Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	life_n	part_n	1,720	5	4.3430	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71307	Purchas his pilgrimes. part 2 In fiue bookes. The first, contayning the voyages and peregrinations made by ancient kings, patriarkes, apostles, philosophers, and others, to and thorow the remoter parts of the knowne world: enquiries also of languages and religions, especially of the moderne diuersified professions of Christianitie. The second, a description of all the circum-nauigations of the globe. The third, nauigations and voyages of English-men, alongst the coasts of Africa ... The fourth, English voyages beyond the East Indies, to the ilands of Iapan, China, Cauchinchina, the Philippinæ with others ... The fifth, nauigations, voyages, traffiques, discoueries, of the English nation in the easterne parts of the world ... The first part.	Purchas, Samuel, 1577?-1626.	1625 (1625)	STC 20509_pt2; ESTC S111862	280,496	1,168

specially those that have written large Commentaries according to the literal sense as Salmeron Maldonat Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Tirinus and many more should reject this foolery of H. T. concerning the expounding of Scripture not according to the literal sense which he calls the dead Letter or else at once blot out all they have written for finding it as a meer encumbrance to the World And the same may be said of not expounding by the private spirit For why do these private men take so much pains to publish Commentaries Is not their spirit as much private as Calvin's Beza's Luther's and others and these mens spirit as publick as theirs Let any man assign Reasons if he can why all the Commentaries of the Romanists should not be cashier'd under this pretence as well as the Protestants who are as learned industrious as they and far more sincere and impartial Why should not the Popes expositions be rejected as well as others Have they any more than a private spirit Do not their very Breves and Monitories and Decrees shew that it is a private spirit they act and decide by Sure the Spirit of God would not dictate such vain things as they utter and which sometimes they are fain to recall lest their nakedness appear Do not the Popes by their own confessions in correcting the vulgar Latin Translation and other things they set forth declare that they use industry and the help of learned men If they have a publick spirit why do not the Popes make us an Exposition of Scripture which all must own Is it not because they are for the most part a race of ignorant and unlearned men specially in the Scriptures and should they attempt such a thing would make themselves appear ridiculous and shew their asinine ears though now they seem terrible and to carry majesty with their Lions skin Is there any thing the Popes can do more necessary than this that they may end all controversies and guide all souls aright But the truth is the Popes have been so unhappy in alleging Scripture in their Bulls and Breves and Monitories in their dicisions of controversies that no side will acquiesce in their determinations they are so vain or so partial but as of old in the controversies between Dominicans and Franciscans about the Virgin Maries immaculate Conception so of late between the Molinists and Jansenists about Gods Decrees each party holds what they held notwithstanding the Popes decision which for the most part is so composed that each party may think it makes for him and he may loose neither And about the Edition of the vulgar Translation in Latin of the Bible how much have the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clemens the eighth discovered their unskilfulness when after such profession of diligence and use of learned men as the Popes make yet they have published their Editions contrary one to another The words of Tertullian are cap. 17. against those Hereticks Valentinus Marcion and such as agreed not with Christians in the Rule of Faith set down cap. 13. whom he denies to be Christians and such he thinks it would be unfit to dispute with out of Scripture but he doth not so judge concerning such as agree in the Rule of Faith though some term them Hereticks I may more truly say there is no good got by Popes interpretations of holy Scripture but to make a man sick or mad such Expositions as Alexander the third made of Psalm 91. 13 Thou shalt tread upon the Asp and Basili●k when he trode on the Emperour Frederick's neck or Boniface the eighth when to prove himself above Emperours and Kings he alleged Gen. 7. 16. God made two great Lights that is the Pope and the Sun and the Emperour as the Moon with many more of the like sort are no better than sick mens dreams or mad mens freaks It is added Object All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for teaching for arguing for reproving and for instructing in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good work 1 Tim. 3. 16 17. therefore Traditions are not necessary Answ St. Paul speaks onely there of the old Scripture which Timothy had known from his childhood when little of any of the new could be written as is plain by the precedent Verse which we acknowledge to be profitable for all those uses but not sufficient neither will any more follow out of that Text if understood of the new Scriptures so that your consequence is vain and of no force I reply that which is profitable to teach reprove correct instruct in righteousness so as that the man of God may be entire fitted or instructed for every good work Sure that is a sufficient Rule for Doctrine of Faith and good Works and so to salvation But such is the Scripture as the Text tells us Ergo. The Major is apparent sith no more is required to a sufficient Rule of Doctrine if there be let it be shewed that it may be known wherein this is defective Sure that which is profitable for all uses to which Doctrine serves is a sufficient Doctrine The Answer of H. T. here is so far from being a full Answer to the Objection as he vainly vaunts in the Title page of his Book that indeed it is a confirmation of the Objection For if the old Scriptures were so profitable as to make the man of God a Teacher of the Church entire that they were able to make him wise to salvation and furnish him with instruction to every good work much more when the Books of the New Testament were added of which one of the Gospels is by H. T. here pag. 104. said to have been written eight years after the Death of Christ and doubtless Timothy knew it and however he had the former Epistle to himself before the Epistle in which this passage is which is ill printed 1 Tim 3. 16 17. it being 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. and therefore the Scripture he had was a sufficient Rule to him a Bishop without Traditions much more to others and so Traditions unwritten are proved unnecessary and superfluous Again saith H. T. Object If any one shall add to these God shall add to him the Plagues written in this Book Apoc. 22. 18 19. Therefore it is not lawfull to add Traditions Answ It follows immediately And if any one shall diminish from the words of this Prophecy God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life vers 19. By which St. John evidently restrains that Text to the Book of his own Prophecies onely which is not the whole Rule of Faith and therefore by that you cannot exclude either the rest of the Scriptures or Apostolical Traditions from that Rule I reply there is no reason why the same thing is not to be understood of the whole Canon and each particular Book sith there is the like Deut. 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Jer. 7. 31. 2 Thess 2. 1 2.

he had seven thousand at that time in Israel where he was therefore Elias spake figuratively when he complained he was left alone 3 Kings 19. Nay the contrary follows that he did not speak figuratively because God corrects him and shews his mistake in saying he was left alone that is there were no more besides himself left 2. But yet if it were granted that the speech is figurative and the meaning as H. T. would have it it no whit avoids our objection that the Church of God though consisting of seven thousand yet were so obs●ure that they appeared so few to Elias as that he took himself to be left alone As for the other exception of the Kingdom of Juda it takes not away the objection as the Protestants frame it but as H. T. frames it it is not our objection and so though the consequence be false yet it hurts not us who gather not hence the failing of the Church but the obscurity of it and that there may be a true Church which is so hidden that it is not discerned at some times no not by such an eminent Prophet as Elias and so though we cannot shew our Church in every age before Luther yet there might be then and we may be now a true Church for all that The next objection he brings is that though Arian heresie infected the whole world Ergo c. and answers you mistake the fury of that lasted not full fou● years viz. from the council of Ariminum to the death of Constantine and that only in the Eastern Churches the Western feeling little or nothing by it St. Augustin answers the Donatists objecting the same that even the canonical Scriptures have this custome that the word seems to be addressed to all when it reaches home only to some few Epist 48. To which I reply If the Arian fury lasted but four years and in the Eastern Churches only yet it might have been more than one hundred and then the succession had ceased and the Eastern Churches then were so obscure that a catalogue of professors could not be given though there were doubtless then true Churches in the East But it is false which H. T. writes that the Western felt little or nothing by the Arian fury for in Italy the Arians prevailed so far as to bring Liberius Bishop of Rome to subscribe to the council of Ariminum Nor do I know how the words of Augustin yeild any thing in answer to the objection that in the time of the Arian prevalency the Church was so obscured that the whole world seemed to be Arians therefore the Churches succession may be so interrupted or obscured at least as that a catalogue of it's pastors and professors at all times cannot be framed For suppose the meaning of the speech should be that the words concerning the number of Arians seem to be addressed to all when they reach home only to some few yet if the words shew the number so great as that the other part of the Church were obscured so as not to be discerned they serve to prove there may be Churches which are so hidden as that a catalogue cannot be framed But the objection is further pressed thus Object St. Hierom says the whole world groan'd and admired to see it self become Arian in his book against Luciferius To which H. T. saith Answ If she wondred she knew not when it was done if she groaned she approved it not being done therefore the major part were still Catholick To which I reply if H. T. did not presume he should meet with silly readers he would not have thus frivolously inferred from those words which were delivered to shew the Arians to be the greater part that the major part was still Catholick For who knows not that the expression is Rhetorical and the meaning this that Arians prevailed so much that the whole world that is all the churches of the East and West were so infected that they were burdened with Arians as a man that groans under a burden and that on such a sudden as that the accident was as it were a wonder now from such Catachrestical metaphors to infer as if they were proper that while the world was Arian it knew not it was done or approved it not is all one as to say when they were Arians they knew not nor liked Arian doctrine that is while they were Arians they were not Arians which is to make Hieroms speech self-contradicting But H. T. adds Let St. Hierom answer for himself The Bishops saith he against Luciferius that did the fact of Ariminum were deluded viz. by the new Creed there made which might have born a good sense few defending the fact and some lamenting it And St. Augustin tells us that the church then appeared in her most constant members Athanasius and others ep 48. To which I reply It is true that when they came to see their error they did lament it yet were for the time Arians and though Athanasius did not yeild to subscribe to it yet Liberlus Bishop of Rome did And I believe H. T. his fellow Papists will not allow his speech that the decree made at Ariminum might have born a good sense It is added by H. T. thus Obj. The church will fail in the time of Antichrist according to that unless there come a revolt first c. 2 Thes 2. 3. Answ No she will not she shall then suffer great persecution Apoc. 20. 8. and therefore shall be to suffer many will revolt all shall not I reply that if the revolt be of so many and the persecution so great as that they shall be dispersed and obscured so as not to appear it is sufficient to prove the succession to be then either so interrupted as not to be or so obscured as not to be discerned by enemies or brethren further off and so as that the making a catalogue of Pastors and professors in that age cannot be expected justly from the churches in after ages which is enough for our purpose to shew that the defect of such a catalogue shews not the nullity of the Protestant churches nor is with any justice or reason such a catalogue of Pastors and professors in all ages required of them by Papists Yet however this Author conceives his fellows the Rhemists Annot. on 2 Thes 2. 3. think the Apostasie shall be so great as that Antichrist shall pull down generally all kind of religious worship saving that which must be done to himself alone nor is that Apoc. 20. 8. to the contrary For neither is it certain that time is the time of Antichrists reign nor if it were doth it appear that the thing done is afore the end of that reign But H. T. adds Obj. What if men would not persevere how then you hold freewill I hope Answ With St. Augustine to the Donatists as if the holy Ghost were ignorant what would be the freewill of men which yet foreseeing he foretold that the church

I make a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall go no more out And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 7. 37. for stedfast and 1 Cor. 15. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stedfast unmoveable are made synonymous and Col. 1. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded and setled in the faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not moved away from the hope So that the meaning is no more but this the Church of the living God is not a tile which is often shaken and blown down with the winde but a pillar that abides unshaken and the seat or ground or basis of truth where it abides being received and embraced by it Which is to be understood of the invisible Church of true believers and though not of every truth yet of the main truth of the Gospel as it is termed Gal. 1. 5. the Word of truth James 1. 18. the truth John 17. 17. which is expressed in the next words 1 Tim. 3. 16. from which he foretels an Apostasie 1 Tim. 4. 1. and cannot be meant of any truth whatsoever which may be in controversie For it is certain no meer mortal man nor all men were ever so infallible Which being rightly understood makes nothing for infallibility in all points which the Catholick Roman Church Oecumenical council or Pope or all together shall define as H. T. would have it The next text Matth. 16. 18. is as little to his purpose For it is not said against the Roman Church much lesse it is said against an Oecumenical council or the Pope of Rome the gates of hell shall not prevail but against my Church that is Christs wheresoever 2. Nor is it proved that by the gates of hell are meant heresies as this Author supposeth The truth is however by the modern use the term hell is appropriated almost to the place of the damned and the tormented there yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated hell is either never or not many times used in the bible for that place or those persons nor was of old the word hell appropriated to that place of torment but meant of the grave or the state of the dead in which sense it was meant of old that Christ went into hell that is for a time to abide among the dead as the learned Usher proves in his answer to the Jesuits challenge ch 8. and the gates of hell are no more than the gates of death or the grave as Isa 38. 10 Psal 9. 13. c. is meant So that the meaning of Matth. 16. 18. is no more but this the gates of hell or the grave that is death shall not so prevail against my Church but that I will raise it up at the last day to life eternal as our Lord Christ speaks John 6. 39. Which being the genuine meaning it is true onely of the church of the elect not of the meer visible nor of that is such a prevalency denied but that they may erre in faith however it be assured that it shall not erre in faith finally to perdition The next Text John 14. 26. is ill translated shall suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you the words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall minde you of all things which I have said to you nor is this meant onely in points of faith as this Authour adds without any reason in the Text that he might restrain it to them in which he would have the church to be accounted infallible but also in matters of practise and this is meant onely of the Apostles as the words which I have said to you and particularities expressed vers 25 28 29. chap. 15. 27. chap. 16 4 6 12 13. shew And in like manner is the next Text John 16. 13. appropriate to the Apostles to whom the words were spoken Nor are the words restrained to matters of faith but extended also to points of practise and there is a promise of shewing them also things to come Which argues plainly that it is not a promise to the whole Church or Pope or Council or every particular believer sith it is certain that to none of these it is verified they have not things to come shewed to them according to that promise and therefore it must needs be impertinently alleged by H. T. to prove his Minor The last Text Acts 15. 28. H. T. himself confesseth was said by the Apostles in council not by Peter onely nor by a council without the Apostles much less by any Bishop of one City as Rome is and therefore proves not any unerringness in any but the Apostles nor in them at all times in all points of faith but onely their not erring in their determination at that time So that his Texts do none of them prove his Minor SECT V. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our salvation without supposing the churches infallibility H. T. adds The consequence is confirmed because were not the Church infallible in things of faith we could have no infallible assurance at this distance what were the Word of God what not or what is the true sense and meaning of any one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible nor consequently of our salvation since without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. Answ H. T. Hath here vented a most poysonous and impious speech which tends to ruine the Foundation of Christian Faith and to promote Atheism yea in seeking to promote the arrogant claim of the Roman Bishop he doth by his arguing quite pull it down For if there be no infallible assurance without the churches infallibility in things of faith what is the Word of God what not nor what is the meaning of one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible then there is no certainty but from the Churches testimony of the truth of Christian Religion and that being questioned we have no way to convince an Atheist or Jew or Ma●om●tan who deny such in●allibility nor hath the Pope any way to prove his Supremacy or Transubstantiation to be certain points of Faith but by the Churches infallibility that is indeed his own saying in which he that believes him upon no better ground is departed from faith in God to faith in a confes●edly sinfull and oft times notoriously wicked man and so makes not God's authority the formal mo●ive and object of his faith as H. T. said pag. 58. falsly the Romanists do Besides how injurious is it to God to make him to have delivered his minde so as none can understand it without the Pope or a Council approved by him of whom according to H. T. his Doctrine who saith pag. 202. that sense cannot judge at all of substance though it be under sensible accidents there is no certainty whether they be men or not if we cannot judge of substance by sense Surely Christ did very ill to direct Infidels to search the Scriptures John 5.

missals and the vulgar Latin translations of the Bible they confesse they used the help of learned men and one Pope alter what a former did and Judge of controversies from whom none may appeal and all are bound in conscience to stand to his definitions H. T. saith further Object The spiritual man judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2. 15. Answ By the Rule of Apostolical tradition I grant by humane reason or the private spirit I deny and such a spiritual man is in the Church as a part in the whole not out of it with Sectaries I reply It is true the spiritual man judgeth all things by the Rule of Apostolical tradition I mean that which is truly and confessedly Apostolical in the holy Scriptures not by that unwritten tradition which Papists falsly call Apostolical And it is true also that the spiritual man judgeth all things by humane reason not as the rule of faith but as the Organ or means of discerning as the buyer judgeth whether he hath measure by the Ell as the rule and by the eye as the Organ by which he compareth the thing bought and the Ell together And if by private spirit be meant nothing but his own ability to discern the spiritual man judgeth by his private spirit and so doth a Papist that judgeth by the rule of the Councils definition and Popes approbation judge what his Priest suggests to him to be such by humane reason and his private spirit Nor can it be otherwise if the judging be his act but it should be by humane reason unless we imagine a man as a man to act without reason However this is clear by his confession that a spiritual man is not onely the Pope or the Catholick Church but a part in the whole and that he not onely receives all that the Church propounds but judgeth and therefore doth not rest on the judgement of the Church with a blinde assent and that he is in the Church nevertheless and this supposeth that a spiritual man is not to presuppose the Church or Pope or Prelate or Priest infallible but to examine what they say and to judge for himself whether they speak right or not H. T. proceeds thus Object Right reason is the onely Judge of controversies therefore every mans private reason must be Judge for himself Answ The Antecedent I have sufficiently refuted and I also deny the Consequence as the most gross and unreasonable Assertion of all others though Mr. Chillingsworth's chief ground which appears thus I reply No Protestant that I know saith Right reason is the onely Judge of controversies and therefore there was no need of refuting it Nevertheless in what he hath said before about this point he hath refuted nothing except it be a sufficient Refutation to say without any reason or proof for it that we must not try all things by humane reason or the private spirit which is a way of re●uting fit enough for this Scribler though unfit for a Disputer 2. Nor do I think any Protestant makes that consequence which is here set down whereas he a●cribes it to Master Chillingworth he had dealt honestly if he had quoted the place that we might without reading a whole Book have found it If I mistake not Master Chillingworth chap. 2. part 1. Sect. 104. of his Answer to Charity maintained against Knot asserting a necessity of a personal Judge in points of controversie concerning the Christian faith that the Scripture was not and therefore the church must be it saith Scripture is not a Judge of controversies but a Rule to judge them by being understood of all those that are possible to be judged by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture that it is not necessary that all controversies should be decided that in doubtfull things there is no necessity they should be determined but that each should bear with other and he is safe that useth means to finde the truth though he miss it that fundamentals are plainly delivered in Scripture that the m●st unlearned may understand these by the translations of places on no side gainsaid that each mans own reason is Judge for himself that there is no such personal Judge appointed by God as Knot would have that his Reasons from the necessity of a personal Judge in civil controversies hold not in this matter that every mans particular reason is that by which he is to judge whether this or that Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture that even according to the way of the Papists the giving of the Office of Judicature to the Church comes to confer it upon every particular man For 1. Before any man believes the Church infallible he must have reason to induce him to believe it so else why do they set down Arguments to prove it 2. Supposing they are to be guided by the Church they must use their own particular reason to finde out which is the Church and to that end Popish Doctors give notes and marks whereby to discern it which are to no end if a Christian must not use his reason to judge whether they be right or no. So that in effect this is Mr. Chillingworth 's Argument as I conceive it There is neither a necessity of an infallible personal Judge among men to determine all controversies in Religion among Christians nor is any such appointed by God but each is to try for himself what is taught and even by Popish Writers own way he must use his particular reason to discern the validity of their proofs for the Churches infallibility and which is the Church which must be his guide by the marks of i● therefore it must of necessity be yielded that every mans particular reason must be Judge for himself Now this which H. T. unskilfully calls the consequence it being the consequent onely is no unreasonable much less gross Assertion and may very well be Mr. Chillingworth 's ground in answering Knot notwithstanding that which here H. T. produceth to the contrary First saith H. T. As contradicting the Word of God wherein we are taught that the things which are of God no man knows but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2. 11. No man can say Our Lord Jesus with true faith but in the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12. 3. By which grace we are saved through faith and that not of our selves for it is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. We are not sufficient to think any good thing our selves as of selves but our sufficiency is from God 2 Cor. 3. 5. We must captivate our understanding to the obedience of faith I reply Mr. Chillingworth's tenet being rightly understood contradicts none of these Texts For 1. when he saith Every mans private reason is to judge for himself he means whether this or that be the meaning of the Scriptures and whether that which some say is revealed in Scripture be so or not so that the judging which he asserts is of things revealed by the words

Council be not How is it an Oecumenical definition when it determins against John Hus or against Christs own expresse command for communion under one kinde and nor Oecumenical when it decrees the supremacy of the Council above the Pope This is meer jugling of h●●us pocus which shews that when it likes them the Council shall be approved when not rejected and thereby take upon them to be above Pope and Council But if this be the fashion of their Councils who can tell when one decree is contrary to another if these were not or who can tell when a decree is approved by a Pope if neither of these were where 's the agreement where 's the infallibility they so vainly arrogate to their Church Martin the fifth expressely confirmed the acts of the Council of Constance in the 45. Session of which one was in the fourth Session that every one though of Papal dignity was bound to obey a general Council in the things pertaining to faith That which Bellarm. l. 2. de Concil aut c. 19. saith that he onely approved some things not others because he said sic conciliariter facta is but a shift for that expression is not set down by way of limitation and distinction but explication noting the reason of approving all because they were done conciliariter as the word sic shews which implies his acknowledgment that they were all so done Besides he not excepting it expressely could not be interpreted to except that from his confirmation more then any thing else there acted it might as well be said he excepted the decree about half communion yea if he had excepted that decree of the Councils being above the Pope he had meerly deluded the Council that decree being their principal decree and for which it was called Add hereto that the words of his Bull thereupon do more fully manifest that he did not except it and the decree of the Council of Basil called after by vertue of his Bull shews that they understood it to confirm that decree proceeding against Pope Eugenius conformably to it And for the other Council that Pope Leo the tenth did not confirm the decree of the Popes being above a Council is contrary to Bellarmin l. 2. de Concil aut c. 18. who recites the decree as a proof and c. 5. reckons it among the general Councils approved by the Pope as appears saith he in that he was president in person And for the other answer of H. T. it is ridiculous sith the Councils words are expresse that any person though of Papal dignity was to obey the general Council and the decree was made of purpose to justifie their fact in putting down a Pope And there was no question nor need be who is above other when both joyn but all the question is and so the definition must be construed when they are severed Yea it would be trifling to say the Pope should obey the Council when the Pope concurred for it 's all one as to say be should obey himself and to say the Council is above the Pope when the Council and Pope are one is frivolous for in all such comparisons the words expresse what each is severally as they stand in competition according to their several authorities and therefore the similitude of H. T. is frivolous as being not to the purpose Lastly with what face can this man say that neither Council err'd when Bellarmin saith c. 7. that in the Florentin and last Lateran the Council of Constance was rejected in respect of the first Sessions wherein it defined a Council to be above a Pope so that all the wit of man is not able to avoid this objection but that according to the suppositions of Popish Doctors either a general Council approved by a Pope may erre in a point of faith or else there is no error in a main point of their faith when one general Council approved by a Pope contradicts a former general Council approved by a former Pope of greater freedome and celebrity by reason of the Emperours presence and for other causes which was seconded by another Council not long after as appears by the next objection which is thus set down by H. T. Ob. The Council of Basil defined that a Council was above a Pope Answ The decree was not approved nor any other of that Council but onely such as concerned Church benefices See Eugenius with Terrecremata l. 2. c. 100. I reply I finde no such distinction in Pope Nicolas the fifth his Bull but that it is confirmed altogether But it seems when it pleaseth these men the Council shall be approved when not rejected So that it is not either the calling of a Council by a Pope or the universality of the Fathers or the approbation of the Pope can confirm it if another Pope reject it which they will do when it 's against their power and profit And hereby is proved that Popes are vertiginous that Popery is as mutable as the weathercock that there is so little shew of agreement unity and infallibility in Popes and Councils approved by him that scarce any states are more full of changes in matters civil then they are in matters Ecclesiastical and of faith nor in any part of the world more disagreement then among Papists Further saith H. T. Ob. The Council of Ariminum defined Arianism Answ It did not and that equivocal decree that was there made was never approved by the Pope and the Fathers themselves who were deluded by the Arians with words that bare a double sense when they perceived the fraud lamented and renounced the fact I reply H. T. his own words confirm the objection For 1. If the Fathers were deluded by the Arians then they were not infallible and so a general Council approved by the Pope may erre in a main point of faith 2. If that Council did not define Arianism how were they deluded wherein was the fraud but in that the words being of double sense yet indeed decreed Arian doctrine what need they lament or renounce the fact if it were not so why doth Austin l. 3. contra Maximinum c. 14. oppose that council to that of Nice and Maximinus allege it for himself if it did not decree Arianism why did Ruffinus Socrates Basil cited by Bellarm l. 1. de concil c. 6. reject it and Bellarmin reckon it among the reprobate councils if it were not Arian and that Pope Liberius did subscribe to it is related by Hierom in his catalogue of writers in Fortunatianus in his Chronicle by Hillary sundry times and others Yet saith H. T. Ob. The council of Trent erred by adding to the Canon of Scripture Answ It did not the third council of Carthage approved all the same books by name excepting Baruch whom they compared with the Prophet Hieremy whose Secretary he was and this twelve hundred years ago I reply if the council of Trent did not erre Pope Gregory the great did who expressely denied the books of

Faith or Catholick Church but not any longer And this Authour may as some in case of Marriage conceive he is obliged to keep faith with In●idels and yet not with Hereticks And for the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 15. 18. neither durst Protestants then trust to the safe conduct then given and before and since sad instances of Papists perfidiousness have given too much occasion to Protestants to suspect the lurking of a Snake under the grass I mean some hidden deceit under a covert of fair words especially when we consider this Authour a little before counted the definition of the Council of Constance to be of faith Sess 15. 18. In which Sess 19. that Council as it is in Binius hath these words The present holy Synod doth declare that no prejudice to the Catholick faith or to Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction is generated or impediment can be or ought to be made by any safe conduct granted by the Emperour Kings and other secular Princes to Hereticks or defamed of Here●ie thinking so to recall the same from their Errours with whatsoever Bond they have bound themselves but that the said safe conduct notwithstanding it may be lawfull for a competent Judge and Ecclesiastick to inquire of the Errours of such persons and otherwise duly to proceed against them and to punish them as much as justice shall perswade if they shall refuse stifly to revoke their Errours although trusting to their safe conduct they have come to the place of judgement who otherwise would not have come nor doth he that so promiseth when he hath done what lies in him remain obliged by this in any thing Which surely amounted then to as much as this and hath been thousands of times objected by Princes and others that publick faith is not to be kept with Hereticks And how little reason Protestants have to trust Papists not onely the actions of former Papists for a thousand years past but also of late their actings in Ireland Poland Piedmont shew Whom he means by the Popes flatterers or particular Doctors I do not well understand should he call Bellarmine Baronius or such like men so perhaps he may be served as Francis a St. Clara and others were I judge H. T. to be a gross Flatterer in maintaining the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility there being in this tenet no better than blasphemous Antichristian flattery ascribing to some of the worst and oftentimes most ignorant men that which is due to the Son of God And for his Corollary I deny the Major and Minor both sith that may be a true Church which hath neither local personal Succession nor conspicuous Visibility nor such Unity Universality Infallibility Sanctity Power of Miracles Universal Bishop as H. T. requires as necessary to a true Church nor hath he made it plain that these marks do agree to the present Roman Church or Bishop and no other but his mistakes in these are shewed I follow him in the rest ARTIC VIII Unwritten Tradition now no Rule of Faith The unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith SECT I. The Argument for Apostolical Tradition unwritten as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered H. T. intitles his eighth Article of Apostolical Tradition and saith Our Tenet is That the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition or a delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles and nothing ought to be received as Faith but what is proved to have been so delivered which we prove thus The first Argument That is now the true Rule of Faith which was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first But oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first therefore oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books is the true Rule of Faith The Major is proved because the Rule of Faith must be immutable and the same in all Ages as the Faith it self is The Minor is proved because the first Gospel was not written till eight years after the Death of Christ or thereabouts in which space the Apostles had preached and planted the Faith of Christ in many Nations over almost all the World Add to this that many Ages were passed before all the Books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church so that when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age they were not to inquire what had been written but whether the Apostles so taught Answ THis Doctor whether it be by reason of his ignorance or heedlesness or malignity to the holy Scriptures determines worse than his fellows yea against the Doctrine of the Trent Council and Pope Pius the fourths Bull. For whereas in the Trent Council Sess 4. it is said that the truth and Discipline of Christ and his Apostles is contained in written Books and Traditions without writing and would have both to be received with equal affection and reverence of piety and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull requires the admission of the sacred Scripture and Apostolical Tradition H. T. concludes that written Books are not the true Rule of Faith but oral and Apostolical Tradition If he had said they had not been the entire Rule of Faith he had agreed with the Trent Council and the Popes Bull but now he contradicts them as well as the Protestants and his Argument doth as well conclude that the holy Scripture is no part of the Rule of Faith as that it is not the whole But leaving him to be corrected by his fellows let 's view his Dispute Setting aside his non-sense speech of being received as Faith in stead of being received as the object of Faith and taking Apostolical Tradition to be meant of that which is truly so called I grant his Tenet and say with him that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition that is the Doctrine which the Apostles delivered or that delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles and that nothing ought to be received as Faith that is a thing to be believed with a Christian divine Faith which all Christians are bound to believe but what is proved to have been so delivered For though in general any divine revelation is to be the object of Christian Faith by whom or what way soever it be delivered and God hath delivered divers revelations in the Books of the Old Testament which are objects of Faith yet sith now Christ and his Apostles have delivered those divine revelations as the oracles of God and what the Apostles preached and thought needfull for us to know and believe to salvation is written and these Writings are conveyed from father to son by hand to hand we grant the Tenet being meant of them and yield further that if they can

not to do so still why doth this Authour allege Scripture for the Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy c. and tells us here pag. 113. There is no better way to decide Controversies than by the Scripture expounded by the Church and according to the Rule of Apostolical Tradition But this is an evidence of Gods infatuating these Romanists that though they have no shew of proof for Peter's Supremacy and consequently the Popes without the Scripture and therefore allege it yet determine it not to be the Rule of Faith and so make void their own proof and the very Rule of Faith which they would fain establish SECT II. Unwritten Traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles But let us view what he adds A second Argument is That is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of these things But by Apostolical Tradition we may infallibly be assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and by no other means Therefore Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith The Major is manifest because in the Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith The Minor is proved because a full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether infallible since sensible evidence in a world of Witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars and such a report such an evidence is Apostolical Tradition for all the Doctrinos Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote therefore infallible Answ THe Popish Tenet is that unwritten Traditions of other points than what are in the written Books are the Rule of Faith that so what they cannot prove out of Scripture of Peter's being at Rome being Bishop there Purgatory-fire Invocation of Saints Adoration of the Host mixing Water with Wine in the Eucharist and many more which Popes and Popish Councils obtrude on the Church of God as Apostolical Traditions may be received as Objects of Faith But here H. T. concludes Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith and proves it of no other Apostolical Tradition but that whereby the Books written are known to be the Apostles which I might grant and yet H. T. gain nothing for his purpose sith Apostolical Tradition may be the true Rule of Faith and yet not Apostolical Tradition unwritten much less that which Popes and Councils call Apostolical Tradition which is every corruption that hath been any long time received in the Roman Church and this Apostolical Tradition infallible that the Books of holy Scripture were written by the holy men whose names they bear and that the things in them related are certain and yet other Traditions of other things not so But to his Argument I say the Major is not true nor is it proved by his reason which in form is this That is the true Rule of Faith in which are contained all things that are of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith The Conclusion which followeth from these premises is not his Major that is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of those things nor the Conclusion set down therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith for these terms that by which we may be assured of the Doctrines or Books the infallible means of knowing them are not the same with the Books or Doctrines in which are contained all things that are of Faith and therefore the Major is not proved but indeed the very Protestant Doctrine which he gainsays is proved unawares thus That in which are contained all things that are of Faith is the true Rule of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are the true Rule of Faith Which proves directly what H. T. denies that the Scripture is the true Rule of Faith and shews that he mistook the means of Faith for the Rule of Faith between which there is manifest difference the means of Faith being any outward or inward efficient principal or instrumental by which a person comes to believe the Rule is that by which we know what we are to believe the same means may be the means of believing contrary things Caiaphas and Balaam may prophesie right things of Israel and be a means of expectation of the Messiab and yet also be a means of laying a stumbling-block to overthrow them A messenger that brings a grant wherein a Prince grants a thing is the means of belief and so is the Seal but the Rule of believing is the words of the grant Thomas his seeing and feeling were the means of his believing Christ's Resurrection but the Rule was Christ's words 2. I deny his Minor For though I grant such a full report as he speaks of is infallible nor do I deny that there is such a a report or such an evidence for all the Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote yet I say 1. That this is not the Apostolical Tradition which Papists assert for with them any thing used in their Church a long time and approved by a Pope or a Council confirmed by him is an Apostolical Tradition though it have not such report or evidence 2. That there are other means by which we may be assured what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote besides this full report as 1. The inward testimony of the holy Spirit 2. The innate characters of the Doctrine and Books themselves foretelling things to come opening the Mysteries of God advancing Gods glory enlightning and converting the soul with many more which shew whos 's the Doctrine and Books were Yet by the way I observe 1. That notwithstanding he makes here such an Infallibility in the report and evidence of sense yet pag. 205. he denies evidence of sense infallible in the Sacrament and thereby overthrows his Position here 2. From his words here I argue against his opinion of Transubstantiation thus A full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether

however ignorant however unstable ought to reade the holy Scriptures and unappealably judge of their sense by his private interpretation Where is it so plainly forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever we believe him to be really present as it is to work upon the Saturday Thus if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick nor justifie their own Answ The Conclusion may be granted that many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture without any detriment to the Protestant cause Protestants do not pretend to Infallibility but that the tenets in point of Faith which in opposition to Papists their Harmony of Confessions avoucheth are sufficiently condemned in Scripture is more than H. T. or any other can prove To his Syllogism I answer by denying his Minor And to his instances I answer the Prayer for the Dead which Protestants say is forbidden plainly in Scripture is Popish Prayer for the Dead to have them eased or delivered out of Purgatory now this we say is condemned plainly in Scripture 1. Because it supposeth a belief of a Purgatory-place in Hell which is an Errour and every Errour is condemned in Scripture as contrary to truth 2. All Prayer is condemned which is not agreeable to the Rules of Prayer now the Rules of Prayer in Scripture are that we should pray in Faith James 1. 6. Ask the things which are according to the will of God 1 John 5. 14. Not for him that sins unto death vers 16. But to ask for deliverance out of Purgatory when there is no such place nor God hath promised any such thing is not in Faith nor according to Gods will but is as vain as to ask for him that sins unto death it is all one as to pray that the elect Angels or Devils should be delivered thence which were a Mockery of God 3. God forbids Jeremiah to pray for that which he would not hear him in Jer. 14. 11. therefore Prayer for the Dead to be delivered out of Purgatory in which God will not hear is by parity of reason condemned as if a man should pray that the Reprobate should not be damned or the Elect should not be saved The Protestants say not that every one however ignorant or unstable ought unappealably to judge of the sense of all Scriptures by his private interpretation There are plain Scriptures and Points fundamental and of these they say they may and ought to judge of their sense each one by his own private interpretation if by it be meant his own understanding but not if by it be meant a peculiar fancy such as no man else conceives nor the words import but they say in difficult places and points not fundamental they ought not to judge of their sense unappealably that is so as not to use the help of the learned in which number Fathers and Councils have their place and especially their own Teachers to finde out the meaning of them yet when they have used means they may and must suspend any judgement at all or stick to that which in their own understanding seems most probable or else they must go against their own conscience which were sin or they must be Hypocrites saying they judge that to be so which they do not yea there should be an impossibility in nature granted that a man at the same time doth judge that to be the sense of the same thing which he doth not but they deny that a man ought so to rest on any Pope or Councils or Doctours judgement as to hold what they hold without any other proof though it be in their apprehension against Scripture sith that is plainly condemned Matth. 23. 10. And they hold that every man that hath the use of natural understanding ought to reade the Scripture John 5. 39. Col. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. 2. Tim. 3. 15 16. and to judge their sense in this manner and this is no Errour much less a darling Errour of Protestancy Nor can H. T. prove it any where condemned in Scripture As for the place 2 Pet. 3. 16. to which his words seem to allude it proves not the reading of the Scripture or judging of the sense to be condemned yea ver 3. 15. proves the contrary that Christians should reade Paul's Epistles in which those things are which are hard to be understood onely it condemns the wresting of them to their perdition by the unlearned and unstable which Protestants do condemn as well as Papists It is not forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever he is but 1. It is an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith to conceive Christ in a Wafer-cake on earth called the Host by Papists whom we believe to be in Heaven at the right hand of God and of whom it is said that the Heaven must contain him till the times of the restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. and so it is forbidden to adore that Bread as if Christ's Body were there it being a belief of an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith 2. It is flat Idolatry to adore with divine Worship a piece of Bread though taken to be the Body of Christ it being forbidden Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Nor can the imagination of a person acquit the person that does it from Idolatry For if it could the Worship of the golden calf which the Israelites proclaimed to be the Gods that brought them out of Egypt Exod. 32. 8. and worshipped God thereby vers 4. 5 8. Micah's Worship of his molten Image of the Silver which he dedicated to the Lord Judges 17. 2 3 4 and Jeroboam's Worship of the golden Calf 1 Kings 12. 28. yea all the Idolatry of the Heathens who worshipped those things which were no Gods should be excused because they thought them Gods or intended to worship God by them As for working upon the Saturday it is true it was forbidden to the Jews but we conceive it not forbidden to us because the Jewish Sabbath is abrogated Col. 2. 16. And if H. T. do not think so he doth Judaize and if he hold the Lord's day and the Saturday Sabbath too he agrees with the Ebionites mentioned by Eusebius lib. 3. hist ●ap 27. so that it is utterly false that if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick no justifie their own B●t it is rather true which Dr. Carleton in his little Book of the Church avouched that the now Roman Church is proved not to be the true Church of Christ because in the Trent Council the Romanists have altered the Rule of Faith And for my part to my best understanding I do judge that the Romanists are not to be reckoned amongst Christians though they call themselves so but that as by their worshipping of Images burning Incense to them praying to a Crucifix adoring the Host and almost

wherein are general Warnings of not receiving additions to the Scripture yea though the names of Moses and Paul were pretended especially when the Traditions do adulterate the written Word as Popish traditions about Images Fasting single life of the Clergy Monastick Vows and others of their Traditions do Yet he adds Object We may have a certain knowledge of all things necessary to salvation by the Bible or written Word onely Answ No we cannot for there have been are and will be infinite Disputes about that to the worlds end as well what Books are Canonical as what the true sense and meaning is of every Verse and Chapter Nor can we ever be infallibly assured of either but by means of Apostolical tradition so that if this be interrupted and failed for any one whole Age together as Protestants defend it for many the whole Bible for ought we know might in that space be changed and corrupted nor can the contrary ever be evinced without new revelation from God the dead Letter cannot speak for it self I reply this profane Wretch it seems takes delight in this blasphemous Title which he gives to the holy Scripture often in reproach terming it the dead Letter which he hath no Warrant to do For though it is true that Ro. 7. 3 6. 2 Cor. 3. 6. the Law or old Covenant be termed the Letter and is said to be dead and killing yet this is not meant of the holy Scripture of the Law because it is written but because it was abrogated in the Gospel as killing by its Sentence Sinners that continued not in all things written in it Gal. 3. 10. And yet it can speak for it self as well yea incomparably better than any Writings of Popes Councils or Fathers from whence he hath his Traditions which are as dead a Letter as the Scripture And in this his expression there is so much the more iniquity in that he prefers before the holy Scripture the uncertain reports of credulous superstitious men and the Decrees of doating Popes as more lively than the holy Scripture inspired of God And for this man who but the next Page before confessed that the words of the Apostle which tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy written Letters were able to make Timothy wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3 15. to be meant of the old Scripture and yet here to say that we cannot have a certain knowledge of all things necessary to salvation by the Bible or written Word onely what is it but flatly to gainsay the Apostle which is the more impiously and impudently done in that he ascribes that to uncertain unwritten Tradition which neither he nor any of his Fellows are able to shew where it is or how it may be certainly known which he denies to holy Scripture As for his Reason it is frivolous For a man may have a certain knowledge of that of which there will be infinite Disputes to the Worlds end else hath he no certain knowledge of the Popes Supremacy Infallibility power in Temporals superiority to a Council of which yet there have been and are likely to be infinite Disputes As there have been Disputes about the Canonical Books so there have been about unwritten Traditions as about the time of keeping Easter Rebaptization c. Nor is it true that there are infinite Disputes about the true sense and meaning of every Verse and Chapter of the Bible Sure among Christians there is no dispute of many fundamental truths which every Christian acknowledgeth and yet if there were it is no other thing than what is incident not onely to Philosophers Writings but also to the Popes Decrees about which there are infinite Disputes among the Canonists to the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent about which there were Disputes between Catharinus Soto Vega Andradius and others to the Popes Breves as to Pope Paul the fifth his Breves about the Oath of Allegeance which were not onely disputed by King James and other Protestants but also by Widrington and other Popish Priests and to his Monitory and Interdict of Venice disputed by Frier Paul of Venice and others against Bellarmine Baronius and others And if we can never be infallibly assured of either the Canonical Books or their sense but by Apostolical tradition unwritten then can H. T. never be assured of the Popes Infallibility or Supremacy but by it and if so then the Scripture is not his ground of it and so he cannot demonstrate the truth of his Catholick Religion by Texts of holy Scripture as he pretends in his Title-page and therefore they are impertinently alleged by him he should onely allege Tradition which whether it be Fathers Councils or Popes sayings it cannot assure better than the Scripture they being more controverted than it and therefore by his reasoning there can be no certainty in his Faith and then he is mad if he suffer for it as he is who suffers for any mans saying who may be deceived But we are assured both of the Books of Canonical Scripture not onely by Apostolical tradition unwritten but also by universal tradition and the evidence of their authour by their matter and of the meaning without Popish tradition not onely by common helps of understanding and arts gotten by study and the benefit of later and elder Expositours but also by the Spirit of God assisting us when we seek it duly And for the interruption of this Tradition the Protestants do not pretend it to have been one whole age or day though it have been sometimes more full than at other times and we have infallible assurance that the whole Bible hath not been changed or corrupted so but that by reason of the multitude of copies and special providence of God the chiefest points are free from change and what is corrupted may be amended so far as is necessary for our salvation And considering Gods providence for the keeping of the Law we assure our selves the Lord will preserve the Scripture which me thinks to H. T. should give good assurance sith pag. 119 he saith The Church is by Christ the Depository of all divinely revealed veritie necessary to be known by all and hath the promise of divine assistance to all whereby and by other arguments it may be evinced without new revelation from God that though H. T. his apostolical tradition unwritten should have failed for any one whole age together yet the whole Bible should not in that space be changed or corrupted And this is Reply enough to his venemous Answer to that Objection which tends to depress the Scriptures authority which confessedly comes from God to exalt the authority of the worst of men the Popes of Rome as the stories of their Lives proves sufficiently It is further urged Object Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that

believing you may have Life in his Name St. John 20. 30 31. Therefore St. John's Gospel contains all things necessary to salvation Answ I deny your Consequence for St. John omitted many things of great moment as our Lord's Prayer and his last Supper which are both necessary to be believed And though he say These things are written that we may believe and have life he says not that these things onely were written or are sufficient for that purpose which is the thing in question so that he excludes not the rest of the Gospels nor Apostolical traditions And it is no unusual thing in Scripture to ascribe the whole effect to that which is but the cause in part thus Christ promiseth beatitude to every single Christian virtue St. Matthew 5. and St. Paul Salvation to every one that shall call on the Name of our Lord or confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that God hath raised him from the dead Rom. 10. 4 9 10. Yet more than this is requisite to salvation I reply He that saith These things are written that you may believe and believing have life doth inculcate that these are sufficient so far as writing or revealing is requisite to these ends or else he should make a vain attempt Frustra sit quod non assequitur finem That is done in vain which attains not the end and that is vainly done even deliberately which is attempted to be done by that means which is foreknown to be insufficient And therefore H. T. must either yield St. John's Gospel sufficient to beget saith and procure life or else John to have been imprudent to intend and attempt it by writing it And therefore he doth ill to deny the Consequence till he can avoid these absurdities As for his Reason it is insufficient For though the Lord's Prayer and the Lord's Supper omitted by John be necessary to be believed yet they are not so necessary but that we may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and have life in his Name without them And though he say not that these things onely were written yet he saith These things onely which were written were for belief and life and therefore sufficient thereto And though he excludes not the rest of the Gospels nor Apostolical Traditions yet he determines that they might believe and have life without them As for the ascribing beatitude and salvation to each single Christian virtue it is either because the beatitude is meant of a beatitude in part or in some respect as Matth. 5. 5. the reason doth import or else because all other Christian virtues and duties necessary to salvation are connex or comprehended in that one which is named And thus this Objection is vindicated The next is Object St. Luke tells us he hath written of all those things which Jesus did and taught Act. 1. 1. Therefore all things necessary to salvation are contained in his Gospel Answ He writ of all the principal passages of his Life and Death I grant and that was the whole scope and intent of the Evangelists of all absolutely which he did and taught I deny for in the same Chapter he tells us that during the fourty days which Christ remained with them after his Resurrection he often appeared to them instructing them in the things concerning the Kingdom of God very few of which instructions are mentioned by St. Luke nor does he or any other of the Evangelists say any thing in their Gospels of the coming of the Holy Ghost or of the things by him revealed to the Church which were great and many according to that I have many things to say to you but you cannot now bear them but when the Spirit of Truth cometh he shall teach you all Truth and the things which are to come he shall shew you St. John 16. 12 13 14. Add to this that if all things which Jesus taught and did should be written the whole World would not contain the Books St. John cap. 21. vers last Therefore your Consequence is false and that saying of St. Luke is to be limited I reply I grant the saying of Luke is to be limited and yet the consequence is not false It is true that St. Luke did not write all absolutely without limitation which Jesus did and taught neither doth he say it nor is the argument so framed as if he did but thus Luke wrote of all the things which Jesus began to do and teach untill the day that he was taken up and these were all things necessary to salvation therefore Luke's Gospel contains all things necessary to salvation The Romanists say that things of meer belief necessary to salvation are contained in the holy-days Creeds and Service of their Church and H. T. himself in the next leaf pag. 118. says The whole frame of necessary points of Christian Doctrine was in a manner made sensible and visible by external and uniform practise of the Church Now these are onely the principal passages of Christ's Life and Death besides which many more practical points and all fundamental Gospel-truths are delivered therein therefore even by their own grant all necessary points of Christian Doctrine are taught in the Gospel of Luke It is certain their intent especially of John was to write of his divine nature and such Sermons as tend to rectifie the Errours of the Pharisees and Sadduces and predictions of his Death Resurrection and state of the Church after his Ascension It is true he did instruct them for fourty days after his Resurrection in the things concerning the Kingdom of God but whether they are mentioned by Luke or not it is uncertain that they are delivered by Tradition oral unwritten or necessary to salvation so as that without an explicit knowledge of then it cannot be had is not proved The same may be said of the things mentioned John 16. 12 13 14. 21. vers last and therefore the consequence is not infringed by these Exceptions I add that H. T. says not true that Luke says not any thing in his Gospel of the coming of the Holy Ghost For Luke 2. 33. the Prediction of Christ of sending the Promise of the Father which Acts 2. 33. is expresly termed the Promise of the Holy Ghost is set down SECT VIII H. T. solves not the Objections from Reason for the Scriptures sufficiency without unwritten Traditions H. T. proceeds Object At least the whole Bible contains all things necessary to salvation either for belief or practise for all sorts of men whatsoever and that explicitly and plainly Therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith Answ I deny both Antecedent and Consequence The three Creeds are not there the four first Councils are not there there is nothing expresly prohibiting Polygamy or Rebaptization nor expresly affirming three distinct Persons in one divine nature or the Sons consubstantiality to the Father or the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both or that the Holy Ghost is God or for the