A Reply to a Relation, Part 3 (1 of 9)

A Reply to a Relation · Part 3 (1 of 9)

p. 113THE REPLIE TO THE RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE.

L. p. 2. IT is very fit, the People should look to the Iudgement of the Church, before they be too busie with particulars But yet neither the Scripture, nor any good Authority denyes them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgement, especially in things familiar and evident, which even ordinary Capacities may as easily understand, as read. And therefore some particulars a Christian may judge, without depending.

P. What you meane by Church, you have told us before, namely that, wherein your Church of England, and that of Rome, are one and the same, one Prelaticall and Hierarchicall Church, out of which are excluded all those Reformed Churches, p. 114which neither have, nor acknowledge Prelates to be of divine Institution. We have also made a Say of the difficulties: So as it is no difficulty to divine, what Christians we are like to prove in understanding and judgement in the mystery of Faith and Salvation, when we must be limited to that narrow Scantling of some moderate use of our owne understanding and Iudgement, and that but in things familiar and evident to every ordinary Capacity. O poore Christians, that for Understanding in the Scripture must be at the allowance of Antichristian Lords, who would bring into bondage Gods people, by Chaining them up in Darknesse and Ignorance, and doe with them, as **1 Sam. 11.2.1 Sam 11:2Nahash the Ammonite answered the men of Iabeth Gilead; On this condition will I make a Covenant with you, that I may thrust out all your right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel. But the Apostle exhorts Christians, Saying, ‡‡1 Co…. 14.20Be not children in understanding; howbeit, in malice be children, but in understanding Téleio ginesthe, be perfect. And, ‡‡Heb. 6.1.Heb 6:1Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, Let us goe on unto perfection. And, §§Heb. 5▪14.Heb 5:14Strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those, who by reason of use have their Senses exercised to discerne both good and evill. But you allow Christians onelyonly some moderate use of their owne understanding, and that in things familiar and evident, which men of ordinary Capacities may as easily understand, as read. So as what they read, except with the very reading they doe as easily understand it, as they read it, they must not meditate further of it, but in what they presently upon the reading understand not, they must depend upon your Churches judgement. So as you would exclude your Christians from being of those ††Psal. 1.1, 2·Ps 1:1Ps 1:2blessed men, of whom David Speakes, which delight in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law to meditate day and night. You would not have them with **He…. 5.14.use to exercise their wits and Senses to discerne … good and evill. Yea the Apostle useth a word very emphaticall, di… tò exin, by an habituall use, or long custome have their Senses gegumnasm…na, exercised▪ the word properly signifieth such an exercise, as Wrastlers, or such, as contend for victory, doe use, which is with all their might and strength, being train'd up unto it by long exercise. So as the Scripture doth not onelyonly not forbid, but Commands and exhorts Christians to all diligence in the Study of the Scriptures, C…l.. 2.2.That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the aknowledgement of the Mystery of God; as the Apostle speakes. And, Col. 3.16.Col 3:16Let p. 115the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisedome, teaching and admonishing one another, &c. And the Bereans are Said to be dugenésteroi, more noble, then those of Thesselonica, in that they received the word with all readinesse of mind, and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so, which Paul taught. Loe …ere, they examined Pauls Doctrine by the Scriptures: they depended not upon his bare word; and therefore the Holy Ghost markes them forth for men of a more noble spirit. But you would have your Christians to be poore and beggerly in the knowledge of the mystery of Christ, and to be so base-minded, as in all things, which are not obvious to every Capacity, to depend meerely upon your Church-Authority and Judgement. So as what you meane hereby, except to bring into your Church of England the Iesuiticall blind obedience, captivating the peoples senses to your Dictates, that they might pinne their Salvation and Faith upon your Priests Sleeve: I cannot imagine. Which will appeare yet more clearely at after.

Againe, these words of yours are in Answere to the Jesuit's words, namely, That it was not for the Lady, or any other unlearned Persons, to take upon them to judge of Particulars, without depending upon the Iudgement of the true Church. The Prelate yeelds the Iesuite this, that the Church of R…me is a true Church▪ on whose Iudgement people must depend.To which all your Answere in full is, as before. Wherein you easily let the Jesuite slip, and run away with this, that the Church of Rome is that true Church, on whose Iudgement for Particulars all unlearned Persons must depend. But you understand the true Church to be that, wherein you told us before, your Church of England and of Rome, are one and the Same. And so for Rome to be a true Church, you plainly confesse at after. But your words here may stand you in very good Stead, to be a faire Item to all the Readers of your Booke, not to be too busie with the Particulars of it, but first to look to the Iudgement of the Church of England, whose mouth you seem to be in this your whole Discourse. So as I may see my Doom already set down in black and white, that I must be Censured as one too busie, or Allotroepíoskopos, playing the Bishop in anothers Diocese, in our English Translation, a busy body. But I must beare it off with Head and Shoulders. And, as the Proverbe is, Over Shooes, over Bootes. I have already waded through the Fords of your Dedicatory, and now I must launch into the Deep of your Discourse. And there's now no returning. Nor have I put my hand to the Plough to turn up your weeds by the roots, to look backe, or desist, for feare to be censured as one p. 116too busie. Yea all my businesse is about particulars; and namely such, as summed up together in the totall, conclude you to be, though not a profest Invader, yet a most subtile and pragmaticall Enginer, and underminer of that Truth of Christ in the Scripture, which yet the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile against.

L. p. 4. Bellarmine of very great ability, to make good any truth, which he undertakes for the Church of Rome.

P. What one thing (I pray) which Bellarmine undertakes to make good for the Church of Rome (as the Church of Rome) is a truth? I say, as the Church of Rome. For what he undertakes to make good for the Church of Rome properly, must needs, be some point of Popery, or Popish Doctrine. Otherwise he undertakes not to make it good, as for the Church of Rome. Now the Church of Rome, as it is the Church of Rome, namely the Papall Church, holds not any one Saving Truth. I say againe, it holds not any one Saving Truth. I shall prove this more particularly at after. Yet you seem to intimate here, that either all, or most things so undertaken by him, are truth. But the contrary will appeare; So as what things are in themselves false and erronious, can by no humane ability either of that Champion of Rome Bellarmine, or of the great Champion of the present Church of England, be so made good, as to deserve the name of Truth.

L. ibid. After Bellarmine hath distinguished, …o expresse his Meaning, in what sence the particular Church of Rome cannot Erre in things which are de Fide, of the Faith: he tells us, this Firmitude, is, because the Sea Apostolicke is fixed there. And this he saith is most true.

P. Your last words here are somewhat darke, whether we should take them for Bellarmines words, he saith; or for your owne assent therein, And this he saith is most true. This Later is the Likelier. And then againe, here is another doubt, whether [And this he saith is very true] it be referred to the whole Sentence going before, and alledged by you; or onelyonly to the Last Clause. If to the whole Sentence, then in Saying, And this he saith is most true; you assent, that Romes infallibility consists in the Firmitude of the Sea Apostolicke fixed there. Which you seem afterwards more expresly to contradict. But if onelyonly to the Last Clause your Speech hath reference, And this he saith is most true: then first, you should have expressed it more Clearely p. 117and punctually, as in some things you doe. But taking it in the best sense, you confesse it is most true, that the Sea Apostolicke is fixed there: thus you give occasion of Dispute, about Peters being at Rome, and of his being Bishop of Rome; and if so, whether consequently Rome be yet the Sea Apostolicke. But because your words, here are not Cleare enough, and at after you declare your selfe herein more plainly, what we have to say of this, we will reserve to a fitter place.

L. p. 23. I shall ever be glad, that the Church of England may have farre more able Defendants, then my selfe.

P. Certainly the Church of England her selfe may be glad hereof, to vindicate her Reputation, which you, by this your Defence, have layd flat in the dust. But, May have, seems to import, that now she hath not, at least, now, that Dr. White is dead. Nor hath the Church of England any great cause to glory in either of you both, as Defendants, unlesse by the Church of England you understand that new Start-up Faction of Arminianized, and Iesuited Atheists, whose Standard-beares you have been and are to bring the whole Land backe againe to Rome, and so to make a full League and Confederacie against the true Church of Iesus Christ.

L. p. 29. Things not Fundamentall, yet to some mens Salvation are ne…essary.

P. How prove you this? Seeing what is necessary to some mens Salvation, is necessary to all, and every mans Salvation. And Fundamentalls onelyonly, to wit, Such things as are de Fide, of Faith, are the onelyonly things necessary to every mans Salvation. According to the Athanasius his Creed. Whosoever will be Saved, it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke Faith: which Faith unlesse a man keep whole, and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. For the Catholicke Faith comprehends all Fundamentalls, which to violate in any one particular, overthrowes the Faith, and cuts a man off from Salvation. But your adding of other things, besides and unto the Fundamentalls, as necessary to Some mens Salvation: doth necessarily inferre this Consequence, that there be other things besides Christ, which are necessary to Some mens Salvation: And so you make Christ an insufficient Saviour to some men at least, as to whose Salvation things not Fundamentall are necessary. For things not Fundamentall are extra Christum, out of, or without Christ. Whereas the Scripture Saith of CHRIST, **Act. 4.12.Acts 4:12That there is p. 118no Salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given, whereby Dei sothenai emas, we Must be Saved, which words doe plainly evince, that besides Christ, nothing under heaven is necessary to any mans Salvation. But give us some one particular instance of such things, as being not fundamentall, yet are necessary to some mens Salvation. You tell us of certain (I wot not what) Deductions from the Articles of Faith, which you make to be your Not-Fundamentall, and yet necessary to some mens Salvation: but for our better Information you particularize in nothing, neither in the things, nor in the persons, for whose Salvation they are necessary, but leave all in the Cloudes, the fittest man…le to fold…up such foule and blind errours in.

L. p. 31. The Churches Declaration can bind us to peace, and externall obedience, where there is no expresse Letter of Scripture, and Sense agreed upon.

P. By the Latitude of this Sentence, you, or your Church of England may (as you have done) by your Declaration prefixed to your Articles of Religion (as before) bind Ministers not to preach of those Doctrines of Grace, as Election, Predestination, &c. because, though there be expresse Letter of Scripture for them, yet the Sense is so farre from being agreed upon by your present Church, as that you Say plainly, they may be taken in two opposite Senses. So as upon this your Churches Declaration of the ambiguities of your Articles, you have stopped all the Ministers mouthes, binding them to peace, and externall obedience. Although I cannot yet conceive, how that Declaration should be the Church of Englands, though published in the Kings Name, and perhaps compiled in the Conclave of Canterbury. And thus also that Order for the Altar of S. GREGORIES, which yet is but Dormant in Cryptis, not published in Print, in which respect it cannot be called the Declartion of the Church, yet must be of force to bind all Ministers to Peace and Obedience; first to Peace, not to speake a word against Altars, for his Eares: and next to Obedience, that if he refuse to have an Altar set up in his Church, himselfe shalbe made a Sacrifice. But why should such an Order thus bind? I must crave pardon for making Question. And the rather, because your Lordship here gives us a Rule or Canon saying, The Churches Declaration can bind us to Peace, and externall, Obedience, where there is no expresse Letter of Scripture, and Sense agreed on. Now though we have expresse Letter of Scripture, proving Christ to be the onelyonly Altar of Christians (as before is p. 119shewed) yet because this sense is not agreed on by your Lordship, and so by your present Church of England, therefore men must be peaceable, and obedient in that point, and quietly submit to Authority, in the admitting, and the Adoring too (if you will) of Altars in every Church. And so in all other your superstitious Ceremonies, of what force is the expresse Letter of the Scripture, where the Sense of it is not by you and your Church agreed upon? To give an Instance or two more, This is my Body: the Sense of these words is not agreed on between your Church of England, and that of Rome (though you are in Substance both one Church) what then? Ergo Ministers are bound to Peace and Obedience, in not medling to or fro with the manner, How Christ is present in the Sacrament (though your Article of the Lords Supper doth declare it, both affirmatively, and negatively, how it is, and is not) but to content themselves with Really; which is a very peaceable word, about which Rome and you have no great reason to fall at oddes. Againe, for bowing at the nameing of the Name Iesus, although you have no expresse Letter of Scripture for it, (no not Phil. 2.10. where it is Said, En to onómati, In, or (as your Translation hath it) at the name of Iesus every knee should bow; but it is not Said, En to onomazethai tò onoma Iesoun, or Iesous, In the naming of the name Iesus, every knee should bow: So as that place is plainly expounded, and agreed on by other places of Scripture, as Isa. 45.23. and Rom. 14.10. as some of your old English Bibles note those places in the Margent over against the place; as in that of Isaiah, there is set in in the Margent, Rom. 14.10. and Phil. 2.10. all which three places unanimously shew the universall Subjection of all Creatures in heaven, and earth, and under the earth to Christ in the day of Iudgement) yet because this Sense is not agreed on by the present Church of England, therefore her Declaration in her Canon binds all to Peace and Obedience: to Peace, in not speaking or writing against bowing at the nameing of the name Iesus, nor in preaching to expound the Letter of Scripture (Phil. 2.10.) by the plain sense of other Scriptures, as afore cited: and to Obedience, by bowing themselves, when they heare that Name to be named. So as your Lordships Rule here is very usefull for many things, although you have neither Letter, nor Sense of Scripture for them.

L. p. 32. The power of adding any thing contrary, and detracting any thing necessary, are alike forbidden. No power of the Church can doe this.

p. 120P. This Sentence you alledge out of Vincentius, and allow it; So as it is to be accounted your owne Confession, which I suppose you will not deny. Whereupon you with your Church fall under just condemnation, both for adding things contrary, and detracting things necessary. For you adde to the service of God (as you call it) your Altars, and sundry other superstition…, which the Scripture excludes and condemnes, and so are contrary: and you detract things necessary, as Preaching of the saving Doctrines of Grace, Preaching on the Lords dayes in the after noon, Preaching Week-day Lectures, and Cathechising by expounding the Grounds of Religion. Which things are necessary, profitable, and usefull to the people of God, and which God commaundeth; as 2 Tim. 3.15.16. and 4.1.2. Gal. 6.6. Let him that is Katekoúmenos, Cathechised in the word, communicate To katekounti, to him that Catechiseth, or instructeth him, in all good things. Thus you and your Church take upon you to do those things which are alike forbidden, and which no power of the Church can doe, though you can.

L. p. 35. Wrangle while you will, you shall never be able to prove that any thing, which is but de modo, a consideration of the manner, of being onelyonly, can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith.

P. Wrangle I will not, but prove, that some things which are, de modo, considered in the manner of being onelyonly, not onelyonly may possibly, but are really, in that very respect, fundamentall in the Faith. So as to deny them, or not to beleeve them, is in it selfe damnable. And hereof I shall give some Instances. 1. Christs body in receiving of the Sacrament, is to be considered in the m…nn…r of its being present to the beleeving Communicant. In so much as to exclude such manners of being present, as doe destroy either the Article of his perpetuall Residence in heaven till his c…ming againe, or the truth of his Naturall Body, doth deny and destroy two Articles of the Faith, 1. touching Christs sitting … t…e rig… hand of God, from whence he shall come to Judgem… ▪ and 2ly. that he was borne of the Virgin Mary, with a true humane body. As the Papists apprehending and beleeving Christs naturall body to be locally present in the Eucharist, doe thereby overthrow his perpetuall residence in heaven, …till his coming againe: and withall, the truth of his naturall body: which being a true naturall body, with all its naturall properties, cannot be locally or corporally in many places at one and the same time; which yet the corporall presence in the Eucharist doth necessarily import. And if the truth of Christs naturall p. 121body be destroyed (as by the Manichees, and other Hereticks) Christ is wholly evacuated, and shall profit nothing. Besides, this Popish beliefe of Christs corporall Presence in their Eucharist, makes Christs natural body, which hath its dimensions of length, breadth, thicknesse, to be a meere fantasticall and imagina…y body, as being contained within the narrow circle and compasse of a thinne Wafer-cake: and so they destroy Christs body. And so also, in that they beleeve they eat this body of Christ, which is to destroy it: as 1 Cor. 6.13. And this beliefe of Christs corporall presence as aforesaid, destroyes spirituall communion with Christ, and with the Holy Ghost, and consequently the Article of faith concerning the Communion of Saints. For Christ saith to his Disciples, **Iohn 16.7▪John 16:7I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I goe away: for if I goe not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him unto you. So as to beleeve Christ to be corporally present on earth, and that men have by that meanes a corporall communion with him, doth debarre such men from all communion of the Spirit of Christ. And ‡‡Rom. 8.9.Rom 8:9If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his. He hath not Christ, that hath not his Spirit: and he hath not Christs Spirit, that rests in the beliefe of Christs corporall presence on earth, as before. For except I depart (saith Christ) that is, except I be absent from you, as concerning my corporall presence, the Comforter will not come unto you. And thus by a false beliefe of the very manner onelyonly of Christs presence in the Popish Eucharist, Christ the Foundation is overthrowne. And this errour de modo, of the manner of being onelyonly, overthrowing the Foundation, must needs be a Fundamentall errour, if any errour may be said to be Fundamentall.

My Second Instance is about Christs humane Nature, Synodi Chalcedonensis …lepistis: Asmukutos: Akoristoes, Adiairétoes, Atr…ptoes▪de modo Subsistendi, of its manner of subsisting in the Person of the Son of God. For to beleeve, that it is either after the manner or way of Commixtion, or by adherence, as one thing cleaving to another, or Inherence, as an Accident in the Subject, or by Conversion into the divine nature, or by Concomitancie, as Bellarmine saith, Christs divinity and soule is present with his body in the Eucharist by Concomitancie: all these manners doe destroy the personall union of Christs two natures in one person. As those two Hereticks, Nestorius and Eutiches, the one condemned in the Councel of Ephesus, the other in the Councel of Chalcedon, the later for holding, that Christ had but one Nature, the humane converted into the Divine Nature: the other, that Christ had two Persons: p. 122both these destroyed Christ the Mediator, who is not a Mediator, unlesse he be both God and Man in one Person Christ. So Bellarmines devise in holding Christs divine nature, and humane soule to be present in and with that body, which they frame unto him in the Masse, by way of Concomitancie, as being inseperable companions: destroyes the Sacrifice of Christs Passion, wherein the soule of Christ was in death seperated from his body, untill his Resurrection. Now the Papists say, they offer up Christs body in the Masse, as representing the Sacrifice of his death and Passion. Which how can it be, when they say his soule is by concomitancie with his body offered up; So as all this while there is no representative, or Commemorative, much lesse a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs death, Seing in that body (as they say) Christs soule is inseperably present? And againe, to say Christs divine nature is present with that body of Concomitancie, this destroyes the Personall union. For Concomitancie is no personall union of the two natures, concomitancie being but an accompanying of each other. Whereas the divine nature of Christ doth not accompany the humane nature, but assumes it: and the humane nature doth not accompany the divine, but subsists in it. Thus it is cleare, that the Consideration of the manner of being onelyonly may possibly prove to be Fundamentall in the Faith.

L. p. 37. All, which pertaines to Supernaturall, Divine, and infallible Christian faith, is not by and by fundamentall in the Faith to all men.

P. You told us **See pag. 94. …fore.before, That things not fundamentall, yet to some mens Salvation are necessary: and here, that all that pertaines to Christian faith is not fundamentall in the faith to all men. It seems you have some peculiar way to heaven, which is not common to all. But take heed, least leaving the common road-way of true Saving Faith, attended with a holy life, you fayle of heaven. ‡‡Iohn 14.6.John 14:6I am the way, the Truh, and the Life, saith Christ. And is not Christ this way, Truth, and Life to all that are Saved? Is not he to all such as are called, both Iewes and Greekes, Christ, the Power of God, and the Wisdome of God? But what doe I speake to you of Christ, or what doe you speake of Christian faith, that know not what Christian faith is, otherwise, then as you discerne in it some thing, for which, in whomsoever you find it, you persecute it to the death?

L. p. 39. If new Doctrines be added to the old, the Church may be changed in Lupanar errorum, which I am loth to English.

p. 123P. Nay, are you not ashamed to English it? For this you Speake of the Church of Rome: and you have told us, that the Church of England and of Rome are one and the Same Church. And now you Say, If new Doctrines be added to the old, the Church may be changed in Lupanar errorum. And this the Church of Rome hath done, as you elsewhere affirme: She hath added new Doctrines to the old, and such new, as She doth with the old, a… men doe when they put on a new suit, make the old a Cast suit. But because you are loth to English in Lupanar errorum, for the reverend respect you beare to that Venerable Apostolick Sea, I will doe as much for you, as to English it: If new Doctrines be added to the Old (as the Church of Rome hath done) the Church may be changed into a Stewes of Errours. This Phrase you take out of Vincentius Lyrenensis his Sentence, quoted in the Margent: which is this in English, The Church by adding new Doctrines to the old, becomes a Stewes of impious and beastly Errours, which was before a Sacrary of chast and undefiled verity. Whence I note, how you, not onelyonly smother some of his words, but smooth others, Saying, for, [The Church becomes a Stewes] The Church may be changed. So as herein you falsify the worthy Saying of Vincentius, when you make but a May be, of his, Is made. But let the Conclusion be, If a Church be turned Whore, 'tis good that all should know her to be so in plain English, that they may avoyd her, and (as Salomon saith) **Pro. 5.8.Prov 5:8remove their way farre from her, and not come neere the dore of her house. And for this Cause have I taken the Paines to be your Translator.

L. p. 39. Some Decisions, yea and of the Church to…, are made, or may be, (if Stapleton informe us right) without an evident, nay without so much as a probable testimony of holy writ. But Bellarmine falls quite off, and confesses in expresse termes, that nothing can be certaine by certainty of Faith, unlesse it be contained immediately in the word of God, or be deduced out of the word of God by evident consequence. And if nothing can be certain, then certainly no Determination of the Church it selfe, if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these, either expresse word of God, or evident consequence …ut of it. (And a little before) Every wrangling Disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much lesse obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church, no not when they are (Dogmata deposita, Deposed Principles.

P. Now all these Passages weighed together, do clearely and distinctly resolve themselves into these Conclusions: p. 1241. That the Church may decide and determine some things, without any evidence, or so much as a probable Testimony of holy Writ; and herein you consent and jumpe fully with that notorious Papist, and adversary of the once Church of England, Stapleton, whom the learned Dr. Whitakers publickly confuted in the Divinity Schooles in Cambridge, as his Works can yet testifie. And yet behold now the Church of England hath got a Champion in the Chaire of Canterbury ▪ who pleads for, and applauds that in Stapleton, which Dr. Whitakers, and many other learned Divines in England formerly have refuted. And for further Confirmation hereof, you tax Bellarmine as of untruth, where he confesses, that nothing may be certaine by cert…inty of Faith, unlesse it be contained immediately in the word of God, or be deduced thence by evident consequence. Whereupon you inferre, that if nothing can be certaine, then certainly no Determination of the Church it selfe, wanting expresse word, or evident Consequence out of it. Thus you condemne Bellarmines true Saying (if by the Word of God he understand the Scriptum alone, and not his word unwritten) and approve and preferre Stapletons false and hereticall sentence before it. Secondly, That things so decided and determined by the Church, without either evident, or so much as probable Testimony of holy writ, yet are so de fide, so firmely to be beleeved, as every wrangling Disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much lesse obstinately oppose. Consonant hereunto you …ay at after (pag. 224.) The Determination of a Generall Councel …ring, is to stand in force, and to have externall obedience at least yeelded to it, till evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration to the Contrary make the errour appeare, and untill thereupon another Councel of equall Authority do reverse it: And so also, pag. 226. &c. Where here I mention for clearer proofe of what you say here, but not to anticipate or prevent our fuller Answere, when we come to those places, where we shall supply our brevity here.

L. p. 40. I hope A. C. will not tells us, there's any Tradition extant unwritten, by which particular men may have assurance of their Severall Salvations.

P. But what think you of it? Will you tell us there is no such thing written in the Scripture, That true Beleevers may have assurance of their owne Salvation? But if there be, why doe you forbid Preachers to meddle with it, considering the true and solid comfort which it bringeth to him that hath it? As the 17th Article confesseth, might it be suffered to p. 125speake out, and had you not put a gagge in the mouth of it.

L. p. 43. Mine is, That the beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God, and infallible, is an equall, or rather a preceding prime Principle of Faith, w…th, or rather to the whole body of the Creed.

P. How? The Belief of Scripture to be Gods word, and infallible, no more but an equall, or rather a preceding prime Principle of Faith, with, or rather to the whole body of the Creed? This is yours (you say) your Saying. And I beleeve it to be yours. For it is as like to one of your Sayings, as may be. For here you attribute no more credit to the Scriptures, then to the Creed, both equall, onelyonly differing perhaps in point of some precedencie of time, or So, with an, or rather equall, or rather preceding, the difference not great, if any. Thus doe you not equall a Church Tradition with the Divine Scripture? For we have it by Tradition that the Apostles compiled the Creed, and each his Severall Article. And is this or any other Tradition of equall Credit with Scripture? And is not the Scripture the Rule, whereby the Articles of the Creed are to be interpreted, which are no otherwise to be beleeved, but as they are agreeable to the Scripture? So as (for the Purpose) if you goe no further for the Sense of the Article of Christs Descent into hell, then the very Letter of the Article, you can make no Sense of it, nor give any reason for it. And how then can you give a reason of your Faith in this particular? Except you do beleeve it, because you do beleeve it, and because the words are, He Descended into Hell. But of this more by and by.

L. p. 44. Some Traditions I deny not, &c. to be Apostolicall, but yet not fundamentall in the Faith.

P. You might do well to point out unto us, which be those your Apostolicall Traditions, that we may distinguish them from those Traditions, which Rome calls Apostolicall. Or rather perhaps you admit of all those as Apostolicall indeed, but yet not Fundamentall. Surely if you can prove them to be truely Apostolicall, namely, that the Apostles delivered them immediately to the Church by word of mouth, why are they not fundamentall in the faith? Why are not all bound to beleeve them, or give as much Credit to them, as to the Articles of your Creed, which you Say are fundamentall in the faith.

L. p. 45. The Church of England taketh the words, He descended into hell, as they are in the Creed, and beleeves them without further Dispute, and in that Sense, which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in.

p. 126P. Here a Question may be moved, 1. In generall, Whether a man taking up a matter upon such trust, as he gives equall beliefe unto it, as to the Scriptures themselves, doe not therein Sinne damnably. As making that a fundamentall ground of his Faith, which is not found to be in the Scripture. Secondly, in particular, Whether a man resting in the very Letter of the Article, He descended into Hell, beleeving th…reupon, as surely as he beleeves that God is in Heaven, that Christs Soule did locally descend into Hell among the damned there, having no regard at all to what the Scripture Saith of it, whether the Scripture Say any such thing, or no: doe not hereby make way for his owne Descent into Hell? Or thirdly, Whteher you do as verily and firmly beleeve Christs Descent into Hell, as you doe his Ascent into Heaven, Seeing the Scriptures Speakes clearely and expresly of this, but not so of that; and whether you are a… much bound to beleeve his Descent into Hell, because you find such words in the Creed, as his Ascent into Heaven, because you find it in the Scripture? Now for Answere to all these together, I conceive, that to make any thing of the necessity of Faith to Salvation, besides what is found in the Scripture, is Sinne, and in particular to beleeve, that because it is Said in the Creed, He Descended into Hell, therefore Christ did locally in Soule descend into Hell, the place of the damned, without any proofe from Scripture, is Sin. My reasons are these: 1. Because this opens a gappe to men to beleeve humane Traditions to be of Faith to Salvation, as of equall credit and authority to the Scriptures. Now it cannot be proved, that the Creed it selfe, with its forme and words, and Articles, and Title, called The Apostles Creed, is other, then a humane Tradition, or that the Apostles composed the Creed. Secondly, This argues, as a too high estimation of a thing humane, as if it were autópistos, of selfe-Credit: so a too base estimation, and undervaluing of the holy Scripture, as if they alone were not the Rule of Faith, or not to be relie… and rested on alone for all matters concerning Christian Faith. So as to give Credit to any thing else besides the Scripture, as of equall Authority with the Scripture, (as you make your Creed to be) and not examining it by the Scripture, is a detracting from the Authority of Scripture, and consequently a denying of the Scripture to be the Sole Rule of Faith. For the Creed, it is either a part of the Scripture, or not a part: if it be not a part of Scripture (as indeed it is not) then all the Articles of Faith in it (being but a small abridgement of Christian Faith, and so, of necessity, and in comparison of Scripture it selfe, very p. 127obscure, and Scanty) are to be proved and illustrated from Scripture, the Sole Rule of Faith, and Tryall of all Truths. Thirdly, in Particular, to beleeve Christs descent in Soule into hell locally, must stand with some reason, and analogy or proportion of Faith layd downe in the Scripture. For Christ did or suffered nothing, but the Scripture shews the Reason, Cause, and End of it. For instance: Isaiah Saith, **Isa. 9.6.Isa 9:6To us a Child is borne, to us a Son is given. So the Angel to the Shepheards, ‡‡Luke 2.11▪Luke 2:11To you is borne this day a Saviour which is Christ the Lord. This then shews the End of Christs Incarnation, namely for our Salvation. Then for his Death, ‡‡Rom. 4.25▪Rom 4:25He was delivered up for our Sins. And, §§Heb. 2.14, 15.Heb 2:14Heb 2:15Forasmuch as the Children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himselfe likewise took part of the Same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of d…ath, that is, the Devil. And deliver them, who through feare of death were all their life time subject to bondage. So for his Resurrection, ††Rom. 4.Rom 4He rose againe for our Iustification. So for his Ascention, It was that he might **Ioh. 16.7.John 16:7send the Holy Ghost, and goe to prepare a place in heaven for all his. So for his Sitting at Gods right hand, ‡‡Ephes. 4.8. Ioh. 14.2. Rom. 8.34. Psal. 2.6. Act. 7.56. Heb. 1.13.Eph 4:8John 14:2Rom 8:34Ps 2:6Acts 7:56Heb 1:13There he makes Intercession for his people, rules as King his Church, in preserving, protecting, governing his people, and makeing his and their foes his Footstoole. But for any such thing, as Descent into hell, neither is it found in the Scripture, nor much lesse any reasons given there of it. Indeed Peter Speaking of Christs Resurrection, alledgeth Psal. 16. Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell: So in the English. In the Hebrew it is commonly taken for the Grave, not for the place of the damned. But will you take Peters exposition of it Speaking by Christs owne Spirit? ‡‡Act. 2.29, 30, 31, 32.Acts 2:29Acts 2:30Acts 2:31Acts 2:32This (saith he) David Seeing before, Spake of the Resurrection of Christ, that his Soule was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see Corruption. So then, this place (Psal. 16.) was by the Holy Ghosts owne Interpretation, a Prophecie of Christs Resurrection from the Grave, and not of any Descent into Hell, the place of the damned. For he is not said to rise out of hell, as you say he went downe into Hell, nor to ascend out of Hell, as you beleeve he descended into Hell. Will you have a particular Article of Christs descent into Hell, and shall you not need another Article for his Ascent out of Hell againe? And the Apostle saith, §§Eph. 4 9▪Eph 4:9Christ descended Eis tà katótera mère tes ges, to the lowest parts of the Earth, which is spoken of his humiliation to the Death, and the Grave: but here is no word of his Descent into any such place as Hell, the place of the damned. But admit your Faith to be true, that Christs Soule descended locally into Hell: I aske, to p. 128what end or purpose? Can you shew any Reason from Scripture for this? Will you say, his Soule went thither to suffer? Surely that had its **Ioh. 19.30. Psal. 18.5.John 19:30Ps 18:5Consummatum est upon the Crosse, there it was finished. Will you say, he went to triumph over the Devil in his owne D…nne? That was also done on his ‡‡Col. 2.15.Col 2:15Crosse, as on his Triumphall Chariot. And can you give any reason why Christ should descend into hell in regard of us? What▪ that so he might deliver our Soules out of Hell? Surely this also was done in his ‡‡Heb. 2.14, 15.Heb 2:14Heb 2:15Death. And againe, if it were necessary that Christs soule should goe locally into hell, to deliver our soules: then also it was necessary for his body to descend into hell, to deliver our bodies from thence. For he came to redeem our bodies, as well as our soules. Or what els can you Say? Certainly what ever you can invent, the Scripture will presently discover the vanity of it. But for my part, I dare beleeve nothing concerning Christ, and my Salvation, but what the Scripture hath revealed. But the Scripture hath revealed no such thing, as the Descent of Christs Soule into Hell locally. But you will then object unto me, Do I not beleeve my Creed, and every Article in it? I answere, I doe. Why then (say you) Doe I not beleeve the Article of Christs Descent into Hell? I say, I doe, being understood, or expounded according to the Scripture, and the Analogy of Faith therein. How is that? Christ dyed, and in his Passion he suffered the Torments of Hell in his ††Psal. 18.5. Math. 26.38, 3…. & 27.46.Ps 18:5Matt 26:38Matt 26:3Matt 27:46Soule on the Crosse, and in the Garden. But his Descent into Hell is set after his buriall. And doe you not know, that the ancient Heathen used to put Hádes for the state of the dead. So as katelthein eis hadou, is to goe, or to abide in the state of the dead, which Christ did for 3. dayes, and then arose againe and revived. So as the Article shewes the continuance of Christs being dead and buried, till his Resurrection. Againe, you know the Nicene Creed mentions onelyonly Christs buriall, and no Descent into Hell: and Athanasius his Creed, katelthen eis hadou, He Descended into Hell, without speaking a word of his buriall. All which doe confirme what I say, that christ in being buried, remained so long in the State of the d…ad, his soule seperated from his body: and being said to D…scend into Hell, hades signifying also the Grave, thereby is meant his being buried for so long a time, till his rising againe. As it is said in the next Article, The third day …e rose againe from the dead, that is, from the Grave, where he abode in the state of the dead.

Now I have given you a reason of my Faith: Can you give p. 129one reason of yours, concerning this Article, as you take and beleeve it with your Church of England? Show but one reason, or shadow of a reason out of Scripture. Nay, except you bring every Article of the Creed to the examen or tryall of Scripture, for the staying and establishing of your Faith, you may run into many monstrous errours. What doe you beleeve concerning Christs death? You beleeve that hee dyed. But for whom? Whether for the Elect onelyonly, in Gods Purpose, Account, Appointment, Acceptance: or universally for all men, Elect and Reprobate? I tell you, my Lord, if you beleeve that Christ dyed for all men universally, as well for the Reprobate, as the Elect, you destroy both Gods Grace in giving Christ for his people onelyonly, the Elect, and also the merit and eff…icacy of Christs death. The Scripture shewes these things aboundantly. But I mention this onelyonly by the way. Againe, What doe you beleeve concerning the holy Catholicke Church? You beleeve (I dare say) and you doe say it, that **L. p. 62. compared with other places. See p. 109.the Catholicke Church on earth, consists visibly of all Prelates, and those that are subject unto them, as one intire Body. This is your Faith. But if you examine this by the Scripture, you will find it to be an Errour no lesse soule then false, as hath been shewed. So, doe you not beleeve the Article of the Communion of Saints? You doe. But who are your Saints on earth? You will hardly allow any Saints on earth, till after their death, they be Canonized by his Holinesse at Rome. Nay in plaine termes you persecute both the Saints themselves, and their Communion. Can you indure such as but professe holinesse? And for their Communion, doe you not hunt out and persecute Private Fasting and Prayer among the poore soules of Christ, when publick they can have none, and no other remedy or weapons are left them to defend themselves withall against your bloody Cruelty? So as the truth is, you neither rightly beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church, nor the Communion of Saints; but are a notorious both denye… and persecuter of both. And therefore we see what a necessity there is, that we should bring the Articles of the Creed to the Standard Rule, the Scripture, both as the surest and safest way, yea and the onelyonly way to preserve our Faith from Errour.

But you object the Fathers for the Sense of this Article of Christs Descent into hell, as you beleeve it. What if they beleeved so? Is their example a sufficient Rule for us? We must examine their sense they held of it, by the Scripture. If it be p. 130not according to the Scripture, we reject it. The Fathers might for a time hold an erronious generally received opinion, before it came to be controverted, and well sifted and examined by Scripture. But they were ever ready to have their faith, and opinions tryed by the Scriptures. All the ancient Fathers were of this mind and spirit. As before **Nondum …ato Pelagio, securius loque…ntur P…t…s. Aug. Epist. 103Pelagius his time, the Fathers spake too liberally of Mans Free-will: which after, upon his Heresie, they reformed, and by Scripture abundantly confuted the Pelagians, and especially Augustine▪ Ierome, Prosper, Fulgentius, Hilarius, and others. And Augustine inticing a Donatist to dispute about that Heresie, Saith unto him, Ratione agamus, divinarum Scripturarum authoritate agamus: Let us dispute the matter by Argument, let us be guided by the Authority of the Divine Scriptures. Not what I, and thou Say, but what Christ Saith. And this was the Spirit (I say) and practise of all the Fathers in such cases. So as if this Article of of Christs descent into hell had been by occasion of controversie about it well searched into, and examined by the Scripture: no doubt but the Fathers would therein have regulated their Faith according to the truth of Scripture.

But the Church of England (say you) holds and beleeves that Article, as you doe. No marvaile, when you doe. And should you hold otherwise, must it not doe so too. And yet we have but your bare word for it. But you will alledge your Article, That Christ went downe into hell. But we must examine your Article by the Scripture. And it is not the sound of your Article, but the sense, and that it agreeth with Scripture. But we have shewed, that no such thing is in Scripture. And you tell us withall, what Mr. Rogers upon the Articles saith of this; That then (Then I say) in diebus illis, the Church of England was not resolved of this Article: and he was then the Arch-bishop of Canterbury his Chaplein, your Predecessor Richard Bancroft. But now your Lordships bare word is enough to Sway the Ballance, which before stood but in aequilibrio in an even peize, not resolved; but now resolved. But this I can tell you, what ever your Church of England now beleeves, there is (and I hope a good sound Church of Christ) yet in England, that beleeves the Creed, and all the Articles thereof, and this in particular, no otherwise, then they find them agreeable to the Scripture, and the Analogy of Faith. And this is agreeable to that, which once a ‡‡Dr. Bilson.Prel…te of England said, By the generall conf…ssion of all Antiquity, Traditions must he warranted by the Scriptures, or els we must p. 131reject them. And Isidore saith: A Prelate, if he teach or command any thing, besides that which is evidently cammanded in the holy Scriptures, let him be taken for a false witn…ssie to God, and a committer of Sacriledge.

But looking a little further, I find you confessing, That the Church of England hath not determined as yet either way by open Declaration upon this Article. No, hath she not? How then doe you affirme, and would perswade us, that you beleeve, with the Church of England that Christ descended into hell, without any further Dispute? We hope therefore it will not be long, before your Declaration come forth with a Definitive Sentence, determining the sense of this Article one way or other. And the rather, because in the late Declaration before the Articles, wherein this Article of Christs going down into hell is particularly set downe for one, they are declared to be of ambiguous sense, and yet men must hold to the letter of the Article. So as by that Declaration we are lesse resolved of the Articles, then before. A new Declaration therefore we would faine see, which is cleare, Declarative, and Determinative; and therein tell us, whether Christs Soule descended into Hell, the place of the damned, or into Purgatory▪ the Suburbs of hell, and whether Locally, and for what end and purpose (because the Scripture is altogether silent in this whole mystery) and whether you find hell to be in the Center of the Earth, or no, because your Article saith, He went down into hell, &c. But in the mean time, I have for my part ingenuously given you a reason of my Faith touching this Article, which I am so resolved on by the Scripture, that whatsoever Declaration you or your Church of England shall set forth to the contrary, I must crave pardon if it be not of the same faith with you. And thus farre you allow any in the Church of England this liberty, for your words are, **p. 45.46.Is it not lawfull for any in the Church of England to say, I conceive thus or thus of it, &c? Although you adde

L. p. 51. It is one thing to hold an opinion privately, within himselfe, and another thing boldly and publickly to affirme it.

P. I doe, I confesse, boldly and publickly affirme this my faith concerning this Article, which my faith I doe assure my selfe is true, being grounded upon good and cleare evidence of the Scripture, on which my faith is built, and not upon any thing of humane Authority. And in making open confession of this my faith, I doe therin follow the Rule of Scripture, which saith ‡‡Iam. 5.1….20.Jas 5:1Jas 5:20Bretheren, if any of you doe erre from the Truth, and one convert him: Let him know, that he which converteth a Sinner from the p. 132errour of his way, shall save a Soule from death, and shall hide … multitude of Sinnes. Now what know I, that this Declaration of my Faith with Reasons from the Scripture, may by Gods grace be a meanes to convert, if not your Lordship from your errour, yet others, or may preserve them from falling into it, being dangerously entred into it by such an example, as your selfe And however, if it be lawfull for you boldly and publickly to affirme such things of beliefe, which are not found to be in Scripture: why may it not be as lawfull for me boldly and publickly to affirme the Contr…ry? But the Scope of your Speech (as I conceive) is, to maintaine your practise in punishing in High Commission, such as expound this Article by and according to the Scripture ▪

L p. 53. For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of England, are grounded upon Scripture, we are content to be judged by the joynt and constant beliefe of the Fathers, which lived within the first foure or five hundred yeares after CHRIST, when the Church was at the best, and by the Councels held within those times, and to submit to them in all those points of Doctrine.

P. But first (as is before noted, as you give accasion) why have you made your Articles to be Dípsucoi, of a double sense. So as in that respect, how can you call them Positive, being so perplexed in themselves? And againe, Whom doe you meane here, by, Wee? I suppose you and your church of England. You are contented to be Judged by Fathers and Councels within the first 500. yeares, whether your Church-Articles be grounded on Scripture or not. Are you contented so indeed? Then you must be contented to undergoe the Censure of departing both from the judgement of the Scriptures, as disavowing them for the onelyonly rule of Faith and Doctrines to be tryed by: and also from the joynt and constant beliefe both of Fathers and Councels within the first 500. yeares. For their joynt, constant, and unanimous beliefe was, that nothing besides the Scripture, is to be Judge in matters of Faith. And if you want leasure to read the Fathers, doe but peruse the learned Discourses and Disputes of the Divines of the Church of England before your being a Prelate, as Dr. Carleton of the Church, De Ecclesia, Dr. Whitakers forementioned, Dr. White his way to the true Church, Dr. Bilson, yea and all those that have written of these Controversies, and they will abundantly show this, that it was ever held as a Principle, and therefore p. 133not to be denyed, nor needfull to be proved; and which Dr. Carleton in his said Book proves never to have been altered, till in and by the Councel of Trent, That the Scripture is the sole rule of Faith. But thus you and your Church of England are contented to be one and the Same Church with Rome, in refusing the Scripture as the Sole Iudge of your Doctrines. But will you be judged by the joynt and constant beliefe of Fathers and Councels within the first 500. yeares, whether your Articles about Grace, Election, Predestination, &c. bearing (as you Declare) a double and opposite sense, in their Pelagian and Arminian sense be according to the Scriptures, or no: If I name onelyonly Augustine, who was Pelagionorum Malleus, that Hammer to knock down the Pelagians, both the Fathers and Councels within those first 500. yeares did joyntly and constantly professe that which he writ to be the Beliefe of the whole Church, it was so clearely and fully proved out of Scripture. In so much as you may read in the Histories of the Councels, as in Binius, how that some Councels and Bishops of Rome set downe Large Passages in Augustins Tracts against the Pelagians, as the Jugement of the Catholick Church, and the particular Decrees and Acts of such and such councels. If then you will stand to the Judgement of those ancient Fath…rs and Councels, then you must at their Barre hold up that hand, which was a chiefe instrument in drawing up the said Declaration, which hath so enigmatized and darkened the Articles, as they have no other Light left, but a kind of twilight, which inclines rather to the night, then to the day, rather to favour the Pelagian Heresie, then the Orthodox verity. But this being your language all along, that you put not onelyonly your Articles and the Articles of the Creed, but the Mysteries also of the Scriptures to the Iudgement of the Primitive Church, Fathers, Generall Councels, we will Supersede from speaking more of it in this place.

Again, where you say, that the Church was then at the best: if you understand it, during the age and time of the Apostles, 'tis most true: but if of the Succeding ages within 500. yeares, we may doubt of it, or rather resolve the contrary: unlesse you meane it comparatively to the ages after that, wherein Antichrist and the Mystery of Iniquity began more brightly to shine forth and display themselves in the Roman Sea, both in corruption of doctrine, and of Gods worship, beyond all excesse. For you may know, that within the space of the first 500. yeares, the Church was so overgrown and pestered with the heresie of Arius, p. 134as the world groaned under it, wondering it was become an Arian; as Hierome speakes. Totus ingemuit mundus, miratus se factum esse Arianum. And among many corruptions, and much unsoundnesse in Doctrine, what multitudes of Superstitious devises, and heathenish Customes, not onelyonly crept but crowded into the service of God? Which Heathenish Rites (as we find in B. Rhenanus his Annotations upon Turtullian) were by the Christians in a kind of carnall policie admitted, both because many ancient men being converted to Christianity (such as it was) could not easily part with their old Customes: as also that thereby they might draw other of the Gentiles to become Christians. Just such a policie, as our new Doctors, (I meane of your Church of England) have used, in a pretence at least, making us beleeve, that coming as neare as you can to the Papists in their Ceremonies, you shall thereby bring them to the Church. And surely this is the ready way either to bring Papists to your Church, or you to their Church. But (I say) the Church was so pestered with Rites and Ceremonies even in Augustins dayes, that he complained, that Christians were now in a worse case and condition, under the Gospel, then the Iewes were under the Law: for though their yoake was grievous, yet those Leviticall rites were of Gods owne ordaining, and commandement, but Christians (saith he) are brought under an intolerable yoake of Ceremonies of mens devising and imposing.

But now on the other side, if I should enter into a Comparison between the Reformed Churches since Luther, and those Primitive and ancient Churches as aforesaid, I know it would be very tedious to your Lordship and extremely move your Patience; especially if I should by many degrees preferre Calvin, Bez…, Zanchius, Iunius, and many hundred more Worthies both for learning and piety, and chiefly for Soundnesse in Doctrine, in the Reformed Churches, beyond the Seaes, yea and not a few, on this side, as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, all Martyrs, Iewel, Whitakers, Reynolds, Perkins, with infinite more, and all within one Century, before such as those Centuries aforesayd produced, whose Names for Envy-sake I forbeare to mention.

Lastly, you say, you are content to submit to them in all those points of Doctrine. If you be, then for Shame cleare away those Cloudes, which the said Declaration hath over-cast your Articles withall, and cast away your Arminian Pelagian sense, and take off your Suspension of them, and let them speak p. 135one single truth, as they formerly did, and as all understood them, according to the Scriptures.

L. p. 62. The Catholicke Church we beleeve in our Creed to be the Society of all Christians.

P. What you beleeve is one thing. But we beleeve the Catholicke Church of Christ in the Creed to be the number and Society of all the Elect, as the next Article expounds it, The Communion of Saints: but not that Company of all Christians which you name and meane, Christians in name and profession, tag and ragge, pell mell, good and bad, Papists and Protestants, of which the greatest number are no true living members of the true Catholick Church, the mysticall body whereof Christ is the Head, and which by Faith onelyonly we apprehend (for we beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church) but cannot discerne with our bodily eyes, as we doe a visible Object. This is that **Ehes. 5.25, 26.Church which Christ loved, for which he gave himselfe, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, to present it to himselfe a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinckle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. This we beleeve to be the Holy Catholicke Church, and no other. But thus indeed (as you tell us before) you make wider the Gates of the Catholicke Church, then ever Christ made them; or rather indeed you exclude the Catholicke Church of Gods Elect, and set up a new Catholicke Church, which may be seen, but ought not to be beleeved.

L. p. 66. Agreed on for me also it shalbe, that Gods word may be written, and unwritten.

P. Agreed on? with whom? Even with no lesse, then Bellarmine. For in the very next words you give us the reason, why it is agreed upon for you, that Gods word may be written and unwritten. For (Say you) Cardinall Bellarmine tells us truely, that it is not the writing or Printing, that makes Scripture the word of God, but it is the Prime unerring Essentiall Truth, God himselfe uttering and revealing it to his Church, that makes it Verbum Dei, the word of God. Doth Bellarmine say so? And that truely? And to what end, I pray you, doth the Cardinall say so? Is it not to overthrow the Scripture for being the Sole word of God, and to bring in another word of God, which he calls verbum non Scriptum, an unwritten word, that is, a word besides the Scriptures, and equall to the Scriptures, which is Romes unwritten Traditions. And to this end and purpose Bellarmine using these words, doth he tell you truely, and is this the reason, for which p. 134it is agreed on for you, that Gods word may be written, and unwritten? Now though it be true, that that which is spoken by God, is his word though it be not written: yet to us there is now no other word of God, but that which is written, that which is contained in the Scriptures. And this word written is that alone, which our Faith is grounded and settled upon. According to that of Iohn: **Ioh. 20.30, 31.John 20:30John 20:31Many other Signes truely did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Booke: But these things are written, that ye might beleeve, that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that beleeving, ye might have life through his Name. So as we are not to inquire further, what Christ spake, or did, besides what we find written. But your Lordship tells us before, of certaine Traditions Apostolicall, which it seems are that word of God ▪ which may be unwritten. For you say: ‡‡pag 52.53.If the Scripture be a Foundation, to which we are to goe for witnesse, if there …e doubt about the Faith; and in which we are to find the thing that is to be beleeved, as necessary in the Faith: we never did, nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Vniversall and Apostolicke, for the better exposition of the Scripture. And to this place you referre that which you say, pag. 58. As for Tradition, I have said enough for that, and as much as A. C. where 'tis truely Apostolicall. From which words, first we observe, that you make but an If, of the Scripture as a Foundation, If the Scripture be a Foundation: and, If in it we are to find the thing that is to be beleeved; as If it were to be found in any thing else. And Secondly, how home you come to A C. the Jesuite, in admitting Tradition Apostolicke to expound any doubt about the Faith: and so with Bellarmine you are agreed for a word of God unwritten, as well as written. And you further adde here (pag. 66.) Speaking of the Scriptures: their being written gave them no Authority at all, in regard of themselves. Written or unwritten the Word was the same. But it was written, that it might be the better preserved, and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church, and the more faithfully in our memories. So you. Now 'tis true, that by the writing of the Scriptur…s Gods word contained therein is preserved, continued in integrity, and the more faithfully kept in our m…mories. But is thi… all? Nay the very writing of them, though it added no Authority to Gods word in regard of it selfe, yet as the Scriptures are to us, Gods word, is of the greater Authority, because written. For we acknowledge no other word of God as t…e Rule and Foundation of our Faith, but what we find written in the holy Scriptures. This is that word of God which is p. 137authenticall, of Authority to his Church; and therefore Authority to us, because written. So as your unwritten word, wherei… you agree with Bellarmine, and your Apostolicke Traditions, wherin you come home to your A. C. the Jesuite, we receive none of them all as authentick, or to have any thing to doe to expound the Scripture in any doubt about the Faith. But if you can shew us any Traditions Apostolick, we will by your leave examine them by the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures by them. You name baptizing of Infants for a Tradition Apostolicke. We doubt not but the Apostles baptized the Infants of beleeving Parents. For the Infants or Children of such are **1 Cor. 7.14.1 Cor 7:14holy, as the Apostle sheweth; And so they belonged to the Covenant. And as the Children of the Jewes in the old Testament were circumcised, as pertaining to the Covenant and promise made to Abraham and to his Seed: So Baptisme, succeding in place of Circumcision, as a Seale of the Same Covenant, belongs to all Children of beleeving Christian Parents. As the Apostle saith, ‡‡Rom. 4.16.Rom 4:16Therefore it is of Faith, that it might come by Grace, and the Promise might be sure to all the Seed, not to that onelyonly which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the Faith of Abrah…m, who is the Father of us all. So as beleeving Christians have the same interest in the Covenant with Abraham, and their Children or Infants have the like priviledge of Baptisme, as the Infants of the ancient Israelites had for Circumcision. Therefore the Baptizing of Infants was certainly practised by the Apostles, as well as the baptising of beleeving Parents. So as we doe not baptize Infants, because you tell us it is a Tradition Apostolicke, but because it is as clearely and firmely grounded in the Scripture, as the baptizing of beleeving Parents. We exclude therefore whatsoever Word unwritten, or Traditions Apostolicke (as you call them) as being either partiall or equall Rules of Faith with the Scriptures, as Bellarmine calls them, or as Interpreters and Iudges of the Scripture in doubts about Faith, as you are bold to affirme. We have no word of God, but the Scripture: we acknowledge no Traditions Apostolicke, but what we find they delivered in Scripture. The Prophets in the old Testament sent Gods people to the Scripture, for information, instruction, resolution in all matters of Faith, and Cases of Conscience. ‡‡Isa. 8.20.Isa 8:20To the Law and to the Testimony (Saith Isaiah) if they Speake not according to this word: it is because there is no light in them. He Saith not, To the Traditions of our Fathers, but, To the Law, and to the Testimony, Gods word written. Els, there is no light in men; they are blind guides, that in p. 138matters of Faith lead us any where, but to, and by the Scriptures. And the Prophet Ieremiah: …. 8.9.They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisedome is in them? All wisdome, without this word of God, is foolishnesse: all knowledge, without this, is ignorance and blindnesse. So our Saviour Christ: ‡‡…. 5.39.Search the Scriptures, for in them ye thinke to find eternall life, and they are they, which testifie of me. So as Christ allowes us no other Testimony of him, and of Faith in him, but the Scriptures. We must erunan, Search them, not the Archives, or Sacraries of blind Traditions though guilded over never so faire with the name of Apostolick, nor of any pretended word of God unwritten. And Christ answereth the Lawyer, when he asked ‡‡Luke 10.25.26.Luke 10:25Luke 10:26what he should doe, to inherit Eternall life: What is written in the Law? How readest thou? And the Apostle, §§1 Cor. 4.6.1 Cor 4:6That none presume above that which is written. And, ††Rom. 15.4.Rom 15:4Whatsoever things were written afore time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. And Peter: **2 Pet. 1.19.2 Pet 1:19We have a more sure word of Prophecy, (to wit the Scriptures of the old Testament) whereunto ye doe well, that ye take heed. In all which places, and many more, the Scripture is still commended to us, as the onelyonly absolute, sufficient, perfect and compleat Rule of our Faith in all matters, or doubts of Faith touching our Salvation, So as it hath no other interpreter, but it selfe, not any Tradition, not any word unwritten. But of this you will give us occasion to speak more at after.

L. p. 72, 73. Faith is the gift of God, of God alone, and an Infused habit, in respect whereof the soule is meerely recipient. The Sole Infuser is the Holy Ghost. Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot beleeve.

P. I confesse, when first I read these words, I began to muse with my selfe, and to argue thus: What, is my Lord of Canterbury turn'd Orthodox, no Arminian, in the Doctrine of Grace? But looking a little further, and observing both the Authors you alledge (as Stapleton, a great man with you, and other Popish Authors (as is usuall with you throughout your Book) and also considering of what Faith you here Speak, I changed my conceit, and found that you were no Changeling For wheras I thought that all this faire …ourish of Faith is the gift of God, of God alone, A habit infused, The Holy Ghost the Sole Infuser, The soule meerely recipient, Till Gods Spirit move mans heart, he cannot beleeve: had been meant of that Grace, of Saving and Iustifying Faith, which the Scripture teacheth, and particularly the Apostle, p. 139Ephes. 2.8. By Grace ye are saved through Faith, and not of your selves: it is the Gift of God, &c. I imagined (I say) that as you used the Apostles very words, and the Language of Scripture, so you had done it in the sense and mind of the Apostle, and of the Scripture, which Speaks so of the Saving and Iustifying Faith. But when I found the contrary, I confesse I blushed at my folly, in having such a conceit of you, having had so much experience both of your usuall perverting of Scriptures, and your corrupt sense throughout your Book, and considering that light and darknesse cannot stand together, and how you h…ve altogether suppressed the Preaching of the Doctrines of Grace, and finding that all this Faith you Speake of, is nothing els, but that historicall Faith in beleeving the Scriptures to be the word of God, which beliefe is common to the very Reprobates, and Devils themselves, who **Iam. 2.1….Jas 2:1beleeve and tremble Phristou…i, they quiver and Shake, as when mens teeth Chatter in their head in extreme cold. And yet how doe you abuse the Scripture, and your Reader, in giving to this Faith those peculiar Attributes, which are proper and peculiar to the onelyonly Saving Grace of Saving Faith, the Sole Infuser, Giver, and worker whereof is the Holy Ghost? Tell me, how come the Devils to that historicall faith, whereby they beleeve the Scripture to be the very word of God, and all things therein to be most certainly true, and so all those plagues written therein, and threatned against Reprobates and Devils, shalbe most certainly inflicted, in beliefe whereof they tremble? What, have they this Faith given them of God, and is the Holy Ghost the Sole Infuser of it, or any Infuser of it at all? And yet I say, This historicall faith is that which you Speake of here. For you do in that 16th Section, consisting of about 30 leaves in folio, Speake of that Faith alone, which beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God, the onelyonly subject of that long and tedious Discourse, wherein you have spent so much sweat to so small purpose. And the words immediately preceding doe shew this. And your words immediately following are to confirme it, which you alledge out of Stapleton, Saying, The Holy Ghost did not leave the Church in Generall, nor the true members of it in particular without Grace to beleeve, what himself had revealed, and made credible. Wherupon you inferre a little after: Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot beleeve, be the object never so credible. Thus we see your mind at full, what Faith, what Gift of God, what Grace, this is, which you Say none but the Holy Ghost giveth to his Church ▪ p. 140namely, not that faith, not that gift of God, not that Grace, not that worke of the Holy Ghost, whereby a man comes to beleeve in Christ, and to be indued with the Grace of Regeneration, and Sanctification, the proper worke and gift of the Holy Ghost, whereof the Apostle speaketh in the fore-cited place: but such a faith, such a grace, as the **Co…il. Trid. Sess. 6.Councel of Trent professeth and aloweth, and so, that which Stapleton, and all other Pontificials write of, which is common to all wicked men and Reprobates, as we have elswhere fully proved.

L. p. 75. The world cannot keep a man from going to weigh the Scripture at the Ballance of Reason, whether it be the word of God, or not. ‡‡Abasing of the Scripture, in subjecting it to natural Reason.For the word of God, and the Book containing it, refuse not to be weighed by Reason. And, (pag. 76.) For Reason by her own light can discover, how firmely the Principles of Religion are true: but all the light Shee hath, will never be able to find them false.

P. 'Tis …rue, that mans naturall Reason, being not bridled by grace, is so head-strong, that the world it selfe cannot restrain it within its owne bounds, but will be medling. But yet, though Reason be not excluded from giving her voyce and assent to the Scripture, yet She must know her place, She must come in the Reere of all, and as a hand-maid, not as a Mistresse. Nor is it Reasons office to bring her ballance to weigh the Scriptures, whether it be the word of God, or not; for herein She hath no negative voyce, but onelyonly of assent: So as in this respect; as a Judge, Gods word refuseth to be weighed by Reason: much lesse can it be true, that Reason by her own light can discover, how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. For mans Reason being but Naturall, and Gods word Supernaturall, there is no proportion between them, and Reason can no more judge of Scripture in this respect, then a blind man can judge of colours. So as Reason must not come in with her ballance and weights, till a man be illuminated by the Scriptures themselves, and by the Spirit of God; and then being convinced of the truth thereof, She gives her full assent, that the Scripture is the word of God. The Apostle saith, ‡‡1 Cor. 2.14.1 Cor 2:14The naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. How say you then, That Reason by her own Light can discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true? Point blanke against the Apostle. §§Act. 16.14.Acts 16:14The Lord openeth the heart of Lydia, to attend to the things spoken of Paul. Now if the naturall man by the light of his naturall reason, receiveth not, nor is thereby capable of the things of the p. 141Spirit of God contained in the Scripture, but that they are foolishnesse unto him, untill God open the heart, and **1 Cor. 2.1 Cor 2reveale those things by his Spirit (as the Apostle saith) then Reason cannot judge of Scripture by her owne light. For what is Reasons light in a naturall man? Surely darknesse it selfe, unto Spirit…all things. Ye were once darknesse, saith the Apostle. Darknesse in the very abstract. Mans naturall understanding and Reason darknesse. And therefore as Christ saith, ‡‡Math. 6.23.Matt 6:23If the light that is in thee be darknesse, how great is that darknesse? And Rom. 8.5. They that are after the flesh, tà tes sarkòs phronousin, doe savour the things of the flesh: but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Spirituall things are as unsavory to a naturall mans Reason, as wholesome meat is to an aguish palate. They are unto him **1 Cor 2.14.1 Cor 2:14moría, foolishnesse, saith the Apostle. And Rom. 8.6. §§Rom. 8.6.Rom 8:6The wisdome of the flesh is death, ““v. 7.and ekthrà, emnity against God; and it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. Ye saith Ieremy, ††Ier. 10.Jer 10Every man is brutish in his own knowledge. Can you then hale the Scripture to the barre of mans naturall Reason, which is brutish, to be judged by it, whether it be Gods word, or no? And David saith, **Psal. 62.9.Ps 62:9Surely men of low degree, are vanity. Yea, say you, Men of low degree: but not so, men of high degree, of learning and parts. But take all with you: Surely men of low degr…e are vanity, and men of high degree are a lye: to be layd in the ballance, they are altogether lighter then vanity. What, men of low degree, vanity? and men of high degre a lye? Yea Surely, yea altogether lighter then vanity it selfe, being …ayd in the ballance. But in what ballance? In the uneven ballance, with the false Scales of your naturall Reason? No: but in the §§Exod. 30.…3Exod 30:3Ballance, and with the weights of the Sanctuary your Reason must be weighed. And this ballance of the Sanctuary is the Scripture. If then your Reason must be weighed at the ballance of the Scripture, and there be found too light, yea lighter then vanity, yea altogether lighter then vanity, yea, Surely altogether lighter then vanity, yea a very lye: then what weights can your Reason bring, being altogether lighter then vanity it selfe, whereby to weigh the Scriptures? Or how shall Reason, which is a lye, with her unequall Ballance, and false weights weigh verity it selfe?

But if all this will not put you out of conceit of your naturall Reason, as an incomptent Judge of Scripture to be the word of God (which must needs argue the truth of Scripture, that mans Reason is blindnes, darknes, emnity against the truth, brutish, vanity, a ly, altogether lighter then vanity it self) give me leave a little p. 142to put you to it. You perswade your selfe that you can by the strength and light of your naturall Reason judge,Pr…lates Reason put to its tryall. or weigh the Scripture, whether it be Gods word, and discover how firmely the Principles of Religion are true (for had you been perswaded hereof by Gods Spirit, you would never have attributed so much to mans Reason; but herein you have consulted altogether with flesh and blood, having no acquaintance certainly with the Spirit of truth, that leads his into all truth.) Now then by the Same Reason, you may discover whether Christ be of God or no; for he is the Summe, Substance, and Scope of the whole Scripture, and so is called **Rev. 19 13.Rev 19:13The word of God. And Christ Saith, Search the Scriptures, for these testifie of me. Doe you beleeve then that the Scripture is Gods word, and therefore true? Doe you beleeve all things in it to be true? And to be a word of wisdome, surpassing all the wisdome in the world? Doe you beleeve this? And that to obey and follow this word of God, is mans chiefe wisdome, and happinesse? Doth your Reason apprehend this? What say you then to that word of Christ, ‡‡Luke 9.22.Luke 9:22If any man will come after me, let him deny himselfe, and take up his daily Crosse and follow me? Doth your Reason comprehend this? Is it not durus sermo, a hard Saying, as that to the rich man, Vade, vende omnia, ††Luk 18.21.Luke 18:21Goe, Sell a…l, and give them to the poore, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me? But all Gods Saints doe thus. M…ses accounted the R…buk…s of Christ greater riches then the Treasures of Aegypt, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, th…n to enjoy the pleasures of Sin for a Season. §§Ps…l. 8.8.Ps 50:8Paul accounted all his Prerogatives losse, and dung to win Christ. The Apostles forsooke all to follow Christ. You will Say, A few poore … nets. Nay, Saith Aug. they forsook not onelyonly what they had, but whatsoever they might have in the world. Abraham, when God called him, forsook his native Countrey▪ and all his friends. Do you beleeve these men did wisely in doing this? Doth your Reason apprehend so? Do you thereupon Conclude, that this Scripture is Gods word, because it teacheth such things, as the doing whereof brings a man to true happinesse? Can you then be content to follow Christ upon his Conditions, to forsake all, and take up your Crosse dayly, and follow him? Can your Reason down with his, or your Stomack digest this? Or will you Say, To forsake all, is but matter of Councel, not of Precept? Yes certainly of Precept, in those things especially, the retaining whereof detaines us from Christ, and are a barre to come to him, and so to heaven. Si in Limine Pater jaceat, per calcatum p. 143perge patrem: Saith Ierome: Hieronimus Epist.If they old Father lye crosse the threshold to hinder thee from Christ, tread on thy Father to come to Christ. If any thing stand in our affections in competition with Christ, we must forsake it. **Math. ….3….He that loveth Father, or Mother, or lands, or honours, more then me (Saith Christ) is not worthy of me. For ‡‡Iam. 4.4.Jas 4:4the amity of the world, is emnity against Christ. Now if things in themselves good and lawfull, being loved above Christ, keep us from Christ, and therefore must be forsaken: then how much more, such things, as are in themselves evill, unlawfull, unwarrantable, for a man to keep, as being against Gods word, and against Christ, and against a mans salvation? How then can your most refined Reason perswade his Grace of Canterbury to deny himselfe, to abandon all that Grace, to forsake his Hierarchy, as being emnity against Christ, and a Tyranny over his Church, and therewith to account all his Dignities as dung, to cease persecuting of Gods word, Ministers, People, to abandon his counterfet and hypocriticall Devotion in in will-worship, which is a vaine worship of God, and in stead of all these, to take up his Crosse dayly, and to follow Christ in obedience, in patience, in humility, in meeknesse, in holinesse? Doth your Reason apprehend this to be good, to be the wisest and onelyonly way to come to heaven and happinesse? For this Gods word commandeth. Then either follow this word, as Gods word, or els never looke to perswade the world that your own Reason can with her own light discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. No, no, my Lord, away with these vain Speculations, and presumptuous Speeches, which have not one crumb of Salt in them. ‡‡Tit. 1.16.Titus 1:16Will you professe you know God, and in works deny him? Do you beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word, and yet by accounting the preaching of the Crosse foolishnesse, make God a lyer.

But I will conclude with your last Clause: Reason (say you) for all the light she hath, will never be able to find the Principles of Religion false. Nay certainly, although you deny Reason any ability by her owne light to discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true: yet we will not deny unto her blind impotencie a Speciall faculty in finding them to be false: not false in themselves, but yet false, in her own apprehension. For is not this one of the main Principles of Religion, to wit, to know Iesus Christ, and him Crucified? This was the Apostles Chiefe Learning, §§1 Cor. 2.2.1 Cor 2:2I determined (saith he) to know nothing among you, save Iesus Christ, and him Crucified. But (saith he) ††1 Cor. 1.18.1 Cor 1:18The preaching of the p. 144Crosse is to them that perish foolishnesse: but unto us which are Saved, it is the power of God. And who are they that perish? Such as are wise in their owne conceit, and prudent in their own understanding and Reason; as the Apostle saith in the next words: for it is written, I will destroy the wisedome of the wise, and will bring to nought the understanding of the prudent; Such as exalt their own understanding and Reason to such a height, as they presume therwith, as with a Ballance, to weigh, whether the Scripture be Gods word, or no; and with the light thereof to discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. And when they have said and done all, their actions and practises doe plainly shew, that they reject and despise the Scripture, as being none of Gods word ▪ yea they Persecute, oppresse, and seeke all the wayes they can to destroy it, and utterly to quench the light of it. As will yet more clearely appeare by those things that follow.

L. p. 77. Though this Truth, that the Scripture is the word of God, is not so demonstratively evident, à priori, as to enforce assent: yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments, both from the light of nature it selfe, and humane Testimony, that he must be very wilfull, and selfe conceited, that shall dare to suspect it. [And more plainly] pag 80.Prelates blasp…my against … Scripture. The light which is in Scripture it selfe, is not bright enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe. The Testimony of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question; which is not, how, or by what meanes we beleeve, but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible object, fit for beliefe.

P. We are still in your 16th Sextion, mentioned before, which continueth from p. 59. to 116. wherein are sundry passages …o this purpose, whereof the last was one, and the rest we shall touch, as we meet with them. And here I cannot, (though I said I would no more wonder) but admire, that such Speeches should flow down so fast from the Sea of Canterbury, which is a mighty Catarrhact or distillation of the eye, drowning the sight, and flowing from such an abundant humour in the head, as it is like to turne into a Dropsie, possessing and putrifying the whole body, which if not prevented by some remedy from h…aven, must needs prove Epedemically mortall. You are the first Antagonist of Iesuites, that ever uttered such things, and you might well have given them leave to utter such base Speeches of the holy Scriptures, as more proper for a Jesuite, then one pretending the Faith of a Protestant. p. 145But the difference is not great, nor matters is much, which of you be the mouth, having all one Spirit, and being all one and the Same Church. So as being the Metropolitan of that Church, which with Rome is one and the Same: you have the greater priviledge to speake in the language of that pregnant Mother ▪ who is so **Rev. 17.3Rev 17:3full of the names of Blasphemy against the word of God.

Now is not the Scripture so demonstratively evident in it selfe, as to enforce assent? What then shall doe it? Probable Arguments from the light of Nature. But Nature is blind, as we shewed before of naturall Reason. And againe, how can that which is but probable, confirme that which is truth? For the Scripture is Truth it selfe. As Christ saith, Thy word is Truth. Now there being strictly, no proportion between Probability and Truth: how can the Light of Nature, which you say is but probable, confirme that which is truth. And we shewed also how the Naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, which things are contained in the Scripture. But you adde, Arguments from humane Testimony, confirme the Scriptures to be Gods word. That which is but humane, cannot strengthen that which is Divine. I receive not the Testimony of man, saith Christ. Ioh.So the Scripture is so farre above humane testimony, that it can receive no strength from it, no more then God can receive strength from the creature, Gods word from mans word. And the Scripture, being Gods written word, is above Mans bare word. As Christ tells the Jewes, who took Christ for a meere Man: If ye beleeve not Moses his writings, how shall you beleeve my words? Thereby implying, That Writings, the Scripture, are above mans words. Againe, humane testimony in Comparison to Gods word, is but a lye. For **Rom. 3.4▪Rom 3:4every man is a lyer. Moreover, in saying, The Scripture is not evident enough to demonstrate it selfe to be the word of God, and to enforce assent: but being strenthened by Probable Arguments from the light of Nature, and of humane Testimony, 'tis then wilfullnesse and pride to suspect it: Here you set the light of Nature above the word of Grace, probability above Truth, humane Testimony above Divine, Man above GOD. For Christ tells us, that the Scriptures beare witnesse of him: And you Say, the Scriptures are not sufficient witnesses of themselves, and so consequently of Christ, without mans testimony, So as hereby you disable the Scripture, as being an incompetent witnesse of Christ, because not evident enough in themselves without humane Testimony, So as how you can cleare your selfe from blasphemy, I see not. But this is but p. 144duplicate page p. 145duplicate page p. 146one degree. For you adde, The light which is in Scripture is not light enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe. Now you open your mouth a little wider to blaspemy. But we shall have yet more of ths Suffe out of your Wardrobe. Of which I may say this by the way, That you bewray how grosly and palpably blind you are in discerning the Scriptures glorious brightnesse, being like that Woman in Lipsius, who being blind her selfe, blamed the house she was in for being very darke: So you, because you are blind your selfe, the **2 Cor. 4.4.2 Cor 4:4god of this world having blinded your eyes: therefore you blame the holy Scriptures of GOD for being darke, not bright enough to to beare witnesse to it selfe. Why, Surely all light is Sui index, & sui Communicativum, it is a witnesse to it selfe, that it shineth, So as all in the house doe see it; yea though it be but the ‡‡Math. 5.15.Matt 5:15light of a Candle, as Christ saith. If therefore the Scriptures have not so much light in them, as all may see it to shine forth, then they have no light at all. For if there be any light at all, it will shew it selfe. But this you will not stick to tell us anon, that the Scripture hath no light in it selfe, and therefore no mervaile if here you say, the Light that is in it is not bright enough. And you tell us here also, That the Testimony of the Holy Ghost ordinarily is not so much as considerable in this Question. Why? What is the Question? Is it not how, or by what meanes we beleeve the Scriptures to be the word of GOD? Is not this the Subject Question of this whole 16th Section, and which you handle throughout? And this being so, have you forgotten what you told us before of this beliefe, that the Scripture is the word of GOD? Namely that faith is the gift of God, of God alone; and an infused habit, in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient, and that the sole infuser is the Holy Ghost? and Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot beleeve? And now doe you come and tell us, The Holy Ghost ordinarily is not so much as considerable in the Question? Yea, but here you tell us, this is not the Question. What then? Namely, how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible Object, fit for beliefe. And for this you set us downe a rule of Proposall, which must of necessity take its rise from the Tradition, or Authority of the Present Church. Whereof we shall heare more anon. But by your leave, this is not the Question, but the other. For this your manner of Proposall, you put it not as a Question, but as an a'ítema, a Question begged, not to be argued, and disputed upon, as the nature of a Question is to be, but you doe dogmatízein, obtrude and force upon us a novell opinion of your owne devising, p. 147without proofe of Reason, Argument, or Authority from the Scripture. And therefore we deny your Question, or Position as Heterodox, or a Paradox, contrary to the truth of God word, which is the onelyonly rule of determining all Questions in Divinity about faith, whereof this is not the least, How, or by what meanes a man comes to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God? Now for the determining herof you would tye us to the one only manner of Proposing the Scripture, as a Credible object fit for beliefe: and that is, necessarily to begin at the Tradition or Authority of the present Church, or els there is no dealing with you. But what if we shall propose a better manner and way of propounding the Scripture as a Credible object fit for beliefe? And this we shall doe, God assisting, overthrowing your false way, and vindicating the onelyonly right and true, safe and sure way, that will certainly lead us to this beliefe, That the Scripture is the word of God.