Sermon Preached 12 March 1581

A Sermon preached, by M. D. Fulke.

THe place of Scripture, which I have chosen to speak of at this time, and upon the present occasion, is written in the 17. Chapiter of the Gospel after Saint John, and the 17. verse of the same, being part of the words of our Savior Christ, unto his heavenly Father, in that most vehement and heavenly prayer, which he maketh for his disciples and his whole Church, a little before his Passion.

A Fter that our Savior Christ had accomplished his office of preaching, and sealed the doctrine of his redemption, by institution of his holy Supper, & finally, as it were taking his leave of teaching his Apostles, had instructed them of patient bearing of his Cross, by setting forth such comforts, whereunto they should lean, and by promising the coming of his spirit, lifted them up to a better hope, then the present miseries did portende, discoursing of the glory and Majesty of his kingdom whereof they should be partakers, as is contained at the full, in the three Chapiters going immediately before: The Evangelist declareth in the beginning of this seventh Chapiter, howe he converteth himself to prayer, that this his most heavenly doctrine might be made effectual: first in the hearts of his Apostles which then were his hearers, and afterward in all true members of his Church, which by their Ministry should be gathered in his name. Wherefore among other requests that he maketh for his Disciples in this prayer, this is one especially, that his father would sāctifie them in his truth, which is his holy word, the only outward witness of his will: which is as much in effect, as that it would please his Majesty, of his infinite goodness, and for his sake, who sanctified him self for them, to be a sacrifice propitiatory to dedicate them unto his father: to consecrate or hallow them, by his holy spirit, unto him self, as his chosen and peculiar possession, according to that most holy truth, which he hath revealed in his word and doctrine of salvation, contained in the Gospel of his son, that being truly united unto him, he may be glorified in them, and they made by him partakers if eternal felicity. Sanctify them O Father (saith he) in thy truth, thy word is the truth. There are two special reasons, why our Savior Christ commendeth his Disciples, unto the holy and sanctifying protection of God his heavenly Father: the one contained in the verse going immediately before, the other in the verse that followeth immediately, the one being the great danger they stood in, the other the great and high office also, that they were called unto. Concerning the former he said: they are not of the world, even am I am not of the world. In that they were not of the world, it could not be avoided, but that they should be hated of the world, as he said also in express words. They therefore that should be hated of all the world, had need to be mightily protected.

They that had so many enemies, must needs have a strong defender, and where should they have any rest, that had all the world against them, but in God, who is greater then the world? And therefore in consideration of that great peril they were in, which must remain in the world, although they were not of the world, although they were hated and persecuted of the world, our Savior Christ committeth them in this prayer to his fathers holy tuition: Forasmuch as they are not of the world, but inheritors of heaven, Sanctify them in thy truth. Again, considering how weighty a charge is laid upon them, as he showeth in the next verse. As thou hast sent me into the world, so have I sent them into the world, he desireth his Father, to make them able to execute that charge, saying, Sanctify them in thy truth, thy word is the truth. As though he should say, Knowing that they are men in whom naturally dwelleth the spirit of error, and not of truth, and yet such men, as I have chosen to testify unto the world, the same truth, which thou O heavenly Father hast sent unto them by me, I confess they are not able of them selves to know the truth, to speak the truth, to love the truth, for that mueterate corruption, that beareth the sway in all the children of Adam, therefore I beseech thee holy Father, to sanctify them in thy truth, even in thy holy word which is the witness and express declaration of thy revealed truth, that by thy sanctification, they may be renewed in the inner man, to will and love those things, which thou commaundest, by thy truth they may be delivered from error, blindness, and ignorance, in which they are holden Captives, and by thy holy word they may be instructed from time to time, that no forgetfulness of thy truth do take them, but having recourse always unto it, as to a light shining in a dark place, they may be meet to accomplish the work of so high a calling. And this is generally the sum and effect of the words of our Savior Christ in this his prayer. Sanctify, them in thy truth, thy word is the truth.

But that I may speak of them more particularly, I will divide my Treatise upon this text, into two parts: In the former I will set forth the request of our Savior Christ, uttered in these words, Sanctify them in thy truth, in the other, the exposition which he maketh of the truth, when he saith, Thy word is the truth. Concerning the request which he maketh for their sanctification, we have to consider, first that it is neither lawful, nor possible, for any man, to have any access unto God, to stand before his presence, to look for any benefit at his hands without true holiness. For the Lord being holy, abhorreth all that is profane, polluted and defiled, testifiyng both by Moses and by the Apostle Peter, that if we will approach or come near unto him, we must be sanctified, we must be holy, be you holy or sanctified saith the Lord, for I am holy. According to him which hath called you, which is holy, be you holy, saith the Apostle. To show that sanctification is necessary, the Lord ordained all the sanctifying rites of the law, by which the Tabernacle, the Altar, the Priests, the sacrifices, and all the people were, first sanctified, and made holy, before they could be accepted of him, to be the Lord's Tabernacle, his Altar, his Priests, his sacrifice, his people. Yea, this light of God shined even in the darkness of natural understanding, so that without revelation from heaven, the Gentiles acknowledged, that no man could come near unto God, no man could please God, no man could look for reward of God, without holiness. And this they testified, even in their manner of worshipping of GOD, which although it were clean contrary to God's express commandment, in visible shapes, and bodily images, yet they declared by their manner of consecrations, dedications, purifications, and other like ceremonies of their own devising, that such as will have anything to do with God, must be hallowed as God is holy, and all things that appertain unto him. The Papists also, even as the heathen, whose religion and ceremonies in many things they follow, in so many consecrations and sanctifications, as they use in their Idolatrous service, mean to signify even so much. And hereof cometh all that preparation, pomp, and furniture, which they use in worshipping of their Images which they defend by the same reasons, and worship after the same manner as the Heathen did their Images, although nothing be more directly contrary to the express commandment of God. The Papists think their idolatry to be defended, when they say that they worship not the stocks and stones, the matter and form of their Images, as God's, but worship God in them. And did not the wiser sort of the Gentiles bring the same reason to defend their Idolatry? Yes verily. S. Augustine testifieth, that one of them said:

Behold the Heathen man affirmeth, that they worshipped not the Idolles, but God by the Idolles, even as the Israelites in worshipping their golden Calf, pretended by it, to worship the God that brought them out of the land of Egypt. And Aaron proclaimed a holy day to be celebrated unto Jehovah, the only true God. The multitude of their God's which they worshipped also, they excused, even as the Papists do, for they acknowledge but one God, as the principal, highest, and only governor of all the poetical God's, even as the Poet Horatius speaketh of Jupiter: See what the opinion even of the Poets was, concerning the principal worship due unto the highest God. But the Philosophers, and such as by the Christians were charged with worshipping of Images, were yet more subtle and came nearer to the Papists. For they not only affirmed, that they worshipped God by the Images (as Chrysostom ) witnesseth, but also being further urged touching the multitude of God's, they answered that in Mars they worshipped the power of God, in Pallas, the wisdom of God, in Venus, the love and pleasure of God, and so of the rest: yea they doubted not to affirm, that those petty God's, whom they worshipped (as Augustine showeth) were the powers and Ministries, of that great God, and even the very same which the Christians call Angels. To whom Augustine very well replieth and saith, Even so I would the Papists would truly worship the Angels, they should learn of them not to worship them: worship God (saith the Angel to S. John who fell down at the Angels feet to worship him) for I am thy fellow servant, and fellow servant of all the faithful, the Prophets and them that keep the sayings of this book. And yet Saint John was not fallen into so gross idolatry, that he would worship the Angel as God, but even as the papists, he was deceived by human affection, to give some parte of the honor which is wholly dew to God, to the angel as to a divine creature and messenger of God. Ye I would the Papists would ryghtlie worship all the saints of God, for then should they learn of them, not to worship them, but God the author of their sanctification, to whom all Saynts ascribe all honor, all glory, all pour, all might, all riches all wisdom, all hollynesse, all salvation.

There can no greater honor be given unto Saints, then to honor their Lord, their Sauioure, their Redeemer, their God, their Father, their sanctifyer. And it is great contumely and injury to the blessed Saints, to rob God of his glory, to bestow upon them. Wherefore if the Papists would truly honor them, then they would follow their faith, their obedience, their humility, and all their godly virtues. Whereby they should be sure, to honor and worship none, with spiritual and religious worship, but God only, whom they alone honored and worshipped, if they were not deceived, as Saint John was in worshipping the Angel. Well it is plain enough, by that which hath been spoken, that no man can have access unto God, no man can please God, no man can be joined unto God, without holiness, without the which, as the Apostle saith, that no man shall see God. Seeing therefore that sanctification is so necessary, we must seek from whence it is to be had. Our Savior Christ in the words of this prayer, doth plainly teach us, from whence all true holiness doeth flow, and by what means we may be consecrated, from whence sanctification is to be received, namely from God only, the only fountain of all holiness, as of all good things. Sanctify them (saith he) in thy truth. In vain therefore do men seek sanctification, but in him that is all holiness. Our Savior Christ by this his prayer, teacheth us, not only that holiness is necessary for all the children of GOD, but also from whence they must obtain the same. For he desireth not at the hands of God, that thing which men may either have of thenselves, or of any other Author then of God only: Whereof it followeth, that God only sanctifieth his elect, by this holy spirit of sanctification, through the meditation of his only son our savior Jesus Christ, who as S. Paul saith, is made unto us by God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Therefore they that seek sanctification in themselves, or by any means of their own, labor all in vain, neither is it possible for them to approach near unto God. Wherefore the Gentiles although they did know that holiness was necessary, for them which should have to do with God, or things appertaining to God, yet whilst they sought it in themselves, they came not nearer, but departed further from God. The Pelagians also, which boasted that there was matter enough in them selves, which being stirred up by their free will, might consecrate them unto God, bewrayed nothing but their intolerable pride, and shameful ignorance, as for sanctification it was not possible for them to attain to any parte thereof. For by that Heathenish heresy, they placed holiness in such things, as were in our power, even as the Gentiles do. For all the ceremonies which the Gentiles devised to consecrate them selves, or anything that they would dedicate unto the service of God, are in the power of men to perform even as they were of erroneous imagination of men invented and devised. But the Pelagians although they differed frō the Gentiles in that they confessed, that not by external ceremonies and bodily rites, a man could be sanctified, but by inward virtues and spiritual purity, not by voluntary observations and imagined practices of men's deusing, but by obedience and practice of God's law and commandments: yet in this pointe they agreed wholly & altogether with the Gentiles, in that they held that obedience and practice of God's law, was in our power: and might be attained unto by the natural strength of free will, without the aide of God's grace, although with the aide of God's grace they said a man might more easily keep God's commandments. The papists also will seem to depart frō the Pelagians, in that they ascribe not all unto the free will, and the power of natural strength as they did. But they go not so far from the Pelagians, as they come near unto y ^e Gentiles, in such points as the Pelagians did justly differ from the gentiles. For with the gentiles they attribute some power of sāctificatiō, unto outward Elements, and bodily ceremonies, and that not only such as God hath appointed to testify his grace of sanctification by them, as are the holy sacraments, but also such, as they themselves have invented, they themselves have sanctified, they themselves have given power of sanctification unto them without any prescription, commandment or allowance of God, in his holy Scriptures, such are these babbles, they call their Agnus Dei, Hallowed grains, hallowed beads, coming from his own holiness, who is the fountain of Popish holiness, beside an̄ hundred of other hallowed creatures, the consecration of which, is described in their ritual books of Agends and pontificals, & practiced in their Idolatrous synagogues. yea and to the Pelagians them selves they approach, while they teache works preparatory unto the receiving of grace. which being such as are able to dispose men, and make them apt to obtain the grace of God, of a certain congruity, they hold to proceed of the pure naturals, without the grace of God, or assistance of his holy spirit. Forgetting utterly that the Apostle saith, We are not able of our selves, as of our selves to think anything which is good, but our aptness or ableness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of God. Forgetting also what the Lord testifieth of all the sons of Adam. That the imagination of man's heart, is evil evē frō his youth. And all the imaginations of the thoughts of man's heart, are only evil continually. Forgetting also y ^t which our Savior Christ saith to his disciples, by which saying the Pelagians of old time were knocked in the head. Without me (saith Christ) you are able to do nothing: yet some of the Popish Doctors, I mean the school men, are neither ashamed, nor afraid to affirm, that without grace, that is without Christ, we are able of our pure naturals to do something, that is, to prepare our selves, dispose our selves, unto a certain aptness to receive sanctification. And the late Council of Trent, accurseth y ^• man.

Do they not therefore affirm, y ^t without Christ they may do something which shall please God, or at the least, shall not be sinful, and deserve the displeasure of God? Is not this as much as to say, that all the imaginations of the thoughts of man's heart are not only, nor altogether, nor continually evil: Except they will say, that of evil imaginations and evil thoughts may proceed good works, or that evil works deserve not the hatred of God, or that the more a man laboreth by evil works, as by hypocrisy, superstition, idolatry, falls worshipping, to dispose himself to the grace of God, he is the meeter to receive it. For what spark of true goodness acceptable to God, is in the corrupt nature of man, before he being prevented by the free mercy and grace of God, be endowed with the gift of faith, through the spirit of sāctification? Seeing y ^t without faith it is not possible to please God, and all that is not of faith, is sin, and that no man can have faith, but of the grace and gift of God. Yet dare they pronounce him accursed, that shall say, sin is sin, or that sin deserveth the hatred of God, or that he that by sin endevoreth to win the favor of God, doeth so much the more sin and offend God. So careful they are to uphold the power of man, against the grace of God, that they defend that some works done before justification, may be done in such sort, that they shall not be sin. As though he that is impious and unrighteous altogether, may after any sort, do such works, as be not altogether impious & unrighteous in the sight of god, which is all one as to say, y ^t without Christ a mā is able to do something. For seeing god is said to justify the impious or ungodly mā, it is manifest that whosoever, is not justified is impious and ungodly, therefore works done before justification, in what sort soever they be • one, in respect of the doer be y ^• works of an impious & ungodly man, and therefore be impious and ungodly, be wicked and deserve the hatred of God. And how shall the ungodly man which is not justified, but is utterly void of grace, dispose himself to grace, that he shall not more provoke the wrath of God? Is there any better way to dispose himself, then by prayer, supplications and Sacrifices? But of them the holy Ghoste testifieth plainly, that they are abomination to the Lord. The Sacrifice of the ungodly is abomination unto the Lord (saith the wise man) but the prayers of the righteous are acceptable unto him. He that turneth his ear from hearing the law of God (as every ungodly man doeth, which is not prevented with the grace of God) even his prayer is abhominable and execrable. Therefore shall we think, that abhominable prayers, abhominable supplications, abhominable, sacrifices, do or may dispose a man to the grace and favor of God? That execrable and accursed prayers, & sacrifices do not rather provoke the wrath of God, then his favor? Are not all the ways of the impious & ungodly man, abomination unto the Lord. And howe should that which God abhorreth, dispose a man, or how should a man dispose himself by that which God abhorreth, to be a meet vessel to receive the grace and favor of God. Forasmuch then as all men are ungodly or wicked before they be justified freely by the grace of God, all their works must needs be ungodly, wicked and unjust. For they are only good and righteous works, which came from a righteous man, from a man made righteous or justified through faith, by the grace of God according to the spirit of sāctificatiō which is given to thē only that are justified: although neither all the works of a justified mā are good, nor any perfectly good, because we have received y ^• spirit in measure, & our sanctificatiō is begun, & not perfected in this life, & therefore our Savior Christ prayeth, that his father would sanctify his Apostles in his truth, of whō he confessed before, y ^t they were holy & clean, that is, sāctificatiō was begun in thē, by his word which they had heard, in which word of truth, he now prayeth, that they may more & more be sanctified & made holy. Wherefore all Popish preparations unto sanctificatiō, howsoever they denounce the denier of thē to be accursed, are in the sight of God no better, then abhominable & accursed, even by this word. For God only is the author, beginner, continuer, & perfecter of sanctification, seeing that our savior Christ prayeth for the continuance & perfection of sanctification, who was already begun in his Disciples, who were baptized, who had received the holy Ghoste, who were to be preserved & increased in y ^t holiness which they had received. by this we learn, y ^t we must daily pray for y ^e increase of sanctification, and seek it at the hands of God alone, who hath promised upon our earnest prayers, to grant his holy spirit by which we shall be daily more and more renewed in the inner man, to hate sin, and to love righteousness, that the fruits of mortification & renovation: (which are the two parts of sanctificatiō) may appear daily in our life & cōuersatiō. For this grace of continuance & increase in sāctificatiō, y ^e apostle boweth his knees to the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the example of Christ himself, for the Ephesians, that he would give unto them according unto the riches of his glory, to be strengthened in the inner man, by his spirit. And therefore as the beginning of sanctification, is only frō God's grace with out all merit or good disposition of ours, so is also the continuance, increase, & perfection of the same, the free gift of God, given unto us according to the riches of his glory, and not procured either in whole, as the Pelagiās say, or in part as the Papists teach, by the merits and deserts of men. Whereby they make not God the whole & only author & perfector of sāctificatiō, but ascribe unto man's merits, a portion of this his glory, while they affirm, that by well using of the first graces of God, we may and do merit and deserve the second whereas the Lord God testifieth by the Prophet Ezekiel, that he will have all nations to know, that it is he, which sanctifieth Israel unto whō also our savior Christ hath recourse in his prayer, when he saith, Sanctify them in thy truth. By this he declareth y ^t he desireth true sanctificatiō & not coūterfet hypocrisy, for feigned holiness & dissembled sanctificatiō, is worthily said to be double iniquity. The corrupt nature of man without the spirit of God, is prone and ready unto hypocrisy, and feigned holiness, but all lying and dissimulation is abhominable unto God, wherefore that his Disciples might please God, in true holiness & righteousness before him all y ^e days of their lives: He prayeth unto his father, to sanctify thē in his truth. So shall they not seek to mock God, with holiness pretended, and wickedness intended: but study to serve him with an upright heart, unfeignedly to seek his honor, & walk in his ways all the days of their life. Moreover where he saith, Sanctify them in thy truth, he showeth evidently, that as there is but one truth, which is the truth of God, so all other means and ways of sanctification, then in his truth, are false ways and means, and that no true holiness is attained unto by them, but false holiness, false sanctification, although it be never so well intended. For true sanctification is only in God's truth. Sanctify them in thy truth. And this is the cause, that the Gentiles, in all their consecrations and blessings, could never attain unto true sanctification, but were more & more polluted in them, because they presumed to seek sanctification, without the truth of God. So that although everything which they took in hand, and did, was profane & unholy, yet their Temples, their God's, their sacrifices, their ceremonies, their whole religiō was most of all impure, unholy, ungodly, yea, most of all filthy, detestable, and abhominable, and of all Christians to be abhorred & forsaken: because it was false holiness, sanctification, and religion, which they held and practiced. Evē so is it in the false religion, holiness, & sanctification of the Popists, nothing is more abhominable & detestable, then y ^e which hath most of their false consecration, and is accounted of them most holy, as their holy water, their holy bread, their holy Candles, Crosses, and such like, and especially their holy Mass, whereof they make greatest account, and their holy Father, whom they name & affirm, not only to be most holy, but to be holiness it self. But they will defend their conjured water, and other their Popeholy ceremonies, not to be false holiness, or untrue consecrations, for that they are sanctified in the truth of God, which is his word, for all the creatures of God are sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Thus doth Bristow take upon him to defend, their exorcising or conjuring water, salt, and such like creatures, that they may serve to be unto salvation, both of body and soul. Although I might easily answer, that it is one thing to consecrate, another thing to conjure, yet who would believe, they should be driven to such impudent shifts, and malicious wrestings of the scripture, if they them selves did not profess it. For the sense of the Apostles words, in that place where he saith, that all the creatures of God are good, and none to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer: the sense I say is manifest, to be uttered of all y ^e creatures of God, which are sanctified unto Christians, by God's word, and by prayer, in the ordinary lawful use of them, and especially of meats, forbid̄ by the teachers of devilish doctrines, under color and pretence of holiness, as they are of the Papists, and not of consecrating or hallowing of creatures to the use of religion, that they should be means to sanctify men, which men (if the Papists had any power of sanctifying of all creatures by that text, and that conjuring were a way of sanctification, had more need to be exercised and hallowed in their own persons, every day, rather then to receive sanctification at the second hand, from water, salt, Candles, Ashes, Frankencense, Garmentes, and such like: altogether without the word of God. For we have the word of God to sanctify the ordinary use of meats and drinks, to nourish us, of water to cleanse us, of Salt to season our victuals, of Candles to give light, of Garments to clothe us, and so of the rest. But where have we any word of GOD to sanctify any external creatures, that they may sanctify us, except in the use of the Sacraments only: Wherefore this is a beastly abusing of the holy Scripture, to cloak that impiety, which cannot possibly be hid. For the spirit speaketh evidently, y ^t in the later times, some shall depart from the faith, attending to spirits of errors and doctrine of Devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own consciences cauterized, or burned with a hot iron, forbidding to mary, and commanding to abstain from meats, which GOD hath created to be received with thankesgiuing, of them that are faithful and know the truth, for all the creatures of God are good, and so forth. O (say the Papists) this is spoken of the Manichees Tacianistes, Priscillianistes, &c. which affirm that GOD made not the world, nor instituted marriage, and not of us. And think ye so easily to shift of so clear a demonstration: when the spirit speaking evidently, giveth these evident marks of erroneous & devilish doctrine, which are found in you, as well as in those old heretics. For you also forbid marriage and meats, to some men at all times, and to all men at sometimes, therefore at the least wise, the spirit speaketh evidently of Papists, as well as of Manichees, Eucratites and such like. But if the text be well marked, the spirit evidently, & principally speaketh of you, and not of those old heretics. For he saith, they shall speak falsehood in hypocrisy. But the Manichees & such like old heretics, as denied God to have made the world, & affirmed that marriage was of the institution of the Devil, did not speak lies in hypocrisy, but open & manifest blasphemy. But you Papists, that forbid marriage and meats, under color of greater holiness, you I say, do speak falsehood in hypocrisy, & therefore of you the spirit speaketh evidently, that you are Apostates, & have departed from the faith, that you attend unto spirits of error, & teach the doctrine of Denils: that your conscience is cauterized with hypocrisy, while you pretend, that there is greater holiness in one kind of meat then in an other, that fish is more holy then flesh, or that to eat fish is a more holy abstinence then to eat flesh, or that to eat fish on certain days is a meritorious fasting, while you pretend abstinence from marriage to be a necessary sanctification, required of the Ministers of the Church, which the word of God requireth not: as though you could better see what were convenient and necessary for the Pastors of God's Church, then y ^• holy Ghost, which alloweth them for perfect good Pastors, which being husbands of one wife, have all other qualities & conditions by the Apostle described. This is manifest hyyocrisie, and feigned holiness, & therefore in your prohibition of meats & marriage, you speak falsehood in hypocrisy, then of you Papists the holy Ghost most evidently, most directly, & most properly doth prophecy, & nothing so evidently, directly & properly of the Manichees, Tacianistes, & such other ancient heretics, as did speak falsehood in open blasphemy, in saying, that the creatures of the world were naught, as made of the evil God, of whom also they blasphemed, that marriage was ordained. Wherefore it will not serve your turn, to turn it over unto such open blasphemers, while you say: we acknowledge marriage to be the honorable institutiō of God, & a Sacrament, we confess God's creatures to be good, for this is to speak falsehood in hypocrisy, where as in deed, you refuse the creatures of flesh in your feigned holy fasts, because the land was cursed, but not the waters, and while you exercise and conjure them as though they were possessed of the Devil, and by your exorrisins take upon you to add unto them another holiness, & power of sanctification, then either god gave unto them by his creation, or doeth allow to be given unto them by his word and by prayer. And whatsoever like hypocrites you speak, in the commendation of marriage you forbid y ^e same, to all that receive your most holy orders, as impure, as unclean for them as y ^t which should pollute & defile those holy orders and ceremonies, that are ministered by them that are ordained, abusing y ^e saying of the Apostle. They that are in y ^e flesh cannot please God. Understanding by them that are in the flesh, married men, whereof it followeth, that no married mā can please God. And this doth Syricius Bishop of Rome, reason against marriage, in a certain Epistle, if it be not counterfeited in his name. Wherefore to conclude this matter, the Papists under color of sanctification, which is only in the truth of God's word, forbidding meats and marriage, which is contrary to God's word, do show them selves to be the very limbs of Antichrist, unto whom that great Apostasy and defection should be made, from Christ, whereof the Apostle speaketh in the second Chapiter, of the second Epistle to the Thessaloniās. And thus much concerning the first parte.

Now touching the seconde parte, the words are these. Thy word is the truth: Which words are needfully added, by our Savior Christ, that seeing he prayeth, that his Disciples might be sanctified in y ^e truth, they might know precisely, what is the truth. For such is the blindness, ignorance, and error of man's corrupt nature, that although it be confessed, that GOD requireth truth in the inward partes, as the Prophet saith: yet can not man see, know, or find out, what is that truth of holiness which pleaseth God. And yet such is his arrogance, that notwithstanding it be God's truth, wherein we must be sanctified: man will presume, to assign it and determine it, without revelation from God, even out of the visions of his own brain, even out of his own imagination. So that if he once conceive an opinion, he will have it to be taken for a certain truth, and undoubted knowledge. Therefore our Savior Christ, that neither the world should triumph in their blind errors, nor his Disciples whom he had chosen out of the world, should be ignorant of the truth: doeth in very plain terms decyde the matter, and taketh away all ambiguity and doubt, saying. Thy word is the truth.

By which saying we learn, that there is no truth in matters appertaining to salvation, to God's glory, to our sanctification, but that which is revealed by God. For although in matters pertaining to this world, and this present life of man, much truth may be found out by study and sharpness of wit, by experience and by demonstration, as in the sciences of Arithmetic, Geometry, Philosophy, and other Arts: yet this truth, whereof our Savior Christ speaketh, wherein he prayeth, that his Disciples might be consecrated, that they might please God, by no sharpness of wit, by no diligent search, or study, by no experience, or demonstration of any science can be found out, without the revelation of God, and the authority of his holy word. And therefore the Apostle Saint Paul testified of all the wise men and Philosophers of the world, that they became vain in their disputations, and their ignorant heart was full of darkness, and they became stark fools. Also that the world by wisdom, knew not the wisdom of God, as it is written, where is the wise? where is the learned? where is the disputer of this world? Yea GOD hath turned the wisdom of this world into foolishness: So that although it swell never so greatly in opinion of knowledge, yet it cannot attain to the knowledge of this truth. Wherefore the revelation of God's word, is necessary for all them, that shall be made partakers of the truth, of the life to come. The truth of matter pertaining to this life, is opened by GOD in the world, and in the men of this world: but the truth of the life to come, is not in the power of man to find out, but cometh altogether by the revelation of God. For it is hidden in God, until it be uttered by him, therefore it is only his goodness and mercy to disclose, those secret hidden mysteries of his kingdom unto his elect and chosen children outwardly by his word, and inwardly by his spirit: of which the one beareth mutual testimony unto the other, that we may know the word of God by his spirit, and his spirit by his word. Now seeing the Lord God hath opened his holy mouth to speak unto us, & declare unto us by his holy word those things, that we by our wits could never have sound out: we must give this honor to his holy word, that as he hath uttered thereby nothing but the truth: so he hath uttered thereby the whole & perfect truth. So that whatsoever is necessary for us to be sanctified unto gods pleasure and our eternal felicity, all that is contained in the truth of God, and that truth of God is none other but even the same, which is revealed by his holy word. Wherefore as it is damnable curiosity to inquire of the truth of God further then God hath revealed and shown by his word: so is it execrable blasphemy, to accuse his word of imperfection, as to say, all truth is not revealed thereby. For what great commendation should our Savior Christ in this declaration, give unto the word of God? if when he saith. Thy word is the truth: he should mean no more but that God's word is true, whereof no man that acknowledged God did ever doubt. But when he saith, unto his Father, Thy word is the truth: undoubtedly he meaneth as much, as though he had said: There is no truth in the world concerning sanctification, but only in thy truth: and in thy holy word, is contained all truth, necessary for man's sanctification, and consequently for his eternal salvation. The word of God therefore is a perfect truth, containing all truth, and teacheth the whole truth. And whatsoever is not contained and taught in the word of GOD, it is no truth, but falsehood and error: which thing the wise man very well considered, when he said. Add nothing unto his words, left he reprove thee, and thou be found liar. For seeing every man by nature infected is a liar, except he speak agreeable to the word of truth, he can speak nothing but a lie. Wherefore no man can speak the truth, but he which speaketh the word of truth: So that to add unto the truth, which is perfect in it self, is to invent a lie, and to provoke the wrath of God. The wise man therefore, did wisely ponder the nature of God's word to be most absolute & perfect, whereunto nothing could be added, but that should deserve reproof of God, and argue the Author of that addition to be a liar. So that it is now clear and out of controversy, with all them that have any spark of the fear of God: that the word of God is most perfect in itself, and containeth all truth necessary or convenient for men to know. Yea, the Papists them selves will not greatly stick with us, in this point, but that all truth is taught by the word of God.

But what undoubted testimony we have of the word of GOD, there is the chief pointe of the controversy between us. The Papists them selves will not now greatly strive with us, that the word of God is perfect, and that all truth is taught by the word of God only: but they will not acknowledge, that the holy Scripture of GOD is the only undoubted external testimony of his word. And hereof arise contentions and controversies, about so many questions as be in variance between us. Because we hold that the holy Scriptures inspired of God, do contain a full and perfect enstruction of all things necessary for us to know, to the attaining of everlasting life. The Papists hold the contrary, that all truth necessary to salvation is not taught, by the word of GOD: but that we have other testimontes of the word of GOD beside the holy Scriptures.

And herein they are so confident, that under color of some things taught by other revelation, then that which is contained in the scriptures, they doubt nothing at all, to thrust upon us such doctrines as are clean contrary to the scriptures, as the religious use and worshipping of Images, the forbidding of marriage and meats, the robbing of the lay people of the one half of the Lord's Supper, I mean the Sacrament of his blood, and such like matters as be most directly contrary, to the word of God, expressed in the holy scriptures. As though it were possible, that GOD should have one word written, and another unwritten, which is contrary to that which is written, which gap being once laid open, what certainty of truth can we have in the world? In vain was it said by our Sauioure Christ, unto his Father, for our instruction. Thy word is the truth, if there be not a certain and perpetual testimony of that word, which is always like it self, always the same, and whereunto all things that are good do agree. For unto truth all things are consonant in it self, but falsehood by and by is contrary unto truth, and often times unto it self. The word of God written, saith expressly, Thou shalt not make to thyself) in the use of religiō, because it is a commandment of the first Table) Any graven image, or likeness of anything, thou shalt not fall down to them, and worship them. This notwithstanding the Papists will bear us in hand, the word of God unwritten saith the contrary, thou shalt make to thyself graven images, for religion, thou shalt fall down to them, and worship them. The Scripture telleth us, by a clear renelation of the spirit, that it was the doctrine of Devils to forbid meat and marriage, for holiness, and religion. The Papists tell us that it is the Churches authority, which is equal with the scriptures, which forbiddeth meats & marriage. The truth written saith: Drink ye all of this, & they drank all of it, Let a man examine himself and let him eat of this bread, & drink of this cup: But the unwritten verity of the Papists, saith in the Constantian council. The lay people shall not drink of that cup at all, but the Priests only. These contradictions cannot possibly be both true, wherefor we must needs hold it for an undoubted principle, y ^t whatsoever is contrary to the word of god, writ̄ is not the word of God, because it is not true. For although Papists are not so courteous, to the holy scriptures, to acknowledge that they are perfect, and do contain at the full, all truth neccssary for us to be knwne for our salvation? yet nature her self denieth unto them this horrible absurdity, that anything contrary to truth, should be true. Seeing therefore they dare not for shame say, the scripture is untrue: let them be ashamed to avouch any thing for truth, which is contrary to the Scripture. And albeit it were (as they say) that they had another word of God, beside that which is written in the books of the Canonical Scripture: yet were it madness to make it contrary to the Scripture, and blaspemie to make it of greater authorie then then the Scripture. For the word of God howe ever it be expressed, is always of equal authority. Therefore to boast of such a word of God unwritten, as should be of authority to abrogate the word of GOD written, or to control the same, or to dispēse with any commandment of the same, otherwise then the same written word alloweth: is a blasphemous brag of satanical pride, and can be no suer testimony of y ^e truth of God's word. Such is the presumptuous boasting of the Papists, concerning the authorie, of their tradition, of their church, of their Pope, which they advance so highly, as y ^t they be of power to change what pleaseth them in the word of God written, to dispose with what precepts they list, yea even those, that nature her self will not dispense withal: which brag, what other thing doth it import, but that they have a word of God in their tradition, Church, or Pope, which is of greater authority then the word of God writ̄ in the holy scriptures, which is plain in that they challenge authority, not only of interpreting of Scriptures, as they list, against grāmer, against the property of the tongue, against reason, against y ^e scripture it self, in other places, against the plain circūstāces of the same places: but also to give credit & alowāce, ever to y ^e holy scriptures thenselves, w ^t should have no credit of thenselves, but by means of their approbation and authority: which is so great, that it is of power, to give equal credit unto y ^e Apocrifall writings of men, which the holy Scriptures inspired of God, upon which ground they have received into the Cannon of the holy Scriptures, the Apocrifall books of Ecclesiasticus, Tobye, Judith, Maccabees, and such like, to be of equal authorie and credit, with the books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalmmes, and with the Gospels, and Epistles of the New Testament: although they confess that the Church of God before the incarnation of Christ, did always take them for the Apocrifall, and none otherwise were they taken of the Church of Christ, for many hundred years after his passion. But this is to far out of square, that they are not content most injuriously to accuse the holy Scriptures of imperfection and insufficiency, but they will glory of God's word to be in their possession, of greater authority, then that which is contained in the holy scriptures. Well, let that pass, and let us see whether we have not sufficient testimony in the holy Scriptures, to prove that they are perfect and sufficient and that the word of truth contained in them, is a full and absolute rule of all doctrine necessary to eternal salvation. The Lord by Moses chargeth, that only which he commanded, & Moses did write, to be practiced. Therefore the word written was a sufficient instruction for anything that should be done to the pleasure of GOD and people's salvation, Also he forbiddeth them to add anything to it, or to take anything from it, which he had delivered in writing, wherefore there was no want, there was no superfluity in that written word. The Prophet David in an hundred places of his Psalms, extolleth the utility, sufficiency, and perfection of the same law of God written. Every verse almost of the 119. Psalm doth set out the excellency of that doctrine The prophet Isaiah showeth y ^t the people of god for all questions must resort to the law and to the testimony. The Prophet Malachi, which was the last of the Prophets that god sent to teach by revelation extraordinary, referreth the people unto y ^e law of Moses, as sufficient to direct them until the coming of Christ. Abraham in the parable of Luke 16. sendeth the rich man's five brethren unto the Law and Prophets, as sufficient to teach them, that they come not into the place of torments. Our Savior Christ himself, willeth the Jews and all them that will know him, to search the Scriptures. Search the scriptures (saith he) for in them look to have eternal life, & the same are they that bear witness of me. But perhaps you will say, they were deceived in that they thought to attain eternal life, by the doctrine of the scriptures, as alone being sufficient. Thē hear what our savior Christ affirmeth in this samepraier, This is eternal life y ^t they may know thee the only true God & Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. But the knowledge of God & Christ are sufficiently to be learned out of the holy scriptures: therefore y ^e doctrine of the holy scriptures is sufficient, to the attaining of everlasting life. S. Paul saith, y ^t what things soever are written before, they are writ̄ for our learning, y ^t through patience and comfort of the scriptures we might have hope. This is little to the purpose, will some Papist say, that all the scripture is for our learning, seeing it is not thereby proved, that it is sufficient for our learning. No sir, but mark the end of this learning, that we may hear by the scripture this, that we may have hope. And know you not, that hope maketh not ashamed? That by hope we are saved? Seeing then we may have sufficient learning by the scripture to have hope, & by hope we may have saluatiō: is it not manifest, y ^t by holy scriptures we may be abundantly instructed unto saluatiō. And what need we any far fetched arguments, when the Apostle saith in express words, the scriptures are able to make us wise unto saluatiō. They are the very words of the holy Ghost, uttered by S. Paul unto Timothy, when he commendeth, y ^t from his infancy, he had learned y ^e holy scriptures, which are able (saith he) to make thee wise unto saluatiō, through the faith of Jesus Christ • . Would any mā think after so manifest a testimony of y ^e holy scriptures brought forth for the sufficiēcie of y ^e holy scriptures, that the papists durst for worldly shame, although they be void of the fear of god, to continue in their impudent paradox y ^t all truth is not taught in the holy scriptures? That the holy Scriptures, do not contain the whole truth of gods word in such perfectiō but that we must receive some parte of the word of God, out of some other testimony, which cannot be proved out of the holy scriptures. There is none so blind as the obstinate that will not see. But who so hath a care of eternal salvation, will seek it in none other word, then that which is comprehended in the holy Scriptures, seeing by witness of God's spirit, they are able to make us wise unto salvation, which could not be truly said, if there were any truth necessary to salvation, which were not to be found and sufficiently proved by the only authority of the holy Scriptures.

Finally, the same Apostle saith in the same place. All the scripture is inspired of God, & is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct, in righteousness, that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto every good work. Coulde anything be said more fully to express the perfection of the holy scriptures, or to prove that all true doctrine is contained in them. Tush say the Papists: this is nothing to prove that the word of God, or all true doctrine is perfectly contained in the Scriptures. He saith the Scripture is profitable to teach, he saith not, it is sufficient to teach. Many things are profitable and good helps, which yet be neither necessary, nor sufficient, and such a thing is the scripture without the which the Church hath continued near two thousand years, and so might have continued still, but that God hath added the aide of the Scriptures as profitable to teache, to improve, to correct, and instruct, and yet it followeth not, that the Scriptures alone, are sufficient and able to instruct, a Christian man in all things that it is needful for him to know. But there be other testimonies of God's word, whereby many things are taught, which are taught in the scriptures, and yet be as necessary to be known & practiced of Christians, as any taught in the Scriptures. What things are these I pray you? They will answer the mystery of the blessed Trinity, the sacraments of the Church, the baptism of infants, the perpetual virginity of Mary and such like. Concerning the inysterie of the blessed & everlasting Trinity, if it were not plainly taught, & invincibly proved by the holy scriptures: the Church in old time labored in vain to prove it and defend it out of the Scriptures against so many heresies as Satan raised up against it. But they will urge us to show, where we find the Trinity once named in the scriptures? A perilous question, we find three persons of the Godhead plainly and perfectly distinguished by the holy Scriptures: then what unreasonable beast is he that will contend of the name, whē the thing is certain? Likewise I say of the name of sacraments, although it be not applied in the Scripture unto baptism & the Lord's Supper: yet that which is the definition of a sacrament, is clearly in the scripture aduouched of these mystical actions. The name of Sacrament is borrowed of the Latin speech, in which no part of y ^e scripture was first writ̄. As for y ^e baptism of infants, I shall have occasiō to speak of it hereafter, In y ^e mean time, I say, the papists are very favorable unto y ^e Anabaptists, which affirm y ^e baptism of infants, cannot be proved out of the holy scriptures, & so strengthen them in their heresy. Touching the perpetual virginity of Mary, if it be needful to saluatiō that it should be known of every Christian, it is undoubtedly taught in the scriptures if it be not taught in the scriptures, it is nothing necessary to everlasting salvation. For to stop the mouth of this impudent and arrogant caviller, against the sufficiency of the holy scriptures, the holy Ghoste had immediately before provided: where the Apostle showing what utility he spake of, namely that which is both necessary and sufficient, said that the scripture was able to make a man wise unto salvation. Therefore the Scripture is so profitable, that it is also necessary to give knowledge of salvation. And it is so profitable y ^t it is also sufficient, & able to minister abundance of heavenly wisdom, to the attainment of eternal salvation. O blind & shameless cauillers, y ^t cannot or will not see y ^t is written in the verse immediately going before, able to put y ^e whole matter out of controversy. But let us yet consider more of their shameless shifts. Admit the papists see not these words going before & should not be urged with them. Doth not this very text in w ^t the apostle commendeth y ^e utility of y ^e holy scriptures? set forth also the sufficiency of the same? Doth not the Apostle say, the Scripture is so profitable, that the man of God thereby may be perfect and thoroughly instructed unto every good work? Who would require greater perspecuity or plainness, if he mean to set his belief, and not to maintain his error? Yet see what Cobwebs the spider weaueth to cover y ^e light, of this text from the eyes of the ignorant, and such as willfully be obstinate. The man of God saith he, in this place is not taken generally for every godly man, but specially for the Minister of the Church, the Minister of God. Therefore although the Minister of God may be made perfect by the doctrine of the Scriptures, it followeth not that every man may be so likewise. Albeit the Minister hath his whole duty taught by the holy Scriptures, yet hath not everyone of the people his duty thoroughly taught in the Scriptures, that he may be made perfect and prepared to every good work. For every good work in that place, doeth signify the whole work or office of the minister only, and not of the people also. What can we answer to this? First I am content to understand the man of God in this text, specially for the minister of God, as the quarreller saith: and what have we lost thereby? The scripture is sufficient to make the minister of god perfect, which hath y ^e charge of all the people, to make them perfect, and therefore, yea much rather it is sufficient, to make everyone of the people perfect and thoroughly instructed to every good work. For what is the office of the minister of God, is it not to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct in righteousness. The scripture is profitable for all these purposes even unto the perfection of the man of God, therefore there wanteth nothing of sufficiency in the holy Scriptures. For what shall he teach, but true doctrine? and howe is the Scripture profitable to make him perfect unto doctrine, except it be able to teache him all true doctrine? What shall he reprove but errors, & heresies, if the Scripture be not able to convince all heresies and false opnions touching religion, how is it able to make him perfect to that part of his office, which consisteth in reproving and convincing of errors, and Heretics. Again, what shall he correct, but vices and sins, that are commmitted against God's commandments? But howe should he be able to correct them by the Scriptures, if whatsoever is sin may not be reprehended and condemned by the authority of the scriptures?

Finally, howe shall he instruct in righteousness, to the perfect discharge of his office, by the proper, ableness of the scriptures, if there be any works of righteousness acceptable unto God, which are not commanded or commended in the holy Scriptures. Thus you see, the myst easily driven away, & the clear light of the truth gloriously shining to the shame & confusion, of all the enemies of the holy scriptures among whom the papists are not the lest, which in no sauce can abide, that the holy scriptures inspired of god should be sufficient to testify so much of God's word unto us, as should be necessary to salvation of our souls. but being thus shamefully overthrown, & put to flight, will they give over and yield to the truth? No they are frozen in the dregs of their error. They will not cease to quarrel, until they leave to live. For what other starting hole have they now trow you, to avoid the force of the truth, enforcing the sufficiency of the scriptures by this testimony of the holy Ghost? For sooth they say that Saint Paul's words are not to be understood of all the whole Scripture, but of every book, yea of every text and sentence of the Scripture, which is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct: but all true doctrine is not taught in every book or sentence of the Scripture. therefore the sufficiency of the scripture is not taught by this text. I marvel they say not that Saint Paul speaketh of every word, syllable, or letter y ^t is written in the Bible, in which is some profit to teach, to improve, to correct, and instruct, but not to teache all things needful to be known. They might as well say, that Saint Paul speaketh of, every singular word, as of every particular book, & several sentence of the scripture. But howe can it be proved that he speaketh not of every book or sentence severed from the rest, but of the whole body of Scripture? Nay, what is more easy to prove then that? When he speaketh of the Scripture, so as it is able to make the man of God absolute, and perfectly instructed unto every good work, or unto the whole good work of his ministry. Every several book, and much less every sentence of the scripture is not able to make the man of God perfect in all partes of his office, nor thoroughly prepared unto every good work, therefore it is most evident, that the Apostle speaketh not of every sever all book or sentence, but of the whole body of the holy Scriptures, in which Timothy was instructed, and which he said before, was able to make him wise unto saluatiō. For neither every sentence nor every book of the holy scripture, doth contain sufficient wisdom unto eternal salvation, but the whole body of scriptures is able to make any man wise unto salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore it is certain, that this text is to be understood of the whole Scripture, and that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is so to be translated, the whole scripture or all the scripture, and not every scripture. But yet blind malice, cannot cease to raise a dust, to blemishe the glory of God's truth perfectly expressed, in his holy scriptures. This text (saith the Papist) was written by S. Paul, before the New Testament was put in writing, and received in the Church. Therefore it must needs be understood of the scripture of the old Testament only. Wherefore it is not like, that Saint Paul would affirm, the old Testament sufficiently to cōtain the word of God. For then the addition of so many books of the new Testament, were altogether superfluous, which absurdity that we may avoid, we must needs say, that Saint Paul's meaning was to teache us that every scripture is profitable, but not that the whole scripture as it was at that time, was sufficient. So that there is no text, to prove, that the whole scripture as it is now, containing both the old and New Testament, is sufficient for a Christian man's perfect instruction, but that he must receive the word of God from the Churches mouth, although it be not registered in the Old Testament or the new. This argument being of a late invention, pieaseth the Papists out of measure, insomuch that they clappe their hands at it, and think them selves clearly discharged of that Terte. But howe vain, howe foolish, howe ridiculous it is, and unworthy of any man's estimation, I will plainly open unto you. First it is not denied but Saint Paul in this text, speaketh especially of the scripture of the old Testament, not only because all books of the new Testament were not then written, although many were, but also because the apostle speaketh of that scripture in knowledge wherein Timothy had been brought up from his infancy, which should be none other but the law and the Prophets, the scriptures of the old Testament. But if it may be proved that the scripture of the old Testament did sufficiently contain the word of God, as it hath been proved already, to make men wise unto salvation, then much more abundantly the scripture both of the old and New Testament, containeth the whole counsel of God, a perfect truth, even that word of God, which our Savior Christ in this his prayer affirmeth to be the truth. For of all the reasons that ever I heard, this that now pleaseth them so much, is most worthy to be laughed at, and hissed out of all Christian Schools, not only by learned men, but even by women and children. If the scripture of the old Testament be sufficient (say they) the New Testament is superfluous. Is there no mean between sufficiency and superfluity? A man that hath wherewith to provide him self of meat and drink, apparel and lodging of the meanest sort, hath sufficient for his living. But if anything be added to this sufficiency, will you say it is superfluity. Is there no use of riches, or abundance above sufficiency, but it is by & by superfluity. The scripture of the old Testament containeth the word of God sufficiently for men's salvation, but the new Testament added thereunto, containeth no new substance or matter of doctrine, or article of belief, necessary to salvation, but the same ancient and eternal word of God most richly, most plentifully, most abundantly.

Wherefore that the Apostle giveth the commendation of sufficiency, unto the scripture of the Old Testament, yet so far of, that it should hinder the credit of the whole scripture, which now the Church enjoyeth, that it doeth a great deal more magnifically set forth the unsearchable treasures of God's wisdom and holy word, revealed more at large, more plainly, and openly set forth in the time of the Gospel, then it was revealed or set forth under the law. Wherefore we may not reason w ^t the papists if the scripture of the old testament had been sufficient, the new should have been superfluous, but contrariwise, if the old Testament were sufficient, the scripture of the new and old together must needs be abundant. That the scripture of the Old Testament contained sufficient instruction, unto eternal life, hath been proved already sufficiently, and yet for more clearness, I will add other reasons and authorities, to prove the same richly and abundantly. The whole doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, is contained in the scriptures of the old Testament, which is sufficient for a Christian man's instruction, therefore there is no want, nor imperfection, no insufficiency, of the substance of doctrine, in the scripture of the old Testament, Saint Paul in this very place, exhorteth Timothy to continue in those things which he had learned, and which were committed unto him: knowing of whom he had learned them, namely of the Apostle, and secondly of the holy scriptures, in which he had been instructed from an infant, which were able to make him wise unto salvation. See you not here most plainly, that the same things which Timothy had learned of Paul, and which were committed unto him, that he might perfectly fulfill the work of an Evangelist (which cannot be except he preach the Gospel perfectly) were contained in the scripture of the old Testament, which he had known from a child, which Scriptures were not able to make him or any man wise unto salvation, except they contained all articles of Christian doctrine, which a Christian man is bound to know and believe. And therefore upon this ground, he inferreth, that the whole scripture is profitable to furnish the man of God unto all partes of his office, and to make him perfect unto every good work. Beside this, the holy Ghost in the Acts of the Apostles, commendeth the Berhaeans, that they received the word of God, with all readiness of mind, daily searching the scriptures, if these things were so as y ^e Apostles preached. Mark this text diligently, they received the word of all redines, as it was preached by the Apostles: but they admitted nothing for the word of God, but that they found, to have ground and confirmation in y ^e scriptures, in y ^e law, & the prophets: wherefor the apostles preaching y ^e Gospel, preached none other word of god, but that which was contained in the scriptures of the old Testament. For if they had preached any vnwrittē verities, howe should the Berhaeans have found the same in the scriptures? And what speak I of the Apostles: even their lord & master, y ^e son of God, the word of God, the truth of God, offereth his whole doctrine to be tried by the scriptures of the old testament. Search y ^e scriptures (saith he) for in thē you think to have everlasting life, they are the same, y ^t bear witness of me: He testifieth also, y ^t all things that are writ̄ of him in y ^e law, & the prophets, & in the psalms, must be & were fulfilled. And whē he authorized his Apostles to preach y ^e Gospel, & performance of all things that were written in the law & the prophets. He openeth their understanding that they might understand the scriptures, which contained the word of God perfectly & sufficiently, although the same in the new testament & doctrine of fulfilling, be set forth more richly, more plentifully, & more plainly. And lest you should think this sufficiency of the scriptures, to have been only after all the books of y ^e old testament were written, which were many hundredth years frō the first to the last. So that from Moses until Malachi, or from the beginning of the world until Malachies prophecy, was received, there was no sufficiency of true doctrine contained in the scripture: I will plainly prove unto you, that frō the time that the word of▪ GOD was first delivered in writing, there was sufficiency in that scripture for the perfect instruction of the church of that time. And whatsoever books of scripture were afterward added, was but a larger opening, and plainer demonstration of the same, as GOD in wisdom and mercy did see it convenient and necessary, for every age of the Church, and his people living in those times. The five books of Moses was the first scripture, that was delivered unto the Church, which contained a perfect and most sufficient doctrine of all things to be known and done, of that people, for the attainment of eternal life: the other books that followed, were but enlargementes and interpretations of the same doctrine, that was contained in those five books. For if they had been additions of any new doctrine, they had been contrary to the prohibition of the same law, and subject to the curse of God. Yea the principal trial of all Prophets, that succeeded, was by the same law. Insomuch that if a Prophet, or dreamer of dreams did arise, which taught another God, or another worship of God, not set forth in the law, he was thereby discryed, to be a false prophet, although he could tell before of things that came to pass▪ or work miracles. This argued sufficiently the perfection of the doctrine contained in that law, against which no signs or miracles, should be credited. Also Joshua in his exhortatiō made unto y ^e people: after that he had divided the lande unto them, chargeth them to observe and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that they turn not there from, neither to the right hand, nor to the left, that is they do neither more nor less, but that is written in the holy scripture, therefore the book of the law of Moses was perfect and sufficient, for the instruction of that people. And what saith our Savior Christ unto the Sadducees which received no parte of the old Testament but only the five books of Moses: Doeth he not say, they erred, because they know not the Scriptures and power of God? And what Scripture? but the scripture of those five books, out of which he doeth so pithily and effectually prove the article of the resurrection of the dead, that he stopped the mouths of those obstinate and arrogant heretics. And who doubteth? but even as that one article of the resurrection, was by our Savior Christ so substantially proved, so all other articles of Christian belief, by that divine wisdom of his, might as necessarily be concluded out of those five books of Moses. This always is to be remembered, that it was neither necessary nor convenient, for the Church of those times, unto which these books alone were committed: to understand or know, these articles of our belief so plainly, so distinctly, so largely, as they were after revealed by the Prophets, & especially by the scriptures of the New Testament. But that all necessary points of saluatiō, & everything there to belonging, was sufficiently & perfectly set forth in those scriptures, which the wisdom of God thought to be convenient for their instruction: So y ^e they should not depend vpō the uncertain credit of mē, but always have the touchstone of God's word contained in his holy writing inspired by his spirit, to try & examine all doctrines & teachers thereby. But now y ^e we have shown, that the holy scripture is a sufficient & most plētifull testimony of the word of God, let us see, what other witness of God's word, the Papists would thrust upon us. The word of God (say they,) beside y ^• which is contained in the scriptures, is continued also partly by tradition partly is revealed by the sentence and oracle of the church, & of the chief shepherd thereof which is the Pope, all which is of equal, authority and certainty, with that which is contained in the holy scriptures. And first concerning tradition: the scripture it self, doth testify, that it is to be received, whether it be by writing, or unwritten. For so the Apostle commandeth the Thessalonians, saying: Hold fast the traditions, which you have learned, whether it be by word of mouth, or by our Epistle. So say they, the scripture itself commandeth unwritten verities, & traditions, beside the scripture, to be holden fast, and not to be despised: therefore the scripture alone is not sufficient, to teache us the word of truth, but we must also lean unto unwritten traditions. There is no Papist almost, that openeth his mouth, or setteth his pen to paper, to defend tradition, but this is the principal bulwark, to maintain unwritten verities received by tradition. A sore place I promise you. Out of which if you will gather rightly, you must thus conclude. Saint Paul had taught the Thessalonians, partly by preaching, and partly by writing, and taught the truth in both necessary to be retained, therefore the holy scripture doth not contain all doctine needful unto salvation. Or thus, S. Paul in one or two Epistles, had not comprehended all necessary truth, therefore all necessary truth is not comprehended in all the books of the scripture.

For he speaketh not of traditions, that were nowhere written, but not written in his Epistle. Signifying whatsoever he did deliver unto them, either by word of mouth, or by his Epistle, was the truth of GOD, which they were bound to believe, and yet he delivered nothing for any doctrine of salvation unto them, but that which he confirmed by the scriptures of the old Testament, as it is manifest by y ^e which S. Luke reporteth of their neighbors the Berthaeans which daily searched the scriptures, if those things which Saint Paul taught, were evē so. Wherefore this place doth nothing favor unwritten traditions, y ^t are altogether beside the holy scripture, but only such as are not contained in the first & second Epistle to y ^e Thessalonians, but were preached by S. Paul, and tried by the scriptures. The strongest bulwark being thus rased & made even with the ground: what force can there be in their other feeble fortresses? why do you so exclaim against tradition, & unwritten verity, & strive so much for your Castle of only scripture say they? know you not that the Church of God continued more then two thousand years without any word of the Bible written: & how was the word of God then continued, but by unwritten traditiō: There is not therefore such necessity of the scriptures, seeing y ^e church could so long continue the pillar & stay of truth, without thē, but y ^e now having the scriptures for witness of some parte of God's word, she may continue the rest y ^• is necessary, for the instruction of God's people by tradition only, w ^t out the scriptures. Here is a godly show for traditiō, but indeed nothing else but a vain show, w ^t out any pithe of matter: yea, containing manifest untruth & false matter. For the word of God was not so long continued only by traditiō of men, but by a much more certain testimony of truth, namely by divine reuelatiō from god, which was renewed in every age, y ^t the word of God might not stand upon the bare credit of men, or be left to the unsure & deceiveable delivery of men, from hand to hand, but be evermore confirmed by heavenly oracle, that y ^e Church might be certain, not to be carried away by untrue reports of deceueable men, but to depend always upon the mouth of god. For in all that time, the lord had a regard, that his people should not be like children wavering, & carried about with the wind of every doctrine, by the deceit of men, and by their craftiness which have a method of error, as the Apostle saith of the church of Christ since his ascension, & therefore he did in all generations, beside the tradition and delivery of the doctrine of truth, from the parents to their children, & posterity, s •• rre up Prophets & Preachers confirmed by extraordinary & wonderful revelations and gifts of his holy spirit, which testified of that truth, & word of God that was continued by tradition, y ^t it should neither be doubted of, among so many errors as Satan raised up, nor be corrupted, either by the subtlety of the devil, or by the infirmity & forgetfulness of men. Wherefore the tradition being thus continued & confirmed, was not a bare traditiō, & delivery of mē, such as the Papists would draw us unto, from the holy scriptures: but a most certain and undoubted testimony of God's word, & his truth, such as he in wisdom, did see to be most convenient for his church in that season. Beside this heavenly & divine revelation, which always waighted upon God's word, in those times continued by tradition: The very tradition itself, was far unlike to the pretended tradition, of the Papists. For the Lord God, who in that time, would have his holy word to be preserved from generation to generation, by tradition without writing, committed the same to faithful witnesses, whose lives he enlarged unto so many years, as we read of in the holic scriptures, not only for propagation of their kind, but also, and especially, that they might continue the doctrine of his word, which he had delivered unto them, unto many generations, & to a long posterity after them. For this cause Adam lived, 930. years. Seth, 912. years Methusalach, 969. Noah, 950. years. So that Adam, which first received the doctrine of GOD, both of the law & the Gospel, and also the external form of worshipping god by sacrifice, which he taught his sons, insomuch that Abel by faith offered an acceptable sacrifice unto God, which could not be without hearing of the word of God, as the holy Ghost witnesseth: continued a faithful witness and teacher of the same doctrine, unto many thousands of his posterity, by the space of 930. years, beside his godly son Seth, and other of his after comers. And whereas by the wicked generation of Cain, the true invocation of God was profaned in the days of his Nephew Enoch, which ungodly brood daily increased in wickedness corrupting many even of the posterity of Seth. The Lord stirred up an extraordinary Prophet Enoch, to confirm the true doctrine taught by Adam, Seth, Enoch, and other of his godly posterity, and took him our of the world miraculously, both to confirm the faithful in the hope of the resurrection, and to confound the reprobate, that despised his holy correction and discipline. Now let us consider the certainty of this tradition. Noah, was 600. year old, before the Lord God sent the floode to destroy those impudent contemners, So that of his father Lamech, and of his granfather Methushalech which might see and hear, The first of the world Adam, which Seth, Enoch and all the godly Patriarchs that were before him, did receive the doctrine of God's word, as it was delivered by God himself unto them, without any addition or corruption. Besides that Noah, which received the tradition, but from the second mouth, of them which received it from the mouth of God, is again confirmed with divine revelation, with whom, and his posterity, the covenant of God is again renewed: so that it appeareth howe for the space of a thousand and six hundred years, the word of God, and doctrine of salvation, was continued in the church by tradition, without any danger, or doubt of corruption from Adam to Noah.

Now let us see howe this tradition was maintained after the flood, until the time of Moses, which was the first writer of the Canonical Scripture. First it is certain by the computation of the age of Sem, the son of Noah. who was one of them that were preserved in the Ark, and with whom the covenant was renewed, that he lived unto the time of Abraham, ye until Isaac was 50. year old & more, for he lived 502. years after the flood. So that all this time, there continued a faithful and credible witness of the word of God and history of the world restored, of whō the people might learn the certainty of the doctrine, without any peril or doubt of corruption. But when the Lord called Abraham, and severed him and his posterity for his peculiar people, and chosen congregation, and that the age of man was now contracted, and drawn unto a much shorter time of life: that the certainty of his heavenly truth should not be committed to uncertain tradition of many generations, he renewed his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and every one of them, and confirmed the same to their children in every age by divine revelation, until it was his pleasure to record the same, in the most certain Tables of the holy Scriptures. For from the death of Joseph one of the twelve Patriarchs, which lived after the coming of Jacob in to Egypt threescore & ten years, there passed but threescore years until y ^e birth of Moses. Levi another of the xii. Patriarchs, lived 23. years after Joseph, whose daughter Iacobed was mother unto Moses. And Moses long time before he brought the people out of Egypt received divine revelation as S. Steeuen testifieth, so that he thought his brethren should have acknowledged that God had appointed him to be there delivered, by killing the Egyptian that oppressed them. So that the certainty of this tradition appeareth from the beginning of the world, unto the wri • ing of the holy Scriptures, to have been confirmed, in every age by revelation from god and by witnesses above all exception, such as received the Oracles and confirmatiof them, from God him self: whose life was prolonged into such number of years that the Church might never lack a prophet inspired of God, of whom they might he instructed in truth of God's word.

So that the Lord did never permit his word to bare tradition of men, such as the Papists affirm the tradition of the Apostles to have been, which should have delivered the doctrine to their successors, without writing, and they to their successors, and so from age to age, without any assurance of the fidelity of all their successors, through an hundred hands before it come unto us. By which uncertainty of the Tradition, a wyde gate is opened unto Satan, to bring in any falsehood & strange error, & to father it upon the tradition of the Apostles. As it is manifest, he did in y ^e heresy of the Valētiniās, Manichees, Montanistes, & such other monstrous heresies, who had none other refuge to cover y ^e novelty of there strange opinions, but a secret tradition, beside the Scriptures, according to which the Valentinians, jump with the Papists, as Irenaeus testifieth, they affirmed the Scriptures were to be interpreted, & not otherwise. But when Irenaeus not content to confute them by Scriptures, seeketh to ouerthrom them also by tradition what certainty of truth findeth he in the traditiō of the apostles as it was received in his time? And a man would think, he being so near the time of the Apostles, so that he had seen them, which had heard the Apostles, should have had a much greater certainty and assurance of their traditions, then we can have in these times, after so many heresies, corruptions, alterations, persecutions, contentions, which take away alcertaintie from such unwritten traditions. Yet evē this godly father Irenaeus, whiles he striveth to bear down the Heretics not only by scriptures, but also by tradition, in which they gloried: was deceived by a false and counterfeit tradition contrary to the Scriptures, by which it was affirmed that our savior Christ lived more then forty years in the flesh. And yet to justify this tradition, he allegeth for witnesses, all the elders of Asia, which had conversation with S. John the Disciple of our Lord, who lived with them until the time of Traianus the Emperor, all which affirmed, that Saint John delivered the same thing unto them. Yea some of them had seen, not only John, but other Apostles also, and heard the same things of them, & testified of such report. What a godly show of truth hath this tradition? Yea what would a man require almost for greater certainty of such a tradition, then the uniform consent of all them that had seen and heard the Apostle, of which some had hard y ^e other apostles also. What like assurance can the Papists make us for their pretended traditions of the Apostles? And yet this traditiō which Iraeneus aduoucheth, with such show of credit to be a true tradition, is a very falsehood and untruth contrary to the History of the Gospel, which expressly affirmeth that Christ was but 30. years old when he began to teache in the 15. year of the Emperor Tiberius, after which time he lived not above 3. years and an half. You see therefore what it is to leave the holy scriptures & to follow unwritten traditions, whereof what certainty can there be, when they that lived so near the time of the Apostles were so grossly deceived with impudent lies and fables, and yet coloured with such show and appearance of credit. And no marvel if Irenaeus which received this tradition at the second hand was beguiled with a feigned untruth whē even they that were the scholars of the Apostles them selves could not agree about their traditions which were beside their holy writings. Eusebius out of Irenaeus testifieth that when Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna came to Rome in the time whē Anicetus was bishop there, they could not agree about the tradition of the Apostles, concerning the celebratiō of Easter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarpus, to alter that which he had seen Saint John and other of the Apostles to practice, neither could Polycarpus persuade Anicetus to forsake that, which he had received of his predicessors who pretended to have received the same, of the Apostles Peter & Paul. So that when the first and immediate successors of the Apostles, cannot agree upon their traditions: What hope of certainty can we have after so many generations? These were both ancient fathers, both godly fathers, which acknowledged y ^t all things necessary to salvation were contained in the holy Scriptures, and therefore, although they could not agree in the use of a Ceremony, yet they did not break Christian unity for that diversity. Whereas if they had thought unwritten Traditions necessary, as Victor that was after successor to Anicetus seemeth to have thought, they would not have so brotherly communicated the one with the other, as they did, but rather as Victor, erroneously and presumptuously took upon him, to excommunicate the churches of Asia that agreed not with him they would have detested the one the other. This story also doeth plentifully witness, that the Bishop of Rome's authority in the beginning of the primitive Church, was not reputed to be a matter of such certainty, y ^t all mē must obey his censure, and no man gainsay, or think otherwise then he doeth, in any case of religion. For Polycarpus doubteth nothing at all, to dissent from Anicetus Bishop of Rome, where he thought he had better ground, neither doeth Anicetus object the necessity of obedience unto Saint Peters chair, as the Pope now a days pretendeth, but when he could not persuade Polycarpus to consent with him, in a matof small importance, and which is beside the holy Scripture, he is content, that he shall dissent from him, both in opinion, and in practice, But howe far from this modesty, is y ^e Pope of Rome in these days, which though he can tolerate diversity of Ceremonies, as the Papists say, to color this matter, yet will he not tolerate that any man shall dissent in opinion & judgment frō him, in any of those things, for which he hath no ground out of the holy scriptures, but only a counterfeit & falsely pretended tradition of the apostles. Well, you see by the example of Polycarpus and Anicetus, that there is no certainty in unwritten traditions, when they y ^• were the next and immediate successors of the Apostles, were not resolved upon thē, but continued in contrary judgments of them. And no marvel, when John him self testifieth, that even among the very Disciples of Christ, there went a wrong tradition, concerning the death of Saint John: which having no ground upon the words of our savior Christ, but being clean contrary to the truth of the holy Scriptures, was yet received from an unwritten verity, until by the written Gospel of Saint John it was plainly confuted. But it will be objected, that the ancient fathers. Tertullian, Epiphanius, Basilius, and such like do maintain that there were some unwritten Traditions of the Apostles in their times, which were necessary to be observed.

I answer, although the ancient fathers, and even these before named, do sometime avouch the sufficiency of y ^e holy scriptures, yet it must be confessed, that otherwhile they ascribed too much to unwritten traditions, wherein what certainty it was likely for them to have, you may consider by that which hath been said already, beside that they agree not about their Traditions, either with the papists, or with us, or among themselves altogether. Therefore very wisely and like an Apostolic man, y ^e holy worthy Ignatius (as Eusebius writeth) when he was traveling through Asia, toward his martyrdom, which he suffered at Rome, and in every City where he came, exhorted the people to continue in the faith of the gospel, & to beware of heresies, which thē began to spring and multiply, in cleaving fast to the Tradition of the apostles, he testified, that the same Tradition, that it might be certain and undoubted, was already committed to writing: for by that time all the books of the New Testament were written. And that tradition so written, he thought it necessary to be plainly taught, and set forth unto the people.

This sound and uncorrupted judgment of Ignatius, a most ancient father & next successor unto Peter in the Church of Antiochia, concerning the Apostles tradition if they which came after him, had retained, they had neither so easily been drawn into error themselves, as Papias A great admiror of tradition, unwritten was, Irenaeus, Tertullian and other: nor given occasion to heretics by alleging the insufficiency and imprefection, of the holy Scriptures, to cloke their new heresies under the name of ancient traditions.

Thus you have heard, that the word of truth, is not to be sought in the unwritten traditions, but in the undoubted writings of the prophets & apostles vpō which foundation the Church of Christ is built, as Saint Paul testifieth, and not upon the uncertain reports of forgetful and deceiveable men.

Now must we examine the tow other pretended records of the word of GOD. The Church and the principal Pastor thereof, which they say, is the Pope, Concerning the Church, the Apostle seemeth to give a clear testimony, that the answer thereof, is an infallible Oracle of God's word, when he saith, It is y ^e pillar and stay of truth, whereof it may be inferred, that the Church alone, which as the holy Scriptures, is sufficient to uphold and stay the truth, that it should never fail nor decay in the world. Much rather when it hath the assistance of the Scriptures in some part, is the Church able to maintain another part of truth, without the Scriptures. After this manner, the Papists reason out of this text, to prove that all truth is not contained in the holy Scriptures. But this is a very feeble kind of reasoning.

For granting that the Church is y ^e pillar and the stay of truth, as it is in deed, it followeth not thereof, that it upholdeth any truth which is not comprehended in the holy Scriptures. But contrariwise, seeing it hath been plentifully proved, that all true doctrine is taught in the holy Scriptures, even to the perfection of the man of God, it followeth that the Church is the pillar and stay of that true doctrine which is taught in the Scriptures, and not of any truth beside the Scriptures: For when all truth is taught in the scriptures, it followeth that whatsoever is not taught in the Scriptures is not truth. But if this be y ^e proper note of y ^e Church to be the pillar of truth (say they) it is proved thereby, that the Church cannot err, so that if it set forth any thing beside the Scriptures, the same must needs be true. I answer, this Sophistry, is already confuted, for it it be granted, that the Church cannot err, as in matters necessary to salvation the whole Church of God cannot err, to continue therein, it is because the Church cannot depart from the doctrine contained in the Scriptures, which are able to make a man wise unto salvation. But admit it were granted, that the Church cannot err at all, what should that avail the Papists: verily nothing, but to prove that they are not the Church.

For if this be a proper & inseparable note of the Church, that it cannot err, what company soever doth err is not the Church. But the Papists whose doctrine containeth so gross contradiction of the word of GOD do shamefully and abominably err from the truth, therefore the Popish faction is not the Church which is the pillar and stay of truth. Thou shalt make no images for religion saith the word of God. Thou shalt make some images for religion saith the Popish Church. Thou shalt not fall down to them, nor worship them, saith God's commandment. Thou shalt fall down and worship them, saith the popish Synagogue. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, & him only shalt thou serve, saith our Savior Christ. When he was tempted to fall down and worship the Devil, not as GOD, but as God's Minister to whom the kingdoms of the world were committed to dispose: The Pope saith, thou shalt worship and serve other, beside the Lord thy God, so thou worship them not, and so thou serve them not as God's. I might run over a whole hundredth of contradictions, which the papists do hold and teach contrary to the word of truth written in the Scriptures by which it is more then manifest, that they hold and teache damnable errors, therefore they are not the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and stay of truth, at the least wise in matters necessary to eternal salvation.

But let us see whether the Apostle by these words, intended to privilege the Church of God, from all possibility of erring in any matter, albeit the Church should depart from the certain direction of the holy Scriptures in anything. Firste it must be remembered, that Saint Paul in the Chapter 1. Timothy 3. describeth the persons and offices of Christian Bishops and Deacons, which done, he addeth immediately. These things do I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayst know howe it behooveth thee to be conversant in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and stay of truth: In which words we have to note, first that the Apostle hath written briefly that which he purposed (if they met shortly,) more at large to set forth and confirm: Secondly that if he were disappointed, so that he could not come shortly, that Timothy might have a sufficient direction howe to behave himself for ordering of the Church of god in appointing the ministers of the same. By which it is manifest that this which he speaketh of the pillar and stay of the truth, is meant in respect of the Pastors and Teachers of the Church, by whom the truth of heavenly doctrine is upholden and continued in the world, which without their ministry would utterly fall to the ground and decay. For even as he writeth to the Romans: seeing faith cometh by hearing of God's word, of them that are sent, of faith cometh invocation, and from thence saluatiō, if none be sent, there can be no preaching, no hearing, no faith, no innocation, no salvation: So the Church of the living God, in respect of the faithful Ministers of the same, which teach the truth to the salvation of God's people, in which respect they are said to save themselves, and them that hear them: is rightly called the pillar and stay of truth, which Ministry if it be taken away, the truth also is taken away, Even as the removing of the Candlestick in the revelation, signifieth the overthrow of the Church of Ephesus, unto whom it is threatened if they do not repent. The Candlestick which signifieth the Church, upholdeth the light of the gospel, by the continual preaching of the Ministers thereof: so is it a pillar and stay of the truth, so long as preaching of the Gospel is continued, which if it cease, then followeth darkness, blindness, ignorance, error, and destruction. This is the true and plain meaning of the Apostle, where he saith, The church is the pillar and stay of truth. Not that it is impossible for the church to err at any time, or in any matter, or that the determination of y ^e church, without the scripture, is a sufficient testimony of God's word, or of the truth in any cause, as the Papists maintain. For Paul instructeth Timothy by writing, howe he ought to behave him self in the Church of God, which is the pillar & stay of truth, although he should have no further conference with him in the matter: These things do I write unto thee (saith he) y ^t thou mayest know & so forth, whereas if in calling the church the pillar of truth, he had meant that the church without the scripture was able to have instructed him, he would have said. If anything want in my writing, thou mayest ask the determination of the church, which is the pillar and stay of truth. But S Paul saith, that he had written: that Timothy might know, & be able to instruct the church of God, that it might be the pillar of truth, not that the church, as the pillar of truth, should instruct him. For, Timothy was to teach the truth of God's word unto the church, y ^t the church might be the pillar of truth, he was not to learn of y ^e church, as of a teaching pillar, in which sense James and Peter & John are called pillars. And no doubt but they wer pillars of y ^e church, and of the truth: yet they were not privileged thereby, but that they might err in some parte, as the error of Peter is declared in the same place. Again it is certain, that the Apostle in saying the church is the pillar and stay of truth: speaketh of the church of Ephesus, in which he had left Timothy. And the same is true of every particular church of God, in any place, that it is the house of God, the pillar and stay of truth, so long as it is the church of the living God. For he teacheth not Timothy by this writing, how to be conversant in the whole universal church of Christ, but namely in that particular church, unto which Saint Paul hoped to come vnot him, and by example thereof, in any other particular church, wheresoever upon like occasion he should be placed by the Apostle. Now the papists them selves do confess, that every particular church may err, but it is, the catholic and universal church which they say cannot err.

But seeing that which the Apostle here speaketh, is principally spoken of a particular Church, and is true of every particular Church, that it is the pillar and stay of truth, as well as of the universal and Catholic Church: The catholic church is no more privileged from erring, by this text of scripture, then any particular Church in the world. But this question of the Church is so intricate, and uncertain among the Papists themselves, that although they hold this as a principle, that the Church cannot err, yet they cannot define what they mean by the Church, in this proposition. For if you ask them whether you mean by the Church, all and every member of the body, they will deny it. Where shall we then have the determination of the truth many doubtful cause? They will answer of the general Council, which is the Catholic Church represented. But here if they are not resolved, what maketh the general Council. For some hold, that the Council is above the Pope, and may determine without him & against him. Other hold, that the pope is above the council, and that the council may determine nothing, either against him, or without him. But contrariwise, that the Pope without the council, hath all laws, right, and truth in the closet of his breast, so that he may determine of any doubt, and that all men are bound to believe his determination, as proceeding from him which cannot err. The most of our english Papists at this time, do hold that the Pope is above the Council, and that the determination of the Council without the Popes approbation, is nothing to build upon: So that when they have prated never so long of the authority of the Church, the ende of all the talk cometh to this point, that the Church is not all the faithful, but the general Council, only, the Council is not all the Prelates, but the Pope only, without whom they can determine no truth, and who without them may determine all truth, & can determine no error. So that against this sect of Papists, it shall be sufficient to prove, that the Popish Church may err, if I can prove that the Pope which is the only pillar and stay of truth, therein may err. But seeing we know the Pope to be a mere mortal man, howsoever some of them have made him more thē a man, yea, a GOD above all God's, some neither GOD nor man, but a newter between both, as if any of them will deny, I can bring their own sayings to their shame: and seeing the scripture pronounceth of every man which is but a man, that he is a liar, and that God only is true: let us consider, what impudent shift they have to justify their Pope from error, that God only should not be true.

Some of thē say, the Pope may err as a man, but not as a Pope, other say the Pope may err as Pope also, but not in matters of faith: others seem to say, if they durst speak out, that the Pope may err also in faith, but not to induce any mā into a false faith by his error. Thus are they at variance among them selves, and mince the matter so small, y ^t at length it cometh to as good as nothing at all, that they brag of the spirit of truth given to the Pope in such measure, that he cannot err.

But how do they assure them selves, that the Pope hath such a privilege that he cannot err in matters of faith? Our Savior Christ (say they) prayed for Peter, th • t his faith should not fail: willing him after his conversion to confirm his brethren.

And what in God's name, maketh this to prove that the Pope cannot err? Yes forsooth: he prayed for Peter, that is for him & all his successors, because he was the rock of the church, that none of their faith might fail, that is, they might not err.

This is a very strange interpretation. For the natural sense of that place, is manifest by that he said before, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to winnow you, as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith should not fail.

By which words he signifieth, that the desire of Satan was utterly to disperse the Church, that it might never be gathered together, and Peter was in greatest danger of all the Apostles, through his shameful and cowardly denial, and forswearing of his master, howbeit, he declareth that he hath obtained by his prayer, that Peters faith should not be altogether qu • nched but that he should by repentance, take hold of God's mercy, and be restored, willing him after his conversion and experience of God's mercy, to strengthen his brethren which likewise were weak in faith, though none so near to falling away, as he. So that the effect of Christ's prayer was, that Peter through the greatness of his sin, should not despair of forgiveness, but by faithful repentance, be renewed and converted, not that Peter should never err in his own person and much less, that none of Peters successors should err in any master of faith: which thing by no logic in the world can possibly be concluded out of this place: For what kind of reasoning is this? Christ prayed that Peters faith should not fail, Ergo, Peter had such a prerogative by Christ's prayer, that he could not err, neither he nor any of his successors. Christ prayed not only for Peter, but for all his Apostles, & in this my text, prayeth for them all, that his father would sanctify them in y ^e truth: shall we therefore say, it was not possible for them to err in any matter? The Papists will not so reason of all the Apostles, for then the like would follow of all their successors. And yet Christ obtained the effect of his prayer, that all his Apostles were sanctified in God's truth. Yea he prayeth not this, for his Apostles and other Disciples of that time only, but for all them that should believe in him through their preaching, for all true Christians are sanctified in God's truth, that they should not err finally frō the way of salvation. But hereof it cannot be gathered, that all true Christians, no not after their calling to the knowledge of truth, cannot err or be deceived in matters of faith and doctrine, although they cannot continue in error of anything that is necessary for thē rightly to know unto eternal salvation. Christ promiseth to send the comforter, evē the spirit of truth, unto all his Apostles, & to his whole church, to supply y ^e want of his bodily presence which should lead thē into all truth: & yet it were no good conclusion to gather, y ^t none of the Church of Christ might err in anything, as it is a sure argument, that they cannot finally err, in any point necessary to salvation. Peter him self, whose faith was specially prayed for, as there was special cause, for his greatest peril, after his conuerson, & after he had long time exercised his Apostleship, was ignorant, & of ignorance erred, concerning the admission of the Gentiles into the fellowship of the gospel, until he was reformed by the heavenly vision. Yea long after this: Peter did err in separating him self from the Gentiles by dissimulation, for fear of them of y ^e circumcision, when I saw that they did not walk aright (saith S. Paul) according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before them all. I know the Papists will say this was an error of conversation and of fact only, not an error in faith & doctrine. But this is a vain devise to escape. For Peter erred not in 〈◊〉 only, but in a matter of doctrine and faith also against the truth of the Gospel. For he counterfaited before the Jews, for no worldly respect, but because he thought it was his duty before God to so do, rather then to offend the Jews. And where as some of them say, the Pope cannot induce any other men into error, although he err himself, let thē consider this example of Peter, who not only erred himself, but also brought, yea compelled others to Judaize with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried with them into the same dissimulation: wherefore although Christ prayed for Peters faith, that it might not fail, yet Peter both erred, & induced other into error with him: although being admonished by Paul, he did willingly reform his error. Wherefore this matter is clear, that the establishing of Peters faith from failing, was not to privilege him from erring, but from despairing, & therefore cannot extend to his successors, in as much as it is but a personal benefit, obtained for Peter, except you will say by analogy of the scripture, that the like prayer is made for every one of gods elect, which in this sense I confess to be true, but yet it followeth not, that they are discharged of the frayletie of man in falling into error, much less any one order of men, which should be Peters successors.

And if we should grant that this privilege was given to Peter that he should not err, and so should be derived unto all his successors, many other intricate questions, and in extricable doubts would grow, before we could be resolved who were Peters successors. For seeing all Bishops be successors of the Apostles, as Cyprian saith, all Bishops are successors also of Peter, for if you should say, that none were successors of the Apostles, but such as be ordained in those places where y ^e Apostles did teach, it could not be truly said of Cyprian, that all Bishops be successors of the Apostles. But admit that they be only Peters successors, that sit in Peters seat, seeing the stories affirm that Peter had two seats, at Antioch, and at Rome: why should not his successors at Antioch, enjoy this prerogative as well as his successors at Rome? That Peter was at Antioch, we find in the scripture, that he was at Rome, we find not, but least of all that he bequeathed this privilege to Rome, and not to Antioch. Well let that also be admitted, that the bishops of Rome are the only successors of Peter, howe is it verified of them, that their faith never failed: The Papists them selves do confess, and the stories are to many to deny, that there have been no wickeder men on the earth, then many Popes have been in all kind of sin and ungodliness. Yea what for all y ^• (say they,) their manners failed frō gods law, but their faith never failed from his truth. I think in deed y ^t many of their faithes did never fail, for they never had any, y ^t it might fail, who brought forth no fruits, but of infidelity and corruption. For of such wicked persons the scripture saith, y ^t they have denied y ^• faith, & are worse thē infidels, & y ^t they which commit such things, shall not inherit y ^e kingdō of Christ & God. Tush they say, you mistake the matter, we deny not, but y ^• they might and did fail from the faith which worketh by love, and by which a man is justified, for many of them are damned spirits in hell. Uerie well, then I perceive, y ^t you take not faith in this place, for a sure trust in the mercies of God, by which a man is justified and assured of eternal life, but for a bare knowledge of the truth, such as the Deuilles have and tremble such as Saint James calleth a dead faith, which is void of good works. And did our Savior Christ, pray that a dead, fruitless, barren, and Devils faith might continue in Peters successors? was this y ^e effect of our savior Christ's prayer? A goodly privilege of the Bishops of Rome, that they should have knowledge of the truth & yet go unto the Devil. I know you will reply, that although they through their own defalt, take no benefit by this privilege, yet it is very necessary for the whole Church, to keep it in unity of faith. But that our savior Christ prayed not for the continuance of such a fruitless faith, it is plain by this reason, y ^t although Peters successors should be admitted unto the participation of this benefit, yet Peter him self might not be excluded. But what a miserable comfort was this for Peter, if after his master had shown him in what danger he & all his fellows stood, through the malice of Satan, which desired them to winnow or sift thē, as wheat is scattered abroad in winnowing, insomuch that before the crowing of the Cock, he should deny him thrice, our Savior Christ should tell him no more, but that at this prayer & request, he should retain such a faith as the Devil hath, so that he should know y ^e truth in his conscience, although he did deny it with his mouth? What comfort could Peter have by this faith? which rather did increase his sin, in that he was not ignorant of the truth, then help his weakness whereby he was afraid to confess the truth. Wherefore seeing Peters faith, for confirmation whereof our Savior Christ did pray, was that true & lively faith by which Peter was raised up from weakness to a trust in God's mercy, and a sure hope of salvation: it is manifest that he prayed, not for the saith of such successors of Peter▪ as succeeded only in place, not in true faith, but continuing in wickedness, and refusing a good conscience, m • de shipwreck of the faith, and are thrown down into everlasting condemnatiō. Well this notwithstanding, let us imagine, y ^• Christ prayed for the continuance of a dead & devilish faith in Peter & his successors, that is such a gift of knowledge, that they can not err in any question of faith: shall that be found in all the Bishops of Rome that glory in the succession of Peter: No verily. For many times the Pope is a man void of learning, and knowledge of divinity, as most of y ^• Cardinals are, out of which order he is commonly chosen, and even this Pope that now reigneth, Gregory the 13. by report of them that have seen him and heard him speak, is not greatly learned. And oftentimes as the story reporteth of them, they have been but pelting Canonistes, coming up of Scribes and Notaries, never professing nor taking upon thē y ^e knowledge of divinity. And shall we think, that he which is this day an unlearned man, not able to decyde a mean question in divinity, being tomorrow chosen Pope, and set in Peters chair, is suddenly endued with such knowledge, that he cannot err in any thing, or rather that the spirit of Prophecy cometh upon him, as it did upon Caiaphas, which spake the truth, without his skill and against his will, because he was high Priest of that year? Verily I will not deny, but God may direct the tongue of the Romish Caiaphas, that he may utter at one breath, both a blasphemy, and a prophesy, as that Jewish Caiaphas did, but albeit he were able to prove, that he sitteth in Peters chair, as well as the other could prove, that he sat in Aaron's chair, & that Peters chair is set up by God, above all other Bishops chayres, as well as Aaron's chair was set up above all the Jewish Priests stools: yet should not the Pope have greater Priuiledge then the High Priest had. For the best high Prieste that ever was of Aaron's order, might be deceived, and many were Heathenish Idolaters, as V • ias, Menelaus, Alcinus, Jason, and other wicked Sadducees, as Annas and Caiaphas, which denied the resurrection and immortality of the souls: Such as Pope John the 2. was, who was convicted of that heresy in the Council of Constance. For such hell houndes our savior Christ prayed not, that their faith might not fail, nay rather he saith expressly in the 17. of John, That he prayeth not for this world, but for those whom his father had given him out of the world. Seeing therefore a number of Popes, have been by the Papists own confession, children of this world, and not children of light, no true members of Christ, it is certain that he prayeth not for them, and therefore whē he prayed for Peter, he prayed not for all his successors. Yes say the Papists, y ^t the Church may always have one that may confirm or strengthen the weak brethren, or as though one singular person, were able to confirm all the brethren in all places of the world, as well as Peter was able to strength̄ his fellow disciples at Jerusalem. Beside that the very words of Christ are plainly directed unto the person of Peter, with such a circumstance, as cannot agree to all his successors, admitting y ^e Bishops of Rome were the only successors of Peter. And thē (saith he) after thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. All the Bishops of Rome have not denied Christ as Peter did, that they might be converted: Wherefore it is spoken singularly unto Peter in respect of his fall, that he should be converted and by experience of God's mercy be better able to strengthen his weak brethren who were in danger to fall as deep as he, if God's goodness had not upholden them. Hether to therefore we have not found such assurance of truth in y ^e successiō of Peter, that we should acknowledge any undoubted witness thereof, beside the holy Scriptures, which although the Papists would miserably rack out of all ioynte and order, to establish the dignity of their popedom: yet can they find nothing which is not by the only testimony and authority of Scriptures, proved to stand against them. Let us now see what experience saith, of the failing of Peters faith in his Successors, and the certainty of truth in the determination of Councils confirmed by the Pope, for the most of our English papists, as I said before, acknowledge no council to be lawful and free from error, except if be confirmed by the Pope: if experience therefore do prove, that Councils and Popes have shamefully erred, it is manifest, that they ought to be no rule of truth unto Christians, as they are pretended to deface the only infallible rule of the holy scriptures. To prove the error of the Popes, I will not begin w ^t Marcellinus, which offered Sacrifice unto idols, for it will be quickly answered, that his faith failed of infirmity, & not of ignorance of the truth, being overcome with the terror of persecution, not being deceived with the error of the Gentiles. Neither will I stand upon the presumptuous censure of Victor, who for difference in a Ceremony, took upon him to excommunicate all the Churches of Asia, for which he was sharply reproved by Irenaeus, Polycrates, & other as Eusebius testifieth, & by the Bishops of Asia, which countermaunded him in his proud and uncharitable excommunication. I am able to justify my term of countermaunding, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They did countermaund him (saith Eusebius.) Victor commanded them to all stain from the Communion, and they on the contrary side commanded him to be quiet. By which is manifest that the bishops of Rome, usurped authority, was resisted even in the first claim and practice of it. For as I declared before, Anicetus dissenting from Polycarpus in the same question, offered him no discourtesy, but brotherly did communicate with him, yea permitted him his place to celebrate for honors sake. well although the error of Victor is here reproved by Irenaeus and many other holy Bishops, yet I will not urge it, because they will say, it was an error in discipline, rather then in faith, although it was such an error in discipline, as gave the onset to one of the greatest errors of y ^e pope, I mean his supremacy: which then was rejected and countermaunded of all sides.

Therefore I will come to Pope Liberius, who at the first manfully resisted the Arians, insomuch that for his constancy, he was by the Emperor Constantius put out of his Bishopric, and driven into banishment: But afterward being overcome with tediousness of banishment, and seduced by one Fortunatianus as S. Jerome affirmeth, he subscribed to the Arian heresy, and was restored to his See at Rome, from whence he chased Felix that occupied the place in his absence.

Thus have you a Pope denying the eternal divinity of our savior Christ convicted of heresy, by y ^e testimony of Hieronime, one that lived in the same Church, not long after.

Here the Papists stamp and starcle, denying the testimony of Hieronyme as sufficient. Yet thus much at least is gained that Hieronyme believed not this Popish principle, The Pope cannot err, for then he would not have affirmed, that Pope Liberius subscribed unto hereise. But if Hieronyme alone be not sufficient, what say you to Anthanasius? Is he a credible witness? He lived in the time of Liberius and knew him, he affirmeth the same of him.

But if Athanasius be not great enough to carry away the matter, what say you to Pope Damasus one of his successors, could he err or no? Verily Pope Damasus chargeth him with revolting unto heresy, saying, That he subscribed, but yet he was not rebaptised, and entered into Rome like a Conqueror, holding council with the heretics.

I know the impudent Papists when they are driven to the wall by this example of Liberius, for their last refuge, do say that he subscribed indeed to the condemnation of Athanasius, but not to the Heresy of Arries, which is a shameless lie, Ad subscriptioonem Haereseos, to the subscription of heresies saith Saint Jerome. The like doth both Athanasius and Damasus affirm.

Therefore we have found one Pope fallen into a damnable error. After him we find, that Pope Innocentius erred, although not in so weighty a matter. For Innocentius defined against the Pelagians, that it was as necessary for infantes to eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in the Communion, as to be Baptized. As testifieth of him Saint Augustine, saying: Qui parvulis definiuit &c. Which hath defined, that little children can by no means have life except they eat the flesh of the Son of Man.

Some Papists cavil, that although the Pope may err, yet he cannot err in his definitive sentence. Behold Augustine saith, that Innocentius hath here desined of this matter, and yet it is an error, which the Papists them selves do not hold at this day. And yet Augustine affirmeth that this was the error of all the Western Churches in his time.

But if any man think Saint Augustine no sufficient witness, to depose against Pope Innocentius, let him take pains to read the Epistle of Pope Innocent himself, sent unto the Bishop of Africa assembled in council. Where y ^e words of Augustine cited out of him, are plainly set down. But here I know the vain reply of the Papists, will be ready to object, that Pope Innocent and Augustine, with the rest of the Catholic Bishops in that time, did practice in deed to minister the communion to infantes, as soon as they were baptized, but that was no error so long as they did not hold it to be necessary for infants to receive the Communion.

Thus they grant the practice, and deny the error, either in the opinion or in the practice of those times.

But if they were not so impudent, y ^t they had framed their foreheads not to blush at any lie, they would never against so clear testimonies both of Augustine and Innocentius, seek to excuse them of that opinion, which they do so willingly maintain.

The Pelagians denied that Baptism was necessary for the salvation of infants whcih they said were without sin: both Augustine and Innocentius prove the necessity of Baptism, by the necessity of communicating, which may bot be granted to any that is not Baptized. Therefore, saith Innocentius in his diffinitiue Epistle to the Affricane Bishops. Illud vero quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare, paruulos aeternae vitaepraemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari, perfatuum est &c. But that thing which your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach, that young children may obtain the rewards of eternal life, even without the grace of Baptism, it is a very foolish thing. For except they shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, they shall have no life in themselves. But they which defend this unto them: without regeneration, seem to me that they will make fustrate Baptism it self: Behold saith Augustine upon these words, Pope Innocent of blessed memory (every Bishop was called Papa in his time) saith, that little children cannot have life, without the baptism of Christ, and without the participation of the body and blood of Christ. By which saying you see they affirm as well the necessity of the one Sacrament as of the other. For what other thing moved them to give the Communion to infants, but because they thought it necessary to salvation, while they missevnderstoode those words of Christ in the sixth of John, as though they had been spoken of Sacramental eating of Christ's body, as they did the other in the third of John as though Christ had spoken of the sacrament of Baptism, which he saith of the necessity of regeneration.

Furthermore where the Papists are enforced to affirm, that it was not erroneous, but a laweful practice, to minister the Communion to infants, as to baptize them, although the one be not so necessary as the other, the plain doctrine of the Scripture doth confute them. For S. Paul forbiddeth any man or woman, to presume to the Lord's Table without examination and judging of themselves, which things because infantes cannot perform, it can be none other, but a mere profanation of the Lord's Supper, to minister it unto young infants, even as it was of them which ministered it unto dead bodies upon the same erroneous persuasiō of the necessity thereof unto eternal life. And whereas the blind Cardinal Hosius affrmeth, that infants may as well examine themselves by other men as in baptism they believe by other men, and therefore by the Churches authority without ground of Scripture, are baptized. I answer, if we had not better ground of Scripture, then either the authority, or reason of the Popish Church, for the baptism of infants, we would not practice if anymore then we do minister the Communion to infants. But we baptize them not for the faith of other mē, but for the covenant of God which extēdeath even to the seed of the faithful, so that there children are holy and not unclean, as the children of Pagans and Infidels, as we see by manifest Analogy and proportion, that the Sacrament of baptism, hath unto the Sacrament of Circumcision, which was the Sacrament of regeneration, unto the Jews, as baptism is unto us, and was commanded to be ministered unto infants, therefore the Sacrament of baptism is likewise commanded vnot infants.

Also by Analogy which the Lord's Supper hath unto the Paschal lamb, we do plainly perceive, that it ought not to be ministered unto infants. For in the institution of the Sacrament of Passover, the Parents were commanded to teache their children the right use thereof, beside that many things were to be done in the celebration of it, as it was first instituted, which could not be done of infants, as to eat in standing, with staves in their hands, yea the meat it self which was roasted flesh with sour or bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, cold not be eaten of young infants, therefore neither the Lord's Supper which is succeeded in the place of the Passover, ought to be ministered to infants. It was therefore an error in Innocentius and the Church of y ^t time, to think it lawful for infants to communicate, although they had not thought it necessary: as I have plainly proved that they thought both: and therefore erred in both points. But this you will say was no damnable heresy. I will therefore leave Innocentius and come to Pope Honorius, which was condemned in the sixth general Council, holden at Constantinople for defending the heresy of the Monochelites, which affirmed that our Savior Christ had but one will as God, which was all one in effect, as if they had denied him to consist of two natures, for if he had an human nature he must also have an human will, though always subject to his divine will, as is proved plainly by many places of the scriptures. This heresy did pope Honorius hold while he lived, as was proved by his own writings unto Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, so that both the Popes of both the Rome's (for Cōstātinople, was called new Rome) were at once infected with that horrible heresy, and therefore they were condemned by that council and accursed. The like censure is thundered against him in the second of Nice. What can you now say, why the Pope should not be burned for an Heretike? Peradventure you will say, those Councils were not confirmed, by the Pope, yes verily, the one by Leo the seconde, the other by Pope Adrian the first, yet saith one, you cannot prove that any Pope although he erred himself went about to seduce other, or to change the ancient Catholic faith, which was always held in the Church of Rome, yes that I can. And that by such a witness, as you may not refuse. For I will bring forth no less witness, then Pope Leo the second himself, which in his Synodal Epistle, by which he confirmeth the decrees of the sixth Council of Constantinople, as you may read in the 18. actiō of that Council, hath these words.

Behold the Pope condemneth and accurseth the Pope, for an heretic: and yet men are not ashamed to affirm in these days, that the Pope cannot err. The Pope condemneth the Pope, for laboring to subvert the faith, of the Church, with heretical treason: and yet the Papists now a days, for a miserable shift, say, that the Pope although he might himself be deceived, yet cannot attempt any alteratiō in the faith of the Church. Well, to be brief I will omit Pope Vigillius which was privily an Eurichian, as Liberatus chargeth him, by an Epistle that he write to the heretics at the instinct of the Empresse which favored them: he was also condemned and accursed by Pope Syluerius. I will come to the council of Constance, at which time there were no less then three Popes at once. John the 23. of some called 24. Gregory the 12. and Benner the 13. All which by authority of the Council being deposed, a Decree or Canon was made, declaring that the general council was above the Pope, & that the Pope may err, but y ^t the general Council cannot err. In this council Pope John, among other horrible crimes was convicted & condemned for an heretic, of y ^• sect of the Sadducees, because he denied the resurrection of the dead, and immortality of y ^e soul, as it is to be seen in the 11. Session of y ^e Council. This decree and condemnation of the Pope, and Popes was then counted Catholic. But what saith the Popish Catholics of our time? There wanted the approbation of the Pope. No forsooth, for John the 23. the person condemned, who of the Council of Constance was taken for the right Pope, because the other were deposed before in a counsel holden at Pise, by all the Cardinals, although they would not yield unto it, nor leave their papacy: Pope John I say, in the next Session, acknowledged that the Council of Constance was a most holy Council, affirming that it could not err. But least this approbation might be thought to be extorted by fear, because he was imprisoned or of hope that he might be restored and confirmed in his papacy: there wanteth not a more authentical approbation of Pope Martin the fifth, who in the ende of the Counsel, and before the dissolution thereof, solemnly approved all things decreed in that Council Conciliariter, that is, in the form of a Council: and in his Bull charged all persons suspected of heresy, to be examined upon this interogatory, whether they did acknowledge that the general Council could not err, & whether they did acknowledge the Council of Constance to be such a Council as could not err, which Council decreed, that the Pope was inferior to the Council, and condemned the Pope for error. Thus the Pope him self confesseth, that the Pope may err, and the Council confirmed by the Pope, decreeth the same. And not one Council only. But the general Council of Basel, made even the same Cannon and decree of the Councils superiority above the Pope. Then belike it will be clear, that although the Pope be not always a certain witness of truth, yet the general Council cannot err. No surely, we are never the near of certainty of truth, in the general Councils determination: For at the same time, that the Council of Basel, was held in Germany, the Council of Ferraria and Florentia, was held in Italy, that was of the clean contrary judgment concerning the Popes superiority to that of Basel and Constance. But it will be objected, that the Council of Basel lacked the Popes confirmation. No truly, for although I might allege the confirmation of Pope Felix, which was chosen by the same Council after they had deposed Eugenius for his contumacy, & the Bull of Pope Nicholas the fifth, which succeeded Pope Eugenius, and confirmeth all things decreed in the Council of Basel, yet I will stand upon the very same Eugenius the fourth, which gathered & held the Council of Ferraria and Florentia against the Council of Basel. For even the same Eugenius, after he had in three solemn Bulls, in which he complained that the Council of Basel usurped authority above the Pope, decreed the dissolution of the same, condemning all the doings thereof: at the length, was compelled to revoke his own Bulls, and to declare, that the Council was lawfully continued, notwithstanding his Bulls and decrees to the contrary. His Bull of revocation is to be seen in the 16. Session of the Council of Basel. Beside this, in the next Session, he was sworn by his legates, when they were incorporated into the Council, to defend that Council, and by especial words, to defend the decree of the Council of Constance, made in the fourth Session thereof: by which, the Council is decreed to be above the Pope, and the Pope bound to obey the Council, and the decrees thereof. Last of all, by his Presidentes, he accepted such presidency of the Council, as the council would grant, which was without all jurisdiction of compulsion, being him self compelled to retain that order of proceeding, with the council before his presidency was admitted, had observed and would not change: now that they were content to make him in his legates there president. What certainty of truth therefore may be looked for in the determinations of Popes and general councils, you may easily perceive. You have heard the council against the pope, and the pope against the Council, Council against Council, one pope against another pope, and the same pope against himself, and all this is one question, whether the pope or the general Council ought to be taken as an infallible rule of truth, that cannot err. Out of which contrary decreees, no other certainty can be concluded, but y ^t it is certain they may both err, and therefore it is evident, that there is none other certain and undoubted record, of the word of truth, but only the new Testament and the old, the holy Canonical books of the holy Scriptues, as it were easy to confirm even by the judgment of the most ancient and best approved Fathers, but that I have already held you so long, as I may not proceed any further. After the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures to teach us all truth, being thus maintained, and the objections made by the adversaries confuted: I had thought to have added another discourse, concerning the right & certain way of interpretation and understanding of the holy Scriptures, but because the time is so far spent, y ^t I shall not be able to go through it, I will altogether omit it, desiring God of his infinite mercy, that as he hath testified by his son our savior Christ Jesus, y ^t we can have no access unto his Majesty, without sanctificatiō in the word of truth: so it would please him by his holy spirit, to consecrate & dedicate us wholly unto his pleasure, that following the infallible rule of truth described in his holy word, we may glorify his name in this life, and after be partakers of eternal felicity, purchased unto us by the only merits of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, unto whom with the father & the holy Ghoste, one eternal God, be all honor, glory, power, & dominiō now and ever. Amen.

Imprinted at London at the three Cranes in the Vintree, by Thomas Dawson, for George Bishop. 1581.