ftand; which is never likely to end any Controverfie: and yet they cannot quit an infallible Interpreter, without granting, that we may understand the Scriptures without fuch an Interpreter; which is to give up the Caufe of Infallibility.

2. One principal Difpute between us and the Church of Rome, is about this infallible Interpreter; and they know, that we will not own fuch an Interpreter, unlefs they can prove from Scripture, that there is such an one, and who he is. The inquiry then is, How we fhall learn from Scripture, that there is fuch an infallible Interpreter? that is, who fhall Expound thofe Scriptures to us, which must prove that there is an infallible Interpreter ? if without an infallible Interpreter we cannot find out the true fence of Scripture, how fhall we know the true fence of Scripture, before we know this infallible Interpreter? For an Interpreter, how infallible foever he be, cannot interpret Scripture for us, before we know him; and if we must know this infallible Interpreter by Scripture, we must at least understand these Scriptures, which direct us to this infallible Interpreter, without his affiftance. So that of neceffity fome Scriptures must be understood without an infallible Interpreter, and therefore he is not neceffary for the Interpretation of all Scripture: And then I defire to know, why other Scripturesmay not be understood the fame way, by which we must find out the meaning of those Texts which direct us to an infallible Interpreter? There are a hundred places of Scripture, which our Adverfaries must grant, are as plain and eafie to be understood, as those: And we believe it as eafie a matter to find all the other Trent-Articles in Scripture, as the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. If ever there needed an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, it is to prove fuch an infallible

Inter

Interpreter from Scripture; but upon this occafion he cannot be had, and if we may make fhift without him here, we may as well spare him in all other cafes.

3. Suppofe we were fatisfied from Scripture, that there is fuch an infallible Interpreter, yet it were worth knowing, where his infallible Interpretation is to be found; for if there be fuch an Interpreter who never Interprets, I know not how either they or we fhall understand Scripture the better for him: Now, have either Popes or General Councils given us an authentick and infallible Expofition of Scripture? I know of none fuch : all the Expofitions of Scripture in the Church of Rome, are writ by private Doctors, who were far enough from being infallible; and the business of General Councils, was not to expound Scripture, but to define Articles of Faith: and therefore we find the fenfe of very few Texts of Scripture Synodically defined by any General Council; I think, not above four or five by the Council of Trent. So that after all their talk of an infallible Interpreter, when they undertake to expound particular Texts, and to dispute with us about the fenfe of them, they have no more Infallibility in this, than we have; for if they have an infallible Interpreter, they are never the better for him, for he has not given them an infallible Interpretation, and therefore they are forced to do as Proteftants do, interpret Scripture according to their own skill and understanding, which, I fuppofe, they will not fay, is infallible.

But you'll fay, though the Church has not given us an infallible. Interpretation of Scripture, yet the has given us an infallible Expofition of the Faith, and that is an infallible Rule for expounding Scripture. I anfwer, there is a vaft difference between these two: for our dispute is not about the fenfe of their Church, but about the

fence of the Scripture; we know what Doctrines their Church has defined, but we defire to see them proved from Scripture: And is it not a very modeft and pleafant propofal, when the Dispute is, how their Faith agrees with Scripture, to make their Faith the Rule of expounding Scripture? Though, I confefs, that is the only way I know of, to make their Faith and the Scriptures agree; but this brings the Scripture to their Faith, does not prove their Faith from Scripture.

II. As for expounding Scripture by the unanimous confent of Primitive Fathers: This is indeed the Rule which the Council of Trent gives, and which their Doctors swear to observe; how well they keep this Oath, they ought to confider. Now as to this, you may tell them, that you would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous Confent of Fathers, could you tell how to know it; and therefore in the first place you defire to know the agreement of how many Fathers makes an unanimous Confent: for you have been told, that there have been as great variety in Interpreting Scripture among the ancient Fathers, as among our modern Interpreters; that there are very few, if any controverted Texts of Scripture, which are interpreted by an unanimous Confent of all the Fathers. If this unanimous Confent then fignifie all the Fathers, we shall be troubled to find such a Confent in expounding Scripture; must it then be the unanimous Consent of the greatest number of Fathers? This will be a very hard thing, especially for unlearned men to tell Noses: we can know the Opinion onely of those Fathers who were the Writers in every Age, and whose Writings have been preserved down to us; and who can tell, whether the major number of those Fathers who did not write, or whofe Writings are loft, were of the fame mind with those whofe Writings we have?

and

and why maft the major part be always the wifest and best men? and if they were not, the Confent of a few wife men, is to be preferred before great numbers of other Expofitors.

Again, ask them, whether these Fathers were Infallible or Traditionary Expofitors of Scripture, or whether they expounded Scripture according to their own private Reason and Judgment: if they were Infallible Expofitors, and delivered the Traditionary fence and interpretation of Scripture, it is a little ftrange, how they hould differ in their Expofitions of Scripture, and as ftrange how private Doctors and Bifhops fhould in that Age come to be Infallible, and how they fhould lose it in this; for now Infallibility is confined to the Bishop of Rome, and a General Council. If they were not Infallible Expofitors, how comes their Interpretations of Scripture to be fo facred, that it must not be oppofed? Nay, how comes an Infallible Church to prefcribe fuch a Fallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures? If they expounded Scripture, according to their own Reafon and Judgment, as it is plain they did; then their Authority is no more facred than their Reafon is; and those are the best Expositors, whether Ancient or Modern, whofe Expofitions are backed with the beft Reasons. We think it a great confirmation of our Faith, that the Fathers of the Church in the first and best Ages did believe the fame Doctrines, and expound Scripture in great and concerning points, much to the fanie fence that we do; and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them, but yet we do not wholly build our Faith upon the Authority of the Fathers; we forfake them where they forfake the Scriptures, or put perverfe fences on them; and fo does the Church of Rome too, after all their boast of the Fathers, when they contradict the prefent Roman-Catholick

Faith,

Faith, as they do very often, though I believe without any malicious defign, because they knew nothing of it.

However, ask them once more, whether that fence which they give of those Texts of Scripture, which are controverted between us and the Church of Rome, be confirmed by the unanimous confent of all the ancient Fathers: whether, for inftance, all the ancient Fathers did expound those Texts, Thou art Peter, and on this Rock will I build my Church, and feed my Sheep, &c. of the perfonal Supremacy and Infallibility of Peter and his Succeffors the Bishops of Rome?. Whether they all expounded those words, This is my Body, of the Tranfubftantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Chrift? and those words, Drink ye all of this, to fignifie, Let none drink of the Cup but the Priest who confecrates? and fo in other Scriptures. If they have the confidence to say, that all the Fathers expounded these and fuch-like Scriptures, as the Doctors of the Church of Rome now do, tell them, you have heard and feen other Expofitions of fuch Scriptures cited from the ancient Fathers by our Divines, and that you will refer that caufe to them, and have it tried whenever they please.

III. There is no other way then left of understanding Scripture, but to expound it as we do other Writings; by confidering the fignification and propriety of words, and phrases, the fcope and context of the place, the reafons of things, the Analogie between the Old and New Teftament, and the like: When they difpute with Protestants, they can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture, because we admit of no other; and yet if they allow of this, they open a wide Gap for all Herefies to come into the Church; they give up the Authority of the Church, and make every man his

own