me that when their Divines say that Infidels shall not bâ— damned for their Infidelity where the Gospel hath not been sufficiently proposed to them and no Christian for not believing any Article of Faith till it be so proposed that we must be damned for not believing the Articles of the Roman Faith which never have been and never can be sufficiently proposed to us Methinks such men should Study a little better their own Doctrine about the sufficient Proposal of matters of Faith before they pass such uncharitable and unlearned Censures XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances HIS Discourse on this Head is against those who refuse to obey their Superiours in things not expressed in Scripture which is no part of our Controversy with them But yet there are several things about their Ceremonies we are not satisfied in As 1. The mighty Number of them which have so much mussled up the Sacraments that their true face cannot be discerned 2. The Efficacy attributed to them without any promise from God whereas we own no more but decency and significancy 3. The Doctrine that goes along with them not only of Obedience but of Merit and some have asserted the Opus Operatum of Ceremonies as well as Sacraments when the Power of the Keys goes along with them i. e. when there hath been some Act of the Church exercised about the Matter of them as in the Consecration of Oyl Salt Bread Ashes Water c. XXXVII Of Innovation in matters of Faith THE Substance of his Discourse on this Head may be reduced to these things 1. That the Church in every Age hath Power to declare what is necessary to be believed with Anathema to those who Preach the Contrary and so the Council of Trent in declaring Transubstantiation Purgatory c. to be necessary Articles did no more than the Church had done before on like Occasions 2. That if the Doctrines then defined had been Innovations they must have met with great Opposition when they were introduced 3. That those who charged those points to be Innovations might as well have laid the scandal on any other Article of Faith which they retained These are things necessary to be examined in order to the making good the charge of Innovation in matters of Faith which we believe doth stand on very good Grounds 1. We are to consider Whether the Council of Trent had equal Reason to define the necessity of these Points as the Council of Nice and Constantinople had to determin the point of the Trinity or those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the Truth of Christ's Incarnation He doth not assert it to be in the Churches Power to make new Articles of Faith as they do imply new Doctrines revealed but he contends earnestly That the Church hath a Power to declare the necessity of believing some points which were not so declared before And if the Necessity of believing doth depend upon the Churches Declaration then he must assert that it is in the Churches Power to make points necessary to be believed which were not so and consequently to make common Opinions to become Articles of Faith But I hope we may have leave to enquire in this Case since the Church pretends to no new Revelation of matters of Doctrine therefore it can declare no more than it receives and no otherwise than it receives And so nothing can be made necessary to Salvation but what God himself hath made so by his Revelation So that they must go in their Declaration either upon Scripture or Universal Tradition but if they define any Doctrine to be necessary without these Grounds they exceed their Commission and there is no Reason to submit to their Decrees or to believe their Declarations To make this more plain by a known Instance It is most certain that several Popes and Councils have declared the Deposing Doctrine and yet our Author saith It is no Article of Faith with him Why not since the Popes and Councils have as evidently delivered it as the Council of Trent hath done Purgatory or Transubstantiation But he may say There is no Anathema joined to it Suppose there be not But why may it not be as well as in the other Cases And if it were I would know whether in his Conscience he would then believe it to be a necessary Article of Faith though he believed that it wanted Scripture and Tradition If not then he sees what this matter is brought to viz. That altho the Council of Trent declare these new Doctrines to be necessary to be believed yet if their Declaration be not built no Scripture and Universal Tradition we are not bound to receive it 2. As to the impossibility of Innovations coming in without notorious opposition I see no ground at all for it where the alteration is not made at once but proceeds gradually He may as well prove it impossible for a Man to fall into a Dropsy or a Hectick-Fever unless he can tell the punctual time when it began And he may as well argue thus Such a Man fell into a Fever upon a great Debauch and the Physicians were presently sent for to advise about him therefore the other Man hath no Chronical Distemper because he had no Physicians when he was first sick as because Councils were called against some Heresies and great Opposition made to them therefore where there is not the like there can be no Innovation But I see no Reason why we should decline giving an Account by what Degrees and Steps and upon what Occasions and with what Opposition several of the Doctrines defined at Trent were brought in For the matter is not so obscure as you would make it as to most of the Points in difference between us But that is too large a Task to be here undertaken 3. There is no Colour for calling in Question the Articles of Faith received by us on the same Grounds that we reject those defined by the Council of Trent for we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Apostles Creed and of the Four General Councils for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation who never pretended to determin any Point to be necessary which was not revealed in Scripture whose sense was delivered down by the Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles times But the Council of Trent proceeded by a very different Rule for it first set up an Unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith as well as the Written which although it were necessary in order to their Decrees was one of the greatest Innovations in the World and the Foundation of all the rest as they were there established An Answer to the CONCLUSION HAving thus gone through the several Heads which our Author complains have been so much Misrepresented it is now fit to consider what he saith in his Conclusion which he makes to answer his Introduction by renewing therein his doleful Complaints of their being Misrepresented just as
We see no ground why any one should believe any Doctrine with a stedfast and Divine Faith which is not bottom'd on the Written Word for then his Faith must be built on the Testimony of the Church as Divine and Infallibe or else his Faith cannot be Divine But it is impossible to prove it to be Divine and Infallible but by the Written Word and therefore as it is not reasonable that he should believe the Written Word by such a Divine Testimony of the Church so if any particular Doctrine may be received on the Authority of the Church without the Written Word then all Articles of Faith may and so there would be no need of the Written Word 4. The Faith of Christians doth no otherwise stand upon the Foundation of the Churches Tradition than as it delivers down to us the Books of Scripture but we acknowledg the general Sense of the Chrstian Church to be a very great help for understanding the true sense of Scripture and we do not reject any thing so delivered but what is all this to the Church of Rome But this is still the way of true Representing XVI Of Councils 1. WE are glad to find so good a Resolution as seems to be expressed in these words viz. That he is obliged to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defined and commanded to be believed even by Ten Thousand Councils he believes it damnable in any one to receive it and by such Decrees to make Additions to his Creed This seems to be a very good Saying and it is pity any thing else should overthrow it But here lies the Misrepresenting he will believe what Christ and his Apostles taught from the Definitions of Councils and so all this goodly Fabrick falls to nothing for it is but as if one should say If Aristotle should falsly deliver Plato's sense I will never believe him but I am resolved to take Plato's sense only from Aristotle's Words So here he first declares he will take the Faith of Christ from the Church and then he saith if the Church Representative should contradict the Faith of Christ he would never believe it 2. We dispute not with them the Right and Necessity of General Councils upon great occasions if they be truly so rightfully called lawfully assembled and fairly managed which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming abuses And we farther say that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions Which was the fatal stumbling at the Threshold in the Council of Trent and was not to be recovered afterwards for their setting up Traditions equally with the Written Word made it easie for them to define and as easie for all others to reject their Definitions in case there had not been so many other Objections against the Proceedings of that Council And so all our Dispute concerning this matter is taken off from the general Notion and runs into the particular Debate concerning the Qualifications and Proceedings of some which were called Free General Councils but were neither General nor Free and therefore could not deliver the sense of the Catholick Church which our Author requires them to do XVII Of Infallibility in the Church 1. HE doth not pretend this belongs to the Pastors and Prelates of his Church who may fall he saith into Heresie and Schism but that the whole Church is secured by Divine Promises from all Error and Danger of Prevarication which he proves from the Promises of the New Testament Mat. 16. 18 28. 20. John 14. 16 26. But however the former seems to take away Infallibility from the Guides of the Church yet that this is to be understood of them separately appears by what follows 2. The like Assistance of the Holy Ghost he believes to be in all General Councils which is the Church Representative by which they are specially protected from all error in all definitions and declarations in matters of Faith Now here are two sorts of Infallibility tacked to one another by vertue of these general Promises which ought more distinctly to be considered 1. To preserve Christs Church so as it shall never cease to be a Church is one thing to preserve it from all Error is another The former answers the End of Christs Promises as to the Duration of the Church and the latter is not implied in them 2. The promise of teaching them all Truth Joh. 16. 13. is not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles And their case was so peculiar and extraordinary that there can be no just inference from the assistance promised to them of what the Church should enjoy in all Ages 3. If the diffusive Church have no infallible Assistance promised then no infallible Assistance can from thence be proved for the Church Representative so that some particular Promises to the Guides of the Church as assembled together are necessary to prove the Infallibility of Councils 4. It by no means proves following Councils to be Infallible because the Apostles said Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Our Author doth not doubt but the same may be prefixed to all determinations in point of Faith resolved on by any General Council lawfully assembled since that time or to be held to the Worlds end But what Reason he had for not doubting in this matter I cannot see the Assistance he saith being to extend as far as the Promise But shall Assistance imply Infallibility Then there must be good store as long as the Promises of Divine Grace hold good But this Assistance of Councils is very different from the Assistance of Grace for the Church may subsist without Councils but cannot without Grace What General Council was there from the meeting Acts 15. to the Council of Nice Were not Christs Promises fulfilled to his Church all that time when it encreased in all parts against the most violent Opposition 5. No Parity of Reason from the Jewish Church can be sufficient Proof for Infallibility in the Christian. But our Author argues thus If Gods special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Jews so as to let it fail in the Truth of its Doctrine or its Authority Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which is built on better Promises What special Assistance was it which Israel had when it is said that for a long time Israel had been without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without Law And as to Judah was there no failing in point of Doctrine in our Saviours time It is true they had the Law intire and that was all that was good among them for their Teachers had corrupted themselves and the People and
adored because it was instituted to be received This cannot be otherwise understood than as relating to the Sacrament and so that whatever it be must be granted to be the Object of Adoration By the Sacrament saith Cardinal Pallavicini is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ and the Accidents The Worship then being confessed to be Adoration which is due to God alone and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object the Question now is Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament doth justify that Adoration Our Author saith He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine p. 9. Then I say by his own confession if it be only Bread he commits Idolatry for the Adoration he cannot deny But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions which to the People sound very well but have no sincere meaning for what is it he understands by his Breaden God If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread we do not charge him with it but if it be what we believe it to be the Substance of Bread but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it All that can excuse them is the Supposition and whether that will or not is now to be consider'd 1. If it be not true themselves grant it to be Idolatry The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher and Costerus are so well known to the purpose that I shall not repeat them And Catharinus a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host altho the Person through a Mistake believes it Consecrated And he quotes St. Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion and gives this Reason for it because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament but as he is under the Species and therefore if he be not so present a Creature hath Divine Worship given it As those were guilty of Idolatry who worshipped any Creatures of old supposing God to be there as that he was the Soul of the World They were not excused saith he that they thought they worshipped but one God because they worshipped him as present in such a manner as he was not And this Book of his he saith in the Review of it was seen and approved by the Pope's Order by their Divines at Paris 2. If the Bread were taken to be God our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry for that were to worship a breaden God Yet here would be a Mistake and a gross one yet the Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry as he confesses Why then should the other Mistake excuse them when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there but the Body of Christ to be under the Species Yes say they then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship But when the Bread is supposed to be God it must be supposed not to be a Creature There is no Answer to be given in this Case but that the Bread really is a Creature whatsoever they imagined and if this Mistake did not excuse neither can the other 2. Of Transubstantiation Three Things our Author goes upon with respect to this 1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it 2. He shews the possibility of it from God's Omnipotency 3. He argues against the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case from some parallel Instances as he thinks 1. He believes Jesus Christ made his words good pronounced at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful words changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests This is a very easy way of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation And from no better Ground to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock a Vine a Door because the words are every jot as clear and then call in God's Omnipotency which is as effectual to make them good I confess these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation that if I had never heard of it I should never have thought of it from these or any other words of Scripture i. e. not barely considering the sound of words but the Eastern Idioms of speaking the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body without any Objection made against it by his Disciples The Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh and withal if these words be literally and strictly understood they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words and the strict Rules of Interpretation Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd for then all that can be infer'd from these words is that when Christ spake these words The Bread was his Body But either Christ meant the Bread by This or he did not if he did the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal Sense if he did not then by virtue of these words the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant when Christ said This is my Body This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation But several Divines of the Church of Rome understood themselves better and have confessed That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words as it were easy to shew if it had not been lately done already It is enough here to observe that Vasquez confesseth it of Scotus Durandus Paludanus Ockam Cameracensis and himself yields that they do not and cannot signify expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can This is my Body literally signify this is changed into my Body If that Proposition were literally true This is my Body it overthrows the change For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already 2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency can make his Words good We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency but we may their familiar way of making use of it
Author who complains so much of Misrepresenting allows and I have in short set down how little ground we have to be fond of it nay to speak more plainly it is that we can never yield to without betraying the Truth renouncing our Senses and Reason wounding our Consciences dishonouring God and his Holy Word and Sacraments perverting the Doctrine of the Gospel as to Christs Satisfaction Intercession and Remission of Sins depriving the People of the Means of Salvation which God himself hath appointed and the Primitive Church observed and damning those for whom Christ died We do now in the sincerity of our Hearts appeal to God and the World That we have no design to Misrepresent them or to make their Doctrines and Practises appear worse than they are But take them with all the Advantages even this Author hath set them out with we dare appeal to the Judgments and Consciences of any impartial men whether the Scripture being allowed on both sides our Doctrines be not far more agreeable thereto than the new Articles of Trent which are the very Life and Soul of Popery Whother our Worship of God be not more suitable to the Divine Nature and Perfections and the Manifestations of his Will than the Worship of Images and Invocation of Fellow-Creatures Whether the plain Doctrine of the necessity of Repentance and sincere Obedience to the Commands of Christ do not tend more to promote Holiness in the VVorld than the Sacrament of Penance as it is delivered and allowed to be practised in the Church of Rome i. e. with the easiness and efficacy of Absolution and getting off the remainders by Indulgences Satisfactions of others and Prayers for the dead VVhether it be not more according to the Institution of Christ to have the Communion in both Kinds and to have Prayers and the Scriptures in a Language which the People understand And lastly whether there be not more of Christian charity in believing and hoping the best of those vast bodies of Christians who live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome in the Eastern Southern Western and Northern Parts than to pronounce them all uncapable of Salvation on that Account And therefore out of regard to God and the Holy Religion of our Blessed Saviour out of regard to the Salvation of our own and others Souls we cannot but very much prefer the Communion of our own Church before that of the Church of Rome But before I conclude all I must take some notice of his Anathema's And here I am as much unsatisfied as in any other part of his Book and that for these Reasons 1. Because he hath no manner of Authority to make them suppose they were meant never so sincerely And if we should ever object them to any others of that Church they would presently say What had he to do to make Anathema's It belongs only to the Church and the General Councils to pronounce Anethema's and not to any private Person whatsoever So that if he would have published Anathema's with Authority he ought to have printed those of the Council of Trent viz. such as these Cursed is he that doth not allow the Worship of Images Cursed is he that saith Saints are not to be invocated Cursed is he that dotb not believe Transubstantiation Purgatory c. 2. Because he leaves out an Anathema in a very material point viz. As to the Deposing Doctrine We do freely and from our Hearts Anathematize all such Doctrines as tend to dissolve the Bonds of Allegiance to our Soveraign on any pretence whatsoever Why was this past over by him without any kind of Anathema Since he seems to approve the Oxford Censures p. 48. Why did he not here show his zeal against all such dangerous Doctrines If the Deposing Doctrine be falsly charged upon their Church let us but once see it Anathematized by publick Authority of their Church and we have done But in stead thereof we find in a Book very lately published with great approbations by a present Professor at Lovain Fr. D' Enghien all the Censures on the other side censured and despised and the holding the Negative as to the Deposing Doctrine is declared by him to be Heresie or next to Heresie The Censure of the Sorbon against Sanctarellus he saith was only done by a Faction and that of Sixty Eight Doctors there were but Eighteen Present and the late Censure of the Sorbon he saith was condemned by the Inquisition at Toledo Jan. 10. 1683. as erroneous and Schismatical and so by the Clergy of Hungary Oct. 24. 1682. VVe do not question but there are Divines that oppose it but we fear there are too many who do not and we find they boast of their own numbers and despise the rest as an inconsiderable Party This we do not Misrepresent them in for their most approved Books do shew it However we do not question but there are several Worthy and Loyal Gentlemen of that Religion of different Principles and Practises And it is pity such be not distinguished from those who will not renounce a Doctrine so dangerous in the Consequences of it 3. Because the Anathema's he hath set down are not Penned so plainly and clearly as to give any real Satisfaction but with so much Art and Sophistry as if they were intended to beguile weak and unwary Readers who see not into the depth of these things and therefore may think he hath done great matters in his Anathema's when if they be strictly examined they come to little or nothing as 1. Cursed is he that commits Idolatry An unwary Reader would think herein he disowned all that he accuses of Idolatry but he doth not curse any thing as Idolatry but what himself thinks to be so So again Cursed is he not that gives Divine Worship to Images but that prays to Images or Relicks as Gods or Worships them for Gods So that if he doth not take the Images themselves for Gods he is safe enough from his own Anathema 2. Cursed is every goddess worshipper i. e. That believes the Blessed Virgin not to be a Creature And so they escape all the force of this Anathema Cursed is he that Honours her or puts his trust in her more than in God So that if they Honour her and trust in her but just as much as in God they are safe enough Or that believes her to be above her Son But no Anathema to such as suppose her to be equal to him 3. Cursed is he that believes the Saints in Heaven to be his Redeemer that prays to them as such VVhat if men pray to them as their Spiritual Guardians and Protectors Is not this giving Gods Honour to them Doth this deserve no Anathema 4. Cursed is he that worships any breaden God or makes God of the empty Elements of Bread and Wine viz. That supposes them to be nothing but Bread and Wine and yet supposes them to be Gods too Doth not this look like nonsense
put into their hands XIII Of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith THE only thing insisted on here is That it is not the Words but the Sense of Scripture is the Rule and that this Sense is not to be taken from mens private Fancies which are various and uncertain and therefore where there is no security from Errors there is nothing capable of being a Rule To clear this we must consider 1. That it is not necessary to the making of a Rule to prevent any possibility of mistake but that it be such that they cannot mistake without their own fault For Certainty in it self and Sufficiency for the use of others are all the necessary Properties of a Rule but after all it 's possible for men not to apply the Rule aright and then they are to be blamed and not the Rule 2. If no men can be certain of the right sense of Scripture then it is not plain in necessary things which is contrary to the Design of it and to the clearest Testimonies of Antiquity and to the common sense of all Christians who never doubted or disputed the sense of some things revealed therein as the Unity of the Godhead the making of the World by him the Deluge the History of the Patriarchs the Captivity of the Jews the coming of the Messias his sending his Apostles his coming again to Judgment c. No man who reads such things in Scripture can have any doubt about the sense and meaning of the Words 3. Where the sense is dubious we do not allow any Man to put what sense he please upon them but we say there are certain means whereby he may either attain to the true Sense or not be damned if he do not And the first thing every man is to regard is not his security from being deceived but from being damned For Truth is made known in order to Salvation if therefore I am sure to attain the chief end I am not so much concerned as to the possibility of Errors as that I be not deceived by my own fault We do not therefore leave men either to follow their own fancy or to Interpret Scripture by it but we say They are bound upon pain of Damnation to seek the Truth sincerely and to use the best means in order to it and if they do this they either will not err or their Errors will not be their Crime XIV Of the Interpretation of Scripture 1. THE Question is not Whether Men are not bound to make use of the best means for the Right Interpretation of Scripture by Reading Meditation Prayer Advice a humble and teachable temper c. i. e. all the proper means fit for such an end but whether after all these there be a necessity of submitting to some Infallible Judge in order to the attaining the certain sense of Scripture 2. The Question is not Whether we ought not to have a mighty regard to the sense of the whole Christian Church in all Ages since the Apostles which we profess to have but whether the present Roman Church as it stands divided from other Communions hath such a Right and Authority to interpret Scripture that we are bound to believe that to be the Infallible sense of Scripture which she delivers And here I cannot but take notice how strangely this matter is here Misrepresented for the Case is put 1. As if every one who rejects their pretence of Infallibility had nothing to guide him but his own private Fancy in the Interpretation of Scripture 2. As if we rejected the sense put upon Scripture by the whole Community of Christians in all Ages since the Apostles times Whereas we appeal in the matters in difference between us to this universal sense of the Christian Church and are verily perswaded they cannot make it out in any one point wherein we differ from them And themselves cannot deny that in several we have plainly the consent of the first Ages as far as appears by the Books remaining on our side as in the Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Papal Supremacy Communion in both kinds Prayer and Scripture in known Tongues and I may safely add the Sufficiency of Scripture Transubstantiation Auricular Confession Publick Communions Solitary Masses to name no more But here lies the Artifice we must not pretend to be capable of Judging either of Scripture or Tradition but we must trust their Judgment what is the sense of Scripture and what hath been the Practice of the Church in all Ages although their own Writers confess the contrary which is very hard But he seems to argue for such a submission to the Church 1. Because we receive the Book of Scripture from her therefore from her we are to receive the sense of the Book An admirable Argument We receive the Old Testament from the Jews therefore from them we are to receive the sense of the Old Testament and so we are to reject the true Messias But this is not all if by the Church they mean the Church of Rome in distinction from others we deny it if they mean the whole Christian Church we grant it but then the force of it is quite lost But why is it not possible for the Church of Rome to keep these Writings and deliver them to others which make against her self Do not persons in Law-Suits often produce Deeds which make against them But there is yet a farther Reason it was not possible for the Church of Rome to make away these Writings being so universally spread 2. Because the Church puts the difference between true and false Books therefore that must be trusted for the true sense of them Which is just as if one should argue The Clerks of the Rolls are to give an account to the Court of true Records therefore they are to sit on the Bench and to give Judgment in all Causes The Church is only to declare what it finds as to Canonical Books but hath no Power to make any Book Canonical which was not before received for such But I confess Stapleton saith the Church if it please may make Hermes his Pastor and Clemens his Constitutions Canonical but I do not think our Author will therein follow him XV. Of Tradition 1. THE Question is not about Human Traditions supplying the Defects of Scripture as he misrepresents it but whether there be an Unwritten Word which we are equally bound to receive with the Written Word Altho these things which pass under that Name are really but Humane Traditions yet we do not deny that they pretend them to be of Divine Original 2. We do not deny but the Apostles might deliver such things by Word as well as by Epistle which their Disciples were bound to believe and keep but we think there is some difference to be made between what we certainly know they delivered in Writing and what it is now impossible for us to know viz. what they delivered by Word without Writing 3.