this one point of the Church, because this one point in particular is less clear of itself, that grand principle of theirs (which is or must be their principle) evidently appeareth false; namely that the Testimony of the Church is evidently seen by its own light; which must be, or else they are all undone. And again, how is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Scripture for the infallible direction of the Church, because it cannot be proved infallible by itself; and yet on the other side, this point of all other points hath this particular privilege to be so manifest, that it beareth witness of itself, that it carrieth its own light with it. So they may see what they get by taking a supposition for an Affirmation. Tacitus' rule is good; let nothing be thought prosperous which is not ingenuous. Some other lines he hath in this Section, to tell me what he hath done before; and I have undone.  
But as to a passage which I used out of Bellarmine to confirm a Dilemma (which he tells me here that he hath broken before, lest the contrary should have been better discerned upon the place) he referred me to Bellarmin, l. 1. c. 1. In fine, as much as I can read the hand, I made use of Bellarmin against new Revelations beside Scripture: and therefore we cannot believe the Church for itself; because we cannot believe it but by a Revelation, and no Revelation beside Scripture, as he disputes against the Anabaptists. For my answer he puts me off to the former place, I think, in the end. And there is little to the business. He says indeed in the end, That we do receive the Prophetical and Apostolical Books according to the mind of the Catholic Church, as of old it is laid out in the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent, to be the Word of God, Et certam ac stabilem regulam fidei, and the certain and stable rule of faith. Now I hope these latter words are for us. For if these words be taken in their just and full sense, than the cause is ours. If the Scripture be the certain and stable rule of faith, than it must be clear, otherwise how is it a certain rule? and therefore no need of an infallible Judge. And it must be sufficient always; otherwise how is it a stable rule? and so it excludes Traditions.  
But sure that is not the Chapter, because my Adversary says, in that place where he speaketh of the Maccabees in particular, which he doth not speak of in the first. That Chapter where he particularly speaks of the Maccabees is the fifteenth: but there is nothing to the purpose neither. Thus he puts me to the hunt lest he should be at a loss. Well but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is surely in the tenth Chapter, where at the end, he answers, as my Adversary doth, to S. Ieroms Authority against the Book of Maccabees: But this is besides the Butt. For that which I looked for to be answered out of Bellarmin, was the other point of no revelation beside Scripture. It is true that I did in the same place name Bellarmine as relating S. Ieroms differing from my Adversary about the Book of the Maccabees: But why should I expect an answer to Bellarmine in this testimony, when he produceth it only that he might refute it? that which I should have had satisfaction in out of Bellarmine was spoken by him out of his own judgement. But again, why did not my Adversary save me the labour of looking up and down for the passage by giving me the entire words of the Cardinal there? I might have thought my Adversary would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he proves rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For he thought it was not requisite that I should find the place because there are some adjacent words which I can improve: He says Jerome was of that opinion, quia nondum Generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat, excepto Libro Judith, quem etiam Hieronymus postea recepit. Mark the words; Because the General Council had not yet determined any thing of those Books, except the Book of judith, which also afterwards S. Jerome received. So than it seems a General Council had before taken these Books into consideration (namely that of Toby and judith, and of the Maccabees) and determined nothing but for judith. Then one of the Councils must err: either that which established judith and not the rest: or that which established judith and the rest, namely that of Carthage, wihch my Adversary says S. Jerome had not seen. One thought them not fit to be declared Canonical: another thought them to be fit. And is not this a contradiction of Council to Council. Again Bellarmine says that S. Jerome did afterwards receive the Book of judith. Now I desire to know how much time that [after] doth suppose for. If S. Jerome had received it presently, we should have heard of it; if much time after, as it might be by the words, than the Authority of the Church seemed not to S. Jerome so intuitively to oblige, as the Antagonists suppose. Had he thought the Church infallible, would he have stuck at it? Do not the Romanists know the rule in Tacitus, Qui de liberant desciverunt, They which deliberate have already revolted.  
What he would have me note by the way, that the Fathers of the Council of Carthage did acknowledge the Maccabees for true Scripture, it is no difficult matter to give account to. For first, he goes upon a false Principle, that if those Fathers were of our Religion, than we must make them agree with us in this prime Principle upon which we receive all Scripture as God's infallible Word. This is not so: for my living Adversaries may know that one who hath defended our Religion hath been quoted to me as differing from me in this point; and that is Mr. Chillingworth. Though all that are of this opinion are like to be of our Religion: yet all of our Religion, it seems, are not of this opinion. For indeed the Protestant Religion supposeth the Scripture to be the Word of God, as a common Principle: and therefore also there should not have been any contestation about this point, if our Adversaries had not been resolved to question all Religion which is not properly theirs. Secondly, Therefore they might have received Scripture upon the Authority of Universal Tradition; which also abstracts from the Roman Impropriation. Thirdly, Since they had not Universal Tradition for those Apocryphal Books, as it seems by S. jerom, we cannot neither upon that account be engaged to receive them as Canonical. Fourthly, Since they did not receive them by Universal Tradition, as appears also by Cyril of jerusalem, as before; and since they are not to be discerned by their own light, as my Adversaries will confess, nor by the conditions of the matter, what reason shall we have to receive them? For if they say, the Council was assisted by the Holy Ghost: we ask, what? was it assisted as a Council, or as such a Council? if as a Council, why had not the other the same Assistance? if as such a Council, how shall we discern which Council the Holy Ghost will assist unto infallibility?  
— Et solos credit habendos  
Esse Deos quos ipse colit—  

N. 45.  In this he is pleased to move again the same stone, which will in the end return upon himself again. For how came one Council to acknowledge the Maccabees, and another not? were not the former Council as well irradiated as the latter? Yes, they were more in all account but of my Adversary, who is not in so good a capacity to grant that the Argument from Authority of the Church graduates its strength by the greater nearness to the Primitive. For, he holds an equal assistance of the Spirit to the Church at all times. But the old saying was, Quò antiquius eò melius. And the rule is good, Ut se habet simpliciter ad simpliciter, ita magis ad magis & maximè ad maximè, if it be good as ancient, than the more ancient the more good. And this at other times is the advantage which the Romanists would take, in claiming the credit of the Original Church to them. And besides, he might have considered that he had no reason to bring this about again, because the reason of their reception, as was said before, is expressed to depend upon the custom of their being read in the Church: which doth not make them or declare them to be Canonical unless in S. Ieroms distinction, for the edifying of the people in manners, not for confirmation of faith. Well then, if one Council might see what another did not without prejudice to the object, than S. Jerome might not see, or Luther, what S. Austin did, without prejudice to the credibility of Scripture. Yea, it is not yet proved that S. Austin accounted the Book of Maccabees as Canonical as other Books. But this is actum agere. And again he repeats what he hath not done. Let them not trouble us, for they have lost their strength.  
And yet again S. Matthews Gospel. 
N. 46.  He had better have solidly proved, which he slightly puts off the proof of, in the end of the last section, that they do not prove the infallibility of the Church first by Scripture. I assure them this is a Fort-royal: and therefore this should be made good at all hands.  
Well but let us see his Argument in the face, about S. Matthews Gospel: which he says he hath forced a passage to. Surely he had no such reason to rally and obtrude this Argument again, and to be so confident of it, as to say boldly that it cannot possibly by our Principles ever come to be believed with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted word. Why not? Nay here is all of this, no proof. We looked for a Spear like a Weavers Beam, or else some new Sword, whereby the Philistin thought to have slain David: but here is none yet. Yea S●apleton shall sufficiently answer him with a contradiction, as before, who says, It is not absolutely necessary to Faith that it should be produced by the Authority of the Church; but it may be caused immediately by the Spirit of God. So then it is possible by our Principles to believe it with an infallible assent to be the Word of God. And before a Church was form, how did the material Members believe any point of Faith? then it is possible.  
But then he slides to another way, as he thought, of urging hi● Argument; and that is, the Marcionites, the Cerdonists, and the Manichaeans do deny (and others may come to deny) the Gospel of S. Matthew to be Gods true Word. Yea, but this is another question. It is one thing to believe it to be God's Word; and another to prove it to him that denies it to be God's Word. Now the question in hand is how we believe it to be God's Word. And therefore we say, as to such, we deal with them as we deal with others who deny any part of Scripture, not by the Authority of the Roman Church (and therefore the Romanists get nothing by this Argument) but by Universal Tradition, as a common Argument; which rather makes a Scholastical Faith, than a Faith Divine, of proper name. So that also he cannot reasonably put me in mind again that I cannot credit it to be the Word of God by virtue of the Translation: since according to my opinion, Translations are only so far God's Word as they agree with the Originals: but we have only Translations of S. Matthews Gospel, no Original at all. This we have in places before spoken to. But suppose no Original Copy of Saint Matthews Gospel: yet this makes no impossibility of belief in Stapletons' judgement, because we may believe immediately without the interposal of the Church. And the Translation is considerable as an Instrument to represent the Object, not to help the Effect: it hath more relation to the fides quae, than the fides quâ, to the Faith objective rather than the Faith subjective. So that I do not believe the sense to be true for the Translation: but I believe the Translation true because it agrees with the Sense. And he that made the Original can Supply it. Again, they believe the Gospel of St Matthew. Do they not? how do they believe it? by the authority of the Church. Well, but what authority had the Church either operative or declarative, to make or declare that to be Scripture which was not Scripture? they say then, the Church can make translations, and particularly the vulgar latin too be authentic, but the vulgar is not absolutely authentic by confession of their own men. And besides the best reason which could be, had it been true of the vulgar, was this, that that should be authentic, because it was made by the original copies before they were corrupted. Yea, but my adversaries say, there was no original copy of St. Matthews Gospel: or if there was they are worthy to die, as David said of Abner because they have kept their Master no better. Are they now the Church unto which perfidia non potest habere accessum, no unfaithfulness can have access? Again, if there was not an original copy or no copy of the original, how shall we believe their Church to be infallible, since the chief place of strength for their Church is found in that Gospel, 16. Ch. 18. as Perron would think. Suppose the question then be made how they prove their infallibility by Scripture: answer is made, by the 16. of St. Matt. the 18. Well but we must know it first to be the word of God before they prove their Church infallible by it. Now they are at as great a loss as we, for they cannot prove that Text to be the word of God by the infallibility of the Church, because the infallibility of the Church is in question, if that be not before hand assured to us that it is the word of God. If then at length they have a mind to rest themselves in common argumentative principles, and resolve their persuasion of it to be the word of God upon the credit of universal tradition; so do we, as to this kind of persuasion.  
Whereas then they say, It is uncertain who the Translator was, and of what skill and honesty, we answer, this makes more against them. For if a Divine Faith be necessary, as they mightily assert, than it is reason that we should less rely upon humane arguments, which make but humane faith: and therefore for our private assurance, should believe it upon Gods own authority.  
To that they say, If there were one Hebrew Copy, than (in St. Ierom's time) what is that to our purpose now? I answer first, that this may abate their confidence of an absolute negative. 2. If those of Beraea did gratify St. jerom with the use of that Hebrew Copy, it is very probable that as the former Beraeans were diligent in searching the Scriptures whether those things spoken by St. Paul were true, so those would take care to consign it ●o posterity, if there was but that one copy thereof. 3. If he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans to describe it (as before) then surely of that Autograph, St. Jerome would have made an Apograph, he would have made another copy. And 4. If the translation they so much brag of were his, they know what skill and honesty the Translator was of. So then they are brought to this either to take my answer, or to deny their translation, which they will. And all their shifts will not help them.  

N. 47.  Here he would put me out of my shifts, as he calls them. I asked them, how they were sure of their latin interpretation to be authentic: they say now by tradition of former ages. Well, but we are satisfied thus also by way of argument concerning the Scriptures and in particular concerning the Gospel of St. Matthew. We say also that we are infallibly satisfied herein by the Spirit of God. And this way of faith I hope we may assert. we may believe what we cannot prove; as they believe that Roman Faith which they cannot prove.  
But he says we are incapacitated to make use of tradition, This tradition doth not cert●fie you, because you hold it fallible. So then: Crede quod habes & habes, Is this a sufficient argumentation? And so consequently, it is infallible to you, because you hold it infallible. So it must it seems be. You do not hold it because it is infallible: but it is infallible because you hold it. And thus infallibility shall not make faith: but opinion shall make infallibility. I had thought before, that verity had been fundamentally in things, and that things had not been true because we conceive them so, but our conceits had been true because things are so. Surely it is a better argument that the Roman Faith cannot be certified to them, because their principles are uncertain, as hath been showed, than that tradition cannot certify us, because we hold it fallible. If it be infallible, we are as sure as they, in the certitude of the object; though because we think it fallible, we are not certain certitudine subjecti, in the certitude of the subject, valeat quantum valere potest. And why would they have us sure of our faith in the certainty of the subject, and yet scarce allow a certainty of salvation in the certitude of the object? But then 2. They are sure by the tradition of former ages, namely universal tradition they mean, do they not? if so universal traditition includes all places, then how comes infallibility to be the prerogative of their Church, when they are to prove their faith by universal tradition. 3. It seems they do not hold tradition to be infallible (and therefore by their own argument, it cannot certify them) since that which was held in the Church universally for the first ages, they do not now hold, as they have been told, namely the millenary opinion, infant communion, standing up in prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide. Yea why do they not stand up altogether at prayer as was appointed by a Council? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. If they mean the term [certify] as infallibly, we grant it: if they mean it morally, we deny it: and therefore if they have no more certainty then of tradition for their faith, they have no faith of proper name. 5. We are upon the surer ground to trust upon the Scripture, because the Church must be subordinate to it, than they, because they trust to the Church for the truth of Scripture. For if this were right then the Church might have that privilege, which St. Paul could not claim to himself, namely to be mistress of our faith: whereas St. Paul denies it 2. Ep. Cor. 1.24. Not as Masters of your Faith, but helpers of your joy. And we have Estius also of our opinion, as before, that all faith hath not the authority of the Church for the formal reason thereof, this is enough against his first shift, the second shift is, this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek, and here he asks me whether possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent. We answer, no, but exceptions of a possibility of error are sufficient to contradict infallibility. They say they have an infallible faith; we say there is a possibility of error herein: and this is enough for us against them. And then 2. This weapon we use against you, Possibilities grounded upon conjectures are not sufficient to ground an infallible assent: This it seems is their own position, now they have nothing but possibilities for them; therefore they have no infallible assent. This assumption hath been proved before upon their own principles. We have nothing but possibilities grounded upon conjectures, that they have a right Pope, legitimate in his Baptism and priesthood; and so of other Priests, there might be want of due matter, due form, due intention; which with them make the act null.  
But then he compares the inevidence of St. Matthews Gospel to be the uncorrupted word of God, with the evidence of St. Luke's Gospel to be such by its own light, and would have me think as much reason to believe the inevidence of the latter, as I do of the former, but 1. he doth not rightly to compare the evidence of St. Luke's Gospel with the inevidence of St. Matthew's as he would have me grant. As if because I supposed an inevidence which was the original, I also granted an inevidence of the Gospel, and yet faith doth not exclude a negative inevidence, there may be certitude of assent without evidence of the object, therefore we say 2. We are rather assured of the language by the Scripture, then of the Scripture by the language, otherwise the ignorant people could have no faith of Scripture. 3. We can give, upon our own principles, as much credit to the Church (as to the point of the original language) as the Church can require or they prove. 4. How did the Church first accept it to be the word of God, whether the Greek was the original or not. By the internal testimony of the spirit, it must be said. For if it should be said we receive now by tradition of former ages, this is forecluded, because we ask the question how the first Church accepted it, if not by the spirit of God internally assuring them, then let them tell us how they came to the faith thereof, not opinion: if so, then why may we not receive it so too. And moreover, it doth not follow that if the Gospel of St. Matthew were originally greek, therefore we should see it to be so as well as St. Luke? A posse ad esse non valet. Multa videntur quae non sunt: multa sunt quae non videntur. Many things seem which are not: many things are which are not seen. Every irradiated understanding of theirs doth not see all points which belong to their Church. Some do see the Monarchy of the Church to be as Bellarmin: some do not see the Monarchy of the Church, as Spalatensis notes. Again, how came it to pass that the former Churches did not see the Apocryphal books to be Gods true and uncorrupted word: and yet some Church of later times hath seen them? such answers of mine would be repetitions; were they not answers to his repetitions.  
Nextly he comes to my argument (which I did not make much of, but he less) that the Gospel of St. Matt. was written in Greek, because the Greek copy doth interpret the word Immanuel, which if it were written in Hebrew, needed not any interpretation. But my Adversary might have added, if he had pleased, that which follows in my Paper [since the letters of the word put together without any variation do make that signification] And this we called not a demonstration, nor a probability, but rather a possibility by that reason. And therefore unless he did make all things invincible by infallibility, he needed not to have called it a pitiful weak conjecture. Well, but what said he? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
He answers then, it is manifest that translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew word first, and then the translation of it, so Gen. Bi. 48. Galaad id est tumulus testis. Not to take any notice of the Scribe; he puts here that in the way of interpretation, which is there delivered in way of a cause, and reason of the term. Ver. 47. but jacob called it Galeed; then 48. for Laban said this heap is witness between me and thee this day, therefore he called the name of it Galeed. And before the name which Laban gave it in Chaldee, Segar Sahudatha, is not there interpreted, although there be a little difference between that and the name which jacob gave it in Hebrew: for Galeed signifies the heap of witness, the other heap his witness. Therefore whereas he would make [Galaad, id est tumulus testis] to be in terms Scripture, it is not so. No m re is that of Exodus 12. Phas● id est transitus. It is not said so there, but there is a reason given why they should ●at it in haste, for it is the Lords Passeover, ver. 11. the reason is given before, which is contrary to what he says, that it is usual to put the Hebrew words first, and then the translation of it: but here is the reason before, and no formal interpretation. Ratio nominis, I hope, is different from an interpretation. Another instance (and indeed in order before the last) is Gen. 35.18. Benoni i.e. filius doloris mei, Benjamin id filius dextrae. But here also he presumptuously supposeth his vulgar latin too be Scripture, which is to suppose that which is not to be supposed; and indeed a sophism in begging that which is in question: none of all languages which the great Bible set out with us hath, doth put in these words in form of an exposition. The Syria●k and the Arabic and the Greek do express the matter of the interpretation; but then they leave out the name Benoni: but all keep Benjamin without any interpretation. Another instance of his is Exod. 16.15, 31. Manna quod sign ficat quid est hoc. And here again he takes the vulgar Latin for good Scripture: for none give the term and afterwards t●e signification but the Latin: but the name Manna they do not name. And whether that be the signification of Manna deserves a criticism. Some think that it may come from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and so it should signify a portion; neither is Bethel interpreted upon the place, Gen. 35.15.  
So then, upon the whole matter, that which he confidently says being not so in his own Instances and more, my conjecture is yet true and good; unless they can make the Latin Translation to be as Catholic Scripture as they would have the Pope to be universal Bishop. And surely if a Translator of Scripture doth translate words of Scripture (where the words are not interpreted in Scripture) he is not a Translator of Scripture, quoad hoc, formally, but materially of that which is Scripture. And this is not to render Scripture so much as to make it. And moreover they may know this to be the usage of the Evangelists besides (which are acknowledged to have written originally in Greek) to give the Interpretation of the Hebrew or Syriack words. My conjecture then is well recovered of its weakness.  
But then he falls upon me for giving a contradiction to S. jerom. Though he saith he did see a copy of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes: you reject him though all the Father's Writings extant stand on his side.  
Answ. A conjecture of a possibility of the contrary makes no such contradiction which stands betwixt affirmation and negation categorically. 2. S. jerom then hath rather contradicted them, if a conjecture be sufficient to a contradiction. For can we conceive that there is not room enough for a conjecture, that either that Copy which S. jerom had use of, or that which he described (which may be as certain as some other) may now be extant in the world; which contradicts my Adversary. 3. If there were an Hebrew Copy, it is more than a conjecture, it is more than probable that he who translated it into Greek, did exactly compare it with the Hebrew, whose faithfulness, in those times, we might better trust than some Romans now. And also they know that the Pope may be deceived in point of fact. Neither did all the Fathers, I suppose, see the Hebrew Copy. And it would have been enough, that none of the Fathers are against it: but it is a greater adventure to say, all the Fathers stand on that side. And also they may know what Father did profess that he did see the remainers of those cells, in which the Seventy did translate the Old Testament, and who contemns that testimony. I think I bear as much respect to the Fathers, as some of the Romanists do, or more: but yet if I should hold with the Romans against the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome was the universal Bishop, I should not be blamed for contradicting the Fathers.  
But to his Argument, This Copy translateth, ergo, it is a translation. Answ. T●e Antecedent begs the question, whether it doth translate or not. Whatsoever doth interpret doth not translate. And therefore here is an Argument for me, It doth not translate, ergo, it is not a Translation. And it doth not translate: for then the Interpretation must be in the Hebrew, which is denied to have been the use of the Hebrews, as before; especially in the same case, where the name is given in the same letters which signify the interpretation. Therefore the Latin doth not translate, when it giveth the Interpretation, as in the former examples. And the other Evangelists are not Translators, when they interpret Hebrew or Syriack words. So his Argument is for me. And so my cause is not lost, as to this point: since also S. Austin professed in that of his against the Epistle of the Manichean, that he would hear Reason against Antiquity: at least surely he might do so in matter of fact.  
Your third shift is in place of giving answer to make an objection, ask why our Latin Translation was made authentic, if the Church had made the Greek authentic. Answ. Shall I say that my Adversary doth not seem here to know well what shift to make: since he carps at my answering by way of question? But then they should be better advised than to make such Arguments as they will not be willing to answer an interrogatory about in the same matter. But he says (passing by some other words which seem too hot for him) I know of no body who told you that the Greek Translation was made authentic by the Church. I return upon him. Was the Greek Translation made authentic or not? He is not willing to say it was nor it was not. But I press them. Was it? or was it not? If it was not, than their Translation was not of authentic Scripture: and so, again, they do not translate but make Scripture. If it was made authentic by the Church, then what need of two authentic Translations? Again, if it were not made authentic by the Church, than the Church could be without the authentic Gospel of Saint Matthew, and yet have enough for salvation: and therefore can we be as well without Traditions of the Church, because I presume they profess so much reverence to the Gospel of S. Matthew, that they will not say that Traditions are more necessary than the Gospel of S. Matthew. And if it were made authentic absolutely by the Church: we can better believe it by the virtue of Universal Tradition, than they can believe their Latin by the authority of the Roman Church. And if it be necessary, as it is, that Translations, as such, should agree with Originals, and the question be which is the Original, or where the Original is to be found, they are in as great difficulty as we: for than they have no certainty of an Original, as to this Gospel, to make use of for their Translation. And if their Latin, as to this, was a Translation of a Translation: we have the better cause in this, because we trust rather to the first Translation. And if some part of the Church made use of the Septuagints Translation in stead of the Hebrew, and the Penmen of the New Testament made so much use of it also, as is confessed by learned men; then may we rather make use of the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Greek than they in Latin.  
Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the harmony with other Gospels. Ans. A great deal he says to this, which I might spare the refutation of upon these reasons. First, because I compare the harmony of this Gospel to the other Gospels, with the credit of the Church, therefore do I not make this to be an Argument absolute. 2. Because I spoke of the harmony betwixt this and other Gospels, and not betwixt this Gospel and other parts of scripture: and therefore he plays the Sophister, the discourse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. whereas then he does deny my Argument by compare of it with other Gospels, he does not contradict me in my conclusion, which was comparative to the credit of the Church. And where he compares the harmony of this Cospel with other parts of Scripture, he doth not conclude contradictorily to me, who only instituted the compare of it with other Gospels. It is necessary therefore to set down my words, which were these. Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to persuade faith than the credit of the Church. So that all his disputation as to this is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench, because it comes not up to a contradiction to my terms. And besides, if the difficulties about the agreement, were so great, their infallibility pretended should have cleared them. Either we might have saving health notwithstanding those breaches, or else the plaster was defective, or else there is want of care in the Physician. Or it may be as he said, Plus periculi a medico qua● a morbo, but let them take my own terms in their ordinary sense, and then his assaults will lose their force before they come home to the point. For what if one who intended a supposititious Gospel would take care not to contradict the others? Is not therefore the harmony of this Gospel with others a better persuasive than the credit of the Church? For the Argument from the Church is more extrinsical, and such Arguments are in kind less rational. And if they say the Church hath an infallible assistance, it begs the question.  
And what infringement of the harmony is it, if there be many things related by St. Matthew, and not related at all by many others? For so, they would not find an harmony of the other Gospels: and this according to Mr. Cressy would make this Gospel more credible, because more things are here expressed, and it may be some material. But surely to relate circumstances and not to relate circumstances, namely the same, makes no contradiction in divers subjects, if one did say these circumstances were, and another did say these circumstances were not, this would contradict: but not to say, is not to say not. For not to say is negative ex parte actus: but to say not, is negative ex parte objecti, which makes the contradiction in divers subjects. Again what if there seem to be any variety betwixt the Gospel of St. Matthew and other parts of Scripture (he should have said and other Gospels, if he would have spoken ad idem) in the History of the generations, must Faustus the Manichaean be gratified in honour to the Roman Church. If there be any such variety, the Roman will have the worst of it: for his foundation lies principally in that Gospel. And this cannot be salved by the Church, because the Church is in question.  
But he will not spare the Gospel of St. Matthew (as if the Roman Church needed it not) and therefore he tells us of a disagreement in the first chap. of St. Matthew's Gospel with the 2. b. of the Kings the 8th. ch. about Iorams begetting Ozias, joram begat Ozias, etc. Well, if the Roman calls children Nephews, more reasonably may the Hebrews call real Nephews children, which are as minor sons, as he said. And so joram might be said to beg●t Ozias, who was his Abnepos. Or will not Salmerons conceit please them▪ that this was so ordered in an allegory, to typify that as 3 Kings are excluded in the History, so those that deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and deprive themselves of the three Theological virtues do deserve to be excluded salvation. But since, it seems it was the spirit of God's purpose to put the account in tessarodecades, it was necessary that in one of them, three should be left out. And convenient it was that the omission should be in the second, that so that curse upon Ahabs' family should be here exemplified, those three Kings being of his posterity: somewhat as Dan in the seventh of the Revel. is not numbered; because that Tribe did go away from God in Idolatry, and did mingle with the Gentiles, as is observed.  
Another difficulty he urgeth about the number of the Generations, wherein one seems to be wanting, you shall find them to be only forty one; which by the account of thrice fourteen Generations should make forty two. Ans. Our question is about the harmony of the Gospel in the point of doctrine chiefly, this concerns history of fact, 2. We have no reason to think that because we cannot comprehend all the mysteries in scripture and the ways of the jewish acount, there should be any falsity herein. Tertullia's ' rule is good, Cedat Curiositas fidei. 3. Stapulensis, it seems, said that in old copies it is found thus, josias genuit joaechim; joaechim genuit jechoniam and these two are comprehended under one name. Since jechonias is called jehoiachin 4ᵒ Regum ch. 24 ver. 6. whose father jehoiachin was; the father and the son are confounded by the similitude of the names in the greek, as some note,  
Another difficulty he urgeth about the 27 of St. Matthew ver. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was said by the prophet jeremy; whereas the Prophet jeremy hath no such matter in him. What harmony appeareth here? indeed in the Prophet Zechary: there is in substance what St. Matthew said. Ans. An error of the scribe cannot discanonize the book in a point of circumstance, if it were so as it might be, if the Gospel was first written in Hebrew? for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily be read for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Ier in short and for jeremy for by the hand, namely of the Prophet, which is the usual form of expression in this kind. And also the Syriack expresseth it in the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the hand of the Prophet. Or it may be 2. As some note, they were wont to put several books together, and to name all by the first. So jeremy being first all were reckoned by him: and so that which is said by Zecharie is attributed to jeremy too being the first. And so we know that in the old Testament books are called by the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 3. However this agrees with the Scripture in general, though not particularly in terms with jeremy. His other exceptions are about the difference of St. Peter's denying his master, which compared with other Evangelists, seems to differ in very many Circumstances; and then also in the last chap. He says there are some Circumstances about the resurrection, which St. Matthew differs from the rest in: Ans. These are spoken by him in general, and Generalia non agunt as it is said, neither do they make an action. And then 2. Somewhat may be divers which is not adverse. And what one says another doth not deny. If another omission did make a contradiction to what one affirms, then, if St. jerom had called the Bishop of Rome the universal Bishop, (which yet he doth not) then St. Austin, not calling him so, had contradicted him. But then the supposed differences are about Circumstances, by his own confession. What is this to matter of faith in necessary doctrine; which is the centre point of the question, unto which all the lines should be referred, and therefore he had done nothing, if he had done more in this kind. And I think we are as sure of the right in such varieties as they. And also he might have remembered that rule of Saint Cyrill of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let things of curiosity not be spoken of in the Church.  
But the sense of them is, that we must be Papists or no Christians. But if they were Turks we might say more. And where nothing is necessary, any thing is abundant.  
He comes next to my last shift, as he calleth it, that the people do fix their faith upon that which is interpreted, not upon the interpretation. To this he objects thus, you may fix your faith upon a lie, for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the interpreter, be God's word or the interpreters own word, specially when we know not who this interpreter was, how skilful, how faithful, how true a copy he used. Ans. To the confirmation of what he here objects against, were added distinct reasons or reasonable distinctions. These he says nothing to, but what cavil he can make against the conclusion; he is willing to, without answer to my reasons, 2. We believe that our people can better believe the word of God in a translation, than their people without a translation, for the people must believe their Church without the knowledge of any translation. Let them make their faith good without a translation: and we shall make our faith as good in a translation. And I think our people may as well credit the Authority of our Church in a translation as their people may credit the Authority of their Church without a translation. 3. By their own Argument they are more in the dark: for if the persuasive of our faith be the certainty, who this interpreter was, how skilful, how faithful, how true a copy he used: because they do not know who the interpreter of St. Matthews Gospel was into Greek, how skilful, how faithful, how true a copy he used, how can they believe it? And therefore we return him his own words, how know you that this translation doth not convey their own fancies in the place of God's word. Do they know it because their fancy (of their Church) tells them that this is God's word? Thus than they may have a double fantastical assurance and nothing else. This they are forced to hold sufficient. Yet how doth this agree with their own acknowledgements, that the vulgar latin as to this is also a translation: and yet, (as they must confess) that it is so far a true translation as it doth agree with the original. They cannot resolve their faith into the original never proposed to them. Into the translation they say they do resolve it. And this must be the written word. What written word is that which is neither translation nor original? For the Greek is neither their translation nor their original. And yet surely the Greek is more like to be the original than the latin: for if there was no Hebrew copy extant, as they say, then was the Latin a translation out of the Greek. And if they say the Greek was not the original than the Latin is a translation without an original, which is oppositum in apposito. So then, when all comes to all, we are as well settled in the tenure of our assurance, as to the Gospel of St. Matthew, as they, or more; because we stand to that which they have but a translation of. And they have but the Latin Church for their Latin: we have the universal Church for the Greek. But forsooth, they believe their Church to be infallible: we do not believe the Church to be infallible. But what then? if the authority of the Church were crescent according to the opinion of the recipient, than the Scripture had not been the word of God unless men had thought so. And then opinion would make faith: because it would make infallibility. As than they must say that their Church was assured by the Holy Ghost (for so the terms of their Synod run, Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica & generalis Synodus in spiritu sancto legitime congregata) that their Latin translation i●, if it be at all, authentic: so may we ultimately believe the Gospel of St. Matthew to be in the matter of it, authentic. For if there be not sufficient assistance of the spirit of God to Christians severally, as to necessity of Salvation, how did the Christians do before there was ever a general Council?  
What is added hereabouts might have been spoken without Sarcasmes, or might have been left out. We can know which of those so many Greek Copies is the only true one as well as they. And a clown will be as able to understand which is the best English Translation (as if there were such difference) as well as with them he can understand which is a right General Council, or which was in the right as to the varieties in the Latin, Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth. And though they cannot confer the Translation with the Original; No more can the Roman People compare their Translation with the Originals: and yet Bellarmine, as before, says in some cases, we must have recourse to the Originals. But did not Xavier convert the Infidels? yes, they will say. So then. And did he not preach that which is in the Bible? Yes, they will say. And did not they believe? Yes, they will say. Now then how was this Faith wrought in them? By the Spirit of God, they will say, or they must say. For they could not compare that which was said by him with the Originals or with the Doctrine of the Church. So then our people can believe without conferring a Translation with the Originals, as well as theirs. And they know who said, Si fides in doctos selos caderet, nihil esset pauperius Deo. And again, Surgunt indocti & rapiunt coelum, etc. as the Father. The very neck then of this point may be thus resolved. In the order of credibles their first Proposition is, The Church is infallible. Our first Proposition is, The Scripture is the Word of God. Now their Proposition is grounded in Authority: or else is believed by its own light. Not by its own light; for then the Scripture may be believed so, which they deny. Then it is grounded in Authority. That, either Humane or Divine. Humane Authority cannot make Faith. No Divine Authority, but either that of Scripture; or internal, by the Holy Ghost. Not by Scripture, than that Proposition of theirs is not the first. Then by the Holy Ghost: and then by the same way we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, as they believe the Church to be infallible. And so they must at length rest in our Principles.  
In this num. (beside somewhat in the beginning, 
N. 48.  answered before) he would very fain repair the credit of the vulgar Latin, which I had broken by an instance of Gen. 3.15. where it reads ipsa for ipsum; referring to the Mother what belongs to the Son. To this he says, It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be translated ipsum. How know you the Church followed the false Hebrew copy? Satis caute. Some copies. Not all. May be. Not are. Most exactly be translated, not some most exact copies. Well. Are not these copies the greater number? And indeed are they not the most exact? yea can they truly be translated otherwise? and how know they that their Church followed the true Hebrew copy? If it did not follow it infallibly; or if they cannot know infallibly that it did follow it infallibly, infallibly they are undone; because they are upon terms of an infallible faith in an infallible Church. Therefore though we can shake their foundation by our question; they cannot settle their foundation by their question. And yet we have another question. He asks again, How many most grave and most ancient Fathers have also read ipsa? Surely he does well to ask how many, because he does not know how few. Their names may they not be written in a nut shell? and Bellarmin, upon the place, hath not many for it. And some of them surely not most grave and also most ancient Fathers. But as for St. Austin, Bellarmin, might as well or better have left him out of the Catalogue. For though he renders it, ipsa, in his 11. de Gen. ad literam c. 36. and in another place; yet he doth not expound it, as they of the Virgin, for he makes it to be mystically understood. Significatur semine diaboli perversa, semine autem mulieris fructus boni operis: & illa observat caput ejus ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat. He might also have omitted St. Ambrose, in his 2. b. de fuga saeculi cap. 7. for there he interprets it morally, not referring it to the Virgin. And both of them also differ from the Hebrew and their vulgar in the other words, and follow the Septuagint. For they translate it, ipsa servabit caput tuum, which doth not agree with the Hebrew, with which the vulgar, in this, doth agree. But Bellarmine also nameth St. Chrysostom in his 17. homily upon Gen. But then they must have some other edition of him if they will make use of his testimony for them. For in three places of this homily, he renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That which he would think, it may be, to be for this use, is this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And not her alone (the woman) but I will make her seed to be a perpetual enemy to thy seed. Yet upon this he doth immediately subjoin the text, as before. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus Bellarmin doth not yet bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. indeed all they can do is much too little to cure this breach. For S. jerom is more considerable in this criticism than all the Fathers named. And he says, melius in Hebraeo, ipse conteret caput tuum. Nay Bellarmin in the place quoted by him, saith he had seen one copy (he speaks of no more, as he would surely if he had could) and yet doth not tell us where. So that, to speak at least the communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this reading ipsa; is not agreeable to the Hebrew copies. Nay Bellarmin doth sweat at it; and therefore says some copies of the vulgar Latin do interpret it ipse, in the former Chap. And this makes a new difficulty on their part to reconcile the contrariety to the infallibility of the Church in both. The Church was deceived in one, and where then is their infallibility they speak of? This is their modesty then, against the gender in the Hebrew, against the Samaritan, Syriack, Arabic, translations, which refer it to the seed, against all Hebrew copies which Bellarmin had seen but one, against some of their own copies of the vulgar Latin, to make that Scripture for the Creature, which belongs to the Son of God.  
And also whether the Father's most grave and most ancient are for their interpretation, we have examined and therefore he needed not be so plain as to say it was a loud lie of Chemnitius to say the contrary: And will they say so to Lucas Brugensis, who says as much as Chemnitius in this point, almost all the Fathers do read ipse, as is noted. Let me then say, it would become them here to give glory to Christ immediately, and to confess this fault.  
And yet neither doth he competently answer to the question made to him, why the Greek was not made infallibly the Church as well as the Latin. That we have his declaration that the Latin vulgar is authentic and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners, this he says: but this will not serve, as may appear thus. A translation of that which is not authentic cannot be authentic; now let them determine whether it was made authentic or not. If not made authentic, being a translation (as they say) then how can the Latin be so declared an authentic translation? for then the Church must have vim operativam too, not only declaratory: and the effect shall exceed the material cause. Or if it was declared authentic, what of an infallible translation. 2. Whereas he says therefore it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners. To wit the Latin translation, we take notice of it that these words have a sense in them intended for their use; namely not to be understood absolutely, as if there were no error at all therein: but restrictively, specificatively, no such error but that it may be sufficient to direct us in faith and manners. So then, when he hath made use of his own words for his own turn, we will make use of them for our purpose, and we will not squeeze them neither.  
The first corollary then from these words of his, is this, that he dares not stand to an absolute infallibility of the Church in every point whatsoever: and therefore by Mr. Knott's argument he must abate of his former postulate of its being the ground and cause of faith. 2. Thus much we may as well or better say for our translation that it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners. 3. It seems then salvation is not in danger by some errors: otherwise their translation should be deficent in points necessary to faith and manners; and therefore we need not, upon danger of salvation, have an infallible Judge to decide all points emergent. 4. Things necessary to faith and manners are sufficiently set down in scripture, for otherwise the Latin translation must be deficient; or else it must have more than the original; and then, as to this, it is not a translation yet 5. Then necessity of traditions is excluded, for than it could not be truly said that the Latin Bible is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners. 6. Exceptions against St. Matthew's Gospel, which are not in points necessary to faith and manners, do not hinder the authenticness of the Greek; because the Latin is authentic as not being deficient in points necessary to faith and manners. 7. We may infer from hence thus, those errors in the Latin Bible, though not material to faith or manners, might have been saved by the Church or not: if they might have been saved, than the Church may deceive our trust, if they could not then it may be deceived: and so we have but a fallible ground for our assent to any of her definitions and in particular, for the Gospel of St. Matthew. So that all his shifts fail him in this important point. Surely this whole point about the belief of Scripture to be the word of God, was a great shift of his: for the subject should have been supposed in the dispute of the attributes. The point in question was whether the Scripture doth clearly propound things necessary to Faith and manners. And he hath blotted how much Paper to debate our tenure of the Scripture. Yet it may be, he hath gotten nothing by it, nor by the Holy Fathers, whom he hath somewhat to say to only for himself.  
The greatest part of this Paragraph comes too late. And all that would seem to take away my former Answers, is taken away. My Answer to his Exception, that Luther did not see the Apocalypse and the Epistle of Saint james to be canonical, is yet sufficient; that the negative Argument doth not conclude. He replies, in our case it is a strong proof. I again deny the Consequence. The objects have themselves equally to all: but they are not equally seen; surely not in this case, because the Spirit of God is a free Agent. Yea Saint Luke the 24.16. their eyes were holden that they could not see him. God's actings upon objects, and in degrees, are at his own pleasure. And secondly, The sense of the definitions of the Church is visible, is it not? If not, how are we guided? If so, yet every one doth not see them. And thirdly, If Luther had such an irradiated understanding, why did he not yet see, and Spalatensis also, the Monarchy of the Church to be of Divine Right? if he had not, why doth he say so? The light is the same, the Proposition is the same: his eyes or understanding no better nor more assisted, why then did not they see what he sees?  
As to his Answer to my second Answer [you see we do not follow him (Luther) blindly] we need not return any thing but this, that he mistakes me in the term [blindly] he supposeth me to speak as in relation to this point about the Books denied or doubted of by him: but I spoke it in general, that we do not follow him with blind obedience as the Jesuits do their General.  
And though the Apocalypse and other Books were doubted of, this doth not prejudice us, no more than it doth them for the visibility of the Church, and the reception of the Books Apocryphal, These Books were received by them because they were worthy to be received or not; but arbitrarily. If the former, why did not those before see them to be such? If the latter, than infallibility proceeds by the will: and so infallibility may be on either part of the contradiction. And so we have no reason to say any more, if whatsoever they will say, is infallible.  
Further he chargeth us with obtruding a Canon of our own coining for judge of controversies. Here is two things false, First, That we obtrude a new Canon. This not so, we have the same Canon which the ancient Fathers had before the Council of Carthage. But they have made a new Canon, by taking in the Apocryphal: and by canonising the vulgar Latin. And the other is false; for we do not obtrude the Scripture, as Judge of controversies in any formal sense.  
And again he would mar the Canon, all agreeing that divers Books of the true Canon be quite lost. How often comes this in? But first, He must go less: not divers Books, which may import many. One or two are not in common account divers. If then he means by [divers] many Books, so all do not agree. If he means one or two, so not divers. Secondly, He takes the terms [the true Canon] either respectively to those Divine Books which were inspired, and yet never put into the Canon, as it was reveiwed by S. john, as learned men suppose: or after they were put in and acknowledged: If the former, he cannot say that we have not a true and just Canon as to that which is necessary. And if he denies it, he is a friend to Celaeus, Porphyry and julian. But if the latter, than who lost them? Surely those who had the mind to keep the reputation of the necessary use of Traditions upon this account. But if Traditions be but as necessary (as the Trent Council intends in those terms pari pietatis affectu) why may we not think that some of these may be lost also? and then where shall we find the judge, who is to determine of points by the tenure of Traditions; or else some of their most acute and learned men have lost their insight into ground of truth?  
Amongst us (after the Church's declaration was notified concerning any book for canonical) you will never find it to be doubted of by any true Catholic. Ans. This argument concludes (if true) unity, but not truth. Things of Divinity are not to be measured by such a Lesbian rule.  
And this agreement cannot prove their Canon good, for unless the Canon was good, the agreement was not good. 2. If we should bring things of debate to no other test, we should never have any determination. for what is there which is not questioned by some of them? Now it is all one to the Romanists, whether the Canon be questioned or any thing else which the Church proposeth, since they are bound to believe all alike: but to the point in question. Gregory was a true Catholic. Gregory did not hold the Book of Maccabees to be canonical, after declaration by the Council of Carthage; therefore that which he says is false. The major was commended to them before the assumption, they may see in the 19 of his Morals the 15. Ch. Therefore they had best hold the Book of Maccabees to be Canonical only so as to be read in Churches. And if so only (as Saint. jerom also held) then this book is not simply canonical: if otherwise, that which he says is not true; and Gregory was not of their opinion. So then we have — Pares Aquilas & pila minantia pilis,  
Pope against Pope; infallibility against infallibility. And since we know which is right, we must deny both.  

N. 50.  Here he tells us of an argument in the 14 num. of the former treatise, with infallible faith, this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he begs the question. And if they cannot prove the cause to be theirs with out our free grant, they are not like to have it. And therefore, this being denied him, as before, all that he would build thereupon must fall. to wit, therefore we must be assisted in this infallible knowledge by some other infallible means and no other infallible means can with any shadow of probability, be said given to us but the infallible authority of the Church; therefore her authority must be infallible, as shall at large be showed in the next chap. and then in the next after that, that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman. This is all waist and lost, unless they could maintain it to be necessary charity in us to preserve their cause from starving by granting that which it ought not to have. And 2. Dato non concesto, suppose there must be some other means of infallible deciding doubtful sense of Scripture, I can make it a question whether they can plead the next right, as if they came vacuam possessionem, for the place may be full by universal tradition; which surely is not the same with the Roman Church: for the whole surely is greater than the part, and then also when you prove the Roman faith by universal tradition, you would prove the Roman faith by the Roman, and this is idem per idem. And as for the 3. thing, that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman, which he says he will prove in the last chapter; surely, if I may speak it without offence, he does very well to refer it to the last: for he may do any thing before it: But also since his supposition, that we cannot be certain by the Scriptures (infallibly) of their own true sense in points necessary to salvation with infallible faith, must fall without a better support, we may be at our last already, for if this be not good, the other chapters make number.  
And this number makes no weight. He doth nothing in it but tell us that he hath done so and so; which we interpret nothing. Infallibility should not need many words.  
In this, 
N. 52.  he would wipe off the suspicion of disrespect to Scripture in those terms he used; and would lay a blame upon me for my censure of his words to this purpose. His words were these, if he would have given us a book for judge he would never have given us for our judge such a book as Scripture is which very often speaketh obscurely, sometimes so prophetically that most would think it spoke of the present time, when it speaketh of the time to come; that it speaketh of one person, for example of David, when it speaketh of another; for example of Christ. And much more I added to this effect; that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our judge. To what of this he said in his former treatise, I said Sir, Let me have leave to speak affectionately to you. Do not you see what disrespects of Scripture (if not blasphemies) your opinion doth miserably betray you to, if you follow it. Would any sober man let fall such words, as if God had intended the Scripture for our judge, such a book as Scripture is. So you. This I said.  
And now he examines these words strictly, and says. My adversary, to avoid this argument, so mangleth the sense that he may-make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect, reporting them as if I should have said, if God had intended Scripture for our judge, he would not have given us such a book as Scripture. Ans. Surely this is a false charge that I have mangled his words, for I have given the full sense of them. And this may be demonstrated by denying of the end, which he makes to be, to avoid the argument. For I do not see any such difficulty in the argument, that I should decline it and fall upon the person. This is not my mind or manner. But I could find fault with his dealing with me even here: for he puts together that which I did not put together. For he says I accused him of a blasphemous disrespect, whereas I said [disrespect [if not blasphemies] and also the terms [if not blasphemies] without a grain of charity might have been construed without an affirmation. Nether doth he right me or clear himself in the prosecution of his defence. For my words in all reason, do represent as much as if I had added what he said I should have added. These words, [if God had intended a book for our judge, he would not have given us such a book as Scripture] must connotate this sense, that he would not have given us such a book as Scripture for our judge. And therefore he needed not to quarrel upon the omission as if I had not dealt fairly with him, consider, it in the form of an hypothetical proposition [if God had intended a book for our judge, he would not have given us such a book as Scripture is] what need be added [for our judge] when it is understood of course. They know the rule Quod necessario subintelligitur, nunquam deest. That which is necessarily understood is never wanting. And therefore have I not done his words any injury by mangling them: nor yet by interpretation of them still they seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture: and must do so, if they have full sense in them. But also if we might say what S. Austin said of the Heretics words, Bene haec acciperentur nisi ab eo dicerentur cujus sensus notus est; so here, these words might be better construed if they were not spoken by such whose sense was known. For unless the Scripture be a book imperfect in regard of matter, what need of tradition? unless the Scripture were imperfect in regard of cleareness, what needed an infallible judge to decide controversies about the sense.  
Therefore he cannot get clearly off. Aqua haeret. And surely he doth not help himself or his cause by a like case he puts, if God had intended the Scripture for sole judge in Law controversies, he would never have given us such a book as Scripture is for our judge. Doth this pass any handsome and respective reflection upon Scripture. As if it were no fit to decide controversies in Divinity then in the Law? And do they not think that we may have more reason to be bold with them than they with Scripture? if God had intended that we should have been absolutely determined in matters of faith by General Council, would he have given us such a packed Council as the Council of Trent was? And yet moreover all he says is besides the mark. For this we do not contend for that the scripture is the sole Judge intended by God: for we do not say that it is fomally any Judge. But we say that the Scripture doth so fully and so plainly set down things necessary so fully and so plainly that there is no necessity of tradition for more matter, or of infallible Judge for more clear proposal of things necessary, so that this which he says is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench.  
He says yet, is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it? This we may take for his proposition. Then Bellarmin, as before acknowledgeth it to be our rule, against the Aanbaptists: and therefore it is a perfect rule. But elsewhere Bellarmin will have it to be but our commonitory then why doth he dispute it to be a rule against the Aanbaptists?  
Whereas then my adversary would return the disgrace to Scripture upon me, he does not or will not understand me, for we do not say, nor are bound to say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone, and, that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them: and therefore we deny his consequences, that since, when it comes to the trial we are not able to show any text of Scripture deciding many and most important controversies, this in effect were to say God performed very insufficiently what he intended to do by Scripture. first we do not say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture: for we say no controversies are necessary in point of necessary faith. He puts in [necessary controversies] for necessary truths, we say the Scripture plainly proposeth all necessary truths: and he would bring us in saying, that the Scripture plainly decides all necessary contoversies, and therefore how can he say that we say God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them? 2. Therefore we deny those points to be simply necessary to salvation which are not clearly proposed in Scripture. 3. Whereas they say that the Scripture doth propose upon God's intention the Church to be the infallible Judge in matters of faith, and yet cannot show any text wherein this is clearly delivered, they do dishonour God and Scripture and they dishonour God by accusing of Scripture; as Nilus before.  
In this number he holds the conclusion, that expressions of Scripture are obscure in way of prophecy or type, and that there is no certain mean of direction to the sense; and than that therefore there must be an infallible Judge. But nothing is answered to my answers about it. And did he think that the jews did not understand the manner of expressions of the prophets in their own language, or that David did not bear the type of Christ? How else were they saved in the time before Christ? And was the exact sense of every expression or type necessary? such exceptions do not weigh. And then again, if there had been need in the time of the law of an infallible Judge for an infallible Illumination of dark expressions then; if so, dato non concesso, what is this to the necessity of an infallible Judge in the times of the Gospel which is the old Testament revealed.  

N 54.  To pass by any slips in the former number by the scribe or otherwise, we come to this paragr. wherein he is not pleased to say any thing to what was replied about the several senses of Scripture. But he would here corroborate his argument with Dr. Tailer's Judgement in his discourse of the liberty of prophesying. And he says he thinks me not to be so much esteemed amongst our own Clergy or Laity, as he. I confess it Neque de me quisquam vilius sentit quam ipse, as one said. But though this is very true that my authority is not comparable to his, yet it was not rational for my adversary to diminish me because it makes a prejudice to his cause that so weak a man can oppose it, and therefore I can spare him in this kind. Let my adversary be the Champion of his cause. And yet it may be the Reverend and learned Author he names is not always pleased with whatsoever he said in that book. And yet also we can grant what is said by the Doctor who does not say that no Arguments can be drawn from Scripture, but from those Scriptures which have many senses, neither doth he say that those texts which have many senses do contain points necessary to salvation, nor doth he say, that if they did contain points necessary they are not elsewhere explained by more clear texts, or may be explained: for so he should disagree from St. Austin, as before.  
But to say no more, let the Doctor have the honour with all my heart of the umpirage of the controversy in the example, which my adversary hath put, Take for an example those four words, This is my body.  
Indeed some there are which would have five words, hoc est (enim) corpus meum. And also it may be said that he may exceed in his number of interpretations of these words, unless he takes in their own many differences hereabouts in the manner and time of the conversion, they will hardly come up to two hundred divers interpretations. And whereas he says that we say that they are spoken in a figurative sense and not in their natural sense, we can answer that we do deny the literal sense; and do not deny that the figurative sense may be said in a good sort natural to the Sacramental use by reason of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is betwixt the sign and the thing Signified. And much more might be said herein, but let this point be compromised to the doctor in that excellent book which he hath lately written on purpose. He says all that I can say and more.  
Here he would make good another Argument of his [the Scripture useth the imperative mood as well when it counsels as when it commands] He asks now, what infallible means we have to know what is recommended to us as a counsel, or as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation. We answer, first, supposing the doctrine of counsels to be right and sound, yet are they in no great danger by the uncertainty whether such a thing is proposed by way of counsels or precept; since they hold it to be a thing of greater perfection to perform a counsel. Therefore if they take a thing of counsel for a thing of command there is no danger surely in doing more than they are simply commanded to. So than if this were all, it would be no such difficulty as to practise, because if they do whatsoever is proposed pro imperio in the imperative mood, there is no danger if it be commanded, it was necessary if counselled, there is greater perfection and an accidental reward above the essential. God can distinguish which is which, though they cannot; and surely will if their opinion be true, reward them accordingly. And if there be any merit, it would be more meritorious to do that which is more meritorious without knowledge of it to be such, because than they do it more free from intention of more merit 2. If the distinction of a command be simply difficult, as to the negative, whether it be a command or not; the omission of it is not, without all hope, damnative where there is general repentance.  
And now to the counsels he says, in clearing this my teeth by't St. Paul, who expressly supposeth with me that there is counsels of perfection above things of command. And he names the 1 Ep. to the Cor. 7.25. and 38. And then he saith How doth this agree with your strange Divinity? We answer, very well with our Divinity which is not so strange as true. First they are too forward in the catching at the word Counsel, [I give my counsel] it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. now surely, there is no great criticism in the difference betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The former is a grave and wise opinion or sentence, not a council in the Roman sense. Or if it were taken for an advice; every advice of the Apostle was not a pontifician counsel. For this advice he might give them not out of any command from God, but upon his private judgement: and therefore it doth not ground the doctrine of perfection in the observation of Counsels above the Law. Secondly, as it is noted, this is not delivered to all promiscuously as the counsels are, but to those who had the gift of continency as ver. 7. which gift is not given to every one as Faith Hope and Charity, because this gift of continency is not necessary to salvation, in the confession of our adversaries, as the other graces are, but to perfection of state or state of perfection. Thirdly this is not given absolutely for time, but with restriction of time, as, in the 26. ver. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,, for the present necessity in the times of persecution, and he says here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I suppose: so that he spoke not this by inspiration, it seems. Fourthly, the matter of counsel is more difficult than that of ordinary obedience. Yes they will say, for otherwise how should they thereby supererogate and make the state of perfection? and yet to serve God then in those times in the married condition was more difficult, as being under more temptations for their family. Fiftly as to the 38. ver. it is not necessary to construe well and better, de bono morali, but de bono commodo, in respect to those times. As goodness is grounded in convenience, so it was more good, not to give in marriage, for those times. And here is all that Text can afford him. As for his Syllogism therefore, there is no great force in it. According to you he is bound to do all that he can do: but he could do better in not giving her in marriage, therefore according to you was he bond not to give her under pain of damnation. Ans. As for the Major, it is not any other than the proposition of Christ, but my adversary should have put in here what he puts in the conclusion, namely [under pain of damnation] and then it might have been denied: for God accepts that which is done in sincerity and true charity, though it be not all that we can do, let him or them than put those words into the Major proposition and we can then deny it: if not, there is more in the conclusion than in the premises. Then to the minor we say, first better is not necessary to be taken absolutely but with respect to those ends which are spoken of in the Ch. and therefore is it to be understood, as is observed, not comparatively to the performance of commands, but comparatively to the opposite, to marriage; As Gerson is quoted, cum consilia dicuntur esse de meliort bono, non fit comparatio eorum ad praecepta, sed ad sua contraria. And let me put them a case upon this point, one in state of virginity is supposed to abound more with lustful desires (which are opposite to internal chastity) than one married: Now which of these, think they, in this particular, more perfect, in the judgement of God: that party which doth not profess external chastity, yet is in the mind more chaste, or that party which doth profess external chastity and is internally less chaste? what will they say to this? for this is casus dabilis, they must say that the party professing virginity is more perfect: but than it is not better to marry than to burn: and then they contradict St. Paul in the former ch. v. 9  
Then with the former Text he confronts that of our Saviour, which I produced against him, St. Luke the 17.10. So likewise when you have done all those things that are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done what we ought to do. And here my adversary puts in by way of distinction, he saith not, which are only commanded by way of Counsel. And again he puts in, what we ought to do to wit by an express precept obliging under damnation. And then he applies the former Text, In one sense this man who hath not married his daughter may truly say I have done what I ought to do not out of strict obligation binding under pain of hell (for I might have done well in doing the contrary) but what I ought to do out of most perfect charity. Ans. Passing by what we said to the former Text simply, we say to it as compared with this of Christ, that this Text of Christ doth not well bear his distinction, because the terms speak altogether in contradistinction unto counsels: it speaks of doing all that was commanded: it speaks of their being unprofitable servants: it speaks of doing what they ought to do upon strict obligation: for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there bears due correspondence with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and this word signifies a strict command. Secondly compare this Text with the scope of it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which we have in the 7, 8, 9 verses. And as the servant attends the Master in necessary services; so also in the tenth verse which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the creature is related to God in necessary services of strict obedience: and therefore he cannot here distinguish of what we ought to do, upon strict obligation, and what we ought to do out of most perfect charity. Thirdly this distinction of theirs will destroy their doctrine of counsels: because, if counsels be grounded in a duty of most perfect charity, than nothing can be counselled which is not commanded, because most perfect charity is under a command. If most perfect charity were under a counsel, than there might indeed be more said for counsels: but since most perfect charity is under a command, what ground is there for counsels when the root of them namely most perfect charity is under a command, and express precept St. Matth. 22.37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. And this cannot be moulded into the notion of a counsel; for thus Christ answers to the question in the ver. before, what is the great Commandment of the Law. And also in the ver. after he says, this is the first and great Commandment. Now to do thus is most perfect charity: and therefore what we can do is comprehended under all that is commanded, yea, if the law requires more than we can do (according to ordinary measure of grace) than we cannot do more than the law requires, now this the law requires and not only semper but ad semper as to the internal duty of love. And who is there in all the world that loves the Lord always with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his mind? And therefore God's law is not to be cut short that it may be made even with our ability present.  
Neither doth the text named by him out of St. john prove obedience to the law possible to us in the way: we may keep God's commandments in generale, though not all as we ought: as we are said to keep the way, though sometimes we transgress. We may keep the commandments as a man keeps a Castle against the enemies he keeps it till he be beat out of it, he keeps it against forsaking it: but he doth not keep it so as not to be overcome; he keeps them as to the purpose of his mind; he doth not keep them absolutely as to all acts negative in commands, negative and positive acts in affirmative commands. He keeps them not, as keeping contradicts all offending, for in many things we offend all, as St. james speaks. And therefore can we not fulfil the law, because the same Apostle says 2 ch. 10. He that keeps the whole law, and offend in one shall be guilty of all. And therefore this argument is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench, for we can say that we may keep the commandments & yet not fulfil them, according to the power we had in Adam, and according to the measure of the obligation, which is not adequated to our strength now, but to God's law as an express of his holiness, and as commensurable to man's ability in state of Original righteousness. Nay it is observable also that the word in St. james, which is rendered shall offend, is as diminutive a word in the kind as I think any other, for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest Hindan and the rest of that sort should think that venial sins do but cast a little dust upon a Christians life; no defilement. And therefore to conclude upon the whole matter, if the Scripture needs an infallible interpreter to distinguish betwixt counsels and precepts both given in the mood of command, this makes no difficulty until counsels find better proof. If they will take our counsel let them keep their counsel to themselves.  
This we may say as little to as he says in it of new discourse. 
N. 56.  He speaks here again of the loss of Divine books. This we have spoken to before more than once upon his provocation. And this pincheth them: for why may not they then fail of some traditions and how then can we depend upon the Church, when the Church should have kept them, since the Church, as the learned of them say, is to depend upon them. But own thing here he would urge, that according to us, we must pick out points necessary, one out of one Book another out of another. Ans. Surely this is no strong plea, for first, ought not the word of God dwell plentifully in us, as the Apostle speaks? 2. Cannot any own easily discern historical books from doctrinal? 3. Can they not take special notice of those heads of doctrine or practice unto which salvation is expressly annexed. 4. This argument concludes more heavily against them for depending upon the Church. Who can compare all their books from age to age for their doctrine? who can compare who hath been most learned and most faithful to derive a successional sum of things to be believed and to be done? nay who in the compare of Churches can prefer the best but by the best doctrine? and yet according to them we must take the doctrine from the Churches: who can measure the vast latitude of the universal Church by those rules of Vincentius? is it not easier to receive necessaries from Scripture then to boult them out of so many volumes of ages? And how should we be sure of keeping received traditions, when some traditions which were received are not yet kept by the Roman Church? 5. In Scripture though we pick for necessaries, yet we have nothing false: but we have false traditions; have we not? yea this is a false tradition that traditions are equal to Scripture, Yea 6. If any books be lost they were lost before Christ's time; and yet those which remained in St. Paul's time were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. And towards the reading of the Apocryphal books that so we may read over the whole Canon, it is a supposition in stead of proof. The reading of them in the Church doth not infer their canonicalness of proper name, and this is made good to them they know lately by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Cousins, in a book on purpose.  
And as for accurate noting all places and conferring with other places. What then? multa non experimur quia difficilia: multa difficilia quia non experimur. Is not this possible? is not Salvation worth the pains? must every one amongst them know the distinct exact sense of all their definitions? no, they will say: but the people should seek the law at the Priest's mouths. Well then, so is it not necessary to Salvation that the people with us should be able exactly to confer all places: and as for those places which contain necessaries, there is not such obscurity. And yet surely some hardness, according to their principles, doth belong to faith; for how otherwise should it be supernatural and meritorious? therefore if their way of belief be so easy, it doth not bear proportion to the qualities of faith assigned by Mr. Knott.  
And as for Translations to agree with the Originals, this we have canvased before. And our people can do it as well as theirs & better too, because they have liberty of translations. And to the truth of originals we must come in several causes, as Bellarmin before. Omne reducitur ad principiun, is good here too. And then the consectary of these difficulties he would make to be negative to us; namely that God did not intent this book to be our only guide. And he would persuade us thus. God's wisdom directs him to the best means to compass his intention. And then he would frame a minor with advantage thus, even our ordinary wisdom (if we had an intention to set forth a writing to end all necessary controversies) would direct us to set down plainly & clearly in one place all those (few as you say) points necessary to be believed. So then, this must be a good argument, man in such a case, in ordinary wisdom, would do so, therefore God hath done so. Surely these Romanists speak from the top of the Capital; and will not only teach men, but God. One found fault blasphemously with God's creation, thinking and saying that he could have made it better. So. But the Schoolmen might have told my adversaries that though God could have made several things in their accidentals, better: yet they could not but say that he could not make them in a better manner, Meliori modo. So then, also, if they believe that God did make the Scripture, they may believe that he could not make it in a better and more wise manner. Let them satisfy then St. Paul's question, who hath been his Counsellor? And then the argument from man to God will bind. And yet 2. Turn the tables, and this discourse is returned to them; if God had intended the Church for our infallible guide he would clearly (since his wisdom directs him to the best means for the compassing of his intention) have told us so in one place or other; as well as man tells us plainly who is our judge in point of law, this they should have demonstrated, but no more need be said of this, since the question is de facto.  
Yet another argument of this kind he hath against us, God hath set down the cermeonies in Leviticus fully, particularly and clearly: points of faith necessary to salvation import incomparably more than points of mere ceremony. If then God had intended a book by which only he was resolved to deliver unto us all points necessary to salvation, these points, as you say, being few, he would in some one part of these books have clearly set down those few points a thousand times more importing than points of ceremony. Ans. Surely he hath better arguments or a bad cause, because he in the time of the law appointed a Sanedrin as a standing Assembly to judge all causes and the high priest too, in some case: therefore he must have appointed such an Assembly now, which should consist of many of the laity, to judge all causes, and the Pope too. God is not moved by any thing to act all ways in the same manner. Deus vult hoc propter hoc, sed non propter hoc vult. God order this to this but by this is not moved. But 2. His substratum here is false; for he supposeth here that all the ceremonies are set down together in one place, otherwise how can he upon compare say, much more the sum of points necessary should have been set down in some one part of these books, now the ceremonies are not all set down together; and now and then some morality is mingled with them. And so also points necessary may be here and there mingled with other points without any disparagement of God's wisdom, 3. If he hath particularly clearly and fully set down points of ceremony in Scripture, then how much more points necessary to salvation, a thousand times more importing then points of ceremony. But verum prius; for it is theirs, than the latter also, upon the same account. And so they may see how little they get by such arguments. And therefore surely Christ is not obliged to his Church for credibility, but his Church to his word and spirit. Let them think upon that of Christ St. john the 7.17. if any one will do my will he shall know of my doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.  
And yet another proof you bring in that many hold that the Epistles of St. john were written after the Apocalypse etc. And what then. Is it therefore true, because many hold so? I trow not, for then rather it should not be so, because more hold the contrary, but what would he make of it, if they had been written after the Apocalypse? this. Upon this supposition the Epistles of St. john are the last part of the canon, now in this last part of the last part of the Canon Saint john says, I have many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen writ them but, I trust we shall see thee shortly and speak face to face. Upon this, the broken matter of his discourse might for more cleareness be put into this form, many things were written which are not set down in the canon: no man can say that those many things were unnecessary. Therefore no man can say that many things not unnecessary are not set down in the canon. Ans. We need not answer it. The ground of the major is rotten, and is to be made firm, if it could by him, that is not the order of the books. And it is not the order in the Latin; therefore this binds them to believe the contrary. And therefore the minor, which must suppose that supposition must fall with it. And yet also how he minceth it, no man can say etc. What is this to settle us in infallibility. He might also have said better for himself, some things not unnecessary might be amongst those which St. john intended to speak to them; and this would have served his turn against us. But let them speak and prove categorically that the Epistles were written after the Apocalypse, and that many things which he would speak unto them were necessary. Otherwise no man can say that this argumentation concludes aught. And besides the terms unnecessary, might have a distinction, if it sounds as useful it is not to the point of the question: if as much as necessary: yet what he should speak to them, he should speak by the spirit of God, and let them give us such assurance for what they would add to Scripture: then they will say somewhat. And yet again they should not surely be necessary, because many: for surely some things which were necessary were written; and yet those things which are certain are few, as Tertullian said, Certa sunt in paucis. Again should those many things have been adverse to what he had written or divers, or the same in substance? not adverse they will say, because they say their traditions are praeter Evangelium, not contra, beside the Gospel, not contrary: if divers, then surely they did not contain things in substance necessary. For would Saint john have written several things not necessary, and have left to word of mouth things necessary when Ebion and Cerinthus vaunted so much of their Apostolical traditions. And if they were the same in substance, than what addition? Again if they were necessary how can this be reconciled to that of St. john the 20.31. whereupon St. Austin and St. Cyrill and St. Chrysostom, it seems, do conclude that there was enough written which was sufficient to faith: my third answer about this argument, that humane judicatories have their use without infalliblity, he toucheth not.  
My fourth he toucheth in the next paragr.  

Par. 57  In this number he seems, if I may think so to be a little hooked, and with more line to be more snarled. There must stick upon the Church Roman a censure either of fallibility or unfaithfulness. Thus it is, they say the Scripture is not our guide sufficiently because it doth not decide controversies, we return it to them, that upon the same account the Church Roman is not, because it doth not decide whatsoever is necessary to be believed, by a full Catholic in their sense. And for instance; whether the Pope hath a temporal power or not? if temporal, whether directly as the Canonists, or propter bonum spirituale, as others: then whether the Pope be superior to a Council in things Ecclesiastical. To these he gives me no positive account: and yet are these points Cardines mundi & ecclesiae; the main points upon which the Church and world with them must turn. Do they tell us that it is a necessary point know whether the king be head of the Church; and is it not as necessary for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church? But we must consider his apology. Our doctrine is that the Church can decide any point formerly revealed, when any necessity shall require it, or the declaration of this point concern salvation. Ans. what work would some adversary have made him for such a return? The charge against Scripture was that it cannot end all necessary controversies. I recriminate, neither doth their Church. They reply, the Church can. I rejoin, first, here they vary. I said their Church, they say, the Church; as if they would not own the Church of Rome in its catholickness. 2. They say it can. But if it can and will not, I am yet to seek for my trust. and as St. jerom said to the Pelagians about the possibility of the law, how shall we think that possible which was never done? if it cannot, how is it infallible in all points? if it will not, how is it faithful? if it can, let it do so: and then let them object our differences to us, and the inability of Scripture to end them. 3. He says the Church can decide any point formerly revealed, what means he by this? if formerly revealed, then what need of a judge for it? and then the most they can do is to declare; and so may another Church and that not necessary neither, if it were formerly revealed. Well then. Are these points revealed or not? if they be not revealed, then by their own confession, they cannot decide them. And if they be formerly revealed, what need to be decided but▪ but 4. When any necessity shall require etc. But let me know why, when such a thing is proposed by the Church it is a fundamental and a necessary point to be believed, and yet somewhat is necessary to be believed and yet not decided by the Church. As for instance, it is necessary to be believed that the Pope is head of the Church: for so Bellarmin defines a Christian with subjection to the Pope as head of the Church, in his Catechism. And yet it seems this is not decided by the Church; because than it is decided whether he be supreme in Ecclesiasticals. So then the definition of the Church cannot be the adequate reason of our faith, because somewhat is necessary to be believed which is not decided; and yet again, if somewhat be necessary to be believed, then by my adversaries confession, it ought to be declared, because it doth concern our salvation. And since the Church is to act not ex arbitrio, but ex officio, how can it else clear itself of the blood of all men, as St. Paul doth Acts 20.27. when it doth not declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole counsel of God. And if they take [counsel] here in their sense; we can make use of it to them thus, that if he declared all counsels then much more necessary doctrine, because counsels, according to them, are not simply necessary, but yet it cannot be taken in their sense, because he dischargeth himself hereby of the blood of all men? and therefore must it be meant of what was necessary to their salvation simply; as counsels, they say are not.  
So then he thinks it the best way to pitch upon the negative, and to say, Salvation hath very securely been had without the decision of these points you speak of. If Circumstances happen that salvation cannot be had without their decision, they will then be decided. Ans. first then, let there be a defalcation and discounting of one point from the number of those which are accounted by them to us necessary, which the Scripture hath not decided, and that is whether the King be head of the Church, for surely there is as much reason of necessity to salvation for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church, as for us to know whether the King be head; and more too since infallibility is annexed to their head. 2. If Salvation may be had without an assurance in those points, then how shall we be bound to the Trent Council in belief of the Roman Church to be the Apostolic Church, without which no salvation, when yet we need not know who is supreme in that Church? Take it in this form, subjection to the universal Church is necessary to salvation, the Roman Church is not universal unless he be head, therefore unless he be head of the Church, subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation. And then Conclamatum est. And if Circumstances, according to him, can bring these points under a necessity of decision, than it seems they are but indifferent ex naturâ rei, for circumstances are only considerable in case of indifferency. And then by the virtue of the former discourse, it is indifferent to salvation whether we be subject to the Roman Church or not. And so might we end the business.  
But he goes on, if you acknowledge a real necessity to be at all times of the infallible knowledge of these points. Ans. He doth not take notice that I dispute with him upon his own principles, by which he he is bound to show that the Church hath defined these points; since he says the Scripture hath not decided all necessary points: but hath referred us to the Church for their decision. Now then since these points are not necessary to us, but to them who have that opinion of the Roman Church, it belongs to them to show the Church's decision of these points. And therefore if they believe all Scripture, and therefore these, (if they be determined there) this will not serve them, though it is enough for us; because what the Scripture doth not clearly define, they say the Church by Scripture is deputed to. And if the Church hath not done it, though they know the way to Rome, they do not know the way to heaven, and so all his arguments fall of themselves.  
That which he says he adds that our whole Church teacheth the definitions of Councils confirmed to be infallible, how little hath it in it: their whole Church if they take it for the universal Church, it is but a part, either in quantity or dominion. If they mean it not as the universal Church, than we may say as well our whole Church teacheth that they are not infallible, nay nor did the former Councils themselves account themselves infallible. But 2. [Councils confirmed] by whom confirmed? why do they not here speak out? for in other places, where this is not actually contested, they will say that they are to be confirmed by the Pope. But why then are they so loath to end the controversy upon which side the superiority should be cast upon the council or upon the Pope? for if the councils are to be confirmed by the Pope, than they have their esse Constitutivum▪ from him, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must have the superiority; notwithstanding what the Council of Basil and Constance determined. But I can demonstrate that no Circumstances will ever be sufficient to give occasion to this decision. All points are to be decided by Councils confirmed, now the councils will never vote the superiority of the Pope, nor the Pope confirm the superiority of the Council. Therefore it will never be decided. Let them therefore submit to Scripture, which their Church obligeth them to believe. And let them hereafter think better of the Scriptures sufficiency, since in such points the Church Roman cannot or will not or dare not supply its supposed defects. And they shall find it not to leave them ignorant of what is necessary for them to know: to cavil at it, they will pretend that to be necessary which they will say the next moment not to be necessary. They call for a decision by Scripture of the question whether a King be head of the Church, as of a necessary point, and now they deny the question to be necessary of the Pope.  

N. 58.  Herein he would reinforce his argument to prove us contrary to Scripture in not receiving extreme unction, as a Sacrament upon the command of St. james, 5.13, 14, 15. ver. first he declaimes upon our denial of their interpretation. And then would urge it upon compare of the claritude of this next for them with the clearness of other texts produced for us. Let them answer our texts as we answer theirs, and not only say that one is as clear as the other.  
Well, but he says now, How clear this place is, appears by the very letter, in which we have all we can desire to make a Sacrament; a visible sign of an invisible grace. Ans. every Sacrament of proper name is a visible sign of an invisible grace: but every visible sign of an invisible grace is not a Sacrament of proper name, unless it hath Christ's institution. And therefore must we refer it to the use of healing, spoken of St. Mark the 6, 13, which it seems, continued some time, 1 Ep. Cor. 12. ●9. And" 30, gifts of healing.  
Yet he supposeth that the Scripture hath decided this point for them. Hereupon, we came upon him, if, the Scripture hath decided this point, than the Scripture can judge and end controversies. To this he replies by ask, whether it therefore follows that it can end all necessary controversies, because it can end this one controversy. We rejoin, that it doth not follow ex vi formae, that because it can do one, it can do all. But yet it may follow ex vi materiae, thus; if it can decide this which is a necessary matter, why not all such? since especially they confess this Sacrament is not so necessary, as some other, because it is but a casual Sacrament. And the Sacrament of penance may supply the use of it. But 2. The use which we make of his former concession as it seems, that the Scripture had decided this point, is in order to the act more than the object. For hereby we see that the Scripture can decide a point, which by them is wont to be allowed only to a living judge: now it is true ex parte actus, if it can decide one, it can decide another; for the chief incapacity of the Scriptures not deciding controversies is urged in reference to the act: and therefore a living judge is by them substituted for this capacity.  
But he says, again is this controversy by this text ended? do you not still stand out in the contrary opinion. Ans. This doth not hinder the controversy to be ended, because we are not convinced. It is possible for them to be convinced of some points which they will not profess. It is possible for some points to be clear, which they are not convinced of; conviction therefore is not the measure of decision. For by this argument the Trent Council had with us and the French ended no controversies: because we are not convinced thereby. And therefore we are not to be guided by them, because they cannot end our controversies. And if they say the Council is furnished with sufficient assistance of the spirit, which may be apt to convince: surely we can say that the Scripture is more apt to convince, because there is no question made of its being written by inspiration. So then we cannot say, that the point of extreme unction is not decided, because we are not convinced: but we can say that we are not convinced, because it is not decided. But also we must note to them from hence that it seems we must be persuaded in matters of belief by the Holy Ghost, since texts which they suppose so clear, do not convince. Moreover he says, your second answer is flatly against the Text, for you say those words do only relate to the gift of healing in those days; and the Scripture saith they have also a relation to the healing of the soul." If he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him. Ans. Qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat. He doth not take notice that the healing of the soul hath relation to the prayer of Faith; unless Esti● and the Rhemists can indeed prove that the Prayer of Faith is the form of the Sacrament. Secondly, whereas he blames me for referring this to the gift of healing, let him retract that blame for the Council of Trents sake; which in the 14 session, for want likely of other Texts to prove Christ's institution of this Sacrament, will have it insinuated by St. Mark; which surely can be only in the 6. ch. where it refers to the gift of healing. And there they may see that the Elders did cure by anointing with oil: which he demands a Text for. And they did it commonly in respect of frequency, though not commonly, quod modum effectus. Therefore may we see by this, that the Trent Council could err (and if that, other Councils, they may think) in its peremptory determination of this point, Si quis dixerit extremam unctionem non esse vere & proprie sacramentum, & a beato jacolo Apostolo promulgatum; sed ritum tantum acceptum a patribus, aut figmentum humanum, Anathema sit. If any one shall say that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament promulged by the blessed Apostle St. james, but a rite taken from the fathers, or to be in humane ●igment, let him be Anathema. Neither did Christ institute it nor 〈◊〉 ●es promulge it; nor did the fathers, it seems, ●ake it ●or a sacrament. So, as it was said of Origen, Ingenium s●●m facit ecclesiae Sacramenta: so do these men ou● of their own wit make sacraments of the Church. Only Origen made mysteries of the Church, as the word is taken largely: these make Sacraments, as the word is taken strictly. And surely they are hard put to it to attribute what there to the Sacrament, which is atttributed to prayer, which is therefore so much Commended by the Apostle in the following verses.  
To take notice here of that which is new, 
N. 59  He here confronts the clearness of that Text [this is my body] with the clearness of those Texts I produced for the Sunday and Baptism of Infants.  
He says, they are words expressed by four several writers of the Scripture without any intimation of their being spoken figuratively. Ans. We have produced some Texts for the observation of the Lords day and for Baptism of Infants, without any figure: therefore our Texts may, upon this account be as clear. Secondly, If the sense of this Text be so clear, why did not the Ages of the Church urge it before the Lateran Council? were they all also blind? as they must be, if the Text was so clear in their sense. And Thirdly, If the Text so clear of itself, what need to confer it with the sixth of St. john, and if they would confer Texts they might find more against them in the points of difference. But what will they say if the sixth of St. john speaks not of Sacramental eating? For if so, how can the 53. ver. be understood: for then Infants (unless they are to have the Communion, as anciently) and the Thief upon the Cros●, and all in time of Persecution which died without the Sacrament, are damned, but as they know, they are not all of a mind in this; for Cressy thinks the Chap. is not to be taken of the Sacrament, and Bellarmine will find us more of this persuasion; as Gabriel, and Cusan●, and Cajetan, and Tapperus, and Hesselius, and jansenius, in his 4 th'. b. de Sacrament● Euch. Cap. 5. and they have good reason to exempt this Chap. from this use, because it speaks as strictly of the Cup.  
Therefore let them consider what hath been said before upon this point, and then let them refer the issue to a compare betwixt the clearness of texts for them in points of difference, and of texts for us as to things necessary. for this should have been the state of the question.  
The contradiction he makes by the shift is not yet well answered. He said in the former paper that the words are clear in this Sacrament: and yet also that the Scripture doth not decide this point. Upon this I said, how fare is this from a contradiction. He says now, that this doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles. Ans. He was much mistaken, if he thought I could be thus deceived with a supposal, of his own consequence for one of my principles. He would cavil thus, this text which he brings is more clear for him then those I bring are clear for me. Then if my texts less clear for me do prove my points▪ those texts more clear for him do prove his texts. But we say the texts he brings are not so clear for him as they are clear against him: and therefore how can he proceed upon our principles.  
And yet again he says, and again you say on the other side by these our texts (clearer than yours) this controversy is not clearly decided, therefore I must consequently say that according to you this controversy the Scripture doth not decide. Ans. Some are blamed for charging upon opinions remote consequences but he chargeth me with a consequence of his opinion that because he thinks his texts more clear for him than mine for me, I must needs also say so, to free him from inconvenience; surely we can hold our principles better than he would make them. And yet once more he will play the Sophister it is according to your principles that these texts must be clear because they be clearer than those which you are forced to affirm clear. And again you must say that they are not clear for fear you should confess them to decide against you. Ans. This harps upon the same string, he supposeth me a Captive to his consequences upon his own opinion. My principle is good, that points necessary are clearly set down in Scripture: but his assumption is not right that his texts are more clear than mine. this I demand the proof of. If I were bound by my principles or his discourse to confess that his texts were clearer than mine; he would say somewhat: but falsum prius. And yet this is fairly returnable to him, he is bound by the condition of their principles to say that their texts are clear for him (and yet they are not so clear for him as they are against him) because they have neither reason nor Antiquity for their sense: and yet must say again that the text hath not decided this point, for fear it should be able to decide controversies.  
And now he draws up again, now if these two places be denied to be clear with clarity sufficient to put an end to the controversy, then according to my principles, scarce any controversy will be decided by any text. Ans. He hath seen the reasons why those texts must be denied to bear his sense and whether he hath as well cleared my texts for things necessary to be contained plainly in Scripture, let those judge, whose interess it is not, to be Judges. To such I say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. He doth very ill to argue from his conceit to an impossibility in the thing; as if, if these texts did not clearly speak this his sense, no controversy could be determined by any text. A non esse ad non posse non valet. He might have known that the Nicene Fathers determined the Coessentiality of the Son of God by Scripture and that Bellarmin concludes against the Anabaptists by Scripture. And that the Trent Council, I hope, concluded extreme unction by Scripture: so that it lay in Scripture clearly determined, as in actu signato: the Council did but call it out and show it to the people. 3. He should have said [according to his purpose] scarce any controversy can then be determined by Scripture: for speculative principles may yield more than engagements. Persons will ever plead dissatisfaction, though the Judgement within be convinced. And 3. Others of his religion are not in this of his persuasion: for they will not so lightly give over the determinability of other points by Scripture. And yet I commend also his modesty in that he says not absolutely no controversy, but scarce any controversy. So that it is not repugnant to a controversy Ex natura rei to be determined by Scripture. And then there is no such necessity of a living Judge, surely the living Judge is more necessary for the state of Rome than for our salvation.  
Then he takes exceptions at my discourse about the nature of a sacrament. He tells me, you do not do it as you should have been done to the present purpose; to wit by alleging more clear texts to prove that Christ's true body is not really in the Sacrament, than I allege to prove that it was really in it. Ans. But first they may think that we do understand ourselves sufficiently in this case, not to be bound to give any texts for the negative. And therefore since they affirm they should prove so strongly that nothing can be answered: and since they challenge, they should make clear work as they go; we sufficiently discharge our parts in the taking away their arguments, which concludes to us and might to them the negative, and since the signal texts for their cause in this point, are answered we have no more to do. 2. Such a demand will return upon him; I have reason to doubt of his Interpretation of the text of St. james lately agitated. I say also, give me a clearer text against my sense which I make of it, namely as relating to the gift of healing. Is not this as equal a demand, since especially the council could not, it seems, fetch their sense from tradition? 3. If Christ's being really in the Sacrament would satisfy them without determination of the manner, this controversy would be at an end: for we say as anciently, Praesentiam agnoscimus, modum nescimus, but, forsooth, they must appoint the manner of presence, and yet cannot agree about the manner of conversion of the Element into the body. 4. What need of any texts against their sense, when the sense imports that which cannot be? although the Canonists do flatter the Pope with all kind of power: yet one said well of him, Papa non potest facere de quadrato rotundum. Nay, as Aquinas determins handsomely concerning those things which are in question whether God can do, it should rather be said that they cannot be done, then that God cannot do them. So this cannot be. For it implies a contradiction, yea many, as it is noted. It implies the body not to be when it is. If the body be to be made than it is not: for the term of motion cannot be existent before the motion be accomplished. So than it is, namely in Heaven: and yet must not be, because it is to be made on Earth by the Priest. And yet fifthly. If he would not make an ill use of a courtesy, we might gratify this humour a little; and tell him that there is a Text in the 1 Ep. to the Cor. 11.26. which concludes clearly against his sense, for it is said," you show the Lords death till he come. If it be done in remembrance, how is he corporally present? And now me thinks then they should be obliged to answer my Texts for my sense against their sense: since indeed their sense is nonsense.  
Here he comes over again (to make the work more tedious) with some passages of the Athanasian Creed, 
N. 60.  which he thinks every one is bound explicitly to believe (though they think an implicit faith sufficient to them) and yet they are not clearly set down in Scripture, To this I answered that the matter of them in the generality is found according to equivalence in Scripture although it be not found in terms. Only they are desired to consider that this answer was made to the other passages of the Athanasian Creed, and not to the consubstantiality of the Son of God: for this is more expressly spoken of as I have told them; but because he would not be urged to a necessity of answering what I said distinctly about this point, he includes it amongst other passages of the Creed: it may be upon these accounts: that it might seem to be under no more necessity of actual belief than the other; and Secondly, might lose the use of a proper answer, and he might have less to do by answering it in common, but we are not ignorant of his devices.  
My answer therefore to the properties of the divine persons in the H. Trinity is yet in full vigour and force, that the matter of them is as well found in Scripture, (though not in terms, yet according to equivalence) as their transubstantiation.  
To this he says now, To be as clearly set down as Transubstantiation, in Scripture, is (according to your own principles) not to be clearly set down at all. Ans. Again he plays the Sophister in taking that to be spoken ad rem, which was spoken ad hominem. Therefore cannot be conclude that there is an equal independency of both on Scripture to be inferred from my words. They hold transubstantiation so upon Scripture; I not. But I make use of their distinction, as to this point, against them, for those passages in the Athanasian Creed.  
Neither is it any boot for him to say, It is not more satisfactory, if you mean to argue out of our own principles; for according to us, all points necessary, (and this point in particular) are not clearly set down in Scripture, and to prove this I have laboured all the Chap. So then, thus we know Ulysses. They will make the best proof of their points they can by Scripture: but they make a better use of Scriptures by their obscurity; that so causes might necessarily fall into the hands of the Romans. First then, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by them, that they dare not stand to Scripture for the determination of their points, and they may know who those were which were Lucifugae Scripturarum. Therefore I hope, we shall have leave to make the shorter work by abatement of discourse out of Scripture. For when you produce Scripture for your cause, we can retort your own confession, this point is not clear in Scripture. Having then beaten them out of the hold of the Fathers, & now out of the hold of the Scriptures, we may have done enough. But secondly, to give them a little more chase, though they will not make Scripture a Principle; yet since they will make it a proof for their auctorament, we can say as well as they can prove this point by Scriptures; so is the Athanasian Creed as provable by Scripture, as to those passages about the properties of the divine persons. And now might I name Boucher, who in his Mir veilles de Deiu, hath the same distinction in the point of transubstantiation, that though it be not found in Scripture in the term, yet according to equivalence. But what saith Bellarmin in his 3. b. the sacr. Euch. cap. 23. Etiamsi Scriptura quam supra adduximus videatur nobis tam clara ut possit cogere hominem, non protervum, tamen an ita fit, merito dubitari potest. So then the Scripture seems to him to be in this point so clear that it might compel a man not pertinacious. Yet he must needs spill the milk he gives, lest we should come no more to the Roman Cow. But if a Scripture may be so clear to them in a point of controversy: why not to us, in points necessary? Yea the Trent Counsel goes further in their 13 Sess. They say the words do carry before them that proper and most open signification, propiam illam & apertissimam significationem prae se ferunt. And I hope they carried a plain and most open signification did they not? if they did not, then here is a falsity to the Councils Declaration, if they did; so may Scripture have a plain and most open signification in points of faith. Again if the Sacrament of extreme unction was determined by the Trent Counsel with respect to Scripture, as before, why should we not stand to Scripture in other points?  
And this may be sufficient out of their own principles. And as for our own principles, as to the question about the properties of the Divine Persons, we need not labour therein. For if we hold that all things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture: than it is consequent hereunto, that the truth of those properties is no more necessary to be believed than according to what clearness they are delivered in by Scripture. And then Secondly, to answer to the point itself, those opposite relations, as Aquinas calleth them, whereby the H. persons are distinguished in their personalities, do connotate themselves sufficiently. For the Father being the first Person, must be of himself; the Son, as such, must be begotten. The H. Ghost, since there is but one only Son, as is plain in Scripture, must not be begotten: but proceeds; which is the expression of Scrip-there. Indeed there is a question whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. But as to this we need not consult the ancient reading of the Athanasian Creed; if the Mr. of the sentences may be believed, who thinks there is not so vast a difference, as that either part did destroy salvation. And if it be absolutely necessary to believe as the Roman Church in this point, why could not Pope Urban see the truth hereof in the dispute with the Greeks about it, as well as our Anselm? Why did he bring him into the Lists with this Preface, Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis papam? And surely it seems to be as possible for the unlearned people to be saved without a positive faith herein, as it was for the learned Greeks in a positive difference: unless our adversaries will damn them all who hold not with them herein. He goes on, your second answer is destroyed by the former. Answ. Yes surely if our adversaries are to be our judges, we need not hold our articles which we hold necessary, upon the authority of the Church, but upon clear Texts; and clearer Texts too, than they have for their transubstantiation or authority of the Church.  
But to the main matter of my answer he makes no return. I said, although we believe what is said in (Athanasius) his creed, yet therefore we are not bound to believe it upon the Authority of the Church, since he would have believed it though the Church had not; as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church in the consubstantiality of the son of God. And what says he to this? nothing. And besides the Authority of the Church hath not itself equally to the passages in the Creed and to transubstantiation. And therefore Scotus said that this transubstantiation was not dogma fidei before the Lateran Council, as Bellarmin says in his 3. b. de sacram. Euch. 23. ch. For as for the consent of the Fathers (which he says he did none read) surely Scotus did very well know what it was; since the consent of the Fathers is by the Schoolmen laid for the foundation of school-Divinity. It remaineth therefore that both my answers may be good according to both principles.  
Another instance of things necessary not clearly taught by Scripture, he does here re-urge, 
N. 61.  namely Baptism of Infants. And here he names my answer, that it is not necessary for the Salvation of the Children to be baptised. But here I distinguished of a necessity of precept and a necessity of mean, the former we granted: the latter we denied," so as that if it be not baptised, it is undoubtedly damned. These words do make my sense to be understood against an absolute necessity, without which no possibility of Salvation. To prove this, I brought the Text St. Mark the 16.6. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: but he that believeteh not shall be damned. now, this Text, he saith, speaketh nothing of Children. And this gloss he gives upon the latter part of that Text He that believeth not, and consequently would positively not be baptised shall be damned. Ans. He trifles. I acknowledge that the Text speaks not of Infants: for the drift of my discourse upon this Text was otherwise, namely upon the case of those of age. And my argument did run upon advantage, thus; if the H. Gh. Did not reduplicate damnation upon defect of baptism to those of age, then much less reason is there to exclude Infants from Salvation, who may have baptism in re but in voto not, as they speak. This was the effect of my discourse let the point come to the pinch. Though they do believe yet should they have the seal of faith: but if they do not believe, damnation here proceeds not upon defect of baptism, but upon defect of faith, which if Bellarmin had considered, he would not have annexed Salvation immediately to baptism in his 2. b. de of. sacr. c. 3. And not to faith but as a disposition to baptism. 2. All positive refusal of baptism makes a defect of baptism: but all defect of baptism doth not make even in those of age a refusal thereof. Now it is casus dabilis, that one of age may believe, and yet may not have baptism, as the necessity may fall out. Shall this man be damned though he hath faith, because he hath not baptism, which he could not have? and this was the case which the Martyr that on a sudden, when one of the forty shrunk, stepped in and made up the number, as St. Basil relates it, he believed and was not Baptised. What was he damned? no, they will say he had baptism in voto, and the baptism of blood. Well, but if there were an absolute necessity of baptism as there is of faith he must have been damned notwithstanding, absolute necessity knows no dispensations.  
But therefore he produceth a Text for absolute necessity, St. john the 3.5. Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Ans. If we compare this verse with the third, we need not make any other construction then of a necessity of being born from above. Neither is it likely that Christ would have spoken no otherwise to Nicodemus of baptism, had he meant it so. And Ferus, though he speaks of this sense ad literam; yet hath he other senses thereof. And if it be compared with the other Text St. Matthew 3.11. you shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost and with fire; as that Text is to be understood by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so may this also, notwithstanding the order of the words. But 2. Dato, non concesso, that it is to be understood of Baptismal water, yet the Rhemists upon the place do confess that in two cases Baptismal water is not necessary. Namely in the case of martyrdom; and if they have a desire of it, but are prevented necessarily by death. And the reason thereof is sufficient, because God hath not bound his grace in respect of his own freedom, to the Sacraments. and so Ferus upon the place, Deus enim non alligavit potentiam suam Sacramentis etc. God hath not tied his own power to the Sacraments. By his ordinate will indeed he gives grace by the Sacraments: But nevertheless he can give it without the Sacrament. Let them then tell me why Infants may not have rem Sacramenti, without the seal: as if God should have no favour for Infants, because they cannot be qualified for the privilege. Let then the Rhemists and Ferus be compurgators for the pernicious doctrine of mine as he calls it. And now whatsoever testimony he produceth of the necessity of baptism; (unless St. Austin's, as to Infants) they will stand very well with my terms in their ordinary sense; which doth not contradict an ordinary necessity of it to Infants: but again that all the Fathers were of this opinion I can deny. I except Tertullian. And St. Austin for those of age, holds but an ordinary necessity; as appears in his 4. b. De Bapt. Contra Donat. 23. ch. This ordinary necessity I stand for. He himself intends no more by his testimonies, Dr. Tayler's and others, and therefore he absolves me himself: but I cannot absolve him from ignorance in the Elench. This doth not contradict me, who do dispute now against an absolute necessity: which he must maintain; or else in this he comes short of his design. And also that that allowance of baptism of Infants (after it be done) doth not infer an absolute necessity of their being damned (in the judgement of the Fathers) if they were not Baptised; if they will take Mr. hooker's opinion for all, let them consult him in his 5. b. 33. p. where he saith I know there are many sentences found in the books and writings of the ancient Fathers to prove both Ecclessiastical and Moral defects in the Ministers of Baptism a bar to the heavenly benefit thereof. Now in Laymen, I trow, there are Ecclesiastical defects: for there is a defect in not being Ecclesiastical. And therefore whether others mistake the Fathers, either in the point of fact, or in the reason of that allowance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But he gives me a Syllogism, which we will not neglect, because it is very rare with him. He disputes upon my distinction of necessity, thus; This precept is necessarily to be fulfilled, this precept is not plainly set down in Scripture: therefore all necessary points are not plainly set down in Scripture. This hath the face but not the form of a Syllogism. But to pass that, we answer therefore that this Syllogism doth not conclude contradictorily to the state of the question, which is whether all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture. Now all that is necessary to be done is larger than all that is necessary to be done unto Salvation. Though all things necessary to be done unto Salvation, are necessary to be done: yet all that is necessary to be done, is not necessary to be done unto Salvation. The former are necessary necessitate medii: the latter necessitate praecepti. Now the knowledge of the former is simply necessary: the knowledge of the latter is not so necessary. Whatsoever is known to be praecepted is to be necessarily done: but whatsoever is praecepted, is not necessary to be known. So that also his Syllogism was peccant in the fallacy of the consequent.  
He follows me then, your Answer will not help you out here, whatsoever is necessarily inferred from the Scriptures is binding in the virtue of the principles, why so? because he says, because you cannot show that this precept given to the parents is necessarily inferred out of Scripture. So now he is upon the minor of the former Syllogism: he would then prove it by a negative Induction. Not out of the Institution of our Saviour; for he also instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not necessary for Infants. Ans. first this is no argument; it doth not follow from the denial of one species to another: because he did not institute the Eucharist as necessary for infants; therefore he did not institute the Sacrament of baptism as necessary for Infants. 2. they know there is not the same reason for the Institution of the Eucharist for Infants as for the Institution of baptism. For this is administered to the child without its own faith; the other is administered upon faith to confirmation. 3. If they will be ruled by tradition and the authority of the Church; the Eucharist was accounted also as necessary for Infants. Now that tradition came from Christ as his institution or not, if it did, then there is some reason for baptism to Infants: if not, how shall we believe tradition or the authority of the Church.  
He proceeds, not out of substitution to Circumcision: for so it should not be necessary to women. To be even with them, The high Priest was only of males: the Pope succeeds the high Priest: therefore the Popedom was not compatible to joane: some of them would fain have somewhat for woman to be proportionable to Circumcision of males towards the taking away of original sin, which should be an object of tradition; But as the unmarried was included in the parent; so the woman included under her husband, as to this.  
Yet such another argument we have, than it should be necessary only for those of the jewish nation. As if Circumcision was enjoined to the jew upon the quatenus of the nation, and not as they were members of the Church, under the same Covenant with Christians, as to the substance thereof: and therefore Eusebius says of some of those under the law, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were real Christians, or in effect Christians, though not in denomination. That which follows was cast in by me ex abundanti, and not as such a decretory argument, namely, besides what may be supposed by the baptism of whole families. And therefore he needed not to have said, it is no evident consequence. It was never intended for such. Valeat quantum valere potest. And yet if it be as probable or more that in all those families complexively there were some at least, if but one or two Infants, this consequence, I think I may say, is better than any they have given us to prove their infallibility.  
At the end of this number he says, I insist not upon the authorities I alleged out of St. Austin, St. Chrys. because I deal with one who little regards authority confessed to be the Fathers. Ans. He might first have answered what I said to his citation of St. Austin. but it seems by his neglect either that the Fathers are not for him or he not for the Fathers; or indeed both; and the latter because the former. He is not for the Fathers because they are not for him. And let them consider that of St. Austin in his 4. b. de Bap. contra Don. 28. ch. Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit. Notwithstanding we may truly guess what the Sacrament of Baptism does avail in infants out of the circumcision of the flesh, which the former people received. And Bellarmin must think Scripture good against Anabaptists, but not for us against them, who make better use of it as a tradition.  

N. 62.  And now to make an end of his long Chap. as he says himself (and I say so too, but it might have been made shorter by him by half) he says he concludes, as I would have him, namely that these points were and aught to be determined by the Church upon necessity of Salvation. He says now, This I prove by this argument, This point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent, but we cannot believe any point with an infallible assent unless it be determined by infallible authority. And the authority of the Scripture hath not determined these points; then since no other infallible authority can be found on Earth, if we deny the authority of the Church to be infallible, her authority must needs be infallible. Ans. after a long chap. to make his word good, he makes as long an argument which might have been put into two lines. But part of his book was to be length. But we answer in short first to the major proposition; if he means when they are believed they are to be believed with an infallible assent, we grant it; or when they are clearly proposed, are so to be believed, we grant it: but if he means it thus, that this point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent, upon necessity of Salvation, it is denied. And he hath not nor can prove it: 2. As to his assuming that the authority of the Scriptures hath not determined these points; we say first that so fare as they are necessary, they are determined in Scripture. And 2. they are not so clearly determined in Scripture, because they are not so necessary. And yet we may say as St. Austin in such a case about intellectual vision lib. 12 de gen ad literam cap. 25, Aliud est errare in his quae videt, aliud errare quia non videt. We do not err in seeing them in Scriptures, but we do err because we do not see them. To end then, Scotus proposeth this question, 
As Mr. Hooker notes.  utrùm cognitio supernaturalis necessaria, viatori sit sufficienter tradita in Sacra Scriptura; whether supernatural knowledge necessary to a Travailler be sufficiently delivered in the Holy Scripture, and he concludes affirmatively. And so may we. 3. And for overplus, if these points were necessary to be referred to the determination of the Church, we could easily (dato non concesso) remove them from the Roman Court; and try them by the universal Church of all places and times; with which universal Church the Roman is not converted, and by which it is not like to be converted   

CHAP. IU. The Church is not an infallible judge. The first Number is a Preface depending upon hopes of the former discourse: But to this we say nothing, save only that they shall never be rewarded for such hope, unless they can prove their word to be the Word of God.  
FIrst those words Matthew 16.19. spoken to St. Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, allow the Church a security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious, that the gates of hell may prevail against her. Ans. first though these words were spoken to St. Peter, yet it doth not hence follow that they were spoken of St. Peter exclusively to the rest. And then the Fathers, as before, understood it of his faith, not of his person: and of his faith objectively, not subjectively. And then 3. this respects not only the Church repraesentative, but the Church formal, against which principally the gates of hell do not prevail; and so the words run handsomely for the Church, that the words allow the Church security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious, that the gates of hell may prevail against her. And therefore upon these considerations, we flatly deny to him the following words, that this promise made to the Church is that which mainly makes for my purpose, and surely that which follows makes for us, and may be a fourth answer to the former words; whether the Church be built upon St. Peter and his successors, or upon the faith of St. Peter, is not the thing I chiefly aim at: my aim is to find a Church built on a rock so strong that no error shall ever overthrow it. So than if we assume that the invisible Church is such, we are agreed. Only my adversary seems to have more mind to retreat then to retract. But my adversary will have it to be understood of the representative Church, because he says; he is now assured the Church shall never be a nest of errors, idolatrous, superstitious; wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient warrant: all or any of those things would bring her to the gates of hell; they being all damnable impieties. Ans. Now we shall see that this makes not for him. He was for the Roman Church; was he not? And yet will not here meddle how this concerns the Roman Church. then how doth this make for him? In the former treatise of his, this Text was meant of St. Peter and his successors: and now he will not meddle with what concerns St. Peter or his successors. Will these things here be reconciled till Tishby comes? 2. This makes for me; not only that he is not willing, as it seems, to stand his ground (which Bellarmin, and Peron and the Rhemists stand upon) but also because the promise is made to the Catholic Church. Thus then, their Church is not the Catholic Church: the promise is made to the Catholic Church, therefore not to them. The Roman Church may be a nest of errors, idolatrous, superstitious, wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient authority; though the Catholic Church be not such, nor doth assume such authority; as the errors of a particular Church are not charged duly upon the universal Church; so the privileges of the universal Church are not enfeoffed upon a particular.  
Well, but now we will do as he bids us and be patiented till he show in the next chapter, how this concerns the Roman Church. But shall I have my five answers answered then; for he says here that I begin to say nothing against him until I begin to say sixthly. So then I must be thought to say nothing against him, because he hath nothing to say to what I said in those five answers.  
The sixth answer than he takes notice of, and it came in thus; he had asserted the Church secure from all damnative error. I took upon advantage this, as taking those words distinctively; that though it was not free from all error yet from error damnative. And I gave him good reason why he should take those words so, because, otherwise they are not like to be the Church, unto which that privilege is granted. Upon this I argued against their infallibility, according to the opinion also of Mr. Knot. Therefore he now waves this debate, and says he argued ad hominem; but we will hunt him out of this refuge too. They cannot argue thus out of our principles, because we say this of the universal Church; not of a particular Church. No Church of one denomination is secure from damnative error, therefore cannot they ultimately improve, what we grant to the universal Church, for their use. But 2. He could not yet from hence conclude that no body shall be damned for following the guidance of the Church. For not to say again that this is not appliable to the Roman Church, which is not the Catholic Church: yet may we not follow the universal Church absolutely, because it is not in all points infallible. For so consequently, we might be bound to follow error. Yea 3. Since according to our principles it is not exempted from all error; according to Mr. Knot's principles it cannot be our guide. Yea 4. To Fellow the Church in an error, may be damnative though the error may not be damnative: because another not knowing it to be an error may hold it without damnation: but if I knew it to be an error & yet follow it, I incur damnation, because I resist a known truth. And 5. Since the universal Church cannot show its charter of being exempted from all error, it is not necessary for her always to have such a visible existence as is necessary to afford a guidance. So then, whereas he asks me, by what Logic do you infer, that because the Church is secured from all damnative error, therefore according to my doctrine she is not secured from other errors; I answer, it is very true, simpliciter loquendo, that the affirmation of one species doth not always include a negation of the other; namely when that which is affirmed is not a constitutive difference thereof. But considering his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving him good reason why he should mean them so, I could not be blamed for guessing that he meant them so.  
Yea the words which he hath used in this chapter for expressing the privilege of the Church, are yet so put togeher that they may seem suspiciously to bear such a construction. Neither does he here positively deny, as would become his confidence, this distinction. To put it then to an issue; I shall put them to their choice, how those words shall be understood, whether distinctively, or by way of epithet. If distinctively, than my consequences stand good upon that ground. If not, then have they such a task upon them which all the Roman wit and industry will never throughly perform; for first then must they say that either all error is damnative (which indeed should have been proved upon former urging as much reason for all sins to be mortal as all errors to be damnative; and more too; since sin hath the guilt of the will, simple error hath not) or else there may be errors not damnative (which makes for us against the necessity of an infallible judge as to all points) or that the Church cannot err at all. And then here will be a double labour to prove (and indeed a double error to say) First, that it hath not erred. 2. that it cannot err. If the latter, then to be sure the former indeed: but if the fonmer, than not presently the latter. Yea if they will then stand to it, that the Church is secure from all error whatsoever; then their Church is not the Church. And the consequence is good and strong, for that Church can err because it hath erred in the Latin Bible; in the supernumerary Canon of Scripture; in the point of Transubstantiation: in Communion under one kind: In their Counsels; as hath been showed already; and in the point of merit Ex condigno, if the 30. Canon of the 6. Sess. of the Trent Council be compared with Rom. 8.18. The Canon of the Council speaks an Anathema to him that shall say, that the good works of a justified man do not vere mareri, truly merit increase of grace, consecution of eternal life, if they shall die in grace, and also increase of glory. The Canon of the Scripture saith, I account that the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not weigh with. Now whether Scripture be our rule of faith or not, this must be an error; since they acknowledge the Scripture to be true and infallible, For, whatsoever is contradictory to truth is false, this is contradictory to Scripture which is true. In this they have erred from the Latin Fathers in the sense of the word; from the Greek Fathers in the matter; and from the Scripture, which is our rule, and was the rule of the Church until a Church risen up which would not be ruled. And let them take notice too that sufferings are the best part of our obedience: and if they are not worthy, how should good actions merit. More errors of their Church might be named, but one error with them is enough to contradict infallibility, and to discharge us of following their Church.  
He says than I quarrel with one of the Cardinal virtues even Prudence herself. Ans. I think I may quarrel with one of the Cardinal virtues. Prudence is one of the Cardinal virtues, in Morality: and one of the Cardinal virtues in Divinity. Prudence is the politic virtue; and so is their Religion a politic Religion. And if a man may proceed prudently in the choice of his Religion, than he doth not believe first, and then understand; as yet the vulgar Latin reads that text; but we must understand first, and then believe. Prudence is a Moderatress of actions; not a mistress of Faith. And how doth Prudence consist with implicit Faith, which believes what it doth not know? Prudence is a virtue of reason, which is contradistinguished to Faith. And if we may proceed prudently in the choosing of our Religion, than we may well exercise the judgement of discretion in matters of Faith, and therefore are not simply bound to take upon trust whatsoever their Church obtrudes.  
He goes on, Then you conclude all the force my former Argument hath, it hath from Scripture. Is not my Argument the better for this. Yes, If the Argument were grounded in Scripture, it were better upon that ground, than upon any other, but this Argument is not good, because it is not taken from Scripture. Scripture is the best Argument in Thesi; but in Hypothesi, it is not well applied. We like it well that he goes about to prove the Church by Scripture, which is the highest principle: But let them not give us such a sense of Scripture which belongs not to their cause, unless against it.  
In the next number which he nameth the fourth (but than it seems the third is lost by the way) he saith I stumble again at the senses of damnable errors. Ans. No, 
N. 4.  For I discourse of it by a Dilemma, or disjunctive, which will take in either sense: but he is not willing to move this stone again; therefore he stumbles at it.  
Another Text he builds upon St. Matthew 18.17. 
N. 5.  If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a publican, or a Heathen. Upon this he ●●mes an argument, God Commandeth us to hear the Church and obey her: but no kind of error little or great can be incurred by following Gods command. Ans. I am glad he hath any such form of discourse, which would more clearly and handsomely shorten the debate, we therefore answer to it; passing by all discepiation about the sense of the Church there, or the quality of the cause. We say then, if he understands the major so as that God absolutely, universally commandeth us to hear and obey the Church than the conclusion were good, and we could not err in following the Church. But so the minor is denied. God hath not absolutely and universally commanded us so to hear and obey the Church. If he understands the major specificatively and in things lawful, than we can grant the minor; but then the conclusion will not be universal, will be peccant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so not conclude contradictorily to us, who do not dispute here against all obedience to the Church, negatively, as if we would have none; but against all obedience affirmatively, as being not bound in faith to all commands.  
And therefore need he not come in with a relief, to secure his discourse, by saying from me, it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an error though it be not damnable. This true, but not well applied to me unless he can prove God's command for absolute obedience in whatsoever the Church proposeth. But as this is true, so it is pertinent for me against him, that though the universal Church cannot err in points necessary, where error would be damnative, yet could we not be bound universally to follow upon that account; because no man can be bound to assent to an error though not damnative.  
Neither doth it follow from the Text therefore merely and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held a publican or a Heathen, Unless he understands by not hearing, not submitting, if he doth not understand it so, it doth not follow: if he does understand it so, this is not to his purpose: because though we may be bound to submit to the Church, yet we may not be bound to believe the Church: these are two things which he should have distinguished. Therefore cannot he prove from hence that the Church cannot err. He is to be accounted an Heathen or publican upon not submiting to the Church in regard of authority; not upon not assenting, because of infallibility. And therefore though we be all bound simply to avoid excommunication: yet if the case were put that we must assent to an error or else be excommunicated: we take the censure, and leave the error; and if they will not have proviso with a clavae non errante, for the censures of the Church, than what condition was Pope Honorius in, who was excommunicated, as before; If God binds against error, and the Church, as we suppose, bind to it, we can say presently, that the Church cannot absolve without God, but God can absolve without the Church. And this answereth the next verse in the Gospel, as he produceth it.  
But the former Answer he would take off in the next words by an argument. To swerve from God's word is to err. But this Text proveth that the (the Church) cannot err. Ans. The major is indeed true: but the Text doth not prove the minor; therefore it is false; because he saith the text proveth it.  
And indeed if she could, the merely not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to God's judgement a publican and heathen. Ans. This is denied. Refractorines exposeth thereunto, without acknowledgement of infallibility. And yet am I still of this opinion, that that Text concerns not matters of faith; but of trespass between Brother and Brother, and therefore that Text is not to his purpose. This and more he saith nothing to here.  
But yet I followed him, and said that a man is not bound to believe the censure is just unless it appear to be so. To this he says, this last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine. For the unanimous opinion of Learned men is, that a man is bound to hold his superiors censure or command to be just unless the contrary appears evident. Ans, first then this determination of the case by Learned men supposeth that a thing may appear evident against the superiors censure or command. So that by consequence they have the unanimous opinion of Leanred men against them in two points, first that a thing may be evident without the proposal of the Church: for it may be evident against it. 2. Then that the Church may make an injust censure or command. But for his opinion he nameth three Learned men, Chillingworth, Hooker, Laud. So he: as to the first, Mr. Chillingworth; he hath nothing for him in his 108 nu. For he maketh use of this rule, [In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superior, nor cast off his obedience nor publicly oppose his decrees [But how is this applied to our case? Indeed it was his best course not to apply it. Let them then note that this he speaks is in cases of uncertainty, namely about things of question: but we are ultimately upon points necessary. And then 2. He speaks against casting off obedience: but we are upon assent of judgement. And then 3. The rule he useth speaks that we should not publicly oppose his decrees; but we are upon the negative only, whether he may not suspend his opinion. And hence the Author discourseth, that we may leave them, we may cast them off, and oppose them, when we are certain, as protestants were that what they command God doth countermand. And for the second, as he nameth him; I think, all things considered, he hath little from him for his use. As the scribe at least mistook the quotation: so the Author I think mistake the man. In the places quoted [pag. 310. 311. n. 110.] there is nothing like. It is true that excellent Author had great cause to urge convenent obedience to humane laws: but he denies intuitive obedience to any law but of God. And therefore if he and Mr. Chillingworth be joined in the testimony, that which answered one may answer the other. And further, if they will take p. 110. And so on for n. 110. They may find enough to satisfy them of his opinion, that he held Scripture a sufficient rule in matters necessary; and therefore the obedience he urgeth must be in things of order; which is extrinsecall to our debate and not blind neither, as p. 110.  
The third Authority is rightly quoted but not rightly applied out of that excellent book; for it speaks expressly of external obedience: we are upon internal. He speaks for peace: my adversary should apply it to faith. He speaks it as to private persons: my adversary should ultimately apply it to the Church national. That which follows is a cavil, that then the private man, when all comes to all, is the last judge; to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred. Ans. The private man is no judge authoritative to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred, but exerciseth for himself the judgement of discretion;" as being to be persuaded in his own mind as the Apostle speaks. And thus much must be allowed by my adversary who lately asserted prudence to be of use in choosing Religion. Yea if Prudence be tolerated in things of Faith: Sapience is to be commended, which refers to the highest principles; and those are of Scripture. And though it be some ingenuous prudence to prefer the judgement of a General Council or the Church, as to the suspension of my opinion against them: yet surely will it be sapience to rest my faith in principles of faith. Therefore this and much more of this discourse comes not home to the question, whether God hath bound me to give absolute assent to the definitions of the Church; and to believe their commands to be just, eo ipso, because theirs: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Neither is it impossible that a General Council should not see it. There is a double impossiblity, simple and Physical: and then Moral. The Simple impossiblity would make Faith; but such is denied. The Moral, If it were granted could not make such a Faith as they stand for, namely an infallible assent. But the Moral impossibility which is no more than a great difficulty, is not to be yielded neither, since the Trent Council. They might as well not see that which was Evident, as they did see that which was not Evident: Communion under both kinds was Evident in Scripture, and the practice of the Church: yet notwithstanding they would see what was not Evident, Communion-under one kind. And therefore least Communion under both kinds should seem more Evident, Bellarmin prudently informs that some of their learned men would not construe the 2. of St. john of Sacramental participation.  
And the ground he goes upon is sandy, that which is truly Evident will of itself appear to be so, or at least to the most judicious, upright, and best instructed Prelates of the Church. Ans. This may appear to them, de facto not so. Were not the Trent Fathers so? And yet they did not see what was Evident in the point of the Communion, and in some other points too, as some of their own Religion did think, as we have it in the History of the Trent Council. 2. What a case should the poor people be in, since populus non distinguit, and yet they must compare the most judicious, and most upright, and best instructed Prelates. Thirdly, Take the Fathers of all ages and places; and then their Doctrines will not abide the test, as hath been made good to them by Bishop Jewel. And therefore their Doctrines are not Evident by their own Principle, because not Evident to them. And then fourthly, somewhat Evident to them the Romans have cashiered, Infant Communion, the Millenary opinion, trine immersion, standing up in prayer, therefore they had best betake themselves to more than humane assistance, namely, from the Holy Ghost.  
His debate afterwards about the consideration of the cause of the Censure, will come to little, if it be considered that the act of not hearing the Church, is ambiguous; and may relate either to the non-assent, or to the contempt. The former doth not simply expose him to the Censure in Heaven: the latter may. And if he understood his own terms, he must rather take them of the latter, because he speaks of an act of not hearing. For the non-assent is negative to an act; and so is the Greek considerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is it which makes him truly guilty of not hearing the Church.  
That which follows in way of concession, is destructive of his building; for he grants an errability of the key, in which case the Censure is not ratified in Heaven. So then, how shall we know whether any be truly guilty. For as the Church cannot be infallible to us at all, to believe it, if not infallible in all, as Mr. Knot argues; and my Adversary too, if he denies the distinction of damnative errors: so it cannot bind infallibly in any, if not in all, though there be a distance betwixt Faith and fact, the proportion is the same. And yet again, if they will divide here by affirming infallibility in Faith, fallibility in Fact; why do they urge this Text, which respects the latter?  
And therefore that which follows. And so the Church cannot err in denouncing excommunication against such a person, in dependence upon the premises, is as much as to say, the Church cannot err, when the key doth not err. Yet it might have erred in sensu divis●, which is sufficient for our purpose, because our dispute is upon the point of possibility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristotle said: It is necessary that that it be while it be; yet was it not therefore necessary to be before it was: for that destroys the distinction of things contingent from things necessary. And therefore what follows hereupon, if I should answer he would account necessary to be answered, when it is not.  
At the end of this Section he saith, You highly wrong St. Athanasius to say he did not hear the Church. Ans. I should be very loath to be truly guilty of this: and surely, if he grants that the Church may be mistaken in the fact, he may be mistaken in this Censure; which he should have proceeded in secundum allegata et probata. I said this, St. Athanasius did differ from the rest of the Church, when the whole world did groan under Arrianisme. So he did not hear the Church, as differing in opinion, though it is not said that he did not hear the Church, as disobeying the Censure.  
Here he supposeth that upon the virtue of former Principles he may conclude of the Church, No, She cannot err in an error not damnable. No? Let that which was formerly granted be compared with this, and we shall conclude the contrary. To excommunicate a person who is not to be excommunicated, is to err. The Church may excommunicate a person not to be excommunicated; Therefore the minor is as good as confessed by him, because the Church may be mistaken in the fact. Nay he saith it in terms [and so there may be an error in the mistake of the fact.]  
He proceeds, Hence that common Doctrine of Antiquity, that it is not possible to have a just cause of separating from the Church. Ans. Besides the nullity of this upon the want of a true ground, as before; he doth misreport the axiom; or else he must distinguish of Separating. There is no just cause of Schism; for, the proposition hath in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; because if there be a just cause, it is not Schism, but though every Schism is a Separation, every Separation is not Schism. Take then separation in specie for Schism, so it may be true; but a Separation from a Church imposing errors in Faith, and things unlawful in practice is not without a just cause; and therefore is it not Schism. It is not without a just cause by his former confession just now in those words. So men should be bound to assent unto an error, which is impossible. And again this is to be understood of Separating from the Catholic Church, or from a particular Church for that order wherein it agrees with the Catholic. But this is not our case; for the Roman is but a particular Church; and we separated upon Catholic Principles, that so we might hold union with the Catholic Church. And then again there is a difference betwixt a national reformation, and a private Separation. And therefore yet the distinction is not disabled, namely of separating from the errors and not from the Church, unless it were better proved that the Church is secured from all error; which that text doth not prove. Then goes he on to take away somewhat I said to the text in my first and fifth answer to it. He claps them together, and would make me to conclude thus, this maketh nothing for the Authority of the universal Church. Ans. Let them remember again (for Aquinas tells us that we cannot forget natural Principles) that the whole is greater than the part. I allow much to a particular Church in correspondence with the Universal (therefore little to their Church.) And if I do reply that this text belongs also to particular Churches, than this doth redound to the honour of the Universal Church. And that this doth belong to particular Prelates to excommunicate, he himself doth confess in this Section. Therefore must he conclude that I conclude for the Universal Church. And yet moreover, in all this long gloss upon the text, how little have we had of that upon which all in this discourse turns, namely whether Authority of excommunication (be it in the Universal or a particular Church) respects not formally the contempt, not the non-assent. Let them speak less, or more to the purpose.  
And yet again he would drive it on in a lose way, that we have a command from God to hear the Church absolutely and universally.  
To this purpose he says, Those who disobey the judges, disobey the Commonwealth: so generally speaking, those who disobey the Prelates of the particular Church, disobey the universal Church, commanding her to proceed according to her Decrees, Canons, and definitions. Ans. Here is not much, and for them less. A Commonwealth is a term ambiguous; and may be taken strictly or largely: strictly in the form; largely as including head and members. And in this large sense may be considered with more respect to the Body, or to the Head; in confuso, or in capite. If he takes it in the strict sense; it is not to any purpose; because there is a different reason of laws in the Commonwealth and in the Church: For in a Commonwealth so, Laws proceed from them as the efficient thereof: but in the Church, truths and duties do come from God; and therefore in such cases the disobedience reflects upon God. Now the case we dispute upon is in necessary truths and duties. If he understand a Commonwealth largely, and then with more particular repute to the people, the disobedience to the judges doth not reflect upon them, unless objectively and consequently, because though they are not their Judges by way of Authority, yet they are their Judges, in way of End, for their good. If it be taken with more relation to the head, whose judges they are by authoritative commission it is true that the disobedience to the Judge doth redound upon him: but here is difference betwixt them, for particular Prelates do not depend upon the universal Church, as Judges do upon the Head of a Commonwealth; because Bishops have their Authority by divine right, which was contended for hotly in the Trent Council, and had proceeded affirmatively had not the Roman Court bandied against it. And then also the matter of disobedience we speak of is from God, not the universal Church: but the matter of Civil disobedience to the Judge is from the Head. And then again we do not speak of disobedience positive (which my Adversary doth instance in) but in obedience, which is negative. And then again particular Prelates are not so bound in things of particular order, as the people are bound to the Laws of a particular Nation. And also then this will redound to the Adversaries prejudice; for the particular Prelates of their Church have not proceeded according to the Canons, Decrees, and definitions of the universal Church, as hath been showed. And also this is against them, because than my Adversary confesseth that this text under debate is compatible fairly to particular Churches; and therefore they have no reason to appropriate it to themselves. And so upon the whole matter we can say as much in a due respect to the Catholic Church, as they do here, and yet hold our own. So then he doth not contradict here. And yet again he is importunate to prove that disobedience to the Church at last redounds to Christ and God, out of the 16. of Sam. 8. they have not rejected thee but me. Ans. Surely they had better have supposed this truth than proved it. First, and again, we are not upon disobedience but inobedience: not upon rejecting Authority which God had vested in Samuel, but upon suspending assent to a truth proposed. And then 2. In the time of Samuel it was a plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the people had Laws and Ordinances given them by divine immediate direction: but it is yet to be proved, whether what Churches do enjoin do come from God immediately to the Prelates. And therefore since that case had contempt in it, the discourse suits not our question.  
And Christ to his disciples (the first Prelates of the Church) he that despiseth you despiseth me. Ans. Those Disciples were not in his sense Prelates; for the Apostles were the Prelates, but these whom Christ here spoke to, were the seventy two Disciples or Elders. Therefore he mistakes in the quality of the persons. Secondly this was by Christ applied to ministerial acts of preaching; these other Prelates seldom do; yet if they did, here were a mistake in the quality of the matter, which with us is in point of jurisdiction.  
The main Text, then is, St. Matt. 23.2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all whatsoever therefore they say unto you, to keep and do. He says here, Mark these most ample words, all therefore whatsoever. Ans. we have marked them; and yet cannot this Text be understood reduplicatively & without exception, because the Pharisees did teach errors. He says then, many of them publicly did teach errors though not by public authority. Ans, So then they did teach errors, and publicly. This which is affirmative is enough for us: let them prove the negative for them. But this is strange, that they should teach and teach publicly, and not by public authority. If they did teach, they did teach upon authority, though not with that authority as Christ. If they did teach publicly, than they had public authority. And doth not he seem to profess that authority was vested in them by a lawful succession of Moses? And did my adversary think that they could sit in Mose's chair, and yet not have public authority? 
He calls them the lawful successors of Moses.  But it may be they were not in the chair, when they did teach errors, no? How then is it said, the Scribes and Pharisees set in Moses chair? And how then did they teach publicly? But they were not in the chair of Moses, when they did teach errors. Will they say so? But in their sense they were in the chair of Moses, because they understand thereby authority: if they do not, they are taken; for than they must understand it of teaching the doctrine of Moses, and then by consequent, all whatsoever must be understood as symbolical thereunto. And if they would understand it thus, we would also subscribe this proposition, that when they did teach errors they were not in the chair of Moses. As namely when they did teach for doctrines the traditions of men. Alas if this should be applied to the Pope in his chair, how should the people be able to distinguish betwixt teaching errors publicly (which my adversary doth acknowledge) and teaching them publicly with public authority, which he denies? They who formerly have told us that it is so easy a way to find by the Church to Heaven, do now say that which shows it is an hard matter to find the Church teaching by public authority. One being imperfect in sight asked his servant, whether there was not such a thing in the window: and the Servant asked the Master whether there were such a window: they tell us that there is in the Church infallibility taught by public authority: and others ask the question where is that Church, and when shall we know when it teacheth so.  
He tells us that they cannot do any thing against Scripture, when they proceed by way of defining with public authority. Yea, but we must have another infallibility to assure us that they do now thus define. Let them infallibly define when the Church doth infallibly define, since all good discourse gins with a definition. And then let them tell us by what method we may come to the knowledge of this proposition, that the Rulers of the Jews condemned Christ by private authority.  
Neither is that to be swallowed, 
Acts. 3.17.  that the Church to the full hath now as much reason to be heard as the old jewish Church then. For if he takes the Church here for the Church universal, it were more likely indeed what he says: but how is that possible to make an address to them upon all occasions, unless there were a standing Representative. But if he takes the Church here for a particular Church by way of an Individuum vagum, or determinately, of the Roman, it were indeed possible to make with more expedition address to such: but than it would be showed to be likely that any particular Church of any one denomination should have such privileges annexed to it, as the old jewish Church had; especially if we take in into the account of the old jewish Church those extraordinary revelations of God immediately made to Moses, and the Priests and the Prophets, whereof Malachi was the last. Indeed such an infallibility only will serve their turn, but till they prove it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And as the Synagogues authority was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard only in points of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother, but was to be extended to all whatsoever they should order: so you cannot (without depressing the authority of Christ's Church who had a better covenant established upon better promises, Hebr. 8.6.) hinder her power from being extended to all whatsoever she shall order. Ans. This undoes all. I take the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my adversary for my major proposition: then I assume, what proportion the Synagogue had to the whole jewish Church a particular Church hath to the universal Church: therefore every particular Church is not limited in authority, but, as he saith of the Synagogue, that its authority was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard etc. And then what need of an universal Church, & Bishop & Council? Indeed such a power would be requisite for the Roman Church because they cannot stretch it beyond a particular Church. But this spoils all his discourse in his four first Chapters which he says he intended as for the universal Church. But what use of this when a particular may sooner and more easily decide all, having all authority to command and to be obeyed in all things which she shall order? Thus not only the five Patriarchates were independent of any one, and had all jurisdiction within their own divisions; but other Churches national, might be independent; and independents might be Churches. And since ten men with the Jew made a people, and a people made a capacity of a Synagogue, why may not the Church of England have an Authority not limited, etc. And what need then of running to another Church for more authority?  
But neither is his Text in the Hebrews well understood or else not well applied in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the establishment of a better Covenant upon better promises is not certainly intended to have respect to the visible Church for discipline: but to the invisible Church for salvation. It respects Christ as the Great High Priest to save his Church by the sacrificing of himself once upon the Cross for us; not as King of his Church by way of an external policy, as if the Government of his Church were part of his Kingdom, and of his Gospel. If so they give the right hand of fellowship to the other Disciplinarian.  
But also he takes it ill that the text should be limited to case of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother; and he thinks rather it should belong to the cases of heresy which is a trespass committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church, yea St. Thomas calls Schism of which heresy is always guilty, the highest crime against the whole Community. Ans. It is one thing to say what the text intends; another to say what it may be by discourse accommodated to. The direct respect of the text in the ordinary sense of the letter, is clearly carried to case of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother. And the Pontifician by his principles and use, is engaged to the sense of the letter prinipally. But 2. dato non concesso, that it should also respect case of Heresy, notwithstanding also that the terms [let him be to thee a Heathen or a Publican we rather refer to the Jewish Church than the Christian] yet cannot he have from hence what he would, namely the Church's infallibility of Censure in points of Faith. For though the Church did infallibly know on which side the truth did stand in every point of Faith, and therefore what was opposite thereunto (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he said) and therefore that such a doctrine was to be condemned as Heretical; yet since, though the Church do proceed secundum allegata et probata, it may be mistaken in the fact, (as he confesseth) it may err in the Censure as to a particular person; and how then is such a person bound to subscribe to such a Censure as just? because he cannot be bound to assent to that which is false, as he also lately confessed. It is true in civil causes though the sentence be injust, I may and must pay the amercement, there being no Law against the course of Law; and so also in Ecclesiastical cases, he that is in justly excommunicated must abide the Censure; but all the Authority under Heaven can never make a man believe in his Conscience that it is a just Censure, when he knows himself not to be guilty of the fact, namely publishing of an heretical Doctrine; and therefore all that can be exacted by man in this case 〈◊〉 passive obedience; which the Person may yield, though the Conscience doth not yield that it is a just Censure. So that the text is yet preserved in its integrity against binding the Conscience to believe whatsoever is done by the Church to be right and just.  
After this, he would wind himself off gradually from supposing any infallibility of particular Churches, that so all at length might be ascribed to their Church in solidum; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he said. And the Authority he would have to fall upon the Pope and a Council: yet he expresseth one Head of the Church and the supreme Prelate of the Church. So then; Before, when there was a professed occasion to dispute the point whether the Pope were Head of the Church, he was  and cautious and uncategorical: now by the by, and under the wind he can assert it so that he may not be bound to prove it. We see then what reason they have to afford Prudence a good place in Religion, Nullum numen ab est si sit prudentiarum.  
And the main exercise of Ecclesiastical authority, the key is laid upon his shoulder, He is bound to use the fullness of his power to suppress the arising heresy.  
Now surely they are bound ingenuously to speak out whether they mean this fullness of his Authority, of all the Authority he hath, or of all Authority that the Church hath. There is a fullness of the Fountain, there is a fullness of the Vessel. Do they allow him the fullness of the Vessel? So indeed the Trent Council seemed rather in a good part thereof to incline, when they urged so much to have the title of the Council to be established The Representative of the whole Church: for had this proceeded, his power had been sunk in their power. But if he be the Head of the Church, my Adversary must allow him the fullness of the Fountain; then the controversy is determined betwixt the Jesuits, and the Sorbonists; and the latter are cast in the suit. But then, what need of a Council towards infallibility, when he hath all the Authority in himself, as being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? And then my Adversary hath not pleased the Court and the Jesuit in joining the Council as partners in the Authority. Nor do the words ensuing bear good respect to the Pope, as Head of the Church, namely, that he may forbid (if he feareth danger in the Doctrine) that no such Doctrine may be published until the Church shall think it fit. Are not these diminuent terms of the Head (indeed almost comminuent, if we may say so) as if the Head of the universal Church, the ordinary Pastor, and Vicar of Christ, Successor of St. Peter, could not presently see that there was danger in heretical Doctrine, or could not see whether it were heretical doctrine until the Church shall think it fit. I had thought the Pope had been an Independent; and should not have depended upon the Church for a final resolution at a point heretical. And if the Church must meet in a Council to consider of it, and all Popes be as disaffected to a Council, as some were to the Trent Council, what shall become of the people in this danger of heresy? I had thought a Council had been but the vicar of Christ His Counsel, and though he did condescend so far to make use of their Counsel, yet he could do all alone by his own Authority. We heard before that particular Prelates had Authority not limited: and must my Adversaries Supreme Prelate be bound to wait for a General Council?  
And then all must be as St. Paul saith, Heb. 13.17. Obey their Prelates; So he, Ans. This he means of Prelates not in confuso, but in conventu. And to these infallibility should be annexed. So then, Those Prelates who are here meant are infallible. Particular Prelates are here meant: therefore they are infallible; and so there will be no need either of a Supreme Prelate, or of a Council. And that particular Prelates are here meant, we need not prove to the Pontificians who take too much notice that there Epistles were written but upon particular occasions, and for particular times. And therefore this being written to the Hebrews should not by that account concern us Yea if it were written with an intention for Prelates in a Council, it must be written for them per saltum, not for the present times; but for above 300. years after. 2. This relates to those who did watch for their Souls, which being put per se is to be understood of those that teach the Word; and so it corresponds to the 7. ver. where those that are set over them are specified by teaching the Word. The obedience then there enjoined respects those as teaching the the Word, not formally as exercising authority of Jurisdiction. And therefore that Text is not here well applied.  
Thus far the power of the Supreme Prelate is extended by the consent of the whole Church. Ans. We see then their own differences to be such as that they may be ashamed to upbraid us with our differences, and we not ashamed to be upbraided. Can my Adversaries exactly point out the maximum quod sic of the power of the Supreme Prelate of the universal Church? Must he that is by them acknowledged to be the Pillar of the Church have his Pillars set him, beyond which he must not budge? Tell it not to the Canonists, and the Courtiers of Rome. As Cyril of Jerusalem notes that the Sea where it stints in the float makes in a similitude a Line, which God hath set it that it should not pass: So have my Adversaries set a Line to the Roman Sea; hitherto it may go, by the consent of the whole Church. So then the members may appoint the Head what operations and how far it shall perform, and the Head shall not be only influxive upon them, but they rather upon it. This opinion will make Pope's  of Councils, if he hath his power extended by their consent. For they do not mean the consent of the whole Church to be of the confusaneous multitude; do they? if they do, than the Church in this sense shall be the first subject of Ecclesiastical power. Yea, If they also mean it of the Church in a Council, how is the Pope successor of St. Peter, when the Pope must be limited by the Church; St. Peter. as they say, was Prince of the Apostles immediately from Christ. And surely according to this reckoning Beauties distinction will come to naught, who says the power of Kings is not by divine right, but by the consent of the people: but the Pope's power is, for it comes not from the Church, but Christ, as in his 3. b. de verb. Dei cap. 9 And then he is not the Rock and foundation of the Church; but the Church of him, and so the spiritual Monarchy must be slighted. How far is this from that Italian who presented a book to Paulus the fifth with this inscription, PaULo V to. Vice Deo, out of which one picked the number of the beast, 666.  
But therefore my Adversary goes at the Spanish rate, very suspensively, in omnem eventum; as being disposed to a pause betwixt the affirmative and the negative; and he saith, Now though the Supreme Head of the Church be as infallible as St. Peter was, and so on in a long speech. Well, but doth this affirm? or is it a mere supposition, which doth ponere nihil? He hath carried the Pope up to the clouds, and there he stays: but let them come out of the clouds, and tell us plainly, whether we must take a cloud for juno. Such irresolution doth not become infallibility. He seems to make him as infallible as St. Peter, because he should be Supreme Head of the Church; (and yet St. Peter was not Supreme Head of the Church, if the rest of the Apostles be included in the term [Church] as members) and yet he must not be as infallible as St. Peter; because cases of difficulty must be referred to the Council. It follows, yet if he seethe this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared heresy, if it be so; or to be embraced, if it be fitting, and proposed to all Christendom; then is the true time of calling a General Council, and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture. We are now step by step soberly mounted to the Sovereign Authority of the Church in a Representative. Ans. 1. What needs all this trouble if he be as infallible as St. Peter? and why do they say that St. Paul went to St. Peter to confirm his Doctrine by St. Peter's Authority, should there not have been a Council called then as well? According to them St. Peter's infallibility confirmed St. Paul's Doctrine: the Pope according to them is Successor of St. Peter in his infallibility to all effects and purposes as Ruler of the Church, therefore he may do it, and frustra fit per plures also. 2. Note we here that it is to be the true time of calling a Council upon debate of a point heretical, which respects Articles of Faith: but we have been often told by our Adversaries that we are to have an infallible Judge to decide all controversies emergent. Now if there be not a Council to be called but for decision of Articles of Faith; as to theirs we have less need, since he that is an Heretic is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks. And therefore he needed not to foreclude the people's contending in allegations of Scriptures; for surely Scripture may be alleged without contention, and if it happens, sapiens non curate de accidentalibus. And so also the Council may contend in allegation of Scripture; and therefore they should not allege Scripture. Yea also we may soberly contend that in articles of Faith there needs not be any other contention, since they are more plainly delivered in Scripture, than that we must stay for a General Council to be established in the belief of them. Blessed be God, we are better provided for in articles of Faith, than to stand in such necessity of a General Council; which when such will be, and how we shall know it is such (according to them) we must know by another General Council, and that by another, and so in infinitum: since we know nothing infallibly but by the infallible authority of the Church; and that in a General Council. We will then take that for our Law, whereby the Council must Judge, since the matters are plain which are great: and about other things small, the Judges will not meet. Lex non curate de minimis. Let Hiero conclude for himself, from hence forward whatsoever Archimedes saith, it must be believed.  
But it seems it is a book case: and example we have hereof by the practice of the Apostles in the 15. of the Acts; Though the Apostles were all infallible in their doctrine, yet they could not determine that grave question without calling a Council. Ans. first, if those terms [could not] attend an absolute negation of power, they are denied. For they that were infallible in their doctrine could have severally determined that controversy, as we take power absolutely, as well as St. Peter confirmed St. Paul's doctrine, according to them. But he seems to mean it in a qualified sense after the manner of Aquinas distinction of necessity: therefore thus he, for this is necessary for the better conviction of heretics; fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort, and further comfort of the whole Church. This end of calling a Council upon such a necessity, I suppose he reflects to the Council of the Apostles; as if the sense should be they could not conveniently and upon the supposition of such ends, determine that grave question without calling a Council: but then we are not under an absolute necessity of a Council. And until this be proved, my adversaries have done nothing: for a necessity of convenience of a Council will not serve their purpose because we can grant it. But 2. we say this example is not for his turn; because this Council was called upon a question about things in their nature not necessary: but we are upon the debate of the absolute necessity of councils in and for things necessary, not things of scandal only, and yet again; 3. As it is commonly noted they in their Councils cannot conclude their determinations as in that Council of the Apostles (it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to u●) because those Apostles were infallible in their discourse as well a in their conclusions; but those who are now members of Councils, are confessed by stapleton to be fallible in their discourse and how then shall we be sure that they are infallible in the conclusion, unless they can prove that though the discourse be not rational, the conclusion will yet be prophetical. And yet 4. The Apostles themselves proceeded to the determination of this question by principles of Scripture: therefore Scripture is the highest principle to raise faith even in things of controversy. And this concludes against them who make the Church in businesses of faith to be the highest principle. And therefore also whatsoever binds the Christian faith hath its obligation by virtue of Scripture. So than nothing he says doth sufficiently render that sense or use he makes of that Text, Dic ecclesiae. And yet he hath not then found (though he does Thrasonically say so) a judge in matters of faith, a living judge, an infallible judge excluding all possibility of error. We can help them to find Judges dicendo pluraliter: but such a Judge as he speaks of here, he hath no more hope to find then need to seek. And yet such a Judge he must have for the justification of Christ's law in the former Text, otherwise Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so heinous a crime not to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all: he obliged all to obey and hear her, therefore she cannot lead us into an error. Ans. I think we should not have had so many words about such assent if they had not more need thereof then the Text, or Christ of their defence; they have more necessity of Christ's justification than he of theirs. His words above have two forms, one in an hypothetical way, the other in way of an Enthymem; I deny the consequence in both; and to them both I suppose one proposition, and that is this, Christ's command to obey doth not infer impossibility of error in the Church. Simply it is therefore false what he would have to be consequential. To hear the Church therefore hath two things in it; one act which is internal, and that is to give assent to what the Church shall order; the other an external act of submission, the former may be denied, and therefore she may err, the latter may be due and therefore not to be denied.  
And consequently his infallibility of knowledge of this point is not so grea● as of those points which are delivered by Scripture, namely not understanding it de facto; because his knowledge of points delivered by Scripture is, de industria, small; but de posse, his knowledge of points of faith delivered by Scripture may be greater than his knowledge of this, because it is not delivered by Scripture.  
So that for his Creed, I say as the Frenchmen proverbially are wont, il ne point damne qui ne le coit, he is not damned that doth not believe it▪ there is difference betwixt standing up to what is proposed, and standing out against the Church, in contempt. Absolute belief will then be rational, when moral assurance, which yet is not always to be had, makes Faith.  
And when he hath proved the assumption, that the church of Rome is only this Church, and by manifest consequence: then the Pope shall be no usurper; and yet not infallible neither. We deny the Postulate with a contradiction because we can deny the Church's definition without a contradiction.  
Then in the seventh and eight numbers he useth plain-evasions. In the seventh he tells me that he doth not use that method which I tell him he should have used, in some favour to me, when I come to use this very method, I do foresee that it will so galled you, and he says, I would have the burden shifted off to the other shoulder to avoid present trouble. Ans. these are his Rhodomontadoes. Is not the method a priori more rational? If he can prove the Church infallible, and absolute authority to belong to it, our obedience must follow▪ but since obedience is ambiguous and distinguishable, though obedience in some respect be due yet not on that part which infers infallibility; but on that part, which respects authority, as we take authority for power. 2. There was nothing said by him formerly which I have not fully answered; and now the reinforcements, but it became him to say so, who was more pinched. And how will he quits himself in this method we are to see in th●●2. numb. And in the eight numb▪ here he tells me the reason why he says nothing to St. Augustine's authority produced by me, namely lest he should lose his labour, but I know a better reason because he will find too much labour to answer it.  
And as quick dispatch the ninth Paragr. deserves. For he doth not offer any answer to any reason in mine, but here snaps in order to a vindication of the Text Matt. 20.7. for his cause. He took exceptions at our translation should keep knowledge, he renders it shall keep. I defended the translation by the possibility of that sense in the Hebrew because it hath no formal subjunctive: By the scope of the Text, because they are blamed for their default. He persists against our translation, because all originals (he means all copies; or indeed all translations he should mean, because of what follows) speak clearly in the future as the Hebrew doth: and also the Greek and the Latin, which two want not the Subjunctive Mood. Ans. But first he supposeth that which is in question that the Hebrew is to be understood as in the future. Secondly other translations with him are fallible, save only the Latin; therefore the other conclude not. Thirdly the translations may be understood in compliance with the Hebrew, which is frequent also in the New Testament, with the Greek: and therefore if the Hebrew may be so construed, so may the others by an Hebraism. Therefore if our English translation were faulty herein, yet must it be otherwise convinced of a fault in this: Especially since Fourthly, We give good reason why it should thus be construed, namely by the Scope; Intelligentia dicti sumitur ex scopo loquendi. And therefore may we well with junius and Tremellius hold our English, which in general, whatsoever he says of it from some of our own, hath not so many faults in it, as Isidor Clarius found in their Latin, 8000.  
I asked him, is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome. He says, I told you it was not. But why then should the other Text about the Scribes and Pharisees by proportion prove their infallibility? and not this, since we have here the Priest in a singularity, if not signanter? Well then by his own consent, this Text is not sufficient for him: for it concerns private Priests; and they are as fallible as translations. Only the private Priests may know the sense of the Church better, than the sense of Scripture by the translations, as he speaks in more words to no more purpose. Ans. First when we have the sense of the Church, are we sure that that sense is true? though it be the true sense of the Church, is the sense of the Church true? this is yet in question. There is no question but the sense of Scripture is true, whether the sense of the Church is true is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Secondly, Let the plain places of Scripture in things necessary be compared with the difficulties in the Interpretation of the Trental Definitions; and then let them judge whether we had not better stand to Translations, which are made by a Nation or approved, or else to the opinion of private Priests, for though her Doctrine be so carefully published amongst all intelligent men: yet this is to be understood materially in the words, not formally in the sense. And so the Scripture is published amongst all intelligent men, in the former way, And if the people be not intelligent men too, how shall they know whether the true sense of the Doctrine of the Church be communicated to them by learned men?  
But the Priests of the old Law were to direct the people, which were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures. And the Priests of the new Law doubtless excel those of the old Law. This in the substance of it we have had before, and have taken away the grounds thereof. And besides it is false that the people were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures. What saith St. Luke of the Bereans? If they examined by the Scriptures what Doctrine St. Paul taught, were not they to be directed by their own readings of the Scripture. And why did the Jews apply their children to the Law from five years of age? And why did St. Paul take notice of Timothy to be trained up in the Scriptures from his childhood? and why is the man said to be blessed, who amongst other things, meditates in the Law day and night? Is this to be understood only of the Priests. 2. Therefore though they went to the Priests in doubtful cases; yet not for ordinary knowledge in things necessary; therefore this is not compared ad idem to our case. Thirdly, the Priests were bound to direct the people by the Law, were they not? To the Law and to the Testimonies. And not by Tradition. So are the Priests of the new Law, (as he calls them) to direct the people by the Scripture, not by Tradition, or determinations of the Church, unless according to Scripture.  
Therefore his question of the case in a matter of doubt, which he compares his proceeding in with the old way of the Jews, Numb. 6. comes not home to our business, and therefore we may send it home again; and yet not for fear of not being able to answer what he is not willing to urge, that when in the upshot, the question should be drawn up to the High Priest, he who would not hear him was deservedly put to death, Deut. 17. He leaves this for us to take down ourselves; he will not apply it, and herein he does discreetly fearing it may be, lest it should be said that that which he would seem to have referred to the High Priest for final judgement, should indeed be referred to the Judge contradistinctly spoken of; and by the Syriack disjunctively to the Priests and Levits. And 2. I hope the High Priest at Rome doth not undertake a sentence in causes of blood. And thirdly in that case there was contempt, thou shalt take away the evil, it is not said error, and analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato, and also ver. 12. this is intimated, that man that will do presumptuously. Fourthly, Suppose it had been referred to the High Priest for sentence final; this might be extraordinary in a Typical respect to Christ. And they know the rule, Extraordinaria non trahuntur in regulam: We cannot make a rule of extraordinaries. And yet also was not the High Priest, quatenus talis, Infallible; as appears in the condemnation of Christ, as I told them.  
Now he would distinguish by saying, The Jewish Church erred not. The true High Priest (without whom there is no true representative Church) erred not: Cajaphas was not the true High Priest, the other true High Priest was Christ. Pretty sport. So the Roman Church never erreth, because Christ is the true Head: but then the Pope should not be true High Priest, nor true Head: for so Caiaphas and he must be compared, in relation to Christ. May we not almost think that our Adversary is within a little put to his shifts? For Christ was in being, I hope, and had declared himself the true Messiah, and yet he said," the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair; then we are bound to do all whatsoever is said to us, without a true High Priest. 2. How many Popes were not true Popes, and so not true High Priests: and then when shall we be certain whether we have a true High Priest, and consequently a true Church, and consequently that it cannot err? For as absolute infallibility hath itself to particular Faith in any point, according to Mr. Knot: So absolute certainty of a true Pope hath itself to our knowledge whether it cannot err. Well, but he hath told us that he is the true Pope whom the Church shall accept: So before, but then Caiaphas was the true High Priest, because he was accepted by the Jews. 2. Without a true Pope the Church might err; and so err in the choice of a true Pope: and then we are never a whit the nearer. And then, Thirdly, Christ was not the true High Priest, because he was not accepted by the Jews, but condemned. And then again, as well the Council might be infallible without a true High Priest, as a General Council, since without any Pope or Head thereof: but the four General Councils they will say are infallible: and yet we say there was no Pope then in their sense. Therefore the Council of Arimnium, which he speaks of here was not fallible upon that account, namely, because it was not confirmed by the Pope; for the other Councils were not confirmed by a Pope neither; there being then none. And if the Council of Ariminum did themselves choose a Pope, than he was accepted by them; and so he was the true Pope, as before.  
He says then, This true High Priest (namely Christ) erred not: the true Head of the Church not erring, the Church cannot be said to err.— iterum Crispinus. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Was Christ an external Head in the policy of the Church? If so, my Adversary and the Disciplinarians might join Principles for their Government. And upon this account the Pope should not be styled only the Vicar of Christ, and Successor of St. Peter, but also the Successor of Christ, the Sea being void by Christ's promotion. 2. If Christ be the true Head of the Church, than the Pope is the false Head; unless the Pope and Christ be all one; or let them distinguish that Christ is a true Head in one sense, namely the vital and spiritual Head, the Pope only the Ministerial Head; and if they thus distinguish, then though the vital Head doth not err, the Ministerial Head may err. Thirdly, Christ as the true Head of his Church hath relation to the Church invisible: but we have now to do with the Church as visible, and upon this consideration the promises which are made in Christ and by Christ to the Church as St. Math. 16. and elsewhere, should not be made to the Church virtual, or to the Church Representative, but invisible unto which properly he hath relation, as Head. And thus we acknowledge the promises made to the Church against error, are true; namely against error damnative. Fourthly, If they closely intent this which is said in service to the Roman Church so fare, that it cannot err, because Christ is the Head; then what Christ doth the Pope must do, and what the Pope doth Christ must do: but surely Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, so doth not the Pope do: and Christ instituted his Supper in both kinds, so doth not the Pope: and then if what the Pope does, the same, Christ should be said to do, Christ should contradict himself; for by himself he instituted it in both kinds, by the Pope in one, and also Christ in Pope Liberius did subscribe against his own divinity. Lastly there might have been another true Head Ministerial in the Church without prejudice to the former; might there not? If not, farewell Pope and Monarchy; If so, than his answer is none, that Christ was then the true Head of the Church: for so neither Caiaphas nor any other should have been High Priest.  
That of St. Athanasius was touched even now, and it is good still, if Councils be infallible; since the reason, why that of Ariminum should not be good, is not good; and therefore that might be as infallible with eight hundred Bishops, as the Council of Nice with fewer; since also according to my Adversary, Christ is the true Head of his Church, and therefore no matter whether there was any Ministerial Head or not, to confirm it.  
And as for exceptions against our English Translation again from some of our own, we need say no more; for we did not hold the Translation infallible. As he said of a Christian that he is mundu● & mundandus, clear and yet to be cleansed; so may it be said of the Translation; it was good and yet might be mended; and hath since, since their exceptions. But 2. If they will argue from imperfection in one place to a corruption in the whole, it is a fallacy, a dicto secundum quid: but simply it will redound, if they might so argue, to the undoing of the infallibility of the Latin, and purity too. And then if he takes aim against our English by the Interpretation of that of Malachi, or the Translation rather, they bespeak a falsity in the charge, for there was good reason by the connexion for that Reddition.  
Here we have little but a rhapsody of repetitions of former grounds, which being showed to be rotten, he can solidly build nothing.  
His first and principal ground here is that the Church cannot err; and this yet is the main question: And therefore his compare betwixt the Priests declaring the Law of the Church, and our Ministers declaring the Law of Scriptures by the Originals is not well grounded. First, Because that ground is not made good. Secondly, because we do not urge infallibility by the Ministers, as they must. And thirdly, because though their Priests should infallibly convey the Doctrine of the Church; yet the Doctrine of the Church may be fallible: so is not Scripture in the Original. And what he saith concerning most corrupted Translations hath been formerly answered in compare with their Latin; which they pretend infallible and is not, and therefore their Church is not infallible: but we pretend not translations infallible, though better then, theirs is now. That we are not assured of true Scripture and if so, yet not of the true sense, hath been answered; as to things necessary: and more assured than they by their Church. That many necessary controversies are not contained in Scripture, hath been refelled and returned to them with use. We have showed that they have no reason to take away from the people the use of Scripture. That Chaos of Corruptions in our English is more easily denied then proved; and the recrimination to Latin is more easily proved then denied  
And as for the taking of the law from the mouth of the Priest to be as secure, as to take the Signification of a word in Scripture from the public consent of all men, they may know, if they have no more for faith, they have no faith Divine; as the effect cannot exceed the cause, so the assent cannot exceed the ground thereof. Aqua tantum ascendit quantum descendit.  
Their permission of Scripture is in that language which the people doth not understand, and this is not then to permit them Scripture, which is, as he says, known to most and bred men in Learning.  
And he hath no reason surely to speak of vulgar Translations; for surely theirs is the vulgar Latin; though Christened by the Trent Council; and never a whit the better for that.  
And I hope his local Praelats will not allow the use of Translations but to them whom they are secure of not to change their Religion, which is as much much as to blind them, and then to give them leave to see. Further use of Scripture is not an abuse, unless the Ancient Fathers exhorted the people in the reading of Scriptures to an abuse; and he was much mistaken in the saying that we see the sad effects of it, it is a fallacy of accident.  
Our Ministers are as rightly ordained and canonically licenced to Preach, as their Priests to say Mass; and more too, unless they could prove that office better. And yet a simple contradiction is also better than a simple negative:  
Upon our word the people may rely as well as their people upon the Priests, and somewhat more upon the former considerations of an impossibility of Faith in the truth of their being Priests. And yet our Ministers are not masters of their Faith, but helpers of their joy; as the Apostle says of himself also, the people do not simply rely upon them, but believe by them.  
And then he comes to the occasion of this debate betwixt us, namely because that Noble Person carped at our blind obeying our Priests, and believing them, whereas all of our Religion could go to the fountain. Ans. Whether the words of that Noble Person were such as he expresseth them I cannot say, but taking the Translation to be so far Scripture, as that it agrees with the Original, so far are they the Fountain, not in language, but insense. And so they go to the Fountain oppositely to the Doctrine of the Church, though not as oppositly to Translations. And as for that which was said by that Noble Person of blind obeying, is not here denied▪ and we know that this blind obedience is commended by the Jesuit for the right and Christian obedience. And their implicit Faith must be blind obedience upon two accounts, First because they ought not to examine whether what the Priests say to them doth agree with the Doctrine of the Church; and secondly, they cannot examine it.  
But he excepts against that Fountain, but alas! when that fountain which they conceive themselves to drink to their eternal health, is so poisoned, as I shown in my last Ch. that millions of millions (as your own Broughton saith) run to hell flames by occasion of this corruption. Good words. He could not certainly say so unless he hath it from a Pope and Council. And doth he take a passionate Hugh to be as credible with him as Cardinal Hugh. And I think also the main thing for which Hugh Broughton was offended with our Translations, was about the descent into Hell; which by the Trent Council should seem not to be so necessary: for they make no mention of it in their Creed. And also if the sentence proceeds sufficiently upon Hugh's words, than their Latin is poisoned more, as it should seem more by Isidor Clarius, one of theirs. And my Adversary might have remembered that we might as well slight Hugh Broughton in a singularity; as he did Isidor Clarius. And it seems, the danger by Translations is not so great, because he says, I may most truly say that far more perish by misunderstanding (whilst they follow their Ministers and their own private judgement of discretion) that which is truly Translated, then perish by the corruption of that which is falsely Translated. Ans. This comes loosely from him also. If it were obscure, the Translation might miss, if not, how could they be in danger of perishing? If they follow their Ministers or their own judgement without weighing the Scriptures, they may err as the Romanist does by blind obedience: But if they compare the Doctrine of the Ministers with that of Scripture by their judgement of discretion, as the Bereans did that which was spoken by St Paul (and as he would have them compare the Doctrine of our Ministers with the Authority of their Church by their judgement of discretion) they are in no such peril of damnation. That which is not known without great difficulty may be unknown without great danger. Otherwise we make God, they may think, an hard Master.  
Thus they perish for not hearing that Church which their own Scripture bids them hear, whereas in doing that which God bids, there can be no danger of error great or small Ans. My Adversary is very importunate, without new Arguments. If he means that the Scripture bids us hear the Church universally, as to Faith, he begs the question. If to hear, as in point of trespass, or so as not to contemn, he fights with his own shadow, as being ignorant of the Elench. And so of the other clause, if he means it so that God bids us absolutely do as the Church bids us, there is the same fault in the discourse. Better may we return it to them. They perish because they will not hear the Scripture, which the Scripture and the ancient Church bids them hear, whereas in following Scripture there can be no danger of error great or small: and since also the Church can have no credible Authority but from the Scripture: (neither hath he proved the contrary whatsoever he says) and therefore he does well now to tell us that the Scripture bids us hear the Church.  
He says, the doctrine of the Church is Gods Law. Ans. This is a kind of cryptical proposition. I am sure God's Law should be the doctrine of the Church: but he means it for his use, whatsoever the Church reacheth is God's Law. What? is God's Law in recto. He speaks as boldly, as if being but yet a private man he could not speak under infallibility. So then we need not look any further for God's Law, and the Scripture then will not only be insufficient for our direction to heaven, as they say; but not necessary, which sometimes they will grant. It will not be necessary neither as a rule, as Bellarmin sometimes; nor as a commonitory. And we may wonder, why amongst their Counsels they did not reckon this for one, namely to use Scripture; since upon this account we are not bound to it under peril of damnation; but only they will not allow it such perfection, as to Counsels. But then if the Church bids us not, to read Scripture; or bids us, not to read Scripture, it is not God's Law, and it is God's Law, but it is God's Law that we should look into Scripture. To the Law and to the Testimony. Search the Scriptures saith Christ. If the Church teacheth that we must worship Images or buy Images, it must be God's Law against God's Law of the second Commandment. If the Church bids us communicate under one kind, it must be Christ's Law against Christ's Law. And so God must contradict himself: and Scripture must follow the sense of the Church; as one of them is said to have said, what a cause have they which hath need of so desperate propositions?  
And private Priests are far more likely to teach them Gods Law, by teaching them what the universal Church holds to be God's Law, than by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be God's law, as you would have them do. Ans. This doth not contradict: If they say it is more likely, we can say it. But what is this to Faith? And upon this condition they are undone. For which of their private Priests are able to say positively that this is the doctrine of the whole Church for all ages and places since the Apostles? The Church otherwise considered hath no considerable Authority: and so we mean the universal Church. Secondly, Although thus the Church is not the regula regulans, but the regula regulata; yet they cannot bring the consent of the universal Church for the points of difference.  
Ad num. 11. 12. 13. 14. Herein he gives me many words towards asserting Tradition to be a sufficient bottom of faith; but in all these how little he takes away of my answer, any one may say better than I.  
In the beginning of the eleventh, he goes upon a false supposition, that in the times before Moses the traditions were received by the Church upon the infallibility of the Church. They were received by the Church, not infallibly by the Church. The Church had itself herein as a mean of proposal, not as the last motive of faith. Their faith was terminated by the spirit of God in the matter of tradition; was not determined by the Church's Authoritative delivery: the objectum quod of their faith was not the Church's proposal. Then 2. supposing what we do not grant, yet there is not now the same reason for the Church: because they had more appearances t●en of God to and in the Church, than now there is or hath been since the Apostles times. And therefore the rule is good, Distingue tempora. 3. This will make a circle. How were they assured infallibly of tradition by the Church? How were they infallibly assured of the Church by tradition? then the resolution of their faith was not into the credit of the Church as infallible. Therefore doth my Antagonist in vain say to me, show the ground they had there to hold the Church infallible. Nay the proof hereof must come from the affirmer: Asserentis est probare. They are to make good here two things first, that they did hold their Church infallible; otherwise how could any of the people hold it to be infallible; unless the Church did so determine of i● self? and than that though they did hold it to be infallible, yet that it was so and must be so, otherwise they could not believe anything.  
Afterwards he makes a perstriction of my distinction, that the word in substance of it was before the Church, which was begotten by it: and then he tells me what I add thereunto, that when there is as much need, and as great a certainty of tradition as formerly, than he may urge the argument. Here he shifts and shuffles. He tell me that I must understand it of the unwritten word and to be only in oral tradition. Right I understand it so. But what is this to 〈◊〉 question; whether the manner of conveyance by t●e 〈◊〉 in way of oral tradition was infallible; and than whether we are bound to take all or part of necessary doctrine from the Church this way. And can they now conclude the Church infallible in the matter of tradition bes●ide the word written, by their tradition of the word unwritten? And can they show that the jews were equally bound to any Tradition before the word written, which was not agreeable to the word afterwards written? Otherwise how can they supply this to their purpose in urging Traditions differing from Scripture in matter equally to Scripture; as the Trent Council defines, as before? Let them come to the point; and satisfy demands.  
In his discourse following I can grant him all until he come to this, they only had God's word revealed by tradition. This we must debate upon as being ambiguously delivered: for [only] may relate to the subject [they] and so the sense is, the jews only had God's word revealed by Tradition, but this is concerned here; or [only] may have relation to [God word] as to the matter which was revealed, and so the sense is, that they had only that word which was revealed by tradition; and this comes not to the point neither, or only may relate to the manner of revealing by tradition, and thus indeed it is proper for the debate, but thus it is denied; if we take it thus, that the word of God was not otherwise assured to them than by tradition, though they only being Jews had only that word of God which was revealed by tradition, to believe; yet had they not only tradition, by which they did believe. And therefore his conclusion must be naught; and all he says to that purpose, even to the end of his Paragraph.  
In the twelfth he deals about the need of tradition, and he says that the need or necessity of Tradition which you conceive to have been greater than than now, doth not make the Traditions more Credible. Ans. True it is, that simply the need of them doth not make them to be more credible, if they be to be believed: but there is the question whether there is now any to be believed necessarily, in point of faith, when there is not such need of them. Scripture is as credible when we are heaven, in regard of itself; yet there we have no need of it: but as since we have no need of it there, we have reason to believe that there it will not take place; so neither should Traditions, when there is not that need of them. My answer then did bear itself upon this, that if there were that necessity of Tradition now as then, he might urge the argument, because God have would provided sufficiently for security of tradition now as then: falsum prius. And we may take his own similitude, those that have read many credible books of France, have they any need of oral Tradition, to believe that there is such a Kingdom as France? he says no: yet these last are as certain, he says. Well then, no more need have we of tradition for the doctrine of Christ which we sufficiently read in Scripture. So then, although he concludes Traditions hopeful (and superflua non nocent) yet can he not conclude them as necessary; which should have been demonstrated.  
But this he would do in following words, even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions, we have ever had with them a perpetual succession of horrible Divisions opening still wider and wider. Again odd reflections upon Scripture: but it is well he jopnes Traditions with it to take part of the consequence, as he thinks: and yet it may be he does not think so; but that the cause of the Divisions is only Scripture: and had we had no Scriptures, we should have had fewer Divisions. Doth he think so? Then how is Scripture necessary, as they generally confess, when it had been convenient that there had been no Scripture, upon this consideration? And how should they prove the Authority of the Church without Scripture? Well, but take his words in their ordinary sense, and what kind of argument will this be. Even now when we have Scripture and Traditions; therefore now Traditions are now as necessary or more than when there was no Scripture? Nay they will seem to be less necessary, when notwithstanding them, we have more divisions. How then shall these divisions be remedied? It may be by more traditions. What? New traditions? oppositum in apposito.  
But in the next words he speaks out All (divisions) commonly caused by misinterpretation of the Scriptures, to which inconvenience they were not subject, before all Scripture was written. And therefore in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scriptures, a greater necessity than ever of Traditions. Ans. So then, he hath now commented upon the former words, and his sense is plain that had we not had Scripture we should have had less need of Traditions. First, we had thought the Learned men of their Church had devised Traditions, not because we had Scripture, but because Scripture was wanting in the matter of necessary doctrine. And so he himself tells us presently after, that since part of the Canon is lost, we must say there is use of Traditions. And yet now we have more need of Traditions, because Scripture is written. But, it may be, he will say there is more need of Traditions to clear the interpretations of Scripture. Yea, but then he should mean by Traditions Traditive interpretations of Scripture, as they are called. But are not these lost too? For who is there can give us any account of them? And as for other Traditions we are never a whit the better he hath told us before; since notwithstanding we have them, we have a perpetual succession of horrible divisions opening still wider & wider. Let them remember that of N●lus, to accuse Scripture is to accuse God. 2. Are the divisions necessary in points necessary? If he means so, it is flatly denied. If in other points, it is not to the question principal. 3. A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: if we be bound to Tradition, as such; we are bound to all; and yet all Traditions they have not kept. 4. Traditions do not lessen divisions about interpretation of Scripture: for one division is whether Traditions have any ground in Scripture. And he may know that he hath named Texts to this purpose, and because there are differences about Traditions, therefore, by his argument, we should not be ruled by them; as indeed they do not order themselves by them. They keep Tradition in the controversy for the use of the Church; not in practice, as he said, Antiquitatem semper crepant, novi indies vivunt: and we must let go the Scripture in controversy and practice for the use of Tradition and the Church, they and their Fathers have troubled the waters of Scripture for the chief Fisher. Let them let their Traditions alone: and they will see their discourse is a non causa.  
Then he repeats importunately the uses of Traditions, but not my refutation. And he speaks of Traditions of such matter as we have in Scripture: which is beside the mark, we are about Traditions in their sense of that matter which is not in Scripture equally to be believed to Scripture, which should prove the insufficiency of Scripture, and the necessity of them. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And therefore much he says to this purpose is like the drift of snow, which makes an heap, but will not bear one up from sinking in it, Yet I must note his wit in that he says, that God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of nature, if the former Traditions of the Church should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect, when they were strengthened by so great an Authority as that of the sacred writers was. How little in this is there of a sober soul; As if the matter of Tradition was written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to confirm the authority of delivering it by oral Tradition. Doth it not appear in Eccles. History that the matter of the New Testament, was written that it might be more certain and firm in the minds of men? It seems then that the loser way by Tradition was not so sure and standing— litera scripta manet. Secondly, If there be so great an Authority of the sacred writers, surely we may make more use of what they wrote to confirm Traditions. Adeone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt; as he said, that the Authority of the sacred writers should be employed as it were only to serve Tradition. Thirdly, The Authority of the sacred Writers did rather confirm the truth of them than the use, for why were they written, if Traditions were necessary after they were written, as such? Therefore fourthly, He concludes but sufficiency of them in order to the effect: but this is not effectual to his purpose. If he did conclude necessity of them after the writing, this would be somewhat: but then there would be more in the conclusion than is in the premises, and yet surely all were nothing to the state of the question; because we make no question of such Traditions. Again he pleadeth loss of the Canon, upon which he thinks, Tradition should revive. Ans. That we have spoken of sufficiently before; that the supposal doth not infer insufficiency of the Canon, and therefore doth not infer necessity of Traditional matter beside what is written. And also, is there yet (notwithstanding the loss of some part of Scripture) enough remaining to confirm Traditions? yes, they will say. Then God it seems hath taken more care for Traditions than Salvation: there is enough for Traditions yet in Scripture; not for Salvation. Well but again, there is enough in Scripture to confirm all Traditions, is there not? If there be, than there is enough for Salvation, or else there was not enough in Traditions: Because they will say Scripture hath confirmed all Traditions; to the Jew namely. And then, if there was enough to the Jew for Salvation in the Old Testament, which was adequate to Tradition; then much more have we enough for Salvation by the New Testament: and therefore is there no need of any Tradition beside the Canon.  
Then he returns to an enarration of the use of Traditions even after writing; which is of no use to them, but to us; because here he produceth several Texts for Traditions in the same notion; as 2. Thes. 2. Gal. 1.8. Tim. 2.2, 2. and herein he prevaricates in his own cause: For if these Texts be meant of such Traditions which were afterwards written in the matter of them, they are so understood as we would have them to be understood; and they are not pertinent to the question about Traditions beside Scripture, in the matter of them. Secondly, Whereas he speaks that these Texts confirm the certainty of Traditions; we grant it; namely of those Traditions which were afterwards written: but how do these Texts confirm the certain necessity of those that are not written And therefore thirdly, He is mightily disappointed if he conceives those Texts should bind us to stand upon Traditions now more than ever; for the formality of Tradition was there sunk in the writing; and the matter of Tradition was the same with that which was written, in his own confession, unless he drives the Texts Heterogeneously to his own words.  
And he impingeth upon the same stone again, What wise man would put ●ut one light, costing him nothing, because it will be shining of its own nature (unless you will needs have i● hidden) because he hath now another light, but so, that even with both those lights many of his household will still remain i● darkness. Ans. He supposeth a light added to a light. It is well then that Scripture is assured to be one light, but his Tradition should be compared to a light when there is no other light, namely when the Scripture is defective. Secondly, If he thinks Tradition is a light costing us nothing, he may be deceived; for it will cost a great deal of Scrutiny, since we cannot see it shining of its own nature infallibly. And thirdly, If some be still in darknese with both those lights, then surely they may be more in darkness with but one, and that is Tradition; therefore they should allow the people the light of the Scripture, since both too little, as he says, to some. But fourthly, What if one light put out the other in the true state of the question; namely Scripture Tradition superadded in matter? And what wise man will light a straw candle, in the Father's expression, when the Sun shines? the Sun-light of Scripture puts out the straw-light of Traditions, condemning those who teach for Doctrines Traditions of men; which the Romanist does in some proportion. And fifthly, what wise man would have such a light which serves his turn best when it shines least: for Traditions, if we believe our Adversaries, are a covered dish, dainties, to be kept private for those who are fit to receive them; the more wise and perfect men which may teach them to others. The mystery of Salvation, that is made common by writing: but the mystery of Tradition is put under a bushel. The mystery of the Trinity is delivered in Scripture; but the mystery of the Trent Traditions must not be familiarly known. So then, say they what they will or can, we shall sooner find an extinguisher for the light of the rush candle, than they for the light of the Sun.  
But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us, we should have had a more certain Tradition given us. So he delivers my words; which were not so, but thus, If Scripture had not been left to us, we should have had Tradition more certainly conveyed to us, as the Gospel was before it was written. Now some difference there is betwixt given us, and left us; for that which is left to us is intended for our constant use, which that which is given doth not connotate. So some Pontificians will say, the Scripture was given upon particular occasion: but was not left to the Church as a fixed universal rule. But there is yet more betwixt us about my words, we should have had Tradition more certainly conveyed to us; so I said: he reports me thus, we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us. A more certain Tradition given, and a Tradition more certainly conveyed, are not altogether the same, the former supposeth the matter of Tradition as not certain; and this we can deny as to those times when there was no Scripture, as written; the other speaks de modo tradendi, which comes closer to our question. For we can persuade ourselves that God who is graciously provident for his Church, wherein he hath placed his Name, would have taken care that if there had not been a certain direction in writing, the matter of necessary Doctrine and practice should have been more certainly communicated to us.  
So then he thrives very little by compare of the Christian Church with the Jewish, although the Christian Church be more noble. For first the compare must be of the Jewish with the whole Christian Church, because the Jewish Church (Proselyts being included therein, namely Proselyts of the Covenant, as they were distinguished) was all the Church there was. And secondly, Because no part of the whole Church can compare with the Jewish Church as to privileges: and then by this reckoning how little of Nobility will fall to their share? Thirdly, As the Tradition (which was it whereby the matter of Scripture was proposed) was for the time necessary before the matter of Scripture was written: so also must the Tradition of the Christian Church be considered as in relation to the time before which the matter of the New Testament was written, therefore he should have pleaded, if he would have it done patly, that there was any Tradition of Faith after the Old Law was written, beside what was written, which was to be believed unto Salvation equally to what was written; and then have drawn down a parallel Line of proportion of the same (though he would have more nobility) for the Christian Church. Thirdly, If the nobleness of a Church be antecedent to more certain Tradition, as he thinks, then how happened it that there was so little a time betwixt the preaching of the Gospel and the writing of it? It seems then, if God provides for Churches according to the nobleness of them, that the better provision for the Church is by Scripture. The Christian then hath a more certain way of Faith than by Tradition.  
And as for means of securing Tradition in the Christian Church, which he compares with the Jewish in, he hath no cause to brag. For first, they cannot say or prove that they have all Traditions in number formal and material. Secondly, They do not practise all. How many are there which St. Basil speaks of in his Tract. de Sp. Sanct. which they observe not. Thirdly, The safety of them is in the whole Church; and yet forsooth every one must not know them. Fourthly, If so, then have they reason to blush that they have been more careful to keep Tradition than Scripture, and particularly of the Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew, and is this for their credit? Fifthly. Are the Scriptures preserved uncorrupt or not? If not, how have they been faithful, as before. If so, then why do their learned men obtrude the Authentiqueness of their Latin upon this account, that when this Edition was made, the Scriptures were pure and uncorrupted, but corrupted since?  
Again the Tradition of Christ's Primitive Church before the Scripture was written and sufficiently promulged, was to be believed upon her sole Authority. Ans. If he takes that Tradition inclusively to the Apostles who preached that which they did write afterwards, and take Tradition for the matter of what was written, we grant it; if but he takes tradition of the primitive Church to be that which was derived to after times, and was not written, we deny it to be believed upon her sole Authority. In the former sense it is true, but not pertinent; in the latter, pertinent, but not true. And indeed this was the notion of Traditions for the first times, namely to be that s●●●●e of doctrine which did comprehend the materials of faith, 〈◊〉 to be any thing different from Scripture, or divers (〈…〉 first of the Gal. 8. doth not signify contra but prae●●●) from Scripture. So he will find Irenaeus to mean it. And so St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 5. Cat. 117. p, of the gr. last Ed. makes it to be upon account no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the System out of the Holy Scriptures about every of those things contained. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for things of faith were not composed as it pleased men, but the most pertinent things being gathered out of all Scripture do make up the doctrine of faith. And again as the seed of mustard in a little grain doth contain many branches: so faith itself in few words doth comprehend the knowledge of piety that is in the old and new Testament. And what follows but that text which he (my adversary named) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, see therefore Brethren and hold the Traditions. So than if he takes Tradition in the first sense, the Church was infallible therein, by the Apostles: if in the second, the Tradition was infallibly Scripture: and the Church believed it upon that account. And that Traditions did not bind either in their own virtue, or without Scripture, they may see in St. Basil, who yet speaks much for them. So in the seventh ch. of the Holy Ghost, where speaking of the controversy whethre they were to say of the Son of God with whom or by whom, he hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. this is not sufficient to us that it is a Tradition of the Fathers: for even they did follow the will of Scripture, having taken principles out of testimonies, which a little before we proposed to you out of Scripture. God therefore said by his Apostles that the Traditions than were infallible, (being in matter the same with what they wrote) for their Authority. Now if God said this, shall we upon his fallible discourse (for even Councils are fallible in their discourse) come to say the Church's Traditions are further infallible than agreeable to his word, though God never said so, and never yet expressed any such infallibility of the Church? And thus I return him his own words mutatis mutandis: And so my Argument out of Irenaeus is not yet refuted.  
Neither doth he take away my use of Irenaeus testimony in the next paragr. For as to my Argument what he says is not appliable. It was thus out of his Authority, If the Scripture had not been left to us, we should have had Tradition more certainly conveyed to us as the Gospel was before it was written; but the Scripture is now left to us; therefore no need of certain conveyance of tradition to us.  
This Syllogism he makes no offer of answer to: for that which he says in a Parenthesis, (though you cannot invent the means, by which Tradition should have been conveyed more certainly, supposing there had been no Scripture) I can receive without prejudice to my Argument: for whatsoever Hypothetically should have been done, had not there been Scripture; yet now, since we have Scripture, we have no such need of; we now dispute upon the fact, not against the supposition. Therefore from the dint of the ratiocination he digresseth to an observation of disrespect in me to St. Irenaeus, because I said, Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely only upon Tradition. Ans. He is in this deceived. To assent to Tradition in the matter of it, and not to assent to the matter upon the sole Authority of Tradition, are not such opposites as he imagines; for they may well agree. Therefore though the Father said, they did assent to Tradition as to the matter; yet not by Tradition, as the manner. Tradition was the objectum materiale, not the objectum formale of their Faith. And the next words as he also perhibits the Father's words, do defend my answer, having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost. So then they were assured of the Doctrine of Salvation by the Holy Ghost: then they did not believe that Tradition upon the sole Authority of the Church. So this contradicts my Adversary, and makes for me; not only by consequence because it is against him; but directly: for than we can as well be assured of Scripture by the Holy Ghost; & have no such need then of the authority of the Church, as to salvation, though the church were infallible, which is one of the things to be proved, and cannot. And yet besides, this tradition in the sense of the Father, was in the matter of it, Scripture; and therefore hath no consanguinity with the true state of the question. So then we may conclude in the negative, they did not rely upon, or believe upon the sole account of that very tradition, & yet, if they had, it would not conclude against our cause, because that tradition is not the same with what belongs to the question.  
To be civil to an Adversary in this number, 
N. 14.  all the sense of it may be resolved into this discourse, If the radition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for God's Word, that which she delivereth for God's word, be to be believed, than she is to be believed as proposing that to be God's Word, which is not written. Ans. This hath been abundantly agitated before, with our indemnity to the Plaintiff: but since he repeats, I do not. And we answer, First, the consequence is not clear, especially if we extend it to that which is not grounded in Scripture, if he understands it of that which is grounded in Scripture, it is not proper to the question. As to that which is not grounded in Scripture, we may still deny the major. Tradition (universal) of the Church may be worthy of assent as to the truth of Scripture to be the Word of God, and not so of that which is delivered beside Scripture: which also is held by others against them, and the reason is not yet disproved; because there was more necessity of the Faith of Scripture than that which is delivered beside Scripture, and therefore may we well suppose a greater assistance to the proposing of Scripture than any thing divers. Deus non deficit in necessariis. Why do they assert infallible assistance to General Councils, not to private Doctors, or to a National Council? Namely, because others are to be directed by the General Councils; well then the Church universal might be more assisted for the proposing of Scripture than for any thing else. But then I deny the minor, the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility is not worthy of an infallible assent: It may be worthy of the highest degree of moral assurance, yet not of an i●fal ible assent. No Authority can write, as to Conscience, what a king writes as to civil credit, teste me ipso, but that which is immediately divine. And why then do the Pontificians prove the Authority of the Church by Scripture. The Church without Scripture is not yet Christened, if we take Scripture for the substance of the matter, it will be but the highest form of Heathens. And therefore the Scripture is to be believed antecedently to the Church. And how little his examples have proved the minor, we have seen: even as much as he had cause to conclude against me out of my own words thus, Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal Authority to Scripture. The Traditions we stand upon be matters of Faith truly once delivered by our Saviour or his Apostles, though the Revelation were not written by them, therefore this is of equal Authority to Scripture even according to your own words. Surely it is easier to answer this than to forbear the Person. The proposition was not my words, I hope, categorically spoken, but as being the state of the question; if those Traditions be in the matter beside Scripture. And now he takes this to be my affirmation simply. And then we deny his minor too, because that which they stand upon is not matter of Faith, as being not revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles, or truly delivered by either; for they are uncertain by which. And if they will urge that Text St. john the 16.22. as Bellarmin does, they may think that many things might be written afterwards, or were not points of Faith. And this Text heretics have urged: and therefore by my Adversaries Logic, he should not. And did St. Austin think that any could soberly say that the points of difference were of that number? Or did any of the Saints in Heaven see what they were, in speculo Trinitatis, and did send down word thereof?  
As for his defence of the exception which he took against the Scriptures being a sufficient rule to us, 
N. 15.  because neither the Apostles nor their Successors took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as all or the greater part of them could understand; my answer is yet good, the care was taken, in that the new Testament was written in Greek, which was a common language then. And this I gave an Argument of, in that the Grecian is contradistinguished to the Jew in the New Testament. And therefore the Greek must be the greatest and most famous part; and therefore the language common: this proof he is not pleased to meddle with at all. Another proof that that was the common Language was that of Tully for Archias the Poet, Graeca per totum orbem leguntur. This he takes notice of. And he says, and so is Virgil in Latin. But this doth not contradict me; yea, he gives me a corroboration of my Argument: for whom did Virgil imitate? Theocritus in his Eglogues, Hesiod in his Georgics, Homer in his Aeneids. Yea Horace had read the Greeks, it seems by his Grecisms. Yea Terence was so conversant in Menander that he was called Menander dimidiatus.  
But he says, This is to be understood thus, that the most learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. Ans. This (supposed) is not exclusive to the Greeks, being the common Language; as to others; since he will think the Latin was common to the people then, and yet the most learned read Virgil. And did not all those Nations whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles to, understand Greek? Did he write only to the most learned? In what Language was the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (for the Roman Church confesseth that this Epistle also was written by St. Paul) written? were they not both written in Greek? yea the Jews that used the Septuagint Translation, were many. So Philo the Jew; and Marcus Antonius, the Roman, wrote in Greek. And therefore that which was spoken by the Orator was spoken without any such Hyperbole.  
He says yet further, either this must be spoken in way of a notable amplification, or Scripture must be denied, because even between the two Cities of Antioch and Constantinople, the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia minor, Phrygia, Pamphilia; all which Nations the Scripture (Act. 2.) testifieth to have had different Languages. Ans. Though the Scripture speaks of them as distinguished in speech, yet not in Language, but dialect; and so it is expressed ver. 6.8. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be restrained as to those who had several dialects: therefore whereas he says the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus etc. If he means that the common Dialect of the Greek was not used by them all, this is not much to be stood upon, because it is not reasonable to say that those who spoke several Dialects did not understand the common Greek; for take them all, Attic, Jonique, Dorique, Aeolique, and Baeotique, they differ ordinarily but in terminations or pronunciation from the common.  
Within that compass is also Galatia which St. Jerom testifieth to have had a language somewhat like those of Trevers. An. It is as fare from Thebes to Athens as from Athens to Thebes is it not? Then that of Trevers must be as near that of greek as that of the Galatians which was greek, in St. Paul's time. If afterwards the language altered or was corrupted, this doth not contradict us because we must distinguish times. And therefore yet it remains good, that the greek was understood of the greater part of the world; and therefore the Apostles took care to have the knowledge of the Gospel to be commonly understood. And if they had not, God did miraculously by the gift of the Holy Ghost, sub forma visibili in the second of the Acts, in the gift of tongues. And this concludes against their Latin service: as also St. Paul discourseth and concludeth against it in the first Ep. Cor. 14. And though we cannot tell the time, when the Scripture can first be showed to have been thus communicated to the people of several languages, what is this to the purpose? If it had not been done afterwards, it is enough to us that the Apostles did write in the most common language for those times. And if it had not been done, it should have been done. But that it was done, appears seasonably in the great Bible. Neither can they tell us, or will, when the vulgar Latin began first to be Authentic; whether under Sixtus Quintus, or Clement the eighth.  
In the beginning he tells me that I moved a question how the people should clearly know the true Tradition from the false. Ans. I did move this question: but somewhat else was annexed, which he says nothing to. Well to this he now answers, first, they could know this better than know true Scripture from false, for they could not do that but by knowing first the true Tradition, recommending the true Scripture, from the false tradition recommending the false. Ans. First this hath been often denied him that the ultimate resolution of faith in the true Scripture: is not Tradition: this may lead us to the gate of the Temple, but this does not open the door of faith. 2. That Tradition which makes an inducement is of the universal, not Roman Church. 3. How shall we know true tradition but by the true Church? How shall we know the true Church but by Scripture; therefore we must know the true tradition from the false by the Scripture; which contradicts his method.  
And he says, they (could do this as well (or better) than their forefather's for many hundred of years, yea for two thousand, yea for twice two thousand years together. Answ. First they see then their error in defining Faith so strictly to be an infallible assent: since they here stand upon a comparative certainty (if so) which amounts not to the consistence of faith. Secondly. He supposeth that which is not to be supposed, that their forefathers were determined in their faith of the word of God by Tradition. Even now, or a little before, he said Tradition was established to the Jew by Scripture: Now Tradition is that which must discern and consequently establish Scripture. 3. It appears that as Scripture is more perfect than Tradition; because otherwise God had gone the worst way, namely from that which is more perfect to that which is less perfect, namely from Tradition to the writing of his word, but that which is less perfect cannot establish that which is more perfect. Therefore neither then, nor now could Scripture receive the blessing of establishment from that which is inferior 4. In the times of the law there was no other Church to vie with the Jews about Traditions: And therefore they might be more certain of true Traditions: But now there are several national Churches, which may pretend superiority of tradition, or tradition of superiority as the Roman doth: and therefore it is not so sure a way to fix our last foot upon Tradition. 5. Universal Tradition of all times and places (which only weighs in this cause) is not in other things for them, nor in that canon supernumerary of theirs; and therefore let them either retract the argument, or take it. Yet he will be confident of two Traditions, whereof the efficacy is commended with perpetual profession and answerable practice daily occurring, Baptism of Infants, and prayer for the faithful eparted. The first of these we have abundantly examined before: and he does here most insist upon the latter, assigning also his reason of more practice of this last. Because they baptise Infants but once, but they pray ●ften for the same man who is dead. And then being more practised, it is more confirmed; which Cressie also urgeth. Ans. As for Paedobaptism here, he doth not prove it to be a Tradition, unless this be a true proposition, that whatsoever is commended with perpetual profession and answerable practice daily accurring, is only delivered by Tradition. Tradition is such: but all that is such, is not Tradition. Therefore that proposition denied. And for what he says towards both before, that the Apostles did only by unwritten Tradition clearly and undeniably teach the baptising of Children, and prayer for the faithful departed: it is not clear that it is undeniable; and therefore clearly and undeniably it is denied. Baptism of Infants hath not yet lost sufficient ground in Scripture to keep it from a necessity of being named Tradition, as he should have showed. And as to the other, prayer for the dead, we answer, first, it seems then it is but a Tradition, and they will pradon us if we speak thus diminutively of it. And whether this will please all the Roman Doctors, that it should have no footing in Scripture, let it be none of our care 2. For the object of persons whom they prayed for, question would be made, what morally, they were, who were to be prayed for; but this he tells us; he says they were the faithful. Well, but all the faithful, I suppose. It may be they will say, yes. If not; let them give us a reason of their distinction, according to Tradition. If so, then prayer for the dead doth not infer purgatory, which they intent in the prayer for the dead. And the reason of the consequence is proved, because prayer was made for all the faithful; and some of them went up to Heaven per saltum, as they will also confess, namely Apostles and Martyrs; and yet these were also prayed for in order to a joyful resurrection. And indeed the ancient prayers for the dead did respect their bodies in the grave to be raised up at the resurrection, not their souls to be raised out of Purgatory after a plenary satisfaction. And what means St. Austin in Tract. In johannem 49. unus quisque cum causa sua dormiet, & cum causâ suâ resurget. And some of their own have lately in this differed from them. Neither had the Roman Church with their infallibility persuaded the Greek Church hereof, in Nilus' time, who hath a learned discourse against it. And thirdly, as for Inscriptions upon the Graves (whereby he would make a prescription for the tradition) we say two things. First that we must have them to be showed to be so ancient as to have been universally used in the Primitive times, and then secondly, that they were used upon the Roman account. And as for Aerius, who (only) as he says denied praying for the dead, to be accounted for this his opinion an Heretic by St. Austin and St. Epiphanius, they must somewhat excuse us: for this absolutely is not right for their turn, if true. First not right for their use, because he might deny prayers and oblations for the dead in the former respect, namely for a joyful resurrection; and this comes not up to the state of the point wherein we differ, namely whether prayer for the dead was a tradition in their sense, as inferring Purgatory. But 2. Neither is it absolutely true that Aerius was accounted an Heretic for this opinion, exclusively to other opinions of his, as my Adversaries words import. However he meant them, I will pinch it, Either he means for this opinion only, or for this opinion with other opinions. If for this opinion concurrently with others, this derogates from the common sense of his words and from his use too: because if he was accounted an heretic for several opinions, it may be some of them were not heretical opinions; and than it cannot be said that he was for every of them accounted an heretic; unless we could make some to be heresies, which are not heresies; and this would be a contradiction. Well then, I take him to mean that Aerius was accounted an heretic for this his opinion exclusively to other opinions in a negative precision; and then I say it is not true. And to bring it to the test, one of his Authors shall be mine, St. Austin in his Catalogue of heresies N. 53. He tells us of Philaster that he had made an enumeration of heresies; and after him, more perfectly Epiphanius: and he came after them, and he gives us an account of the Arrians from Aerius: and several things he does say of him, that he was sorry that he was not a Bishop; and that having fallen in Arrianorum heresin (into the heresy of the Arrians) he added also some proper opinions, saying that we" ought not to pray or offer oblations for the dead; and that set fasts were not solemnly to be observed; and also that a Presbyter ought not to be by any difference distinguished from a Bishop. And some said of him that they were also Eneratites, and Apotactites. So then, the result hereof is this; if he could not say Aerius was accounted an heretic, only, for this. Nay St. Austin doth contradistinguish here heresy to proper opinions. So he might be an heretic and not for proper opinions, because he had fallen into the heresy of the Arrians; yea and some account him an heretic for not distinguishing betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter; therefore though his proper opinions were in the judgement of St. Austin, heretical, yet can it not be said that he was accounted an heretic only for denying prayers for the dead: which was to be showed by me. And if for this opinion disjunctively, yet not for denying prayer for the dead in his sense; which was to be showed by him. And therefore upon the whole matter, we cannot submit to Tradition as infallible: because this Tradition, in the Roman sense, bears false witness of its self: nor to the Church, if it fallibly pretends infallible Tradition. Neither can prudent reason make infallible assent; unless the conclusions could be better than their premises. Prudent reason were more apt to make Science; which they have no cause to be inclinable to neither: because it is more opposite to their implicit Faith.  
And he hath no cause therefore to say, How many true Believers commended in Scripture cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed? Ans. All the reason of Faith which can be given, if we take Faith in the acception of an infallible assent, must be grounded upon infallible principles: if any believed upon other account, it was not properly Faith; and therefore it cannot be said in propriety of the notion (which the Romanist also stands upon) that they believed. Secondly, If he takes Faith in a loser sense for an assent upon humane Authority, this is not to the question; and we can allow Tradition its influence hereunto. Thirdly, If he means that they could not give a more prudent reason for what they believed, as to others that should ask them a reason of their Faith; this we can yield as to universal Tradition, that by the inartificial Argument of Authority we can give no more prudent reason than by Tradition. But this doth not hit the question, whether the testimony private of the Spirit of God makes not a better assurance of Faith to ourselves, though this is not demonstrable to others, that we have this assurance by the Spirit of God. Therefore fourthly, This will not do the business, unless what he says, he proves from Scripture. We have urged the contrary in the example of the Beraeans and the term [believing] in Scripture is not seldom taken not of an internal act of Faith subjective, but an external profession of faith objective. And so Simon Magus is said to have believed. Here he gives us occasion to wish he had done so before as he does here, in putting his sense into some form, thus; Faith being an infallible assent, controversies concerning Faith cannot be determined so as to end them effectually, but by an infallible living judge who can hear you & me, & be heard by you & me: but no other than the Church can (with any ground) be held to be this living Judge, therefore she must be held to be the Judge. Ans. First to the major, and we say that it begs the question in two Suppositions; First, That there is a necessity of controversies in points of Salvation. And secondly that it is necessary to Salvation, that all controversies (though not in points of Salvation) should infallibly be determined: When these two suppositions are sufficiently made good, we shall grant him the major; and yet then also that infallible Judge is yet bound to judge by law of Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And then as to the minor: we say secondly, This speaks for the Church universal; which then, according to my Adversaries Principles, should always have a true Pope and a true standing General Council; or else we should think God had not provided for his Church ad semper. Now if it be said some controversies may arise which are not so necessary to be decided in order to Salvation, than he destroys his major, which goes in part upon that Supposition; and so in this he is one of us. Therefore thirdly, We can retort his Argument, mutatis mutandis; Faith being an infallible assent requires an infallible Authority. But the Church is not yet proved to have an infallible Authority; therefore it must be the Scripture. Fifthly, If he means his infallible Living Judge of the Roman Church, we deny that this Judge will explicate all doubts: for how hath it ended all controversies in the Trent Council? Indeed that Council hath made more, about the sense of ambiguous definitions: and therefore though his major proposition were true de posse (which yet we deny upon the former considerations) yet we were to seek de velle: and then should we be never a whit the nearer.  
And as touching that Text (whereby he would prove that the Bible cannot end all controversies, because it cannot end the controversy about it with the Arrians) these three are one. We say first, in ingenuity, he needed not to have taken notice of it. Secondly, We should not by right have disputed the subject of the question, whether this or that be Scripture or not: Our dispute is about the predicates of scripture. Thirdly, the Arrians were sufficiently condemned by another Text, as before: and therefore there is no such necessity of the question. Fourthly, We rather believe the Church than the Arrian herein: But let it be put to the pinch; and there were more Faith required in it than the matter afforded; can the Church determine it by her own Authority infallibly? It not, why doth he raise the dust? If it can, why is it not formally done? Therefore either this Text hath not given necessary occasion to an infallible Judge: or the infallible Judge hath deceived us in not taking the occasion.  
And therefore to put his other discourse into a shorter and better form; thus, whatsoever requires infallible assent must have an infallible Authority. Diverss points not proposed clearly in Scripture, the Church requires an infallible assent to, therefore she must have infallible Authority; we answer, granting the major; (which yet they have no reason to urge unless they had more firm Principles) that the assumption may be true de facto, but not the jure. And then again, It is yet denied that ever the Church Universal did ever exact this. As to the right hereof, she must prove her infallibility and Authority too hereunto; as to the fact, it must be proved by our Adversaries. Therefore since I am respondent, I may conclude thus, Things necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture: those points are not plainly, set down in Scripture, says he, therefore I conclude, they are not necessary.  
Here he makes a return to my Argument against him, 
N. 18.  that if that must be Judge which can hear him and me, and be heard by him and me; then Tradition is thus excluded from being the Judge: here he distinguisheth, It is the Church who proposeth these Traditions, and not the Traditions, which are our judge. Ans. This is easily taken away, for according to their Principles, Tradition must be Judge of the Church: If their former Argument be good that we must not ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Scripture, because we do not know what is Scripture but by the Church; so also we cannot ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Church, because we cannot tell which is the Church but by Tradition. And if it be Judge of the Scripture in the Canon of it, as they must say, then surely it may be Judge of the Church, because (as before) by the Father's opinion the Church must be proved by Scripture. Again by Tradition was the Faith of Christian Doctrine bred in the minds of the Barbarian Nations as we have it said before, by my Adversary: therefore Tradition must be the infallible Judge, or else they had not the same Faith which the Roman contends for, by an infallible Judge; or if they had, than there are more infallible Judges: or Faith may be had without an infallible Judge; or Traditions and the Church are all one; and then the distinction is none. And yet also this answer of his I did provide for before in these words, but you say the Church doth determine hereby (by Tradition) then may it determine by Scripture more securely and more universally. And to this he replies nothing: but holds the conclusion.  
From hence he skips to answer me about that which I opposed to his Judge exclusively to any other, I urged that of St. Paul that an heretic is condemned by himself: namely, (as I discoursed) by the Law of God within him by virtue of Conscience, which can and does, and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemnation of error in us etc. To this he says, he is not an heretic but an infidel, who is told by his own Conscience that he gainsayeth the Scripture. Ans. First, Then the Scriptures are so clearly the Word of God that an Infidel may be told thereof by his own Conscience. If not so, than his words have no sense: If so, then may we see the Scripture to be the Word of God by its own light, as the Heathens did the Law of nature; and then he contradicts his own former discourse. Secondly, Saint Paul speaks not of an Infidel, but (in terminis terminantibus) of an heretic, who supposeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God; though by consequence he denies it in Hypothesie, as to the point of heresy. So that the Text cannot be so put off. And though every Christian is readier to die than to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture; yet the heretic who supposeth the Scripture in Thesi and in general, may yet deny it in the application against him; and for this he is to be rejected, because he goeth against his own Principles of Scripture, which do condemn his heresy in his own conscience, though outwardly he opposeth. And he helps his cause no better with another shift, When St. Paul wrote those words, the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written; and until the whole Canon was written, your own Doctors grant the Church to have been the infallible judge of controversies. Ans. If he takes [whole] so as to be understood in order to the Canon, I grant that the whole Canon was not then written: but if he takes it in opposition to a sufficient direction by what was then written, I deny it; there was then as much written as was simply necessary to Salvation: for how could St. Paul otherwise say to Tim. That the Scriptures than were able to make him wise unto Salvation? thus I distinguish of the former part: but then 2. the latter I do deny, that our awn Doctors do say that the Church was the infallible Judge of controversies, until the whole Canon of the Scriptures was written: for then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Pharises had been infallible. No; the word of God was infallible when it was not written, but not the Church. Therefore he mistakes the purport of finishing the Canon, which was not ever held by us to cease the infallibility of the Church, but to accomplish the matter of Scripture; and so it doth exclude verbum non Scriptum. Infallibility of the Church was never held: but the Canon of Scripture was always sufficient, providing always that the Church in this consideration be meant contradistinctly to the writers of Scripture.  
Neither needs he to wonder at my saying that the Church then was not sufficiently form thereunto; namely to a definition of what was to be held therein. To this he says, the Church was form before Saint Paul's conversion, and before his conversion the number of Desciples was multiplied. Ans. The term [Church] is very ambiguous. He takes it here of the Church virtual, or of the Church representative, or of the Church diffusive. The Church virtual, which the jesuits say is the Pope, was not yet form. The Church Representative as they say in a Council confirmed by the Pope, was not yet form. There was no council General till after three hundred years; nor Pope so soon, in their sense. A Church diffusive there was: but this serves not his turn: for we must speak of such a Church form so, that the heretic should be condemned for contradicting the definition of the Church. Now the definition of the Church according to my Adversary, is by the Church Representative, and this was not then form Then again, to take his own words; either the Church was not then form most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith; or it was. Let them now say which they will. Then no necessity of Pope and Council, yea no necessity of Pope or Council. If it was not completely form, than my former answer obtains. And besides if he had been condemned by himself because by the Church, than had he been condemned by himself extrinsecally to himself; or he and the Church must have been all one: therefore whether he had the doctrine from the Church, or immediately from any one of the Apostles; yet was he condemned by that doctrine as being impressed upon his own Conscience. So that I have as much as I can desire by this discourse, namely that, is possible for us to be Judged and condemned within ourselves of Heresy, without an external Judge: which then was not fully and exactly I am sure constituted according to the mind of our Adversaries; although, in purity of doctrine, the Church was better then, then ever she was since that time.  

N. 19  In this he gins more solemnly to tell us what he means by the name of the Church, and wherein consists the power of infallibility in a Decree or definition of the Church. And first he tells us who are to be excluded from a decisive voice, Children and women and laymen and inferior Clergy, thus he proceeds first by exclusions, as they do in the choice of a Pope. And then he goes on by way of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he makes the subject of the power of this Decree to be the prime pastors & Praelats of the Church, assembled together in a lawful General Council with their Chief Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome. This the progress of this Paragraph. Well, but our question is of the predicate, whether the Church thus constituted is infallible in its Decrees, and therefore since he here hath no argument, he hath bound us not to have an answer. And yet may we note, that if he means the formation of a Church to be thus, we can more clearly contradict him in what he said formerly, that the Church was form before St. Paul's conversion. It was not so form. And yet 2. We may as well dispute here the subject of the question [whether the Church thus form is infallible in its decrees] as he disputes the an sit of Scripture, when we were upon the predicate whether the Scripture be sufficient to Salvation. And surely I may do this legally, because I am a respondent; and I may do it also more boldly, because I know they cannot make good the predicate, that this Church is (thus form) infallible in its Decres. And as to his exclusions then we could confront him with the opinion of Alphonsus de Castro, who would have had a chapter against him for his exclusions: since he makes the acceptation of the diffused Church to be necessary to inerrability. And as to the Chief Pastor and Head, he speaks it cum privilegio surely, as if not only what the Pope said was not to be questioned, but also what is said of him. They will never prove that there ever was to be any such Chief Pastor and Head of the Church universal, dejure nor can they ever prove that there was the facto, any one so called, till Boniface the third; who had the Title granted him by Phocas. But non fuit sic ab initio. And the rule is good, Errores ad sua principia reducere est refellere. And therefore either the Church was not always infallible, or was infallible without Councils, because for above three hundred years was no General Council; and therefore why doth he urge the necessity of Councils unto infallibility? And when there was Councils afterwards till Trent Council inclusively either the Councils were fallible with a Pope, or might be infallible without him; because till Boniface the third there was no such Pope as Head, or Head as Pope. And therefore why do they urge the necessity of a Pope for their infallibility? This he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in before: and now should have been proved; since he knew that this is not granted on both sides, as the Scripture is to be the Word of God.  
And he that is a seeker of his religion will never find the Pope to be in the Church, as a King in his kingdom; who is no part of the representative properly. And if he would have the Pope no more than part of the Representative, he should be no more Head of the Church than as a Speaker in an Assembly. And how should he be then the Church virtual, as the high Romanists doth speak of him? And therefore the Pope in the time of the Trent Council would not suffer that title of the Council to proceed, that it should be called the Representative, because though he and his Courtiers esteemed him the Head of the Church (and so should have been superior to the body of the Church) yet he conceived that they intended to take him in confusely in the Representative, and so to exclude his Head-ship. But secondly, He than allows a man to be a seeker of his Religion: then he doth allow him that liberty (which he sometimes hath disputed against) namely to exercise his judgement of discretion in matters of Religion; for he would have him most prudently judge himself bound to to join her (the Church) in Faith, being convinced that she directed most securely in Faith. So this is the●r sense: they allow discretion to join with them; but not to differ. Thirdly, Should he be bound to join himself to the whole Church, or not? If to the whole, then to that part locally which most agrees with the whole in Doctrine, and discipline, and practice. But then can he not most prudently join himself to the Roman Church, because that hath gone away from the Catholic in all those particulars. And therefore we may conclude it to be our wisdom to find our direction in Faith most securely in the Scripture.  

N. 20.  This number he spends in the power of Councils: To such power I made exceptions, he would here remove them. The first about the uncertainty of the irregularity of the Pope. To this he says, he to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council, and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head, to preside, he is right; these acts do supply all defects in the election. But first, Suppose he be not a Priest. Can the Church's submission or admission of him make him a regular Pope? And this, That he is a Priest, they cannot be sure of by certainty of Faith, according to their Principles, unless they had an omniscience to know the intention of the Ordainer; and whether he was a right Bishop or not. Secondly, If so, then Cajaphas was a right High Priest, as before: and yet he erred with the Council. Therefore a Pope with the Council may err. Caiaphas' was submitted to, was admitted by the assembly of the Jews: but this before.  
And as to that he says, put the case of a Pope defining with a lawful Council, and then prove him fallible, if you can. We answer, First it seems then he would not stand to the maintaining of a Pope's infallibility without a Council. And so then he and the Jesuits must differ in the point of infallible direction. Secondly, If the Pope be not infallible without a Council, then is it not infallible in a Council. What will they here say, Is he infallible without a Council, as the Jesuits say; or with a Council only. If not without, than not with. My reason is this: because without the infallibility of the Pope, we are not sure of the legality of the Council. For though we suppose an assistance of the Spirit of God to Councils: yet can we not be assured whether to such a Council in particular; this is yet a question; because we cannot tell whether it be a right General Council or not; not by certainty of Faith surely, unless the Pope be infallible in determining this to be a right General Council. Thirdly, Take the former proposition of his, He to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council, and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head, so as to preside, he is right. Thus he in effect and terms most what; and then we make an assumption to it. This was in the four General Councils; The Christian Emperor, he did call them; he did preside in them, therefore where is his conclusion? Fourthly, General Councils are fallible though they do not err: It is possible that they may err, and therefore are they fallible. Well but more, The Trent Council did err, the Trent Council was a General Council, according to them; therefore the major is proved already: they erred in the Latin Bible: they erred in half Communion: they erred in point of merit; which is not spoken exclusively to more.  
As for the 3. exception he refers me to Bellarmin lib. 2. the council. cap. 19 that although a Council without a Pope cannot define any article of Faith, yet in time of Schism, it can judge which is true Pope. Ans. first, How could he say that the Church is so direct a way that fools could not err; (as before) when yet he will suppose such a time of Schism and Bellarmin too, quando nescitur quis fit verus Papa, when it is not known who is the true Pope. Well then during the time of the Schism who shall determine emergent controversies? Neither is the Council called; and what a tedious debate amongst them may there be to determine who should be next to Christ, and if the Council should be as long in calling, and as long in being as the Trent Council was (forty three years in both as some account) how many might be damned in their direct way? or else it was not so perilous for some controversies to be undetermined infallibly. Yea, but if so, then why do they so much press a necessity of a living Judge for deciding all controversies? According to the vehemency of their plea, and the necessities of the Church, the Living Judge should not only be always infallible: but this infallible Judge should be always living. But secondly, During the time of the Schism, how shall we do for the Calling of a true Council? To this he says, for this the Prelates of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves. Ans: Than the power of calling Councils is not absolutely in the Pope; but in actu primo, it is radicated in the Prelates, though bound from the second act by use of their Church unless in falling. Then a supreme Ecclesiastic Authority is not by divine institution subjected in the Successor of St. Peter. And than what becomes of their Monarchy: It seems then that Fabric is not built upon God's ground, because no practice can hold good against a divine institution. And thus the Head of the Church must shake: at least the Jesuits will shake their heads at this Doctrine. If there be an absolute necessity of a true Pope to call Councils, then that which he says is not good; if but of conveniency, than we may end the controversy, because either all controversies are not necessary to be ended, or may possibly be ended without their Head of the Church.  
In the next place he toucheth then upon my exception against infallibility quoad nos of General Councils, by reason of doubtfulness of their lawfulness upon the calling of them; since in the old time Emperors called them, not Popes. His answer now is, Your Church which never had nor shall have General Councils, is to seek in all things belonging to them, our Church in every age since Constantine, hath been visibly assembled in General Councils, etc.  
Urbem quam dicunt Romam, Melibe putavi,  
Stultus ego huic similem nostrae.—  
Therefore he does well to give us a kind check for our presumption of thinking our Church comparable with theirs. First, We do not arrogate to ourselves a power of calling General Councils: yet we may know what belongs to General Councils as well as another particular Church. And time was when Anselm had by Urban some comparable respect in the honour of being called as Pope of the other world. And secondly, As for their Church to have been visibly assembled almost in every age since Constantine's time; if he understands it as called by the Roman Authority, it is denied. And therefore what makes this for them, since their Church was not visibly assembled, as comprehending the whole, but pro rata parte, as another particular Church, In the Nicene Council their Church had no real superiority, though it had a titular priority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Nilus speaks, because that was at first the Imperial City. Thirdly, How was their Church visibly assembled in the fifth General Council, when their Head would not come to the Council upon the debate of the tria Capitula? and yet the Council is to be accounted good without the Pope, yea against him; or else the number of Councils must fail.  
What he says about Emperors is inconsiderable, It is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institutitution by which, either Emperors 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 Councils. Ans. First, We may then prove a negative out of Scripture, by his first words; and to be evident too; which yet were not good, if verbum non scriptum were good. Secondly, We by the same law prove a negative to Popes in the same tenor. Thirdly. As for Emperors, we have more for them in the proportion of Kings: for we have a promise for them that they should be nursing Fathers, and Queens nursing mothers; which surely was accomplished by the first Christian Emperor. Yea the term of Kings was then common for Emperors. Yea had not the Kings of the Jewish Church Divine Authority in matters of Relion; Circa sacra? They had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to defend it: but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rule it, they were not only Protectors of the Church, as they are called in the Trent histories, but governors, and by these were the four General Councils called; namely by the Emperors without any contradiction of Councils. Did the Nicene Council question Constantine's authority to call Councils, whether it was Divine or not? How many humble expressions and actions of respect and subjection did come from the Councils and the Fathers, which are not indeed suitable to the deportment of that Pope who trod upon the neck of Frederick the Emperor; or of him that threw the Duke of Venice under his table with the dogs? The competition then betwixt Emperors and Popes in point of Ecclesiastic authority, as to the outward part of Religion, will come to this. No institution of Popes, in their sense, by Scripture. There is under an Evangelicall promise an apopintment of kings to be nursing Fathers and of Queens to be nursing Mothers. And in triumphum, we might compare them as to the practice of the primitive times; there was calling of General Councils by Emperors; none by Popes till they usurped. Therefore Ocham to the King may end it, Tu me defend gladio, ego te defendam verbo, do you defend me with the Sword? I will defeind you with the word. This to his first answer.  
Secondly as for the Praelates of the Church we can show Divine institution, Acts 20.28. Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock; to feed or govern the Church of God. And Ephes. 4. Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the ministry etc. Ans. First I think that the adversaries living would go near to starve if they would eat nothing before they proved that feeding there should be understood of governing; as it must be, unless he spoke in a proper disjunctiveness, when he said [feed or govern] and if so he gives us leave to take it not for him, who must get out of it the sense of governing, this indeed is laboured by Bellarmin specially; and he contests much for it with Luther in his first b. de Rom. Pontif. 15. ch. Upon that which is said to St. Peter by Christ, feed my sheep. His argument is from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifies to rule: right; but it doth not follow that it should therefore signify so there upon the 21. of St. john. we may therefore confront him with a stronger argument. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is twice used there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify to rule; therefore we should rather expound the other word by these, then by itself. And as for his instance out of the second Ps. 9 ver. where he would have the Hebrew to bear the same sense, he is mistaken or worse (as I think I have noted before) for the Hebrew word there doth not at all signify to feed, but to break, it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Ben Israel's edition. And by others though it be not read with a Vau, yet there is a cholem; and Montanus renders it [conteres] thou shalt break. So then as to the former Text, Acts 20.28. It can no way be proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is to be construed to rule, which is only to their purpose. Yea Montanus, and the Translation of the Syriack, and of the Arabic, and of the , render it not by regere but by pascere. Yea 2. Suppose that the word therefore doth signify to govern, yet doth it not therefore follow that the Text should be understood of Bishops of proper name; but may be understood of simple Presbyters and without any derogation to Episcopal government; because they have a power under the Bishops to rule their particular Churches; namely their particular flocks, although they have no power over the other pastors as the Bishops have, who succeedeb the Apostles in the point of government as St. jerom speaks in his Epistle to Evagrius. 3. Suppose the verb be to be understood of ruling, and suppose that Text to mean, as some, proper Bishops (taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an higher notion) yet my Adversaries will be yet disappointed of their end by that Text, because we have found Divine institution of Kings and we cannot find in this Text an institution of Bishops to be above them in calling of Councils, and ordering the outward part of the Church. Yea 4. if that Text doth intent a power in them, by the Holy Ghost, of calling Councils, then for aught I see, the power must be primarily subjected in them and not in the Pope; and therefore he must not be the chief pastor and Head of the Church; which contradicts them: if then they intent by the Text a proof of such a Divine institution of Praelates to govern the Church as to call Councils thereby, this derogates from the Pope: And if they intent not such a power to be given to the Praelates as to call Councils; how doth this prove that the Pope is to call Councils, from this Text? Yea how do they prove that Kings or Emperors are not to call Councils: for though Praelats are to govern the Church, Yet Kings or Emperors might call Councils, these are not opposites but agreeable; because the Praelats may govern in sacris, the Kings or Emperors circa sacra. The speculative decision is to be by the Praelats: the outward administration by the Emperors. The potestas in actu signato in them; in actu exercito, in the Emperors.  
And as for the other Text Eph. 4. We need say nothing; or only this, that the not naming of Lay Magistrates there, doth not exclude them else where. Doth it? If it does not, where is their argument? If it doth, then by the same law of consequence there are no Praelats to have any Divine Authority for the good of the Church, because where it is said, Kings shall be the nursing Fathers and Queens the nursing Mothers, there is no mention of Ecclesiastical Praelats. So then let them speak no more of the Fathers of the Church. And then 2. This comes not to the point of the question, that Lay Magistrates are not here spoken of but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministry; for to the work of the ministry no man asserts the power of a Lay magistrate, but external government is contradistiguished to the work of the ministry; which consists in ministerial acts. Yea 3. Is that Text to be understood of government of the Church? If it be not, than it is impertinently produced. If it be, then by his former argument, the Pope is excluded, because here is no mention of any appointment of him sub ratione singulritatis and in way of eminency, nay not of any priority: and therefore he by this account in all his Pontificalaibus is but an human Creature. Therefore upon the account of the Text we will stand our ground, and not be carried about with every wind of doctrine.  
Thirdly the Emperor is not by Divine institution Lord of the Christian world, the power of the chief Pastor of the universal Church is coextended to the universal Church. Ans. First Dato, suppose there were by Divine institution (which will never be proved) a chief pastor of the universal Church, yet the Emperor might be Lord of the Christian world too in his external faculty. And therefore this concludes not. 2. this Language was not known till Boniface the third, in the seventh century. The Roman Bishop had the honour to be called the Bishop of the first Sea or seat. And yet not the first Bishop in way of jurisdiction, 3. The Emperor may be as much Lord of the Christian world by Divine institution, as well as the Pope: for both are by election, the Pope is to be chosen by Cardinals, which cannot show a Divine institution. But then also he allows Political proceeding from a temporal power: yet he will not have it to be an Ecclesiastical calling, such an one as the Pope called them by at the same time. Ans. Not Ecclesiastical subjective, but Ecclesiastical objective it was. And yet also Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote. And therefore it may be the Hebrew word Cohen signifieth both Magistrate and Priest. Order, and freedom, and time and place belong to the Magistrates administration. And as for the Pope (in their sense) his giving an Ecclesiastical call at the same time it is utterly denied; unless he could give a call before he was borne. And as for the Bishop of Rome, he met at Councils upon the same order with the rest. Such things he should have proved rather then said. And therefore that was falsely spoken by him that the Political proceeding was subservient to the Ecclesiastical. Ans. Non entis nulla accidentia. There was no such Ecclesiastical call by a Pope: for there was no such Pope. And 2. Though the Emperor's calling was serviceable to Ecclesiastical affairs, yet the Ecclesiastical persons that met were servants to him therein. And Bishops of Rome have not abhorred such acknowledgements herein. And whereas some Romanists have compared the Pope to the Sun, and the Emperor to the Moon; though some Popes since have eclipsed the Emperor: yet some Emperors before have not only Eclipsed the Pope, but have put him out.  
Therefore had he good cause to say, Peradventure sometimes Emperors might adventure to call dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastor. Ans. surely there is more due when Adversaries will give so much. Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem. But this will not content us, there was no real entity of such a Supreme Pastor. Nor was he so much as then Ens rationis. No; the four General Councils, a primo ad ultimum, were managed in the call and ratification by the Emperors. They gave them not only countenance and a vote in point of belief, but also their external establishment. They began and ended them. Idem est principium destitutionis & constitutionis. So the Nicene Council was called by Constantine the Great. The Council of Constantinople was called by Theodosius the elder. The Council of Ephesus by Theodosius the younger. The Council of Chalcedon by Martianus, and by them they had their confirmation. And so Councils are to be called, as our Church in the 21. Article.  
The fourth answer he passeth here.  
As to the fifth answer, he says; these Elections do appear by authenticated testimonies, and confirmation. Ans. But their Election may not appear free thereby. That which may appear in the fact, may not appear in the qualities. And therefore if it were not free, it were as well no Election, as if the Council be known notoriously to use such proceed we are not to acknowledge it for a lawful Council. And this puzzles and disturbs our assent more. Infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in Councils is necessary to infallible Decrees: this they suppose. In Councils unlawful there is no infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost: this they must grant; and in effect here he doth, otherwise how can we disacknowledge any Council, or not acknowledge it for a lawful Council? Now then since a Council may by such proceed notoriously known nullify itself, how shall we be certain whether a Council doth not morally forfeit its assistance? Although imdem est non apparere et non esse, as to outward censures: yet this is not enough for an infallible assent of the Decrees to have a charitative opinion of lawful proceed. If I be deceived in my charitative opinion, no ill consequence: but if I be deceived in my opinion of the Council, I wrong myself in misgrounding my Faith. In point of charity no man is bound to infallibility; but in we point of Faith we are, & therefore I do not well see can ever be ascertained of the infallibility of a Council, how unless we be ascertained of an impossibility in the Council to lose the infallible assistance. For as we cannot believe the Church's infallibility in one point, unless it be infallible in all according to Mr. Knot & my adversaries late Principles; so we cannot be assured of the lawfulness of any one Council by the certainty of Faith, unless we can be assured of the lawfulness of all. Now than if they can infallibly inform us that every Council shall have infallible assistance, we will not discuss at all that which cannot be, namely whether it hath forfeited the privileges by such proceed: but though it hath not forfeited its moral being by such proceed, we yet want a proof infallible whether so or not; and than if not, whether it shall have infallible assistance. For aught I know the Holy Ghost may be said to preside there and yet not rule; as Bellarmin in his 1. B. de con. cap. 18. says that the Pope in a Council may be considered as Precedent or as Prince: as Precedent, so he is to follow the major part; as Prince, so he can rescind all. Now which hath the Holy Ghost following the major part, or the Pope; Is the Holy Ghost tied to the Council, as the Heathens fastened their Gods to their Cities? No they will say: not to all, but lawful Councils. But let us then know by the Holy Ghost which Councils shall be lawful. Otherwise, though infallible direction will never deceive us, we may be deceived in infallible direction; since there is acknowledged by him a possibility of humane malice and weakness, and factions, and bandyings, and domineering self-interest. Unless they can prove an  overruling providence promised by God against humane malice, etc. to all Councils, I shall never be sure whether they are not in any one. And therefore that general Text, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, will not infer infallibility in a Council, unless it could infer infallibility of the lawfulness according to them; and yet not so neither according to us, that Text is made good to every member of the Church invisible: and is that therefore infallible? If it be, why then is infallibility arrogated to the Church visible as the only subject? if it be not, than the Text doth not prove absolute infallibility; but only security against damning errors or practice. Not that the Church visible is not a mean of that security; but therefore not a mean universally infallible, but with specification. Sixthly you ask, how shall ignorant people be divinely persuaded that the Council is General. To this he answers by giving us the means or signs of this knowledge; First public Summons. Secondly, public appearance of Prelates made upon these summons from all parts of the world. Thirdly, public setting, public subscribing, public divulging their Decrees and Definitions acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present, denied by no man to be theirs with the least show of probability, no more than such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament. Ans. Is here all? The question was how shall ignorant people be divinely persuaded that the Council is general. And now we must be answered with a probability. If that which may be known probably be known divinely, eo ipso, upon that account, than a probable Argument may make an infallible conclusion. And why then do they urge infallibility of the Church for point of Faith, which they can never prove? It less would have made Faith, they should not in prudence have combated for infallibility. But as long as the conclusion follows the worse part; and the effect doth not exceed the cause; and the assent cannot be higher than the ground of it, this answer of his is too short for the question. Secondly, were not all these necessary conditions of a General Council belonging to the Trent Council? And why then was not the French Church persuaded to take it for a General Council? Why doth the French Church say, transeat concilium Tridentinum.  
Therefore that which he says is not so, that all these motives make it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the church. It is evidently credible to neither. So that though the Definition of the Church were infallible in itself, as they say Scripture is; yet is it not infallible to us, as they say Scripture is not without the Church. Therefore though the Definition were infallible yet cannot they thereby prove the Council infallible: but they are first to prove the Council infallible, then that which is a true definition of the church, will be infallibly true, because truly infallible.  
So that he needs not tell us that if we believe all her Definitions to be true, we will also believe this Definition to be true; since a particular is included in an universal. But before we believe all her Definitions to be true, we must demand some infallible assurance that such a Council is truly universal; and that an universal Council, is truly infallible. Otherwise we may believe one Definition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be true: and yet because not proposed infallibly, we cannot believe all her Definitions to be true. And therefore hath he not extricated himself out of insuperable difficulties.  
As for the Hypothesis of the Trent Council, which, I said, was contradicted by the French Catholics, he says their Definitions concerning Faith were never opposed by France. Ans. Opposition is formally indeed in contradiction. But if they were denied only, it were sufficient to us. Do my Adversaries think they may be saved, notwithstanding this denial? This surely they deny not. Well then, if they may be saved notwithstanding their denial, than we may be saved also, though we do not subscribe some definitions of a Church. Then we are not bound absolutely under danger of damnation to believe all definitions of the Church. Then the Church hath not infallible authority. But 2. their withdrawing of their assent must draw in one of these two things, either that it was not a General Council (and this interpretativi makes a contradiction) or that General Councils are not infallible: and this in effect makes a contradiction too. Yea 3. Did not the King of France writ to the Trent Council under the name of a Conventus; which they construed in derogation to a General Council? As appears in the Trent History. And 4. As for the distinction of the definitions concerning faith, as if they were not so disliked, but some things ordained for practice seemed less suitable to the particular state of that Kingdom, This runs out as it comes in. For those things towards practice were ordained by the same Divine authority: were they not? Or did not the Holy Ghost assist them as to things of practice? If not, then proper obedience is not due to Councils, because proper obedience respects things of practice: but indeed the whole Council was rejected in gross; and therefore when Cardinal Ossat mediated for the King of France with the Pope, and the Cardinal urged the peace for him without the condition of accepting the Trent Council, he wrote to the King what the Pope said one morning to him, because he would not receive the Council, that he had no more rest that night than a damned soul in Ossat's Letters  
And as to the seventh answer concerning some in the Trent Council who had Titles of Bishops; Bishop jewel affirms it in his Apol. Par. 6. P. 62.5. and he names St. Robert of Scotland, and Mr. Pates of England, And the former is named in the Trent History to have been a Bishop of the post, if we may say so of him for his ability in riding post so well. And if forty Bishops do all agree in the same point of faith (as for a good while there were not many more) what can be be concluded against a possibility that they might be all sworn servants of the Pope? And he that will read the Trent History will find sufficient cause not to suspect but to believe that Council not to have had due moralities, much less infallibility. His best way then to secure a Council against irregularities, is, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, that nothing shall happen destructive of secure direction Ans. this is not sufficient that nothing be destructive of secure direction against damnation (if he means it now so) but against all error, for, this he is engaged to make good, by former denying of that distinction of error damnative and error not damnative. Yet here he seems to warp in this point. 2. The morality of the Synod is antecedent to its infallible assistance. Then we must have all defects of legality and proceeding removed, before we can be persuaded of its infallibility. 3. why did he except against Cajaphas for not being the true High Priest, if now Cajaphas may Prophesy, not knowing what he doth, before the spirit of truth, sent to teach the Church all truth, shall fail in his duty. So then notwithstanding there be not a legal High Priest, the spirit of God shall infallibly act the Council, as he did the Apostles. But here is a double duty for them, first that the spirit of God doth now infallibly teach the Church in all definitions. And then a second, that it is his duty to do so. Let them learn their duty not to tell God his duty. Did the Holy Ghost do his duty when Cajaphas and the Assembly condemned Christ? And why did not the Holy Ghost make eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum as infallible without a Pope, as the forty Bishops in the Trent Council, whereof some might be made Bishops, not because they did not differ from the rest, but that they might not differ in the Roman Faith, though against the Catholic faith? And if they put the difference in this compare upon a Pope in Trent Council, none in Ariminum (though that answer will not serve as before) since Praelats have a also a power of calling Councils (as my Adversary before) in some cases, why should not the Holy Ghost rather assist eight hundred Praelats without a Pope, than forty with?  
As to the eighth answer, he confesseth the substance of it, that for the first three hundred years there was no General Council, and tells us the cause; for persecution no Council could be gathered, But this satisfieth not, God is not wanting in necessaries, nor abundant in superfluities, as one of theirs says. If councils had been always necessary, he could have provided against persecutions, or for a Council notwithstanding. And why not in time of persecutions, as well as in the times of the Apostles? Were not those times of persecution?  
Neither is that a sufficient reason because all this time the former doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh, and so notoriously; the Tradition of the Church diffused, and there remained also so universal a respect and obedience to the Chief Bishop of the Church. Ans. these three causes will not make one sound one. For by the first he means the known doctrine of the Apostles as delivered in writing or not; if so, then why may not we by the same cause sufficiently be directed by the word written. And as to the second, if he joins Tradition of the Church as notoriously diffused, as a social mean of the direction, it may be denied upon this account only here, for that other Traditions of Heretics were then mingled in the Church with pretence of coming from the Apostles. And therefore the Traditions of the Church was notoriously not distinguished. And as to the third, it is notoriously false that then there was a chief Bishop in their sense in those times. For how then could equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be appointed in the Nicene Council, if the Bishop of Rome had been Chief before? how could St. Cyprian have said that all the Apostles were equal, pari consortio praediti honoris & potestatis? How could the African Council have then cut off appeals to Rome. Then had there been no need of the feigning of a Canon to this purpose in the Nicene Council. How could St. jerom have said that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in communi, in his Epistle to Evagrious? Neither was there such obedience then performed by them to the Praelats in all places, as may appear by the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; where he speaks of great Schisms. And also by Ignatius his earnest exhortations of submission to them.  
Whence the Quartodecim ani although they opposed nothing clearly set down in Scripture were judged Heretics for opposing the doctrine of the first Church, made evidently known by fresh Tradition. Ans. First if they will believe their Alphonsus de castro, they were not sententially declared Heretics, because they were excommunicated. Indeed Victor would have excommunicated then, & fecisset, nisi Irenaeus illum ob hoc redarguisset; he would have done it, if Irenaeus had not chid him for this. By the way than was this also obedience to the chief Bishop, to chide him? So Alphons. in his 12. b. de haer. In verbo pascha. Yea 2. They may know that Eusebius doth give an account of the Asian observation to come from as good Tradition, as the the other. And surely the Asian Church was therefore the western; and therefore was it not the doctrine of the first Church. Yea also by the way how was Tradition of the Church notoriously diffused when there was Tradition against Tradition? And herein also did the British Churches (which Tertullian speaks of) differ, from the western, following the Eastern Church. 3. Heresy is some times largely taken and doth then respect Schism of proper name: and so in a large sense it might by some be called Heresy, although the matter of difference was no doctrine of faith. Ex verbis male prolatis oritur Haeresis. So Heretics in a propriety of speech they could not be. 14. Alphonsus doth distinguish here upon in the same place, and says they were accounted Heretics not because they did simply observe it then, sed quia ita esse necessario faciendum credebant. And this then altars the case. And he explains himself further, because this did include a necessity of observeing Judaical ceremonies even after Christ's his coming. And so then this was contrary to the word written. And then this was not a Tradition. 5. They here show the pride of Rome, to offer to cut off from her comunion all those who were of the other persuasion (who were not few, as may be seen in Eusebius' 5. B. 24.5. Ch.) for a thing simply of free observation; wherein difference makes not, variance, a● Irenaeus sent word to their Victor. ch. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference of a fast (and so of a feast) doth commend the agreement of faith. He goes on, now as the Church could want Councils for so many years, so it could want Councils for the short space of schism. Right. But then so can it want Councils still: and therefore God hath not bound us over to the Church for our absolute direction upon necessity of Salvation. Councils are necessary to infallible direction; so my Adversaries hold: The Church for three hundred years and in time of a Schism can want Councils, as my Adversary here: so then there is no absolute necessity of their infallibility. And indeed there was much need of Councils in that space of the first three hundred years, in regard of Divisions, as since; and than if God provided sufficiently for his Church without them, he can and will do so still. And this is confirmed by my Adversary by these words of his, for the neccessity of new declarations is not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity, calling for instant remedy, and remedy of this nature only. And he may go on and say it not upon my opinion, but for himself, and ex animo, that Scripture alone will remedy this necessity. He needed not to put in you say. And as to that which he says, that there remained many definitions oft former councils, and Traditions of the Church which alone served God's church, these we have spoken to sufficiently before. Either the Definitions were concluded out of principles of Scripture; and Traditions were agreeable to the substance of Scripture, or not: if so, than they hold their virtue by Scripture: If not, they remain under debate whether they were infallible. Neither is Tradition before Scripture to be confounded with traditions after Scripture. We can grant more to the former than we can to the latter; both in the substance of the matter, and in the manner of certification.  
And for the time after the old Testament was written, he doth well to say that it remained almost solely and alone to the Jews. For what was job? and why might not others of the learned Gentiles travail for divine knowledge, as well as Pythagoras and Plato and Orpheus into Egypt as justin Martyr saith of them.  
Ninthly he answers to the cause put of a Pope's differing from the Council upon a question; he says, nothing shall be deferred; and yet no peril. For if it were necessary to have a present definition, the Holy Ghost would not forget to inspire the parties requisite to do their duties. Ans. Again, What necessity then of every controversy to be ended? Secondly, How should the people know whether the business required a present definition. Surely they may know by this, that it did not require a present definition, because if so, the Holy Ghost would not have forgot to have inspired the parties requisite to do their duties. Well then also we can say, that we may be as confident that what is not clearly delivered in Scripture doth not require a full definition, because if it had, the Holy Ghost would not have forgot to inspire the Penmen of Scripture to do their duties.  
In the tenth answer he is very suspensive how to declare himself in the point of Ecclesiastical Monarchy. He says, a Monarch in some Nations could not do all things without a Parliament. But he thinks himself on the surer side, that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Council. Ans. First, why do they not speak out and tell us which is which? The Church can end all controversies, as they say, but not that capital controversy about the Church. That whereby all things are to be made manifest, is that not to be made manifest? We must see all things by the light, but the light must be private. Do they declaim against private Spirits; and will not let us publicly know the power of the Pope comparately to a Council, and yet they together must be the subject of public Authority? And why do they tell us that the Scripture cannot prove itself, and therefore we must not resolve our Faith in that: and yet we must resolve ourselves in the Authority of the Church, and yet the Church cannot tell us where this Authority Supreme is, or will not? And it is all one to us, for we are in the dark as well by their want of will to show us light, as of power. But since it seems we may be saved in the opinion of the Jesuit, or in the opinion of the Sorbonist, we draw this advantage from it, that notwithstanding we know not infallibly which part of the contradiction to hold in points of question, we may yet be secured against damnation, pendenti lite. And what controversy is of such moment for an infallible Judge, as who it is? Secondly, Infallibility may be in one as well as in many; since it comes by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, then if they think God hath provided absolutely the most plain and expedite way for the direction of his Church, this must be placed in the Pope without a Council. I hope, the Holy Ghost needs no Council; which cannot soon and easily be made in all the essentials. And therefore he should not have compared the Pope with a Monarch; but he should have compared upon this reckoning, a Monarch with the Holy Ghost. Then though a Monarch could not do all things without a Parliament, yet a Pope might do all without a Council: because the Pope should be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, as the Apostles were; but they do not think so of a Monarch. Again they think that the Pope is of divine institution; and that a King is merely a creature of the peoples, and therefore he that hath a divine institution must needs have more divine assistance. Again when he defineth with a Council, he defineth not so much as Head of the Church, but as a Bishop in communi with the rest; as indeed anciently the custom was; and this derogates from the Monarchy of the Church. And if he had a priority of order, this doth not infer a priority of Jurisdiction over all the Church; which Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome abhorred.  
Eleventhly he says not one Council have been opposite to another. Ans. This proposition in terms is not true. The Council of Constantinople under Leo the Emperor decreed against Images. The second Council of Nice decreed for them. And what do they think of Pope Vigilius his judgement betwixt the Council of Chalcedon and the fifth Council of Constantinople about the Epistle of Ibas whether it contained heresy or not? And is not the African Council against Appeals opposite to the Trent Council, which adds to the Catholic Apostolic Church the Roman, as making the Roman to be omnium Ecclesiarum matrem & magistram; of all Churches the mother and mistress. But this hath been touched before.  
He goes on. In the Nicene he, (the Pope) erred not, as you will grant, nor in the three next General Councils, as the Church of England grants. Ans. He says well, He erred not in the first Nicene. But this antecedent will not make a conclusion or consequent, that therefore he hath not or cannot err in others. It followeth not from a negative surely of one act to a negative of the power; they are to prove that he cannot err, which is infallibility. But secondly, We say also that he could not err in the other General Councils neither as Head of the Church, because he was not Head of the Church. He might have erred as a Bishop of Rome; but as Head of the Church he could not err; not that we do assert him to have been Head of the Church; but because we say he was not Head of the Church; and therefore could not err as such.  
He goes on, He subscribed not in the Council of Ariminum, how then did he err in it. Yea because he subscribed not, that Council is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians. Ans. He seems now to come to terms more moderate. Before he speaks of Councils to be confirmed by the Pope: Subscription is less; and more general. Every confirmation includes eminently a subscription; but every subscription makes not a confirmation. For they will not deny that other Bishops were wont to subscribe. Secondly, they may know that the 5. council of Constantinople went for good without his Subscription; nay notwithstanding what he published for the tria Capitula, which were condemned in the foresaid Council. Therefore if they have no better answer (the other Council being held good without his royal assent, yea notwithstanding his opposition) there will be another instance of a Council opposing a Council: namely the Council of Ariminum opposing the Council of the first Nicene. But thirdly, As to his reason why it was not acknowledged a lawful Council, because he subscribed not; I deny it upon Sozomen his account in his▪ 16. B. 23. ch. if he takes his not subscribing, as he seems to do, for the only cause. For he (Sozomen) says there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because neither the Bishop of the Romans, nor others did consent to them, & because many did dislike those things which were decreed by them. Had they then in the council of Ariminum decreed according to the Nicene Fathers, the council of Ariminum might have passed with St. Austin (notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome's not subscribing it) though not comparatively to the proof of Scripture: but we see here in this testimony three particulars against them. First, That he is here called the Bishop of the Romans: Not the Bishop signanter, nor the universal Bishop, nor the Bishop of the Church. He hath but his share with the rest, and limited by local Jurisdiction. Then how can they say that the Bishop of Rome, is the chief Bishop and Head of the Church? Secondly, We see here, that the Consent of others concurs towards the making of a Council lawful. And therefore the consent of the Bishop of Rome is not that which is the form informant of the Council, nor that which legitimates it. And thirdly, We see the reason, in part at least, to be, because they disliked those things which were decreed in the Council of Ariminum. And therefore if it had been a full meeting and consented to, yet had been exceptable against in regard of the matter, for surely the presence of all and their Subscription would not have made that matter to be good which was naught. For than they had declared that to be good which was not; and this had been an error. Therefore though we receive the four General Councils, we are not bound to receive the Decrees of every Council, because we do not receive the Council simply, but do receive the Council for the Doctrine, not the Doctrine for the Council. Therefore upon the whole matter he had no great reason to admire my instancing in the Council of Ariminum.  
Neither doth it follow that because one Council hath erred, therefore every one. Therefore that which he says may be falsely reported, that some tax the councils of all ages of errors against Scripture. Every one may err without any impossibility. Some have showed a possibility by error. But any ones possibility doth not infer any one's act, much less of all. And if any one should have said so, they are acquainted well with their own answer, they are but private men that say so.  
And why doth he tell us of Mechanics, that speak disrespectively of all Councils? Let them first answer for some body of their black coat who said the Scripture was as a Nose of Wax. They make to us a need of the phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
As to the twelfth answer, We have had the substance of it also before. The incustation of it makes it not solid. It doth no way follow that because their first Council Acts 15. said, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us; Therefore every Council even lawful should say so. This is to be proved, not propounded. And let Ferus their own give them the reason upon the fifteenth of the Acts. Let them either make it good that every assistance is infallible, or that every Council had that assistance which is infallible.  
And their postulate, that Anathemas should conclude infallibility in their Councils, is denied them. Secondly, They bind more unto peace than Faith. And so their form in the Trent Council is, Si quis haec attentare presumpserit etc. If any shall presume to attempt tnese things, etc. Thirdly, Neither is there such danger by them, unless every one were bound to submit his assent. Yea me thinks the Trent Council doth speak in their beginnings somewhat more modestly of their Synod, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata, lawfully gathered together in the Holy Ghost. Every meeting infallible is lawful, but every lawful meeting is not infallible.  
As for his thirteenth Answer; he takes into a consideartion that of Nazianzen touching Councils: And he would distinguish, that he did not speak of a lawful free General council called and directed by the chief Pastor of the church prefiding in it. So then: He doth despise all Councils but such, doth he not? Yes they will say presently. Then he despised all Councils; for there were none so called, so directed, so presided in his time or before; nor presently after. The fifth Council of Constantinople (which was about 553. under justinian the Emperor) did sit and determine without and against Vigilius the Bishop of Rome. And secondly, As to that he says, that Nazianzen's speech did respect the times of the Arrian troubles, which St. Basil takes notice of, we say suppose it: yet this also makes a prejudice to all Councils in the time of the Arrian heresy, because it is very like that several close Arrians might in Council mingle with the Orthodox. And thirdly, It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he concludes from a respect to Councils in the other Fathers unto an asserting of their infallibility. A genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmative; because they gave them some respect, therefore such as imported their infallibility, it doth no way follow. Fourthly, Neither doth Nazianzen's respect to the Nicene Council contradict him here: For although that might proceed well in his opinion, yet speaking de communi, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might say as he said. Neither doth it appear that he embraced it upon its own authority intuitively, but because he approved the Doctrines, otherwise why should not eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum be as credible, as not half so many in Nice? But it may be that the conclusions in the Nicene Council were Prophetical; and the discourse of those of Ariminum was fallible. Yea, but they will say that the Discourse in the Nicene Council was fallible, though the conclusions Prophetical. Let this be proved and we have done. But the Nicene Fathers as before, professed that they proceeded by principles of Scripture in their determinations. And so Bellarmin is driven to confess in his 12. l. de council. Sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones, they deduce their conclusions from the Word of God by discourse. Let Bellarmin then answer Stapleton.  
At the latter end of this Section, He takes me up for a saying of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Council of Trent. And he is confident that that account of him hath no credible ground. Ans. Surely as good ground as Brierly had for several passages which he produceth out of our Authors. And if some of theirs have professed to take testimonies upon his credit, because they had not Books by them; I may be easily excused for ask the question whether the Bishop of Bitonto did not say so and so in the Council of Trent. He that asks a question seems to be wary of asserting. And if the opinion of one able Doctor be sufficient to make a point probable, as some of them have lately said, this point of fact is not altogether unprovided of some hope of probability. My Author is Bishop jewel, who speaks it more than once in his Apology.  
Neither have they cause to brag that their Church have been the men, who were still employed in the upholding the Authority of Councils. Surely my Adversaries did pass by Cajetan, and Bellarmin, and Valentia; and did not take notice of what they have said towards fallibility of Councils even lawful, that so infallibility and Monarchy might be necessarily devolved from heaven, as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Pope's lap. All that make perstriction of the Authority of Councils are not heretics, it seems, because some that are good Roman Catholics do speak of their fallibility, so, that this infallibility should be entailed upon the Bishop universal. And so they differ from my Adversaries platform of infallible direction: In this he shows himself highly displeased for offering to compare the Determinations of Trent with the word of God. He thinks it fine doctrine that determinations of Councils should be examined by such as I and he is. Ans. it is half an argument for us that they are angry at this: But first we do not speak of an Authoritative examination, which is forensical, but a rational inquiry which is for private satisfaction. 2. If the Decrees of that Council be indeed infallible, they will abide the test: if not, how can we believe them; Do they think, 3. That we are more bound to believe the council of Trent, than the Beraeans were bound to believe what was said by St. Paul, without discussing; since specially they are pleased in the Trent Council sometimes to join St. Paul as partner with St. Peter in the honour of their Church? 3. We may surely find more cause to examine the Trent Council then some others; since it hath not yet obtained in the Christian world the reputation of a lawful General Council: therefore though we do not examine others yet this we may. 4. would they not have us prefer the doctrine of Trent before any differing from it? yes surely; then we must inquire into it, and privately judge it: otherwise we make a blind choice. Fifthly, If the consent of the major part, which is most immediately considerable in a Council, should morally bind, why should we not as well believe the Council of Ariminum; since what else he hath pretended against it, is not cogent? Sixthly, If they think that one cannot think well of a lawful General Council, unless he believes their infallibility, that proposition is easily denied. They may be fallible, and yet not faulted by me in piety or prudence. Infallible conclusions do not follow upon moral principles. The one makes them careful, the other faithful: but though they do not deceive me, they may be deceived themselves. And if their infallibility did depend upon their piety and prudence, how are we infallibly certain of that upon which their infallibility should be grounded?  
Nor does my consideration of a Council betray in me a want of charity or humility, as he supposeth: they have themselves as Disparates to Theological Faith; and are not of the same Conjugation. Humility disposeth me to think of myself meanly; Charity disposeth me to think better of others, because I know my own imperfections and do not know another's perfections, as Aquinas notes: But if these were dispositive unto Faith, yet not causal: If causal of Faith, yet of Faith humane, not divine; unless I did see God's Word for believing men. This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; if they can prove this, we have no more to say. Until than I can love my Adversaries, and think humbly of myself: And yet cannot be persuaded that my Adversaries are infallible. And if they were infallible in the dispute, how should infallibility be the prerogative of the Council confirmed by the Pope? So then as long as I can give reverence to a Council without present Faith, I am not posed, but they who must beg the question.  
In this he chargeth me with shifting, because I said now, let us not see the opinions by infallibility: but the infallibility by your determinations, whereas else where I say, you should go a priori and show that your Church is infallible, and therefore her definitions to be admitted. This in effect he supposeth to be my shift to evade his pressure of me. Ans. No such matter. Good cause for both distinguish reasons and respects. First, I hope they think it lawful to urge both ways in a different kind of discourse, we demonstrate the effect by the cause; we know the cause by the effect. Secondly, The way a Priori is more distinct, and therefore this would presently make an end of the controversy, if it could be effected; because it satisfies us in the cause. Prove the infallibility, and then we fall down or rise up to the definitions. They are then to be taken ipso facto; and they produce Faith ex opere operato, as we may speak. This the way of nature: But when they cannot make this good, than the other way, and quoad nos is to show us their infallibility by their determinations; and an easy way it is to us to show them the unlikeliness of infallibility by their determinations. For it is sufficient to the negative of infallibility, to find one error in any of their definitions; but it is not sufficient to them for the affirmative of infallibility, to prove that the Church hath not erred in some particular definitions. The latitude of the power is not discharged by some acts.  Quem saepe transit casus aliquando invent. 
If it hath erred but once, we are sure it can err, than infallibility is destroyed; if it hath not erred in some, yet it doth not follow that it hath not erred in others. Yea, if it hath erred in none, we cannot ex vi formae conclude infallibility, unless it be proved that the power of erring is bound in the Church Representative, as the Schoolmen say the power of sinning is bound in the Church Triumphant. Thirdly, We are now upon the Hypothesis incidently; and so it is very reasonable for us to go this way with them; because a particular Church hath not the privileges of the universal Church. It is generally supposed that the universal Church cannot err in things necessary; but this is not granted to any Church of one denomination. Now the Trent Council belongs to a particular Church, and therefore as to that, our way of proceeding is not irrational. And therefore all that he says upon this argument comes to nothing. If all the strength of Rome can sufficiently reinforce the former Texts against us for the Church universal, and then for them, reducant nos; if they cannot, redeant ad nos, as the Father said.  

N. 23.  This Section is in good part made up of repetitions towards the reurging on their be half 1. Ep. to Tim. 3.15. How much Paper is taken up with petitions and repetitions; petitions of the principle, and repetitions of what was said before. Upon this I distinguished of a double Pillar; the Principal, Scripture; a subordinate one, the Church. And now he says pleasantly, this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not. The Church must still be a true Pillar and ground of truth. Ans. Distinguishing is plain dealing; double dealing makes confusion. Therefore we distinguish again; the Church may be a true Pillar and ground or establishment of truth, ex officio, and subordinately; yet not infallible. That which is infallible is such; all that is such is not infallible. Dic aliquid contra ut simus duo. He should have contradicted or said nothing. The people believed God and Moses saith the Scripture; right: But the copulative doth not always equally reduplicate the act to divers objects. In the Proverbs it is said, Fear God and the King: yet the King is not to be feared equally with God. So they believed God and Moses, in the curt fashion of Hebrew speech: But they did not believe Moses as they did God. God for himself upon his own veracity; Moses for God. Now let them prove that God speaks by the Church, as he spoke by Moses, and we have done. God spoke to Moses face to face. Did he speak so to the Church? He spoke then to Moses immediately: doth he speak so to the Church. He spoke to and by Moses who was King in jesuron. Aaron was formally the High Priest: Doth he speak so now to and by civil Magistrates? If he does, where are the privileges of the Church, which they vaunt of? If not, why do they urge that Text? It is true, Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote; but this maxim is not for them: Their maxim is inverted, Sacerdos est mixta persona cum Rege. Moses morally wrought miracles; so does not now the Church. If Xaries could indeed have wrought miracles in the Indies, why did he corrupt the Gospel? In short, when they can prove, that the Church speaks all they speak by Revelation from God, as the Jews believed, that what Moses spoke, he spoke from God, than they may apply that Text to God, and the Church, which is applied to God and, Moses. The sense of their believing Moses was, that they believed, what he said, to be spoken from God; this is now the question of the Church, therefore they should not have compared Moses, and the Church, but Moses, and an Apostle. This had been more Symbolical; but this would not have been serviceable. Well then; if they would have been contented with this, that the Church should have been subordinate to Scripture, the quarrel would soon be ended. What then? Would they have the Scripture subordinate to the Church? Adieone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt?  
So he says, The Church was by St. Paul called the pillar, and ground of truth, without subordination to Scripture, as than not written. Ans. Will they hold themselves to this, that what is not said in Scripture in terms, is not to be construed as the sense of the Scripture? If they will, then what will become of their points of difference, as to Scripture? If they will not, than this distinction is not to be rejected upon that account, because it is not said so there. But secondly, His reason, because Scripture then was not written, is to be examined. If he understands it absolutely, it is false. Was not the Old Testament then written? And if the Romanist fetcheth his Monarchy of the Church from the Anaology to the Jewish High Priest, why should not the Old Scripture be sufficient to subordinate the Church. And if the Scripture was then sufficient, as St. Paul says, to make wise unto Salvation before the Canon was finished; was it not able to bear the Church's dependence upon it? And is it not as able now, when the Canon is completed? As to the times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written, we have several times spoken before. Put it into a Syllogism, thus; That which God speaks we are bound to believe upon account of his veracity. That which the Church speaks to us, God speaks; therefore. Now as to the major, whosoever denies it is interpretative an Atheist. The assumption than is that we stick at, though the Roman accounts us, for this, not Christians: The times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written, were chief those, wherein that proposition was consented to; and yet not by all that knew the doctrine of the Church. Therefore those who then did believe, had not only a Faith disposing them to believe that what God says is true: For this is said by Aristotle in effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is a proposition of reason, that what God says is true, but they had a divine Faith habituating them to the belief that that which was spoken by the Church was truly communicated to the Church from God. Now here the hinge turns, whether their Faith terminated upon the Church, as the subjectum quo, or upon the matter delivered by the Church, as the subjectum quod. We deny the former, because divine Faith cannot rise upon humane testimony; & therefore Faith could not be caused by such a testimony which is humane, without a Revelation from God that what the Church did speak, it did speak from God. Therefore the church had itself then towards Faith, as proposing the matter, not as resolving the assurance. And can we not then as well be now assured that what the Scripture doth propose is the Word of God, as what the Church proposed then was the Word of God? And so Faith must at length not only cause us to believe that what God says is true, but also to believe that God hath said this, therefore.  
He likes not then my reason for the subordination of the Church to Scripture, not for the reason against which other reasons will soon be found. Ans. This will require a very good intention, but thus he is pleased to put off my discourse. Bellarmin proves his propositions by Scripture, by reason, by Fathers. Therefore he makes his heads of proof, and holds of Faith. And another would say that my Adversaries were beaten out of all their holds. He says to my reason here, against it other reasons will soon be found, when they are found we shall find answers. Let them tell me from whom the Church hath its authority: They will say from Christ, Well he is supposed the Author: But where is the Instrument and Patent for our knowledge that Christ hath passed such a grant? The Church saith it, they will say. But first. The Church Universal doth not say it. Secondly, who of them hath proved that the Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they bear witness of themselves, therefore their testimony is not true; not in modo, if it were true in materia. Thirdly, What the Church can say amounts but to a prudential motive, or congruous inducement: but what is it which grounds Faith, and binds Faith, and makes it a divine belief, if not what is said in Scripture? Without this what is the Church but a company of men in naturalibus. The Roman doth not so much believe this or that because God says it; but they believe God says it, because the Church says it. But the Church virtual, in the Pope; Representative, in a Council; diffusive in the people, signifies nothing without religion. The question than is, what religion makes the Church, which we are to believe. Not reason satisfies us in this, because some principles of Religion do transcend reason; and because reason cannot by its principles produce Faith of proper name: then we must have somewhat, which is supposed as a common principle, whereby true Religion is discerned. Not the Church: For the question is, which is the Church. What then, but Scripture? Let them then think upon the former Texts for sufficiency of Scripture, which if they were acknowledged, would save us this dispute. And let them think upon that Text, Esa. the 8. the 20. To the Law and to the Testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. That, which is referred to another for direction, is subordinate thereunto; The Church is referred to the Law, and to the Testimony: therefore it is subordinate. If they speak not according to this word as written; it is because there is no light in them.  
Another Text may be named; 1. Epist. of St. Peter, the 1. ch. 23. ver. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible; by the Word of God, which liveth, and abideth for ever. So the Apostle, from whence we thus argue: That, which is begotten of the Word, is subordinate to it; the Church is begotten by the Word. Therefore their argument is retorted by the contrary; For the Word in the substance of it, must be before the Church; because the Church is begotten by the Word; therefore the Church must depend upon the Word, which liveth, and abideth for ever: and this better suits the standing character of Scripture, than the lose, and fluent, or fluxive way of Tradition. And how comes Tradition into the world? By the first Church, they will say. Well, and how came the first Church to be such? What did they join together in the profession of Religion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as some say the world came together by the casual concurrence of Atoms? The first Church viritim was begottten by the Word through the Spirit; so in the ver. before, seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit. Then all is to be resolved into the Word: quod est primum in generatione, est ultimum resolutione. So Aquinas, Omne reducitur ad principium. All is to be reduced to the first principles. Therefore they will never reconcile St. Paul, and Irenaeus, unless they admit my distinction of the Church: Then that which Frenaeus saith will well agree with that of St. Paul. St. Paul says, as we commonly read it, the Church is the Pillar, and ground of truth: St. Irenaeus saith, the Scripture is the Pillar of truth. Both agree, for subordinata non pugnant. Subordinates' make no war.  
Let them not therefore tell me, that what God tells me by his Church I am to admit; this we admit: But let them tell me how I shall infallibly know, that he tells me so by the Church. And let them tell me how I shall know the Church, but by letters of credence, namely in Scripture. How can I divine whether there is to be a Chureh, and which is the true Church, and which the true Religion, without Scripture? And Nemo tenetur derinare, as the saying. So that that, which he says, that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture, depends neither upon Scripture, nor Catholic Church, nor reason. Take Scripture in the matter of it, and that which he says hath no consistency. In saving Religion there is nothing before it, not only in signo rationis, but also in time; because the Church is begotten of the word of God. We deny not, that the Church is made use of to dispose us to faith of Scripture; but this doth not resolve us; because itself, of itself, resolus but into a moral capacity, which makes not faith properly called, not faith Divine, therefore in Genere Credibilium, the first proposition to the Church is, that the Scripture is the word of God; and without its testimonies of the Church, it cannot be said to be credible in the sense of divine faith. Therefore if he means that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture, namely upon the account of humane faith, we may grant it of the universal Church: but what is this to our purpose, since we are disputing about faith divine? If he takes it of divine faith; this would be to purpose; but that it is not true.  
Yet he proceeds, So he that gins to be a Christian cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first principles of sciences. Ans. Nor do we say so. Ordinarily he gins with prudential motives, from without he useth arguments drawn from out of Scripture; but the question is whether these motives are productive of Faith in him. And he seems to say as much as devices it, because he says, in respect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture. So then, the way by the Church is imperfect, as the way of knowledge by those things which are more known quoad nos. But in the way of Faith, which makes the assent more firm and certain, we must begin with Scripture upon which the Church depends. To join issue then, We at first lead men to the Faith of Scripture by the way of the Church, as the Samaritans were led to Christ by the voice of the woman. But Faith doth not rest here; because they who deny the Scripture may deny the Church, and may question its credibility. Therefore since the Authority of the Church doth de se terminate its self in the Testimony of men, we would have our Faith by such a way as is proportionable to it, which if it be Faith divine, must rely upon some divine Authority. And this way the Scripture must be more known than the Church, because by the Scripture we know the Church, in a distinct knowledge. And without it can be no more than an Individuum vagum. Surely it is Scripture which makes Individuum demonstrativum. And they are wont to prove it determinatum, as in Petrus, by the Scripture.  
And as for the Criticism in the forenamed Text of Scripture to Timothy about the Church; all he says is nothing against so much use of it as I made. For I do not argue so, because there are such Ebraisms, therefore this is to be so expounded; we say it follows not as to an actual necessity of such an interpretation: No; but thus it will follow, there are such Hebrew forms of prefacing; therefore this may be so interpreted. Now the possibility of such an exposition is sufficient to my purpose: For possibility of the Contrary stops the mouth of infallibility, If this or that be infallible, it is not possible to be any other way, but the sense may be otherwise; therefore this is not the infallible sense. so we agree with Dr. Taylor, whom he quotes; because the Doctor may deny the argumentation as quoad esse; we intent it sufficiently quoad posse. It may be otherwise expounded than they say; therefore cannot we hereby infallibly know this infallibility of the Church. Suppose the Church were infallible; yet if we did not infallibly know so much, we cannot make the Church our ground of Faith. Nor could there be any consistence of their implicit Faith, if they did not know infallibly that whatsoever the Church propounds is infallible.  
And an exception against this interpretation is, that it is new, unheard of to all Antiquity and unto all men unto this age, Ans. This exception would have come better from some other, since my adversary had no mind to answer me to some Authority of the Antient. It were worth the while to quit the Criticism upon condition they would hold to antiquity. But whose saying was that, Omnes Patres sic, ego autem non sic? And yet neither is this a sufficient answer, unless the consent of the Fathers could make a conclusion to be of faith. So then, as the Florentine said of virtue, that the show of it is profitable, but the practice not; so also may it be said of the Italians, that the show of antiquity is of use to them, but the thing not, but also it will be too hard for every one of them to prove a negative, neither were many of the Father's Learned in the Hebrew tongue.  
He goes on, whether this infallibility be equal to that of the Apostles, or not, maketh not to our purpose. Ans. Surely infallibility never took any degrees with their Doctors. It is not receptive of magis, & minus, therefore if he asserts not an equal infallibility, he asserts none: less in infallibility is less than infallibility. So then their Church now is not such as to rely upon, equally to the Authority of the Apostles; therefore it must be subordinate to Apostolical authority: which indeed was in effect confessed before in that he granted, that the Church was regula regulata. And this is as much, as the cause is worth  
He says, I note him in a Parenthesis, for a French Catholic, for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a Council. Ans. No. He, or his scribe is much mistaken. I asked him, whether he had a mind to the opinion of the French Catholic, because he in one place spoke of the infallible assistance of the Church without any mention of the Pope. Now if he did on purpose leave out the Pope in his account of infallibility, than he is like to be a French Catholic: And, although all Roman Catholics allow infallibility to a Pope defining with a Council, cumulative; yet all Roman Catholics do not allow infallibility to the Pope, only then when he defines with a Council. As some Catholics do allow full Authority to a Council without a Pope: so some Catholics allow infallible Authority to a Pope without a Council. And this is more than I needed to have said to him that sales in this paragraph so little to me  
Yet he will charge me with charging him with an opinion which brings him within peril of blasphemy, His opinion was this, God gives as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council, as he gave to him who did deliver his word in Scripture. My reason was this, for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture, since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as in his word. He denies the inference. I maintain the charge more pressely thus. He that infers no need of Scripture comes within peril of blasphemy. He that says such words as before infers no need of Scripture, Therefore, To the major in effect he hath said nothing, his discourse is bend against the matter of the minor; and he would deny it by several instances, which come not up to the case in hand. First because he speaks infallibly by the Church of the Law of nature for two thousand years. And why more blasphemy now? To this in the matter of it we have spoken before. As applied here, we shall answer to it now. First he did not then speak infallibly by his Church, if the terms [by his Church] be meant reduplicatively to whatsoever was said by his Church: if it be understood thus, that whatsoever truth was proposed by God was proposed by the Church; it may be more easily granted. In the former sense the reason were good if it were true, in the latter it may be supposed true, yet it is not sufficient to his use, who urgeth that nothing is proposed by the Church but that which is true and from God. Yea 2. it cannot be absolutely granted in the second sense, if we take the Church to have spoken from God in any way of a Council: for much truth of what was proposed, came to some, of them by way of prophecy. 3. The terms [God speak infallibly by his Church] may relate more strictly to the Agent or to the Instrument, God spoke infallibly whatsoever he spoke by them: but God did not speak infallibly by them whatsoever they said. Or thus, the words are true hypothetically, if God spoke, he spoke infallibly by them; for he cannot speak otherwise: but that whatsoever they said was spoken to them infallibly by God, is a question. Yea 4. Will they think that there is as much reason for infallible speaking by the Church when the Scripture Canon is completed, as when there was none? As to Gods speaking by Moses, we have spoken to it lastly. As to Gods speaking to some Gentiles by the Church; that was not ordinary; and therefore it fits not our case, neither can they prove that the faith of the Gentiles was not wrought in them by the efficiency of the spirit of God, notwithstanding they had the object of their faith from the Church. Neither is it now the same case of teaching us infallibly by the Church as at the time when the Apostles did write; because the Christian Church was then to be settled upon the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul speaks: and now the building can stand upon that foundation, therefore were they extraordinary officers and lasted but for a time. And yet if they, can prove that their Church-doctrine is no other than that which was Apostolical, or that those who bring new doctrine are as well inspired as the Apostles, the Roman Church shall now be Apostolical. And if there were now as great a necessity of the infallible direction of the Church as there was in the times of the Apostles by them, then why should not the Apostolical office have continued in the number of twelve, and so all the Apostles should have had successors? which they must not say who maintain the Monarchy of the Church  
Neither doth that instance of john the Baptist, teaching the Me●●as which also the Scripture teacheth, come up to the case. First, Because john the Baptist was but a singular person; but the Church now is considered under a promise of continual succession, and as is pretended by them, with the perpetual gift of infallibility; therefore though there was Scripture then besides john's Testimony, yet what need of it now, if there be a constant infallibility in the Church? Secondly, There is a difference in the case ex parte Scripturae, in regard o● Scripture, which was not then completed; therefore there might be more necessity of St. john's Testimony, and of the voice from heaven, and of the Testimony of miracles: But now the Canon is consigned, what need of the infallible direction of the Church; and if there be an infallible direction standing in the Church, what need of a standing rule? it may serve for a commonitorium, as the Cardinal. So the Scripture shall give us but an application of the Church's doctrine. The Scripture that must not be a sufficient rule; the Church that is the direct and plain way that fools cannot err. They may err by the Scripture; they cannot err by the Church. Therefore in effect, not only will there be no need of Scripture, but there would be need of none. But more closely, That which is not of use without the Church, and that which the Church may be without, is not necessary. The Scripture is of no use without the Church; and the Church may be without Scripture: Therefore, according to their premises, the Scripture should not be necessary; and how fare is it from blasphemy, to say that the Scripture is not necessary? If to accuse Scripture be to accuse God, as Nilus before, Then to say there was no need of Scripture, is to accuse God of inspiring so many Penmen, for no necessary purpose. For although after all means of Faith still millions do not believe, as he says; yet since, according to their doctrine, no sense of Scripture in point of Faith is to be believed, but as taken from the Church; since the Word not written takes up so much of necessary matter; since the p●tfecter and the wiser are to be sublimated by Traditions; since the common people are not to be conversant in Scripture in a known tongue, what necessary purpose doth the Scripture serve to? It is true, superflua non nocent, as the rule is; and Utile per inutile non vitiatur; true: But yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their principles, the Scripture will be superfluous. For that which is more than is necessary is not necessary; that which is not necessary what is it? Therefore if any of their men should be found to be traditores Bibliorum, as some were of old, the Roman Donatists would never make a separation from them.  
He goes on, The Church is not more Enthusiastical now than she was for four thousand years, before she had all the promises, which Christ made her of an assistance, which should be at least as speacill and full as she ever had before; Ans. This is positively no answer, but somewhat by compare, we press it. The Church in that time did not the communi, challenge immediate inspiration: therefore that Church which doth so now is more Enthusiastical. Secondly, It is a begging of the question since there is not now that need after the Canon is completed. Thirdly, We return them their argument, what assistance the Church had formerly, it hath now; the Church formerly had not the communi, in fallible assistance: therefore not now. For the Prophets and the Apostles and the writers of the Scripture are not rationally to be included in the common account of the Church, in our case. Let them choose which they will stand to. If they put them into the promiscuous account of the Church, let them now show us such a Church: If they account them extraordinary, let them show ordinarily such.  
And he confounds himself in what follows. Before she delivered only what she had received by tradition and by Scripture. She hath received Scripture by Tradition too; hath she not? Why doth he then divide Scripture from Tradition in the way of its coming to us? For the chief reckoning they make to us of Scripture is upon the credit of Tradition. But he means Tradition ex parte materiae, it may be; because they think Tradition contains other matter than Scripture equally to be believed. But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Interpreting which (according to the sense truly intended by the Holy Ghost) the same Holy Ghost doth assist her, so that here is no new Revelation claimed to be made to her, but an infallible assistance to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed. Ans. He cannot well clear himself of Enthusiasm upon the account of Tradition. Any thing beside the word written equally to be believed is matter of Enthusiasm: But they pretend somewhat beside the word written equally to be believed; therefore are they in danger of Enthusiasm. And I do not see well how they can answer it. But now he endeavours to purge himself of this accusation in point of interpretation of Scripture. They say they do not interpret Scripture by revelation but by infallible assistance. Well, But how shall we blind souls be assured infallibly of this infallible assistance? We may not examine it by the judgement of private discretion; may we? If we may, than this is gained. Must we believe it? Yes. Why? Because God hath it to be his will that we should absolutely believe the Church. Show me where. By the Church? that is in question. By the Scriptures? what Texts? Those produced. But the question is whether they are rightly interpreted according to the true sense. What will they say now? Nothing but the Church hath infallible assistance. And this they must believe by a revelation without Scripture; and this is an Enthusiasm. And the Roman church pretending this privilege above other Church's makes it a private revelation. Again, though there are several ways of revelation, yet I would ask how many ways there are of infallible assistance distinguished from revelation: let them tell us or else conclude against themselves that they must have the sense of Scripture interpreted by revelation, because by infallible assistance. The penmen of Scripture they had infallible assistance: but that was by revelation. Let us know what infallible assistance there is without a revelation: specially since Stapelton and some others likely will have the definitions of Councils to be prophetical. If they be concluded by discourse, then are they fallible: if their conclusions be prophetical, then by revelation.  
But also these terms [to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed] are somewhat obscurely proposed. Doth he mean it of the sense of Scripture? Then where was it formerly revealed? if it was clearly revealed, what need of a Council to see that which others may see? if not, how was the sense revealed to them infallibly without a revelation? If he means [what was formerly revealed] of Traditions; those are beside the word of God: and therefore these do not belong to interpreting of Scripture. And yet also the Church hath not been so faithful in proposing these; as hath been noted before. Or doth he mean it of traditive interpretations, as they are called? but where are these to be found? who gives us their number formal and material?  
Let them then take home to their own Tents those that claim full assurance by the spirit in any point. We differ from them much; first because we do not pretend any such necessity of full assurance in every point: but the Roman must; otherwise what need of an infallible living Judge? 2. We pretend not to any prerogative above other Churches as to the knowing the sense of Scripture; they do. Therefore they urge that of St. Cyprian in allusion to what St. Paul said of the Church of the Romans then, for their Church now, that perfidiousness cannot have access to them; not considering (besides what hath been said to it before) what Nilus comments upon it, that the Apostle spoke it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the time that was past, not of the future. And thirdly, we do use means towards the finding out the true sense: but they must have it by an extraordinary assistance of the Spirit (which needs not means) if they will have it by infallible assistance in places of controversy. Therefore Stapleton thinks rationally that conclusions from discourse, cannot be infallble; and therefore he will have them to be Prophetical: and that will be by revelation.  
This number receives again my reinforcements of my answer to that Text forenamed about the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, as we ordinarily read it. I said it respects the office of the Church, according to the rule of the School-man. He says again, No, it respects the Authority. And here he does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he offers no reason why it should be taken in his way. For as to that which he urgeth here that it is called the ground of truth, it is not solidly objected; for the term in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that which is to keep firm and stable; the prop, the support, and this fairly imports an act ex officio, to keep up, and uphold the truth.  
He says also it suits well with his sense to give order to Timothy to carry himself well, that the Church might be thought to be infallible, so as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church. Ans. The strength of this Argument himself destroys. He is afraid to make good life an Argument of infallibility; because he says it is a pitiful argument, since Solomon the Idolaters was assisted with infallibility. Well, But let them first take my sense with the rule of the Schoolmen, and so compare them with his reason, which is but a pitiful argument; and then judge whether it be not best to take my account upon the place. Secondly, If badness of life be a prejudice to infallibility, then, since they cannot deny that some of their chief Pastors have been in life scandalous, their infallibility will be scandalised, and so cannot be such a way as that fools cannot err, as he urged before? Thirdly, If this satisfies the multitude, that those who are to instruct them are of unblamable life: yet this though it be enough ad faciendum populum; yet this is not enough to judicious men, who look for satisfaction upon solid principles; nor can this make Faith unto the people of their infallibility, but a better opinion thereof. Fourthly, As for Bishops and Deacons, which he says should be so qualified (by the order of St Paul, to and for the credit of such a Church) he does not there find in St. Paul's Epistle any Cardinal Bishop; or Cardinal Presbyter, or Cardinal Deacon, in whom the power of infallibility, according to them, should chiefly consist; and therefore that Text doth not positively serve their turn. Fiftly, I had thought infallibility could have defended itself without the credit of a good life; since the grace of gifts, and the gift of grace are two things.  
I said moreover what need of such instructions which St. Paul gives to Timothy, if the Church were infallible, since infallible assistance is immediate. He answers here, this is a strange consequence; the Church is infallible in defending points in a general Council, Ergo, no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour. Ans. But first, the instructions he gives to Timothy, were such as respected him in his place for the ordering of the Church in rebus fidei, in matters of Faith, as appears by the sum of Christian Doctrine which he gave him, Great is the mystery of godliness, etc. Secondly. By my Adversaries opinion there was no such need of instructions for a private life, since it is a pitiful argument to derogate from infallibility by a bad life. Thirdly, Neither was Timothy I hope in their account, a private man.  
After this he hath two questions in the clouds. Was it so for the first two thousand years before the Scripture was written. Ans. This is immediately subjoined to the other before; and therefore should seem to be univocal to it. And then we say two things, first he supposeth that which is to be proved, that the Church, in that space, was absolutely infallible. 2. much less was it infallible in Councils, as he now pretends, which then were not, as he now would have them. Therefore from hence it should follow, that if the Church be infallible, it may be infallible without Councils; and this is against him. Another question is this. Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediately? Ans. He speaks gravely, as ancient men were wont, with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he notes in his Rhetoric's. But why should he think we think he do? For the Church, by him, might be thought to be infallible; though Timothy was not; because according to him, infallibility is in a representative. And though Timothy might have been Precedent of a Council, yet was he not to be (according to my Adversary) personally infallible, but as Head of the Council. Yea he could not be Head of a Council then; for this was, according to my adversaries, reserved for St. Peter. And yet infallible assistance was communicated to every of the Apostles; was it not? Then nothing hinders but that it may be communicated to every of the Popes successively; which yet, it may be, he declines the affirmation of. And if it be not communicated to every of the Priests how shall the people be secured from error by them, so as they cannot err?  
But if they do say infallible assistance is communicated to any immediately, then may they see reason for what I said that infallible assistance is immediate: or if all infallible assistance be not immediate, let them show another species of infallible assistance. To me this argument is good, Apostolical assistance was immediate, infallible assistance is Apostolical, therefore infallible assistance is immediate. No question is made of the proposition. Nor can they make any doubt of the assumption, because they urge as much assistance to the Church now as is Apostolical. Therefore had my Adversary reason to interpret me of such infallible assistance, which needs no instructions: for I know no infallible assistance that doth, as appears by the argument.  
Neither doth his following Instance of the Apostolical Council in the fifteenth of the Acts evince the contrary. Though their determinations were not immediately inspired in regard of time, or of debate: Yet since this debate was not to them necessary, how can this make a new species of infallible assistance? Likely therefore this Council was in this sort managed by them to be a precedent and example to other Councils, which should not have infallible assistance, to determine presently and prophetically as soon as the question is proposed. And if those who have infallible assistance do use discourse; this doth not conclude an infallible assistance, which is not immediate. He that can prove the creation of the world by principles of Scripture in way of Faith, or in order to Faith, may prove the same conclusion also by principles of reason in order to science.  
But than it is said in the preface, it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. Ans. To this I say, fine praejudicio melioris sententiae, that these words do not cogently infer an infallible assistance of proper name, actuated, for they may bear that account in respect to the discourse they made by the effects of the Holy Ghost, and former declarations. And this may appear by that of St. Paul, 1. Cor. 17. vlt. she is happier if she so abide according to my judgement; and I think also that I have the spirit of God. This judgement was not given by infallible assistance, because by no inspiration: and yet also it doth refer to the spirit of God: And according to this proportion might be said, it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; and yet those conclusions might not proceed from the Holy Ghost by way of infallible assistance. And so far in other Councils the definitions may be said to be by the Holy Ghost, as they are drawn out of principles of Scripture, which the Holy Ghost did inspire the Penmen of it in. Yea 2. Since the meeting of them in that Council was but upon convenience in case of Scandal, what such necessity was there for that infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost? So then let them take it how they will, either those determinations were not made by them who were infallible by an infallible assistance; and then is not this instance to their purpose: or if it was, then are they to prove equal assistance to all General Councils: otherwise extraordinaries make no species. And I am sure the Trent Council hath not credited such assistance, as Stapleton and Bellarmin would claim from the Apostolical Council to all General Councils. 
N. 27.   
Here he would make up the breach which was made upon his strong hold for infallibility in Councils by that place of St. Athanasius, as holding the consubstantiality of the Son of God to be the word of God upon the Authority of the Council. This was slighted. He would repair it, but it will not stand. That Text, upon which the Nicene Council builded their determination, is made good ch. 2. num 4. In the judgement of the Council it did more than probably determine the Controversy. And if he thinks otherwise, he doth not believe the Council; and therefore not their infallibility. His discourse is nothing: He cannot determine it God's word with relation to a Text probable in Scripture, therefore he doth it with relation to the infallibility of the Councils authority. Well, is here all? then turn the tables, He cannot determine it Gods will with relation to the infallibility of the Councils Authority;  he did it with relation to the infallible Authority of Scripture, Doth he say that the Council holds it upon account of their Authority, or of the Scripture? then which is it more likely it should be held upon? The Church, or the Scripture? But let them speak thus, when the question is granted.  
Another answer of mine he doth as good as confess, that St. Athanasius did not hold it upon the Council; because he held it before. Here he distinguisheth indeed. He held it so in order to himself who was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the ancient doctrine of the Church, yet in order to others &c. Ans. He was not Pope, was he? And yet St. Basil speaks so highly of him, as if he had spoken so of the Pope, we should have heard of it: but if he was not Pope, what have we to do to the holding it in order to others? He was quoted for his own judgement; was he not? Then this distinction is impertinent. And besides, if he was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the ancient doctrine of the Church, he was convinced that their doctrine was conformable to the true sense of Scripture; if not, why should he say that the Council urged Scripture to the Arrians? if he was, than he held it before upon that account.  
Then again he toucheth upon the Council of Ariminum, saying that I contend that Council as well to be believed for itself as the Council of Nice, and you think etc. Ans. what I spoke by way of interrogation [why not] is not yet answered by him in the reason of it. He wonders that I should urge this Council in way of compare to the contrary: But this gives no satisfaction as to my reason, that exceptions, it seems, were not so available against the Council, because St. Austin made no mention of them, but referred the point betwixt them to Scripture. This Council of Ariminum was not so esteemed as the rest: but what then? from whence did this disesteem proceed? from the illegality? it seems no; for then St. Austin had had a plea against it without waving the Authority of the Nicene Council. And surely St. Austin had a very mean esteem of the Authority even of the Nicene Council, if having a just exception against the Council of Ariminum he would not plead it, and so bring in the Authority of the Nicene against the Arrians. But it may be the Arrians did not care for the Authority of a Council, and therefore St. Austin waved the Nicene Council. Yea? Then how is the Authority of a Council a Catholic remedy? and than it seems the Nicene Fathers determined against them, not by their Authority, which they cared not for, but by the Scripture. So then the disteem of that Council of Ariminum was upon respect to the matter of the definitions. And so a Council was not in their opinion, ipso facto infallible. Therefore he procceds in a fallacy, if he argues thus, it was never by the Fathers, no nor by the Church of England numbered amongst the four first Councils, therefore it was rejected, because it was not accounted a lawful Council. Because it was rejected, therefore for this cause, doth not follow: because the genus doth contain potentially more species. It was refused upon dislike of the matter, it seems, as before. And as for the reason why it was not lawful, he toucheth not here; and it was cashiered before.  
He goes on, and you might as well think that I might prevail against you by only citing the Council of Trent etc. Ans. surely the Council of Ariminum in all respects considerable was as hopeful towards infallibility as the Council of Trent; it may be more, by a a greater number of Bishops; and this with my adversary should have borne some weight; who should think that multitude of Counselors is half an argument of truth; because he would not place infallibility in a singular person, as the Jesuit, but in a Council with the Pope. And if he says that there was wanting in the Council of Ariminum the presence or consent of the Bishop of Rome; we can easily answer, that he then had but a single suffrage, and there were some hundreds of Bishops more in the Council of Ariminum then were at the Council of Trent. Yea also, some Decrees of the Council of Trent proceeded without the Pope's confirmation, as before. But I think they are both alike, the Council of Ariminum and the Council of Trent in being deceived. Only I think that St. Austin had less to say against the illegality of the Council of Ariminum, than we have to say against the Council of Trent: And therefore we may follow St. Austin; and if he appealed from the Council of Ariminum to Scripture, we may as well appeal from that of Trent, if they would urge it. He says St. Austin in vain had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it. Ans. Me thinks, if I may say so, this is not very judiciously spoken; because, if Maximinus urged the Council of Ariminum, he was bound by equal law to be dealt with by the Nicene Council. If Maximinus had not urged the Council of Ariminum, it had seemed that the Arrian had not a persuasion that this Controversy should be otherwise handled then by Scripture. And if he were well furnished with other arguments out of Scripture admitted by him, as he it seems supposeth that he might be, what need then of the infallibility of the Church in Councils? And it seems it is the shorter way and more expedite against Heretics by Scripture, as he confesseth in the words following, that St. Austin intended by them only at that time to overthrow him and not to meddle with a long contention (fit to fill a book alone) above the validity of the Council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum.  
Put then these things together; St. Austin it seems might be sufficiently furnished with arguments out of Scripture against the Arrian; he might by them only overthrow him; it is a voluminous work to prove the legality of one Council, and the illegality of another; the Arrian scoffed at the Council of Nice; therefore the convenient and easy way of proceeding with and against Heretics is by Scripture, not by the Authority of the Church. And this interpretative is the yielding of the cause. And yet, if they will yet think Councils, as such, to be infallible, let them think upon that Canon of Nice declaring equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria to Rome; and let them think of the Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Constantinople, that the Bishop of Constantinople, should be equal in his limits to the Bishop of Rome; The Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Nestorius, that Peter and john were of equal dignity. Let them therefore consider well what they have to do; for, if Councils be not infallible, they are in an error: if Councils be infallible, they are not, because they have declared against them. Let them therefore stand on fall by Scripture. Let them try it so as St. Austin did. 
N. 29.   
His discourse herein is fully put into this form, all errors in or against things necessary are plainly determined by Scripture, This infallibility of the Church is not plainly determined against by Scripture, therefore. But therefore what? That this is no error? Nay, that is not rightly concluded, but, that it is not an error in things necessary. All errors are not in things necessary. Therefore if it concludes as it should, it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench; for it is enough to us that it be an error, suppose it were not an error in things necessary. If it concludes that therefore it is no error, it concludes falsely. 2. Though the proposition be our doctrine, the assumption supposeth that which is not necessary to be granted by us, that this infallibility of the Church is an error in things necessary▪ we do not deny it to be so: but we are not by any arguments constrained to say so. For though we should not hold it an error in necessaries, yet is it necessary to reject it as an error, knowing it to be so. And 3. We say to the assumption, that it is sufficiently enough determined against by Scripture namely as necessary to be in the Church, because in the Scripture sufficiency to salvation is asserted without it; as before. And 4. The affirmative should have been proved by them who assert it; not the negative to be proved by us. And as towards his proof of the assumption, that the Scripture is not so clear against this as for this, we have nothing to say, because he hath nothing to prove it; Scaurus negar; it begs. And we can say better we have proved the contrary.  

N. 29.  Here he resumes a Text for them, St. Matthew 28. vlt. I made answer to it before, that it doth not extend equal assistance to all ages of the Church. He now urgeth me to show a Text, wherein the assistance which was infallible in the first age, should not be for the Second or Third age; he says to me, against your reasons we have our reasons. Ans. He is here wanting in two offices, first in proving that that Text doth extend equal assistance to all ages of the Church; for which the respondent is to wait with his buckler, it is enough to us that he cannot or does not prove it. But then 2. He is wanting in another thing because he doth not produce his reasons against our reasons, let them draw the Sword and cut the knots if they cannot untie them. Let them bring forth their strong reasons, as the Prophet speaks. When as then he says, bring against my illimited Text another Text limiting, we say that the cause and our office is upon the negative until he brings another Text for his sense, or gives reason for it, or gives us the consent of all ages of the Church, we have nothing more to think (besides what hath been said) then that he had reason to say more, than what follows, the necessity of the people (which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infalliblity) was greater in ages remoter from Christ. But this was answered to by retortion, that then, Traditions, it seems, now are not to be accounted equally certain. And he answers now that which he had better have kept in, He says now, it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles, was crucified, did rise again, than it was presently after these things happened; yet all these things be as infallibly true now as they were then, and as infallible: so I say of traditions; which for all this do not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty. Ans, Traditions than were but equal to Scripture, Traditions now are not equal to Traditions then. Therefore they are not now equal to Scripture. And this spoils their Traditions and contradicts the Trent Council, which determins that they are to be received Pari pietatis affectu. And so hath he lost his hold of Traditions by his own words. Neither will it save him to say that they are now as infallible as then in themselves but not to us; for so is the Scripture infallible in itself without the Church, as they confess, but it doth not so appear to us, they say. 2. They are to make good, if they can, degrees of infallible assistance, by the least degree of infallibility.  
But to go on, what if there be no such necessity etc. Ans. He seems to be, towards a punctum reflexionis here, well, if there be no such necessity of equal assistance, than my answer to such Texts is the better. And then let them take the rule, which their own do use, Deus non deficit in necessaris, nec abundat in superfluis. God doth not abound in things superfluous, nor is wanting in things necessary. But then also if it be not necessary, why have my adversaries so much pleaded the necessity of an infallible judge? Indeed it might be, if God had pleased; and yet not necessary by necessity of consequent; but they are wont to prove it to be, because it is necessary.  
He goes on, Did not the Church alone serve to decide all controversies before the Scripture was written etc. We answer as often before; The Church is not thence concluded infallible; put it into form, that which decides all controversies is infallible; the Church, before Scripture was written, did decide all controversies; Therefore it is infallible? No. We first deny the proposition. That which decides all controversies decides them infallibly, does not follow. This cannot be proved; less will not serve them. Then 2. To the assumption, we can deny it, it did not decide all controversies, put case it did decide all necessary controversies, yet not all controversies. And we must have a judge, they say to decide all controversies whatsoever. And 3. If the Church then before Scripture was written did decide all controversies whatsoever, then surely there is not that assistance infallible now given to the Roman Church, because notwithstanding they have the Scripture and Traditions, yet they cannot decide all controversies. If they can, they are not faithful, and then that of St. Cyprian is not due to them now, that perfidia non potest habere accessum. If they cannot, where is the equal assistance? and then also what was decided by the Church was decided by the Scripture in the substance of it though not then written: so that he had no cause to contradistinguish this decision of the controversies to the use of Scripture.  
Again he says, did not the old Scripture testify as much as was necessary that jesus Christ was the true Messiah? Yes. to what end then was john Baptist sent to testify this? Ans. First if the old Scripture did sufficiently testify of the Messiah, then that which I have said concerning the sufficiency of the whole Canon is surely sufficient: if it did not sufficiently testify, than his argument is none. 2. There is not par ratio for the adding infallibility to the Church after the Canon is consigned, as for St. john's testimony notwithstanding the old Scripture: More might be requisite for the settling of the Primitive Church then after: because the Church after was to be grounded in the Primitive.  
But he says there is as good reason; In ages after the first when the Church should grow from a grain of mustard seed etc. This proves nothing unless there might arise such a controversy which could not upon Salvation be decided without an infallible Judge. Let them prove this, and they will say something. If not, this will not be to the purpose, that several controversies in such a space might arise. And would not the same number of necessary points, material and formal serve as many more thousands of Christians? And those controversies which he names, we have spoken to, nay when they have, as they suppose, an infallible Judge, are all controversies ended? Let them bethink themselves what differences amongst them are yet dependent as before: We wait therefore for the proof of such a promise of assistance extended to infallibility for other ages of the Church. It is not enough for him to say, why might not Christ (for any thing you know) think this a sufficient reason. A posse in the premises will not make an actuality in the conclusion. 2. there is a difference betwixt a reason after the thing is apparent, and a reason to prove the thing to be: if they can sound prove to us that there is such an assistance given in promise to the Church in all ages, than we should sooner be induced to the acknowledgement of his reason. But there is nothing in the reason till the reason prove the thing. 3. If words in Scripture were to be taken always simply according to the terms, what need would there then be of an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture? Therefore let them choose which they will do, whether they will always have Scripture meant according to the uppermost import of the letter; if so, than the sense of Scripture is plain; which they have denied; if not, then may they admit a limitation of that assistance spoken of Matthew 28.3. This form of modality [why might not] should not, one would think, become the high mode of infallible assistance. This manner of speech might serve us against their infallibility: but no speech serves infallibility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And all those testimonies were given to the jews as ill as they were disposed. Ans. he seems to mistake what I said formerly about indisposition to receive infallibility. For I spoke of it in order to those who should receive the gift of it for the Church, and he now seems to speak of it in order to the people. But 2. Suppose there were as good a disposition, the possibility hereof cannot conclude the same necessity of the same assistance, and some of their men are named by some of ours for denying any such disposition towards such a measure of the spirit as formerly was given.  
That the Scripture hath still the same certainty, he says categorically, is apparently false; speaking as you speak in order to assure us etc. Ans. All his reasons are invalid. For as for the first that I confess some books of Scripture were formerly not acknowledged by all which now are received, this is of no weight; because it is sufficient to my discourse that they have still the same certainty from the time of their general reception. And 2. They have in themselves always the same credibility, as well as his Traditions, as he hath noted before.  
And that many and a good many books of Scripture are quite lost, is first, in those terms at least, a supposition. Whether any be lost is yet work for Tishbi, specially whether many, much more whether a good many, but it is obvious to a Romanist that denies the Scripture to be sufficient, to find it imperfect in the matter. In ingenuity he should have said nothing herein, lest he should be interpreted for his own ends. As the Socinian, who denies Christ's satisfaction, to prove his opinion denies Christ's Divinity, that so the satisfaction should not be sufficient: so the Romanist, lest the Scripture should be thought to be a sufficient rule, says a good part of it is lost. Thus with their honesty they have lost their modesty. Secondly, let them again consider how much prejudice comes to their Church (which they say is the depositary of Christian Doctrine) upon the loss of a good many books of Scripture. Thirdly yet dato, non concesso, suppose so, yet that which doth remain is surely as sufficient as the old Scripture without all the new. Fourthly my words do not engage me in this debate, because they are of a capacity to be understood of that Scripture which doth remain. Fifthly, If any be lost, me thinks as the Sibyls books, the rest should bear a better price. And as to his other exceptions about the sense of Scripture, about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or of Baptism, whether to Infants, or to be a Priest or a Bishop was to have power to sacrifice or absolve or not, we say first, that we have said enough already. And we say, that we need not say any more in these points, till they make good these postulates. First whether the exact knowledge of these points be necessary to Salvation. Secondly, whether, if not, they can yet prove an infallible Judge in all points of controversy appointed to us by God. And as to the last, they are first to prove a real sacrifice in the time of the Gospel, otherwise there will be no object for a special act of a Priest, as such. And absolution simply we deny not; their absolution to be necessary to salvation, and that it can make attrition to be as good as contrition, are tasks for them to prove who affirm them.  
And as for that he says, that then they had the Apostles themselves or the known Disciples of the Apostles to tell them the meaning of those words. He does not well consider what he says, if they gave the sense of those places which are obscure, where are these interpretations? why have we not a tradition of them? if not, they say nothing? if so, they must derogate from the Church's fidelity, because it hath justly communicated and handed to us traditions of other matters than are written, and not the sense of those Texts which are written. 2. We are yet entirely able to hold the buckler in the defence of our position, that there is no such need of an infallible exposition of those Texts which contain points necessary for faith or practice. The water where the lamb might wade was clear enough then; and had been yet clear enough, had not the great Fisher troubled the waters for better fishing. If the point of the dial be not fixed, they may vary the shadow, but the sun keeps it regular motion. So if their gnomon be lose, they may make the time to go for them. but the sun of righteousness (Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day and for ever as the author to the Hebrews speaks) doth in an uniform and regular course shine in the Scripture: and the doctrine of Christ by the twelve Apostles is equally set for all times; only the Roman makes the variation, who would have the Scripture follow the Church, and not the Church the Scripture. We need not then yet their Oedipus, who hath a foot so great that he must wear a slipper.  
The following words in this section are somewhat cloudy; and they do need a clue to show us their right connexion. His drift seems in them to be this to make me destroy myself by two positions, first that the Church is secure from damnative error, though not from all simple error, the second this, Heresy consisted in opposition to clear Scripture. Ans. One would have thought that a bad conclusion could not lawfully be begotten of these two positions; since specially the second is such as was anciently held by those who do understand distinctly points of divinity. And also I had thought once that he had granted the former; though now, pro re na●a, he doth think otherwise. I am sure he had more reason to stand to it, then to abide the peril of the negative. Well, but what from hence? Whence all those must needs be Heretics, who opposed clear Scripture. Therefore all those who hold those prime points in which you and we differ, with us against you, were heretics: for they held these points which you say, are against clear Scripture Ans. The Church is considerable in the quantity of it; so it is universal or particular: it is considerable in the quality, invisible or visible: the Church invisible is distributively secure from all damnative error: the universal visible may be secure from all damnative error. This we say still. But by what engine is this drawn into his conclusion, which he says should proceed partly from this position? But 2. What if we grant all that those who have been with them against us in the points of difference were Heretics; it is but like for like, for they familiarly give us no other name then Heretics. And I think we shall do very few Learned and sober men any harm, if we should say, that all those who have differed from us, are Heretics. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we know on which part the Fathers of the Church stood. We can carry our Fathers through the flames of divisions safe, I mean the ancient Fathers of the Church. But 3. If they will do us right, upon occasion for it, we will distinguish, and so do them a favour; but only than they must be guilty here of a fallacy of consequent: for although Heresy be opposite to clear Scripture, yet all which is opposite to clear Scripture, by their leave, is not Heresy. This is a condition of Heresy: but this is not the essentiative of it. There may be and are plain points of Scripture which respect circumstances, and yet these are not matters sufficient to make difference in them to be Heresy. They account indeed all difference to be Heresy, because they respect not points in order to the matter, but to the proposal of the Church, which hath itself equal to all: but the tenure of our principles is yet good. And yet this we will grant them, that he who denies any thing, which he confesseth to be plain, he is an Arch-Heretick; but not in respect to it presently in the matter, which may be a circumstance; but in respect to it as confessed plain, because thus he should deny God's veracity. And yet 4. the difference is not so much in opposition to clear Texts as in their obtruding matters of faith for which they have no Text.  
He proceeds. But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church etc. Ans. Will he again snarl himself? First it lies on the challengers part to make good two points, one that these points of difference were held in the Primitive times; and the second that they were held on their side. They say we have run away from the ancient Catholic Apostolic Roman faith; this is work for them to prove. And until this be settled, we have nothing to say to that conclusion, that Christ was with the opposers of evident Scripture. And yet we can say also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is false in the proposition; and false in the conclusion; as applied to us. And yet somewhat else may be said of it by and by. Thus we answer them if they intent the words of the primitive times: if they intent them only of the last ages preceding the reformation, we say first, that we may be somewhat more bold because their Church in those times was more degenerated. But 2. We need not deny that Christ was with his ordinances even in those times, as to lawfulness of baptism; and to the possibility of some's being converted; who might privately abhor the grosser errors, or simply might swallow them as the Whale did jonah undigested. Delictum ambulat cum Capite; they followed Absalon in the simplicity of their heart. Therefore 3. as to the opposers of evident Scripture, that either Christ must be with such, according to our suppositions, or else with none for these last ages; we can easily distinguish. To be with them, so, as to give them infallible assistance; or to be with them so, as not to withdraw all administrations of his ordinances, the former sense we can presently deny Christ's being with them in; for we deny it to all times after the Apostles: in the latter sense we can grant it; and yet they can get nothing by it. Yea we can also deny them this; and can answer to the other part of the disjunction, that if not with them then with none for those times: this we can answer to, and say that his disjunctive is not yet immediate because many or at least some might be led to heaven by the Cloud, as well as in the time of Elijah: and as they will say, in the time of Antichrist. 
N. 30.   
This makes number; being little else then a syllabus of former Texts. He thinks in them to prove two things, first that the spirit will be with the sucessours of the Apostles for ever. And 2. Secure them from error, because it is said, he will guide you into all truth. Ans. As for the first we need not stand upon that; for the question is not simply upon Christ's continuance with the successors; because we deny it not in terms. But the question is upon the universality of the object [all truth] namely whether it be to be taken reduplicatively to truth; or specificatively to necessary truth. The latter we can grant to the Church as invisible, and to the universal visible. The former we still deny. For first, it respects the Apostles principally, as appears by the twelfth ver. I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. This must be spoken unto the Apostles personally; and not as they were personae supponentes. But this he takes no notice of. And then again, the opposing of [for ever] by the spirit to a little while of being with them in body, must refer (as it is noted) to the Apostles, because he was not any time with the successors, in body. Yea also, this will be true in the time of Antichrist, will it not? if not, than the promise is not made good; and so Christ should not be as good as his word. If so, than it is extendible in the promise to the Church invisible, when the profession is not so visible. Then why do they arogate it to the Church visible? Again, this equally respects all the successors of the Apostles▪ doth it not? If it does not; then they should satisfy themselves with a limitation where none is expressed, which lately they would not do: If it does, than all Bishops are equal, because they all succeeded the Apostles as St. jerom affirms in his epistle to Evagrius. 4. All truth must be restrained in regard of the kind; for it must be Theological. Yea also in regard of the specialty; it must be necessary truth, for otherwise how was this promise made good for the first three hundred years, wherein there was no General Council by their own confession? Put it then into form, all infallibillity is in a Council. In that space there was no Council; then in that space there was not all infallibility; therefore at most only in points necessary. They cannot deny the major; because they annex infallibility, since the Apostles, to a Council. The minor they confess. So then, the promise of Christ, which was made equally to the Apostles and successors; yes, taking it rightly, equally to all the Apostles amongst themselves; and to all the successors amongst themselves (not equally to the Apostles and to their successors comparatively to both) is yet made good according to its own tenor, in its own sense, with their consequences. Therefore their Romish Divines do carry it more soberly; for so they say upon the place; and therefore the Church cannot fall into Apostasy or Heresy, or to nothing, as the adversaries say, they do not say, it cannot fall into any error: Into Apostasy, or Heresy, or nothing, it cannot fall: but into error, it may fall. To be sure, this is the surest way unless they had  arguments against every error whatsoever; or better answers for the arguments against them.  
Nevertheless, we must attend his Syllogism, all this time all the visible guides or Praelats of the Church were lead and did lead into opinions contrary to the texts of your Church, but all this time the spirit of truth did abide with them, guiding them into all truth, therefore the opinions contrary to your Church were true and not errors. Well not to trouble them as to strictness of form. To the proposition we can say, that if they intent it of all the times from the Apostles we utterly deny it; if they mean it of the times after the first six hundred years of the Church, than we grant the proposition, but utterly deny the assumption, they were not guided by the spirit into such a Latin Edition, into half communion. And this denies his proof that those opinions were true, because they were led into them by the Holy Spirit. This is denied; and is the question. And it is more easily said, that the Holy Spirit was with us by common assistance unto our opinions, then with them by infallible assistance unto their opinions. If we are to Judge of their assistance by the effects; we had need of infallible assistance, if it were convenient, for the discourse, to conclude for them: but I am sure we have no need of infallible assistance, to conclude against them.  
Neither is it any boot to them that the Spirit leads all into truth; for this may be limited to saving truth. And this is not sufficient for them, who must have absolute infallibility, or none. And then [all] may be limited, as that proposition, [God will have all men to be saved] is limited by Aquinas out of St. Austin by the like; such a Schoolmaster teacheth all in the Town; whereof the sense is this; not that he teacheth every own simply but all that are taught are taught by him. So the Spirit all leads that are led; but all simply are not led. The limitation then in regard of the object of the Person, or in regard of the object of the thing cuts off all their provision from hence. And when we have sufficiently refuted their points of difference, we have no need to say any thing, that the Holy Spirit should teach contradictions, if he were with them and us too; for first, infallible assistance is asserted to neither, but denied: and common assistance doth not exclude all error; and then 2. The Holy Spirit was not with them infallibly by the effect; for since the same Spirit doth not teach contradictions, he did not infallibly teach them that which is oposite to Scripture which he did teach.  
That which follows in compare of the visibility of their Teachers with ours or any other Churches, is but a mere flourish. Show me a succession in all ages of the Guides and lawful Pastors of any Church holding your Tenets in points differing from ours. Ans. Succession de se, is like number, of no value. Therefore they must prove their doctrine to be right; otherwise it will be a succession of error: for as he said, Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris. 2. It is accidental to a true particular Church to have succession: and the Church at first was true antecedently to the succession; and so the former times must never have been certain of their being right, because a Persecution might afterwards have interrupted their succession. 3. The Heretics bragged of their sucession too: therefore this is no proper, special, distinctive argument: 4. Where is their succession of universal Bishops for the first six hundred years? Then where is their Church? Then either let them not give or take that argument. 5. Our opinions to them are negative: then they are to show a positive succession in the doctrine of those points, which they can never do; unless by their infallibility post-nate antiquity should be as good as Primitive. For as for the Fathers of the purest times, tam sunt omnes nostri quam D. Augustinus: I am sure we may better say so, then Campian. 6. We can show our doctrine by Scripture, let them show theirs without it. And whatsoever is according to Scripture is true; this they deny not: our doctrine is yet made good to be according to Scripture: therefore the Charter of our points we have the Records of in Scripture: and this way is good enough for us, which is a posteriori. And yet also we can tell them that if it had not been for their cruelty and domination, we might better have returned them that which St. Austin said to the Donatists, vos tam pauci, tam novi, tam turbulenti. And God hath left us in all ages, of greeks, and others who have given us occasion to say, we hold nothing in the points of difference, but was held before. Therefore this argument doth not succeed: so that they must still labour to find a reason why our doctrine should not be as good as theirs.  

N. 31.  The sense of this Section we have had before. And it falls into such a Syllogism, whatsoever was God's end in giving of Pastors is always compassed. That the Church should be without error, and should not be as Chidrens wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, was God's end Ephes. 4.12. Ans. Whatsoever was God's end is always compassed so far as it was his end, where the effect depends not also upon moral causes; take it so and we grant the major, and deny the minor; it was not God's end that the Church should be without all error whatsoever; and the effect doth depend upon moral causes; which may hinder the success. The end of the Sacraments in the time of the Gospel, they will say was to confer grace ex opere operato; yet they say they have not that effect Ponentibus obicem. Or thus, whatsoever is God's end in his will of purpose that shall surely be compassed: but what is his end in the will of sign is not always compassed; take it then in the latter sense, so I deny the major, take it in the former sense, so I deny his minor. For this would be more unreasonable by their doctrine; for if God should work omnipotently to secure men from error by means, how should the obedience of faith be brought under freedom of will? 2. This respects also particular Churches: and therefore will not serve their turn, who, though they make but a particular Church, yet are wont to challenge the privileges of the universal. 3. This Text speaks nothing of the power of jurisdiction, but of the power of order, now the duty of our obedience beats respect formally to Authority and jurisdiction, or do they like some of Geneva, divide Pastors and Teachers? And then do they think that the ordinary Pastor is here principally aimed at in their extraordinary sense? 4. The end of Pastors than was the end of Pastors now; to be preserved by infallibility of Pastors than was not the end of Pastors then: therefore not now. The major is true by them, because they apply those words to these times of the Church, the minor is also true by them, because there was not, by their own confession, Councils held for the first three hundred years. The assistance therefore is not such as preserves from all error. And lastly, if we were to be preserved from error by the unanimous doctrine of those Doctors and Pastors, we should never be secured from error, unless in those points wherein we agree. 
N. 32.   
In this number he brings Es. 59.20.1. Compared with the 11. ch. to the Rom. 26. ver. Ans. These Texts neither disjunctively nor conjunctively are sufficient for his intendment. That of Esay is plainly intended for the last conversion of the Jew, which is not like to be made by Roman means, as Sr. Edwin Sandys notes in his Survey of the western Churches.  
And as for those words, my words which I have put into thy mouth, are free from error in all points great and small, yes, we grant it. This doth not contradict us, but they are to prove that whatsoever they say God puts into their mouth. Again it respects the Church as invisible; and that conceit of his that it cannot be so taken, because it speaks of the words not departing out of the mouth, is not solid; for the use of the mouth may be there for confession of the faith, as Rom. 10.10. with the mouth confession is made to God. Now this respects not the visible Church, as teaching; but the invisible as expressing the faith of the heart by the confession of the mouth.  
But he again, God's spirit or word is not in a mou●h teaching error. Ans. This is a Sophism, it is true in sensu composito, and as teaching error: but it is not true in sensu diviso, God's spirit may be in one, at one time teaching truth & in another time not teaching or teaching not truth. He may be in some directing sufficiently to salvation, not sufficiently against all error, not that the Spirit of God is in any teaching error, operatively; for whatsoever it is he is operative to in point of belief, is truth, but in whom he may be sometimes as teaching truth, he is sometimes not, when they teach error. For this si yet to be proved by them, that whatsoever is taught in the Church, is suggested and dictated by the Spirit.  
Afterwards he taxeth me for taxing any of coming near to blasphemy for saying, God did speak to us and teach us by his Church; which he says here is refuted" my words shall not departed out of thy mouth. Ans. I said not so. That which I said, I have answered upon the place, I do not not deny absolutely that God speaks by his Church; but I deny that he speaks now by his Church absolutely, God may speak by his Church that which is infallible: and yet not speak by his Church now infallibly. That which is infallible in the principles of Scripture; not infallibly in the manner of deduction. If he did speak always, and always infallibly, there were no more to be said; until that be proved, we say much is supposed.  

N. 33.  If it were lawful, I might smile at his discourse, in this number out of the next ch. in Esay, and the next to that. For these chapters do plainly regard the Church as invisible, in order to salvation, which is properly applied to the Church, as such: and this is more than truth: for it is possible for a man, not to have any error, and yet not to come to Salvation, and it is I hope, possible for a man to come to Salvation, and yet to have some errors. But that this should be said of the Roman Church, and that that should teach all Nations, I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was not the Church of jerusalem; and the Church of Antioch before them? Nay it will not be easily proved by them that they were Christians, in a form Church, before us. We may as well say that the multitude of the Isles shall be glad thereof; and that all Nations and Kingdoms which shall not serve thee shall perish, should be meant of the Church of Rome is as likely as that the Bishop of Rome should be Emperor of the world, as they pretend him Monarch of the Church. It was never true surely but then when the Emperors held the Pope's stirrup, and the Duke was thrown under the Table. Or it was then true, when the Pope was the Sun, and Emperor the Moon. Or it shall then be true when the Sun riseth in the west. But it should not be true of Rome, me thinks, because it is said, the days of thy mourning shall be ended. And surely they have been, since the prophecy, sometimes in mourning: and at least shall be, by their own acknowledgement, in the time of Antichrist.  
And that this should be meant of the Church as visible, because it is said" thou shalt be called Sought out, is a slight ratiocination. Rather the contrary, because God seeks it out, therefore it is not visible. Because it is called Hephtziba (my delight is in her) therefore visible: Yea rather the contrary; for God's delight is with the Church invisible; because when his delight is with the Church visible, it is in order to the Church invisible. Because the land shall be called Beulah, 
Ch. 62 ver. 4  therefore it should be the Church visible; rather the contrary; for the real union, which is mystical, of Christ with his Church, is to be understood of the Church invisible. And that she should be to God's comfort, namely the visible and the Roman Church; rather the contrary; she is certainly less to his comfort, because she says so. These promises are made primarily to the Church as invisible, which should be gathered chiefly out of the Gentiles in general, therefore let them again remember that of St. jerom in his Epistle to Evagrius, Orbis maior est Urbe.  
But he helpeth us with an argument, If this Church should at any time fall to teach error, Nations should do well to further their Salvation by forsaking her erring, as the Protestants say they did. This we take for the mayor: and we, assume, but this Church hath erred, as hath been sufficiently showed in the discourse of others, and competently in this; therefore are we justified by my adversaries. And amongst the errors, quod loquitur inde est, that she cannot err.  

N. 34.  In this he obtrudes again that of Dan. 2.44. And they must be meant he thinks of the Church, of the Church visible, of the visible Roman Church certaintly it was well said by the Poet— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we may go near to English thus, modesty is unprofitable to him that begs the question. That it is meant of the Kingdom of Christ in his Church, we deny not: but that it is meant of the visible Roman, we flatly deny; and we use for proof, his own principle; that Kingdom which shall beat in pieces and consume all those Idolatrous Kingdoms and shall stand for ever, is the Kingdom meant there. So then. But the Roman Church is not that Kingdom which shall do so: therefore that is not it which is meant there. The minor is proved. First they are not agreed amongst themselves whether the Church be a Kingdom. And if they hold it so they hold it erroneously, or else the ancient Church erred; for they looked for a Church in the Commonwealth, not for a Commonwealth in the Church, as he said; and then sure it did not stand for ever in the quality of a Kingdom. 2. If they take it in the letter, than it hath temporal dominion directly; which I think they will not say, since every one of them, as before, is not persuaded to hold a temporal dominion indirectly, and in ordine ad Spiritualia. If they do not take it in the letter, than it is meant of the mystical Kingdom: and this properly respects the Church invisible. 3. Have they broken down all Idolatrous Kingdoms? have they broken down the Turk and Persian? Yea, if they be a kingdom, there is one Idolatrous Kingdom more, which is not broken down, and that is theirs. Therefore are they bound by this argument to break down all their Idols. But they hate Idols, as Cyril of ●●●●salem said Antichrist should do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antichrist will hate Idols, that he may fit in the Temple of God: so they break down all other Idolatrous Kingdoms, th●t theirs may stand alone. And 5. Upon this account, we should have had better measure from them, because I do not read that they have charged us with Idolatry. And yet they have endeavoured to break us down as much or more than any others.  
Again, it is meant of such a Church as hath not fall'n into Heresy; Yea? then we assume, the Church of Rome hath fall'n into Heresy by Liberius, by Vigiliu●, as before. Therefore the Roman Church is not it which it is meant of. Again that Church which denies the Catholic Church, as such, is heretical. Their Church denies the Catholic Church, as such: for they restrain the Catholic Church to the Roman, by annexing the Roman to the Catholic. The proposition is good, because, to deny the Catholic Church as such, is to deny an Article of the Apostles Creed. Therefore to check their usurpation, the African Council cut off appeals to Rome: thus than it is not daniel's Kingdom, but a tyranny, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Politics say.  
Again If the Church should have universally fallen into uncertainty of true belief, it should no longer have been the standing kingdom of Christ, which shall stand for ever. We assume, but their Church must fall into uncertainties of true belief, as we have showed; therefore their Church is not it, and because there is uncertainty, therefore they have no divine faith, as he concludes. Again, their Church is not spread over the world in the quality of a Kingdom, therefore their Church is not that kingdom. How many parts of the world are there, wherein they cannot exercise a visible jurisdiction? nor do they break all Idolatrous kingdom's 〈◊〉 their visible Preachers. What? they break? rather by the sword than by the word; by the mouth of the sword, not by the sword of the spirit. Their breaking is indeed the right reading of the second Psalm thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, which Bellarmin would construe to be feeding in the original, mistaking the root, or deceiving his Reader.  
Yet if the Roman Church be not this Church, find me out a visible Church. Ans. First suppose we could not, yet this were no argument for infallibility, it might make somewhat towards probability; if the supposition were first proved, that there must be such a Church always in a flourishing visibility. Secondly, we take it yet for the Church as invisible, and therefore his demand is unreasonable. Thirdly their Church had not, in doctrine and discipline, that visibility in the first ages of the Church, and therefore there was a Church, which had the privileges of the Church visible, and yet not theirs, but he tells us we shall have more of this in its place. So then this is but a prelusory weapon.  

N. 35.  Here again he comes upon me for clear texts to prove the controversy about the infallibility of the Church, to be decided by Scripture. Ans. This hath been abundantly spoken to before. In respect to what he says now, that I must bring clearer Texts of Scripture to prove the fallibility of the Church, than he to prove the infallibility, we add, that if he understands by [clearer Texts] as by reasonable consequence and deduction, it is done: if he understands them expressly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in terms, he speaks unreasonably; because he hath brought none such; and therefore he cannot look for clearer; because comparation is in eodem genere. So that this is not much more than a cavil. For if the Scripture be sufficiently furnished with necessary direction, why should it be thought defective in not determining in terms that controversy, which is needless, i● that be otherwise sufficient  
And as for the Item he gives me, that the Texts I bring, must be for the Church not for the Synagogue; for he says all his Texts speak of that, not of the Synagogue, I am very well contented with this law. All that I have produced looks that way: but his have not. For besides those Texts which he produced out of the Old Testament, which in the letter, bear respect to the Jew, he urgeth that Text of Christ, dic Ecclesiae which by the terms hath more respect to the Synagogue, than any which I formerly made use of.  
And you must bring Texts and not discourses, or else you decide not the Controversy by the sentence of the judge to which only you appeal. Ans. This compliance with the Anabaptist requites their Friendship. Is not that Scripture which is plainly deduced out of Scripture? As the conclusion is potentially contained in the principles; so that which is in principles of Scripture is contained in Scripture. So our Saviour's," you err not knowing the Scriptures & then proves the resurrection by that which is said [I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of jacob] so then Christ proved the resurrection not by the Text, in the terms affirming it, but by the Text consequently as deducing it. 2. they do not consider how little they have in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for St. Peter's successor; for half communion, merit of works, the Sacrifice of the Mass; and some others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where are they read in Scripture? 3. They would have Religion with reason and prudential motives, would they not? Then they cannot dis-accept discourses from Scripture: 4. I do not deny to be judged by reasoning out of Scripture: no nor by antiquity neither, though it be not an argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they have more need to brag of them, because they are not theirs. 5. I do not appeal to Scripture as a formal Judge, but as to the law by which all Judgement is to be made. And again, as the Philosopher, those the best laws which leave least to the Judge. All things then considered, he hath reason to quit the field unless he hath a mind to encamp against the truth. And if they have so much for them in Scripture, and in ●●sert words as here he cracks; surely those Romanists who have spoken of Scripture so diminutively have not been so wise as they might have been. So then this Paragraph we may end with this account; the Socinian is supposed to plead reason against Scripture and the Church; The Papist pleads the Church without reason or the Scripture; The Protestant pleads Scripture with reason and the Church Catholic.  

N. 36.  This concerns the reading of a place in St. Austin De utilitate credendi, which he quoted about the authority of the Church, thus, velut gradu certo innitentes; I found it in a Froben Edition otherwise, namely thus, velut gradu incerto nitentes: He says it is in an ancienter Froben, as he reads it. And besides, he thinks the scope might lead me to his reading. Ans. The scope directs us to think the authority of the Church to be but as moving, not as determining Faith, as I have showed upon another place of St. Austin, which he replies nothing to. Moved we are by that authority as an uncertain step to God by whom we are assured, not to God as the object of worship, but to God as the author of our faith. And as for his objection, that it is ridiculous to be helped to certain truth by authority uncertain, it is not of much weight. For although uncertainty formal is not helpful unto truth, yet that which is uncertain for us to rely upon may be helpful. As the Catholic Moderator observes of the Huguenot in point of justification, that he is somewhat nice because he will not lay hold upon such a bough which peradventure might save him, yet is he not to be blamed, because he doth rely upon the righteousness of Christ, which is a certain bough, and will surely save him: so it may be we are thought too scrupulous, because we will not lean and rest our faith upon the authority of the Church; yet are we not to be blamed, because we rest it upon God. Yet may we then rely upon a bough uncertain till we come to a ground more certain. The voice of the woman of Samaria was not certain: yet the people were moved to come to Christ by what she said; but afterwards they found better satisfaction from himself; and then gave an account of their faith, not by her voice but because they had seen him.  
And as for miracles which were spoken of to be part of St. Austin's authority, he thinks they were no unassured step; it is easily answered, that however this doth derogate from the application of that Text to the authority only of the Church, since the authority he speaks of is not only of the Church. But Secondly, miracles when they are received, are an argument to confirm the truth: but miracles are not to us an assured step, because we are not certain of them to be true: Since we hear in Scripture of lying wonders, 2 Thes. 2.9, 10. So that the doctrine rather proves the miracle than the miracle the doctrine. The doctrine is to be believed without a miracle, but the miracle is not to be believed when the doctrine is false, as Deut. 13. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  
But then as to the reading of that place in St. Austin, somewhat more may be said. It is true that in an edition of Basilius sil 529. it is Certo, but yet there is some mark with it to note a Criticism in a various lection. In two other editions it is gradu incerto. But also we except against the Latin in the grammar of it, if it be read his way; for where will they find the verb [innitor] to govern an ablative? Nitor doth; but innitor doth not. And in reading Stapleton's relections I find he useth [innitor] with a Dative. Therefore may it be probable that our reading is the right: and that the [in] changed its place; and in stead of gradu incerto nitent●●, it was made gradu certo innitentes.  

N. 37.  In this he resumes the speech upon the authority of the Devil when he says any thing conformable to Scripture. To this I said more than was necessary. Another would have sent it back to the place from whence it came. But that which I said liberally he exagitates disingenuously.  
I answered first that we are forbidden to consult with the Devil; but are enjoined to consult with the Church. To this he rejoins, this hinders not his being conformable as long as he speaketh conformably to Scripture. Repl. This was proposed by him to press us to the use of the Church, therefore that which was said by me properly made a difference betwixt them, because we are to take direction from one not from the other, even for those things which we know he knows most certainly. Therefore though there be no difference in the matter of truth as to both: yet there is as to the immediate Author.  
And I granted to them ever that the Church to be consulted with ever, is the Church as visible. Yet doth it not from hence follow, I hope, that it should be always so visible, as that we can consult with it. The visible Church is ever to be consulted with: but this visible Church is not ever so visible; visible at sometimes; not so visible at all times. For there was not always in the Church a Pope and Council; and if a Pope, not a Council, by their own confession. And in such cases, they have said before that the Church must content itself with former determinations. And though that which is infallible may be orderly consulted with; yet not all that is to be consulted with is not surely infallible. Every Priest is not infallible I think they will say; and yet is to be consulted.  
My Second answer is of the same kind and that, which he says would be of some weight, if we granted not such use to be made of the Church, as thereby to think well of that which is proposed, but the certainty of faith is, cui non potest subesse falsum this is not to be given to the Church simply.  
As for the Third answer, we say easily, there is no comparative in negatives: neither is the one nor the other infallible; though I am more moved by the one whom we have reason to respect, the Church, than the other, whom we have reason to suspect.  
So then, that which is apprehended true is considerable either abstractly from the speaker, or complexely with the speaker; in the former it is considered with respect to the matter; and so he said well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are not to look at so much the author as the matter, in the latter respect it is respective to the motive; and so I am more induced by the Church, though not determined. And therefore as to those terms, to whose saying you would give an infallible assent, when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture, we say that the term● [saying] is distinguishable into the object purely, or into the object with the act and author. In the former there is no difference: in the latter there is, we may believe that which is said, when we do not believe him that says it. And so may we believe rather the Church, whose office it is to propose truth, as he confesseth it is not the Devils.  
Neither did we by these answers smother up any thing which clearly overthroweth our reply, who say we must follow the Church only so far as we see her follow Scripture. That which he saith here doth no way weaken our reply. It hath been answered before; and the strength of it broken. For first though they could not see at all how far the Church followed the Scripture for the first two thousand years, and the barbarous Nations never having seen the Scripture did truly believe, doth this hinder us from holding now that we are to believe the Church, in points of faith, no further than we see grounds for what they said, out of Scripture? take it of faith divine and in things of faith, it is yet good. And their instances do not evacuate it. Distingue tempora, distinguish the times, God might in that time and season of immediate revelation work then a faith immediately; which now is not reasonable to expect ordinarily, as appears by the first Chap. of the Ep. to the Hebrews the first ver. Privilegia pauc●rum non faciunt regulam communem. Secondly the Faith of the barbarous nations was not terminated in the Church, as if they had believed the Church, and therefore believed that which was said by them: But was terminated in the matter which was said by the Church: The Church was instrumental to the knowledge of the matter, and might be instrumental as to dispose them for faith: But the authority of the Church was not the formal cause of the act of faith. And knots himself is loath to assert it. And this is that which Tertullian hath said, non ex persona fides, sed ex fide persona aestimanda est. We are not to esteem the doctrine by the person, but the person by the doctrine. And the tradition which St. Irenaeus speaks of, was the sum of the Christian Faith, which is in Scripture: So he as before, and so St. Cyril of Jerusalem understands it, as may appear by that of Cyril in his fourth Catech. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. we must not deliver any thing in the divine and holy mysteries of faith without the divine Scriptures.  
This is the Epilogue of the Chap. and is of use only to tell me what he hath done (I think not done) before, 
N. 38.  and this is all the answer he gives me for taking away what he had said out of two places of Scripture forementioned, towards infallibility. Before he referred me for satisfaction to the due place; here he refers me back again.  
And as for any reply to my answer out of the Fathers, or my use of them, he says to me, you know why I resolve to pass them. Yes, & particularly why he says nothing more to what I said about St. Augustine's testimony in his Epistle against the Manichee. If I may be interpreter, it is thus resolved, he had good reason to pass them, because they pass him. And so we have made an end of his long, but not hard Chapter.   

CHAP. V. No Church is our judge infallible, than not the Roman.  
This Chapter which concerns the Hypothesis should injustice have been longer, but he reduceth the proof of it to a small pittance, and if all the Churches which submit not themselves to the Bishop of Rome as their supreme Pastor, be of no better proportion, it will be Catholic for all that do submit, but not for all.  
But since he is so short in this, we will be even with him; and bring all he says in this second Treatise (for so some times he calls it) into one Syllogism; the Church is the Judge infallible appointed in businesses of Religion. No other but the Roman is this Church; therefore. To the proposition we have said enough before. He would now make good the assumption (or presumption, as we might speak) supposing the proposition to be demonstrated; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he quarrels with me, because we except against his supposition of it. It is true had the major been a maxim irrefragable, then there had been more reason to blame us for exception against it, and for not applying ourselves in present address to the minor; but since we see no cause, nor the Churches of God, why the proposition should be swallowed, we call upon him to make good the thesis, that there is a Church appointed as infallible Judge in businesses of Religion, and therefore we told him that he might as well prove he had right to Utopia, because he only claims it; whereas he should first prove the An sit? whether there be such a place. And therefore if he would have had us say nothing to the questioning of the supposition, he should have made it stronger first, and then should not have concluded bravingly that therefore all he had said of the Church, was to be applied to the Roman, no other being infallible, as in the former treatise, num. 28,  
Well, but he must prove his minor, 
N. 2.  because all other Churches do not lay claim to this infallibility; and are demonstrated to be fallible; we grant the Antecedent, without any proof, and his proof was not so good as his proposition. But therefore, it belongs to them to be infallible; we deny the consequence. We deny the Title upon the claim. And he is angry, because we make his plea from the claim to be weak. And the weakness of it appears in that it is weaker grounded upon a true supposition, nor is it very sound in the proceeding of the consequence, in the first regard, we say debile fundamentum fallit opus. And therefore since that is one of his principles, his conclusion must be naught, as before. His consequence he proveth thus, the Protestant Chucrh and all other Churches different from the Roman do judge themselves, acknowledge themselves, declare and profess themselves to be fallible and that according to infallible Scripture. If then any of these Churches be infallible (in what they judge and declare for truth grounded in Scripture) they are infallible in this their judging and declaring themselves to be fallible; therefore infallibly they are fallible. Therefore upon supposition that it hath been formerly proved, that some Church is judge of controversies, and infallible, and it being by the former argument demonstratively proved that neither the Protestant Church nor any Church different from the Roman can be judge of controversies and infallible; it evidently followeth that the Roman Church is this judge and infallible, as she teacheth herself to be. This is the whole procedure of his discourse. Herein he hath a supposition that there is some Church which is judge of controversies and infallible, this is not yet, nor can ever be proved. And here is also another supposition that no Church different from the Roman, hath claimed this privilege upon declaring herself infallible: But this may be demurred upon; for in effect and by way of interpretation, this was done by the Donatists, who like the Roman separated themselves from their Brethren and taught no salvation but in part Donati. And therefore his discourse is more weak while we question his suppositions: but yet supposing his suppositions to be good; first, this makes them not to be infallible by way of consequent, if by way of consequence. For that none other Church doth claim this infallibility is extrinsical and accidental to the Roman right; and it doth little victory, relate to possession rather than right. And if truth of right, should right of truth be given primo occupanti? Veritas est virgo semper, as he said; non dum occupatur. And therefore the necessity of consequence is left to shift for itself, since all that can be said for it, comes to pass, in the matter, upon this accidental negative: for if any Church of the world had been as bold as the Roman in claiming this infallibility, they had had it before them: but because there hath not been claim laid to it by other Churches, that which they have found and taken up, must belong to them.  
Therefore, what he says that I make him argue thus, the Roman Church claimeth infallibility, therefore by claiming it she hath right to it, is no great slander, though the terms might not be the same: for he doth little else in his former treatise, when he says, All other Churches of all other Religions do say indeed that they are themselves, the only true Churches, but none of them say themselves to be either the judges of controversies or to be infallible; therefore they cannot be either judges or infallible. And what sense is this argument resolved into, but this; that the claiming makes the right, and therefore he might somewhat have spared a reproach which falls upon him. Neither is it true, that all other Churches of all other Religions do say indeed that they are the only true Churches. And this I noted before; for which nothing is said to me now.  
But he says, I say nothing to that which he presseth and still doth press, that the Church which is appointed by God for infallible judge of controversies, cannot possibly be any of those Churches, which teach themselves not to be this infallible judge. No? Have I said nothing to it? Yes, I have said as much, as he could prove, that none of those Churches are such a Church. And I have also said that his supposition was to be denied; and to this supposition of his my proposition is contradictory; no Church is appointed by God to be infallible Judge. But, because he hath been a valiant supposer, I must be accounted a weak disputant. If he includes the supposition in the argument for one of the propositions, I deny that proposition. And if he will yet conclude, he makes it a formal Enthymem, but in virtue none. And therefore I said to him in terms, first then make it out that there is such an infallibility to be had, before you challenge it, and do not prove the being of it by the challenging of it, lest the Roman Eagle be said to catch at flies.  
Yet he goes on, It had been very easy to understand this right, and not to make me say that only laying claim to infallibility is a sufficient proof of infallibility. Ans. I think that I have understood more than my adversaries have been contented with. And I say yet it is easy to understand here an argument by a claim. And so they must do, if they will conclude their Church to be the infallible judge. It is the best plea they have upon the supposition; and the only plea without it. And I have the less to do, because he denies this argument to be a sufficient proof, if not that, & the rest may answer themselves. And I say as he says in this that though a Minister must be a man, yet it followeth not that such an one should be a Minister because be is a man and not a woman (unless Pope joane) because one is more general, and therefore the proposition is not simply converted; yet if he says against us, the Church which is infallible judge must be a Church judging and teaching herself to be infallible, and cannot be a Church which judgeth and teacheth herself fallible, and if he makes this an argument, than he makes it an argument for himself, that their Church is the infallible judge, because it teacheth herself to be so. And yet he says, this I said not, but I said that Church that must be infallible must not want this condition; and therefore no Church teaching herself (even according to Scripture) to be fallible, can truly be this infallible judge. Ans. This evasion will do them no good. A condition hath itself by way of an inseparable accident: but this inseparable accident, when it is denied to any other, is as a property, and therefore beareth vim argumenti, the force of an argument; and I presume they thus intended it. Let them therefore choose. But if it be one thing to say the Church which is the infallible judge, must be a Church judging and teaching herself infallible, and another thing to say that that Church is infallible judge which teacheth herself to be so, than that Church which teacheth herself to be infallible may yet not be the infallible judge; and so there is destroyed (and by himself) also the necessity of consequence. But secondly, to answer them in kind, the Church which teacheth herself infallible is in this fallible, their Church teacheth herself to be infallible, the assumption is theirs; the proposition is proved thus, either it is true or the ancient Church was not infallible, because it did not teach herself to be infallible; which he says is a necessary condition. Therefore either their consequence is not good, or they prove thereby the ancient Church not to be the true Church, and so to be different from theirs. Thirdly, put case some other Church should bethink themselves as the Greek Church, and pretend to be infallible, the Roman consequence would hold but pro tempore; for then notwithstanding the supposition; supposed, the question which Church is the infallible judge, is yet to be decided by the Word or by the Sword. And therefore, consideratis considerandis, if he hath no other hold for his Hypothesis he hath none. And so Lycurgus the Lawmaker might well die in Crete for his fiction that the laws he gave the people came from Apollo of Delphos.  
As to the charge against their Church about the Millenary opinion, he would here answer it, 
N. 3.  that it was not admitted by the supreme pastor of the Church defining with the Church assembled in a Council. Ans. first If this were a reason, it would destroy all the traditions for three hundred years, because they were not admitted by the supreme Pastor defining with the Church in a general Council, for they say there was no council for the first 300 years. But secondly, was not tradition then an infallible rule? if it was, that is no answer: if not, the Scripture; or there was no infallible rule at all, and this contradicts them in both; for they say there was an infallible rule, and not Scripture.  
But he would also say, it was not generally admitted by the Church diffused or universal. Ans. But I hope the diffused Church adds no authority to a matter of faith? This was indeed Alphonsus a Castro's opinion; but my adversary was not of capacity for that conceit, because he annexeth authority to the Pope and a Council, and if the diffused Church (which includes the people) have any moment toward; credibility, why is it denied to them to have the Judgement of private discretion, since their consent also makes a suffrage? And as for the divers Fathers not holding it as a Tradition, they may excuse us certainly, unless they will prove it. He should not surely prove it by justin; for he is accounted for it, himself, though many did not acknowledge it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sufficient for a Tradition. Is it not▪ If not, let them show more for other Traditions which they hold: if so, then that went for one. And then the many were not Fathers: St. Austin otherwise. Neither doth this conclude against Catholic Tradition in all use; but may in point of faith, till we be as certain of Tradition. Till that time I am satisfied with the former place of cyril of jerusalem, and when we shall be as certain of Tradition derived from the Apostles times through all ages of the Church, in points of Faith, than we shall not urge this plea, that if this opinion of an Apostolical Tradition was so current in the Church upon the credit of one Papias at first, how shall we be ever sure, in the account of Traditions, which is which?  

N. 4.  He hath learned to speak here high, that he might at least at last go off with noise. He calls it a demonstration; which yet by his own words is to be held up by a supposition. Neither upon the supposition supposed will it be very near a demonstration; for it concludes not per se but by accident: and also it concludes rather or primarily negatively, that other Churches are not the infallible Judge. And if the discourse were good, it would come to this, that other Churches should far the worst for their modesty, and the Roman should far the better for their impudence. And if the ancient Church was infallible, notwithstanding it did not say that it was infallible (or else they differ from the ancient Church in an essential predicate) than their Church is no● infallible, notwithstanding it says that it is infallible. So then upon the whole matter, his supposition is not admitted; and therefore, could they well prove their Church to be fairer for this privilege then any other, the supposition being admitted; yet since it is not admitted, it proves nothing in re, nor by their own confession. And yet if it were admitted, his discourse would not make him to be as good as his word in a demonstration. And yet this ratiocination of his, instead of an un-answerable argument against us (but is proved not to be so) may be an unanswerable argument against them, that they lie at catch, and have need of that which all other Churches have left; and also it proves that they have no better proof. What I said more to what he said more by anticipation, he says nothing to. But he engageth himself in the end to a better account of the Roman Church. So then I have for the present my discharge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. yet his Epiphonema is this.  
Petrae durities nulli magis quam ferienti nota.  
And, not to be behind hand with him, I return him that of St. Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
FINIS.  

Errata, which the judicious and can did Reader is desired to observe.  
PAge 71 l. 9 r. uncreated p. 84. l. 6. r. Pelagians, p. 115. l. 7. r. derogates. p. 116. l. 2. r. substrated. p. 121. l. 15. & p. 12●. l. 7. r. these, p. 148. l. 15. r. destruction, p. 236. l. 14. r. equivalent, p. 238. l. 20. r. properly, p. 248. l. 31. r. heard, p. 516. l. 5. r. read, p. 518. l. 4, 5. r. descent [this error is to be mended as likewise there for these or their as oft as it occurs] p. 52●. l. 5. r. recidivation. p. 527. l. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 528. l. 28. r. less p. 5●9. l. 5. r. pauperius, p. 534. l. 11. r. Catholica, p. 535. l. 14. r. Lesbian rule, p. 588. l. 4. 1. Homoufiasts. p. 5●0. l. 23. r. Sophism, p. 544. l. 25. deal A. p. 550. l. 3●. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 593. l. 23. r. quaeritur, p. 594. l. 13. r. sworn, p. 609. l. 28. r. dolus, p. 629. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 662. l. 25. r. quâ. ibid. l. 28. unusquisque, p. 680. l. 15. r. Agends, p. 695. in the margin r. Dr. Potter, p. 726. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 730. l. 5. r. decretory weapons, p. 742. l. 15. r. now, p. 744. l. 26. r. a posse non ad non posse, non valet, p. 200. [which should be p. 930.] l. 28, 9 r. Cardinal's. p. 946. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. l. 13 r. Prudentia, p. 953. l. 4. r. qui ne le croit. p. 964. l. 10. r. by images. p. 975. l. 2. r. Greek Latin Edition. p. 977. l. 19 r. without indemnity. p 980. l. 7. r. Antoninus. p. 985. l. 16. r. Encratites. p. 994. l. 23. r. join with her the Church, p. 1000 l. 21 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1060. l. 19 r. one, p. 1066. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The mistakes of the Printer in false pointing, litterals and folios may be rectified in reading.