What Choice ought a man to make concerning the Real Presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament of the last Supper .

8. TO iustify the beliefe thereof , we haue first the words of Christ , Ioan. 6. where he amply promiseth his body and bloud : My flesh is truly meate , and my blood &c. he that eateth my flesh &c. he that will not belieue this , but vnderstand it in a different sense from his predecessors , persuaded by those obscure words , the spirit giueth life , the flesh profiteth nothing , exposeth him to danger of disbeliefe with the Iewes , and blasphemy , since Vers. 56. it is said : he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me , and I in him . And S Paul to the Col. c. 1. You which were in times past strangers and enemies &c. hath he now reconciled in the body of his flesh through death to make you holy ; how then can those words , the flesh profiteth nothing without danger be vnderstood of the flesh of Christ as profiting nothing ? is it not profit to vs that Christ should dwell in vs , and we in him ? that we are reconciled in the body of his flesh ?

9. Secondly , the words of Christ performing : This is my body ; take and eate ; do this &c. which words if we wrest to a figuratiue sense , we must bring cleere Scripture for it , else our interpretation is dangerous , denying such a cleere mystery vpon human motiues . Thirdly , we haue the testimony of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. If these places be obscure , we haue besides the Consent of Nations , the common voyce of the whole Christian world for a thousand fiue hundred yeares without Contradiction . Finally , in the beliefe and practise thereof , there is no impiety , but prayse and honour of Christ , who vpon sufficient grounds is supposed present vnder the formes of bread and wine ; he is receiued with reuerence , the soule being first prepared with harty sorrow for sinnes past , accompanied with loue , thankfulnes , and liuely remembrance of his sacred Passion &c. For deniall of this beliefe we haue but small authority , not one cleere testimony of Scripture that interpreteth those words of Christ as figuratiuely spoken , all other arguments can be but probable .

10. Now I aske any indifferent mans iudgment , what he would do , in case a perfect figure of Christ should visibly appeare , commonly acknowledged and worshipped by all with sincere intention . If furthermore it were deliuered commonly , that to suspect the apparition , as an illusion of Sathan , were a wrong to Christ ; will he aduenture to spit at it ? will he not rather forbeare that , and iudge it secure to belieue and worship with others , since therein he findeth no hurt , but inuincible motiues to do so ? Cleere then it is , what we ought to resolue in this point , since for the beliefe we haue inuincible motiues ; in the practise there is no danger of any impiety , as certainly there is in the denial , if we grant but probability in the beliefe .

11. Only it may be obiected , that if Christ be not vnder those formes of bread and wine , there is danger of Idolatry . But this is a manifest mistake ; for Belieuers adore not bread nor wine , nor any Creature , but Christ , whom vpon good grounds they suppose present sacramentally . Know therefore , that Adoration consisteth of outward reuerence ioyned with interiour , as of body and soule : the outward is indifferent to God and Creatures , the interiour ioyned with it makes the difference . Exteriour reuerence applied by our intention to a temporall Lord is but a Ciuil worship : the same applied by our intention to a Saint , as a Creature of God highly in his fauour , is a higher degree of honour , yet within the limits of inferiour worship . It is likewise applied by our intention to God our Creatour and Sauiour , thus it is perfect adoration and due only to God . He then that belieueth Christ is conteyned sacramentally vnder the formes of bread and wine may securely adore , since his adoration proceeding from his beliefe , transferreth the outward act from all Creatures , & directeth it to God himselfe , euen in case in his immediate beliefe he should be mistaken ; there remayneth then no danger in the beliefe , but great danger in the deniall . He that will not belieue &c.

What of the Masse ?

12. MAsse is a compleate performance of that commaund ; Do this in remembrance of me . Luc. 22. Wherin by the Priest , prayers are said for the whole Church , the holy Scripture is read , all the parts and ceremonies therof represent the life & passion of Christ , who by meanes of those words pronounced in his name , Hoc est Corpus meum , is dayly offered in sacrifice to the honour of God , & profit of his Church . Whence it cometh to passe that fayth , gratitude , and loue towards our Redeemer is daily renewed ; and the knowne prophecy of Malach. c. 1. fulfilled : From the rising of the Sun vnto the going downe of the same , my Name is great among the Gentiles : and in euery place a pure oblation is sacrificed and offered to my name , according to the most ancient and common Translation . Thus innumerable Belieuers constantly hold and practise , vpon sufficient grounds , without the least shew of impiety ; why then , may I not securely belieue I see not ; nor how the denial can be free from danger , since vpon Disbelieuers only Damnation is denounced .

What of Confession & Absolution , commonly called the Sacrament of Pennance .

13. HEre a Christian , after due examination of his Conscience with harty sorrow and purpose of amendment ( which acts are necessarily required ) confesseth his sinnes , expecteth absolution by the ministery of the Priest . What danger can there be in this beliefe and practise ? The Iewes charged Christ of blasphemy , saying : Who can forgiue sinnes but God ? Against Christ they sinned , because they belieued him to be man only ; which errour he chastised by miracle . Matth. 9. giuing them withall to vnderstand , that men also by power receiued from him , should forgiue sinnes ; for in that they conceiued he taught , that man had power to forgiue sinnes , he checked them not , but rather confirmed it : And that you may know ( sayth Christ ) that the Sonne of Man hath authority in earth to forgiue sinnes &c. And the multitude glorifyed God who had giuen such authority to men . Moreouer Christ to his Apostles Io. c. 22. sayth : Receiue yee the holy Ghost , whose sinns yee remit , they are remitted vnto them , and whose sinnes yee retaine they are retayned : Likewise Matth. 18. Whatsoeuer yee shall bind on earth , shall be bound in heauen , and whatsoeuer yee shall loose on earth , shall be loosed in heauen . Questionlesse , the prime sense of these words import a power giuen to men to forgiue sinnes : nothing then is presumptuously assumed by the Belieuers thereof ; for though it is proper only to God to forgiue sinnes by his owne power and of himselfe , yet the light of nature teacheth that man may also forgiue sinnes by Commission from him ; as it is proper to a King only to forgiue Treasons committed against his person , yet by Commission & his name a Subiect may haue power to do the same without iniury to the King , or exceeding the degree of a Subiect . Why may not the Minister of God by authority giuen him forgiue sinne in his name without offending or exceeding the limits of a dutifull creature ? this is at the least probable . In opposition I find no Scripture , but only admirations of a few dangers in comparison of the Belieuers ; euident reason there can be none . Dangerous then is the deniall , Beliefe secure . Qui non crediderit ; Who will not belieue shal be damned .

What of one Church , and one Head thereof ?

14. IN Common Wealths throughout the world , I find an Vnity is most sought for , and to that end one supreme gouernour and ruler ; in one house one Maister , in one Towne one Maior , in one Company one Captaine , in one Army one Generall , in one Kingdome one King ; can it beare any colour of offence , to belieue that in the most perfect Common-wealth , instituted by Christ , there is ordained one flock vnder one Pastour ? Vt fiat vnum ouile , & vnus pastor . We see that in two supreme gouernements there is no mutuall subordination , therefore not properly one ; and where there are two Kings , it is sufficient to conclude two Kingdomes . If then in Gods Church we admit diuers supreme Gouernours , we cannot so perfectly call it one Church , as one flock is one vnder one Pastor ; which Christ promised should be so . Whence it seemeth manifest , that for the preseruing of vnity in Gods Church one head is necessary , and that in the beliefe therof there is no danger , though there were no Scripture at all to warrant it . For as temporall Kings , though they haue no warrant for their ech particular regall power out of holy Scripture , yet by law and iustice and conscience we are iustly obliged , not to question it : So I vnderstand not , with what security a man may deny the authority of one supreme Gouernour of a Church so many hundred of yeares prescribed . I need not heere heape vp texts of holy Scripture for proofe of the beliefe of one Church vnder one head , since in the beliefe thereof there is no shew of impiety , but in the deniall as much danger of impiety , as in denying any Prince his due . Yet that it may appeare , that the deniers are not only in danger of iniustice , but also of disbelieuing Christs words , I lay downe some few Texts to be pondered . Matth. 6. Thou art Peter , & vpon this rock will I build my Church , and the gates of Hel shall not preuaile against it . Behold one rock , one Church , & that permanent against all assaults . Io. 21. to Peter he said , feed my sheepe ; which words imply the full office of a Pastor , that is , not only to prouide nourishment , but also to gouerne and defend , without which the office of a Shepheard is not complete . That also these words were spoken only to Peter , it is manifest by that thrice repeated interrogation of Christ , saying : Simon Peter , louest thou me ? especially when he addeth , more then those ? wherby he excluded the rest of his Apostles ; to which when S. Peter had answered that he loued him , Christ thereupon replyed , feed my sheepe ; as if he should say , the supreme dignity of Pastorship and Vicegerency which I giue you , requireth greatioue and charity , & as you truly loue me , so be a true Pastor in my Church ; & because I giue you a dignity aboue the rest whome you are to rule 〈◊〉 my place , therfore I require that your loue to me be singular .

15. This litle I haue obserued , yeildeth such probability at the least , that it is manifest , it cannot without danger be denied , but that God his Church is one , vnder one head . But grant these places are not cleere in themselues , yet the Common voyce of the world so long continued , expressed also in the two Creeds , may iustly excuse any Belieuer from the least danger of that sentence Who will not belieue &c. Securely then with the Apostles creed we confes to belieue the holy Catholique Church : and with the Nicen , One , holy , Catholique , and Apostolique Church : and not one , vnles it haue a supreme visible Gouernour , to whom all are subordinate . What danger can there be in this beliefe , if feare of God & Conscience only be regarded ?

What concerning recommending our selues to the intercession of Saints .

16. TO iustify the beliefe and practice of this point , it is sufficient that it is conformable to reason , and void of iniury to Christ . I aske then , why may not we commend our selues to the intercession of Saints , as well as S. Paul did commend himselfe to the prayers of liuing Christians ? If it be answered , it is an iniury to Christ , who biddeth all come to him ; I see not first how S. Paul can be excused , that oft commended himselfe to the intetcession of inferiour Creatures , who should haue gone to Christ only , and to no body els . Looke what must be answered in excuse of S. Paul , the same must iustify our praying to Saints Moreouer , to iustify S. Paul , and those that commend themselues to the intercession of Saints , it seemeth euident that both he and we go truly to Christ for we go not to Saints to giue vs this or that , but to obtaine their mediation for fauours at God's hand ; as truly we are said to haue recourse to the King for honour , if we desire his Fauorits to intercede for vs : & as notwithstanding this mediation , we are truly said not to wrong the King , but to seeke to him ; so by our intercession to Saints we wrong not Christ , but go to him ; vnles a man should be conceiued not to seeke to Christ at all , but only to pray to Saints , which in no good Christian can be imagined .

17. If it be answered , that Saints in heauen cannot heare vs ; I aske , how can this be knowne ? not by Scripture , since it witnesseth that many Prophets saw obiects not only absent , but not existent many hundred yeares after their time , only by diuine inspiration : nor by reason ; for though were their hearing by corporal eares , there might be some difficulty , yet since their hearing is vnderstanding , which is indifferent to conceiue obiects , as well absent as present , this difficulty to any will appeare vaine and impertinent , since we know not , how our soule vnderstands , nor how our eyes see , or eares heare .

18. Hence I gather , that the Belieuers of this Article though they had no expresse Scripture for proofe thereof , ( which for the present I examine not ) yet since their practice is conformable to reason , and consequent to the practice of S. Paul , and the whole Church , they may rest secure in the beliefe , vntill the denyers bring some cleere places of holy Scripture to the contrary ; such places , I say , that need no explications , suppositions &c. For these being but probabilities , are not sufficient to make the Belieuers deny what before they belieued , least perchance by not belieuing they proue guilty of damnation ; from which they are doubtles free , though peraduenture the Saints heare them not . As for iniury to Christ , I haue shewed before , there is not the least colour thereof .

What Choice may be securely made concerning the making , and worshipping the Image of Christ , and his Saints ?

19. FOr the end of a safe resolution in this point , it is necessary first to declare , what kind of worship is pretended due to Images ; and for example , I will discourse of the Image of Christ crucifyed , whereby what may be said of the rest with proportion , it will easily appeare .

20. The worship then pretended , neuer tendeth to the Image , out of an apprehension of any Diuinity therein contained , but only out of a faith in Christ represented by that Image , that is , belieuing Christ worthy of all honour , represented by this picture , in manner as he visibly once appeared . Whence euident it is first , that by such worship Christ is immediatly worshipped . Secondly , that no honour due to God , is transferred to a Creature . Thirdly , that whatsoeuer honour exteriour or interiour tendeth towards the Image , is not for it , nor resteth there , but by our faith and interiour reuerence , is referred to Christ , for whom & to whom it is exhibited : for since perfect worship consisteth both in the exteriour and interiour acts conioyned , the interiour giuing life , & the very being worship to the exteriour , the interiour respecting Christ for himselfe , and the Image only for Christ ; no signe of iniury to Christ can be imagined . Or in a word , the worship heere in question is only an outward honour towards the Image , proceeding from an inward reuerence to Christ himselfe . And as S. Mary Magdalen worshiped Christ as a man out of beliefe of the Diuinity conteyned in him , or rather as some worship their Communion for the Connexion it hath with Christ , whom it representeth ; so in like manner the worship giuen to Images , is for the Connexion they haue with Christ himselfe . The question then is , whether the worship thus vnderstood be lawfull or no ?

21. According to the new translations of the Bible , the negatiue part against the Belieuers seemes iustified . Exod. 20. expresly forbidding the making and worshipping of any Image whatsoeuer . But the first doubt that heere occurreth , and that a maine one , is ; how this latter translation can be iustified , reading , Image , against the ancient , Idol , or grauen thing , and so interpreted by ancient Doctours , and Fathers . Secondly , grant Image , the right translation , how can we be sure , that the same law is now in force , more then the law of the Saboth or Circumcision ? I see not how these two doubts can be solued by cleer Scripture which is necessary to repeale an anciently receiued beliefe in a Church .

22. Moreouer , admitting the word Image , and the Law to stand ; it is manifest that place proueth nothing against the worship of Images as explicated before , but only against Idolatrous abuse of them .

23. First , out of the end of the Law , which was , that the honour of God should bee inuiolably kept , by giuing diuine worship to him , and to no Creature ; therefore in the beginning it is said ; I am thy Lord God , thou shalt haue no other Gods but me : and after he had commaunded , that no Idols , nor other likenes of any thing should be made , he added the cause : For I am thy Lord God ; a iealous God ; that is , make not to thy selfe any Idol or Image for thy God , for I am thy God . Where marke , that particle , for , which giueth a reason , why he doth forbid Images ; because he was their God , and a ●ealous God : which reason must suppose such a vse of Images as should transferre Gods honour from him to them ; els that particle , for , is impertinent , if due honour of Images may consist with the honour due to God ; as that before declared doth , and I will shew more hereafter .

24. Secondly , because , if that Command haue force now against worshiping , it is likewise of force against all making of Images , in so much that the very Kings coyne must be proued vnlawfull : but this is palpably absurd , therefore also absurd , that the Law shold now be of force against all Image worship . The first proposition is manifest : for what the Law forbiddeth to be worshiped , it also forbiddeth to be made ; or if it forbiddeth them not to be made , how doth it forbid them to be worshiped ? the law expresly sayth ; theu shalt not make to thy selfe , nor worship . If any reply , that those first words , thou shalt not make to thy selfe &c. signify thou shalt not make to worship , intimating that the worship only , and not the making of Images is forbidden ; I aske him first , how he can proue this his interpretation by Scripture ? If he cannot , I may not without danger receiue , or make any Image . Secondly it is manifest that , that interpretation can haue no ground in Scripture , vnles we also say , that when Gen. 3.4 . it is said , Adam and Eue made themselues , or to themselues Aprons ; and cap. 6. Make thee , or to th● selfe , an Arke : & Num. 10. Make thee , o● to thy selfe , two trumpets , is to be vnderstood of worship . Thirdly , if the fir● part , thou shalt not make to thy selfe , be vnderstood , thou shalt not make to worship why should it be added , and thou sha● not worship ? If then we vnderstand thi● place to be of force against Image worship , we must conclude it to be of forc● against the making , and receauing of all manner of Images , which Chris● himselfe reproueth , commanding Ca● sars coyne to be giuen to him . Whence it being manifest , that the second proposition is true , to wit , that this is absurd , it followeth euidently that it is also absurd to say , that the law is now i● force against Image worship .

25. A third and chiefe reason is , because we haue cleere warrant out of holy Scripture , both for the making & worshiping of Images ; the same Law-maker commanding Cherubims ouer the Arke Exod. 25. and a Serpent of brasse Num. 21. Cherubims , Lyons Reg 6.7 . to be made ; how can this stand with a total prohibtion of Images ? That Arke represented God not so properly as the Image of Christ representeth Christ , yet Dauid teacheth vs , Adore the footstoole of our Lord , for he is holy : which he sayth not , out of any Command there euer was of adoring the Arke , since there was none ; but only out of Consideration , that it representeth in some sort the Maiesty of God . Iosuac . 7. fell prostrate before the Arke : where I see not , what he did more or lesse then is required in the worship of Images : did Iosua then breake God's command ? We read Gen. 8.2 . Nu. 22. Ios. 5.14 . and els where , how the holy Prophets adored God in Images , or in Angels representing his person , prostrating themselues before them : and though their intention was directed to God , yet their outward worship was directed to those sensible apparitions , or Images representing God to their imaginations ; wherein they conceiued God as represented , and these Images representing God , morally one obiect ; in the same manner as it hapneth in the honour of Images , and in the worship of the figuratiue Communion , or as all Ciuill Nations do , when they honour the Chayre of State , or Presence Chamber of a King , without wrong to Christ , or to the King .

26. These three arguments do manifestly shew , that whether in the Commandment we read Idol , or Image ; by it nothing can be proued , against the declared manner of worshiping Images , vnlesse we will proue a Contradiction in holy Scripture . Moreouer since it is cleerly proued , by those examples and practice taken out of holy Scripture , that in such worship there is no signe of dishonour to God ; it is doubtles more secure with the common practice of the world , to honour them , then by the deniall of it to condemne such manifest authority .

27. That in the refusing there is no security , it is also manifest , since the Scripture brought is not cleere for condemnation of Image-worship , therfore not sufficient to cry downe an ancient practice , proued by sound Texts of Scripture , which can neuer be reconciled with those words of the Law , vnlesse where Image is read , we reade Idol : which word signifieth a Command that no Creature should be made , nor worshiped as God . This vse of Images declared is iustified both in respect of making and worshiping , by other texts of Scripture without any Contradiction to those words of the Law ; when the contrary without any necessity compelleth a man to deny cleere reason and Scripture .

28. It may be obiected ; that since Idolatry hath been begun and maintained by Images , and since men are prone to forget God , and apply themselues wholy to corporall obiects , the secure way is to abandon Images , at the least in Churches . This is spoken without reason , or law ; Without law , for there can be none brought , since not Images , but Idols were the beginning and maintayning of Idolatry . Images I haue proued warrantable in holy Scripture . Without reason : for , whereas an Idol representeth nothing besides it selfe , and so is worshiped , an Image representeth a true thing , therefore moueth a man to a reuerence proportionable to the obiect represented Whence in reason an Idol occasioneth Idolatry not representing any further obiect whither our thoghts and honour may be transferred ; when contrarywise an Image of a true obiect necessarily draweth our minds , and reuerence to some thing besides it selfe : so that aske any simple Belieuer , whether he pray to an Image , or put any Confidence in it , he will say no ; aske him againe , when he is kneeling before a picture with his eyes fixed on it , whither he directs his prayers ? he will say to Christ , or some Saint . What hurt is there in this ? S. Mary Magdelen prostrate , kissed and bathed with her teares the feet of Christ : what iustified that act , but the vnion which those sacred feet had with his diuinity , which notwithstanding she saw not , but apprehended by fayth ? Though betweene Christ and his picture there be not so immediate connexion , yet a morall Connexion there is , such as betweene the King , and his Picture , Chayre of state , Embassadour &c. why then may not a Christian apprehend this connexion betweene Christ and his Image representing him , and accordingly exhibite due honour , without danger of Idolatry ?

Whether is holy Scripture , the only Rule of our Faith ?

29. HIther to I haue shewed , that supposing Scripture the only rule , beleefe is more secure , then deniall ; for both parties relying vpon the same Scripture , can neuer conuince ech others interpretation of falsity , as experience sufficiently sheweth , and probability at least must be supposed on both parts ; in which case finding no further euidence , prudence compelleth me to choose that part which is most remote from danger of Condemnation : Who will not betieue , shall be damned .

30. Now , that there may remayne no doubt at all , of the secure Choice of beliefe ; I will shew it consequent to reason , & holy Scripture , that we must admit of some other rule besides Scripture . If then beliefe be grounded not only vpon probable authority of Scripture ( wherin it is equal at the least with authority of Deniers or Disbelieuers ) but also vpon an other rule apparently knowne and seene , as it is fit for a rule to be , there can be no doubt of the security of beleefe .

31. And first , I suppose it is more then probable , or either Physically certaine , that there hath euer beene a Church , teaching and practizing those points of beliefe aforementioned , not sufficiently disproued in point of Continuance & incorruption in Doctrine , though the gates of Hell haue breathed forth all malice against it .

32. Secondly , I suppose holy Scripture as inspired by the holy Ghost to be a certaine rule of Christian beliefe ; yet for that it is certaine that al is not written that was deliuered by Christ , neither doth it any where say , that it is the infallible and sole word of God , and for that it is obscure , & doth not cleerly explicate it selfe , as it is manifest by experience ; it can not be an infallible rule for the deciding of contradictory opinions drawne from the same , though it alone may be a sufficient direction to let vs know what more securely may be belieued .

33. The question then is : Whether besides the Scripture , a Church also , as an vnpartiall Interpreter thereof , be to be admitted ; which is as much to say : Whether the common voice of a Church interpreting holy Scripture , be a more secure rule , then the voice of some particular men , whose priuate interpretations , as before I shewed , are not certaine proofes out of holy Scripture , but only probabilityes out of their owne iudgment : which notwithstanding , some will oblige all to admit as Scripture , and contemne the explication of an ancient Church .

34. For the negatiue part I find no cleere Scripture , but such texts as require hard interpretation , and which as much oppose the practice of the first Primitiue Church , then admitted as a doubtles rule , as it will appeare to any that shall consider them : You shall not ad a word . Deut. 4.2 . Search the Scriptures . Ioan. 5.39 . These things are written that you may belieue . Io. 20.31 . All Scripture diuinely inspired is profitable . Are not these places of as much force against the Primitiue Church ? Do they & the like say , that all truth is written ? or that what is written is diuine Scripture ? or that it needs no helpe of interpretation , no not of a Church but of priuate spirits ? What ground then doth there remaine for the inforcing of sole Scripture , as the only rule of our beliefe ?

35. For the affirmatiue part , we haue first , that Article of the Apostles Creed : I belieue the holy Catholique Church : How can we belieue the Church of Christ to be holy and Catholique , and doubt of Gods protection of it in point of true beliefe and Doctrine ?

36. Secondly , the authority of the Euangelists : Math. vlt. Teach all Nations &c. Behold I am with you euery day euen to the consummation of the world . Math. 18.17 . If he shall not heare the Church , let him be to thee as a heathen & publican . Luc. 10.16 . he that heareth you heareth me , and he that contemneth you contemneth me . Besides , the Church is called , the Pillar and firmament of truth . Tim. 3.15 . Light of the world . Math. 5.14 . Do not these texts probably point at a liuing rule ?

37. Thirdly , since Christ obligeth vs to a beliefe of his doctrine vnder paine of damnation , it is manifest that by some meanes he will make it appeare vnto vs ; but by Scripture alone it doth not sufficiently appeare , for by it we know not what is Scripture , nor which is the true sense of Scripture , els all would soone agree : therefore Scripture is not sufficient alone to deliuer vnto vs our sauing fayth . But the most vndoubted and indifferent Interpreter thereof is an vniuersall Church ; so as we may securely be ruled by it , interpreting the said Scripture , and cannot be reiected without danger of disbelieuing God's word .

Grant to disbelieuers probability of reason , yet their danger is certaine .

38. SOme may thinke , that this Discourse proueth Belieuers secure , but not that Dis belieuers are in certaine danger , if they be ruled according to the meanes and capacity God hath giuen them , and that such are not stubborne Deniers of truth , consequently secure inough . I grant , that inuincible ignorance may excuse Disbelieuers , as such , from sinne ; yet it followeth not that continuall and finall disbeliefe ( though inuincible ) can consist with grace necessary to Saluation : but this I dispute not , nor against these , but against such as do , or may discern a difference betweene beliefe & disbeliefe ; and who may see that the grounds of beliefe are at least probable , & the practice harmeles ; who finally know damnation to be denounced vpon disbelieuers : notwithstanding aduenture vpon the denying part , moued only by the same reasons , which they must suppose in confessed Heretiques . Let any one define what disbelieuer may be guilty of damnation , he shall find thereby , that either he shall condemne these Disbelieuers I speake of , or els conclude that there neuer haue been any .

39. Some againe may say , if the beliefe be supposed only probably true , then the denial is also supposed probable . I suppose neither probability in the negatiue part , nor only probability in the beliefe ; but shunning this dispute as endles , only out of the vndeniable probability for the beliefe , and the security therof , I conuince the danger of the denial .

40. But it may be replyed , that at least the Disbelieuer by this Discourse , iudging the beliefe but probable , may also iudge his owne probable , and consequently his danger also but probable . I answer , that notwithstanding the Disbelieuer thinke his opinion probable , he cannot iudge his danger only probable . For as probability in the Belieuer , where no hurt appeares , freeth him certainly from danger ; so the probability only , which the Disbeliener supposeth , leaueth him in certaine danger of disbelieuing what Christ hath reuealed : first , because his danger is certaine in the same degree as the beliefe is probable ; but the beliefe is certainly probable at the least in respect of the great authority of the belieuers ; therfore the Disbelieuers danger is also certaine , though he conceiue a probability of his disbeliefe . Secondly , because the disbeliefe is as certainly dangerous , as it is certainly not euident ( and more euidence is required to free the disbeliefe from danger then is necessary to free the beliefe ; this , though it were too much , contayning no hurt ) but the Dis-belieuers doctrine is certainly not euident , therefore it is certainly dangerous . The first proposition is cleere , for if there be not euidency for the disbeliefe the contrary ●hen may be true , consequently obli●ing to beliefe . The second Proposition , ●hat the Disbelieuers doctrine is not e●ident , appeareth by the nouelty , in●onstancy , disagreements , and other circumstances incident to it ; as also by ●he ouerswaying authority of the Belie●ers who want not any thing necessari●y required to a probability at least , as ●y reflexion any one may obserue ; nei●●her can the want of euidency , in the Articles denied , warrant the Disbelie●ers ; els who could belieue ? or rather who could be charged of heresy ? Whence ●he last Consequence of the Reply is ●alse , for thogh to some their disbeliefe nay seeme probable , out of a probable ●udgment , that Christ deliuered not such words , or in such a sense ; yet their ●anger is certaine , because the contrary ●eliefe is certainly probable at least , which may conuince them , that they ●eaue the secure beliefe , wherein there can be no danger , and choose that p●● whereon Christ's denunciation 〈◊〉 fall . Nor may this argument be retort● against Belieuers though their doctri● be supposed but probable , because their Beliefe there is contayned 〈◊〉 harme or danger as in the disbelieue● and danger knowne breedeth an ob●●gation of further inquiry , & remoue● all ignorance which only can excuse ●●rour in beliefe .

51. Againe it may be replyed , that a● this hindereth not , but that Disbel●uers may conceiue their disbeliefe pr●bable , consequently at least not impu●●ble to sinne , and therefore free fro● danger . I answere , that if a man co●ceiue his disbeliefe probable , he ha●● reason iustly to doubt , especially if h●● probability arise out of apprehensio● of probability in the contrary belie●● which alone maketh the disbeliefe da●gerous in practice : as if a man shou●● probably thinke Baptisme not necess●●ry for infants , he may not neglect 〈◊〉 since in this the danger is apparent : b● case inuincibly he conceiue his opi●on true , I medle not , as impertinent this purpose , and a metaphysicall case ●mongst vnderstanding men .

52. If it be asked , what degree of pro●ability Belieuers may be conceiued to ●aue ? I answer , that as great as can be ●or any thing . They haue Scripture , Tradition , Consent of Nations , reason , ●euer cleerely disproued as it is euident ; ●ince in numerable dayly answer all ob●ections made against them : or let any body set downe what is sufficient to make an opinion apparently probable , that he shall cleerly finde in the doctrine of Belieuers .

53. But Disbelieuers will say , that they belieue in God's word , and deny only what they find not contayned in it . This is not in question ; and who will not belieue God's word ? The Diuels ( as S. Iames witnesseth ) belieue and tremble : the question is , whether they disbelieue nothing , or by their denials put not themselues in danger of denying what is sufficiently deliuered as God's word , forging or reiecting it accord 〈◊〉 to the Touchstone of their fancy . N●ther is it in question , whether what 〈◊〉 mighty God hath reuealed in Script● ought to be belieued ; but what God ha●● reuealed : and this is not only the wri●ten word , but the sense , which we ●●ceiue , not perfectly from the bare lette● but by the helpe of prudent rule which to reiect is dangerous , especial● on their part that deny Articles prob●●bly deliuered .

54. In Conclusion of this Chapter , will answere one obiection , by man esteemed a secure Quietus est ; They say God obligeth not men to impossibl● ties : since then at least the vulgar sort o● people cannot discerne those differe●ces , wherein learned men do disagree●ech one may securely rest in that religion he is taught , belieuing the Cree● &c. This Discourse supposeth holy Scripture the only rule of beliefe : about th● true sense whereof , since it is euiden● learned men do not agree , and no priuate man can be Iudge betweene thes● differences , it is manifest that who relyeth only vpon Scripture , cannot be secure that his disbeliefe is true , or that he refuse not to belieue what he is commanded to belieue vnder paine of damnation . To say , that euery one may securely belieue according as he vnderstands , is but a desperate shift and concludeth an impossibility of any heresie . The obiection then conuinceth the necessity of a Church as a liuing rule ; for God obligeth vs not to impossibilities ; but it is impossible for any to discerne the monstrous differences of priuate mens interpretations of God's word : Therefore he obligeth not to the beliefe of his word vpon these priuate interpretations : But he obligeth vs to belieue ; therfore by some other way then by Scripture alone , he maketh it possible : this can be no other but the Church .