The Nullity of the Romish Faith, Appendix (1 of 2)

The Nullity of the Romish Faith · Appendix (1 of 2)

p. 1An APPENDIX by way of reflection upon Captain Robert Everards EPISTLE, and account of his Conversion and Submission to the Romish Church; and M^r Cressy's EXOMOLOGESIS.

SInce the finishing of the foregoing Treatise, I was told of an Epistolary Discourse of Captaine Everards, and withall that the substance of it was fully Answered by what I had there discussed, onelyonly it was convenient to accommodate the passages relating thereto to the severall parts of his Epistle: Upon this sugestion I procured the Epistle it selfe as enlarged in the second Edition, and diligently read it once or twice over: And I confesse I was at first dubious whether I should take any notice of it, partly because I saw it was nothing but a collection out of others (as he most properly calls it) and a repetition of those old Sophismes, that have been answered and exploded an hundred times over, and partly because I discerned by the spirit of the man, and the frame of his Discourse, and the circumstances of his change, that there was no likelihood at all of retriving and reclaiming him, how cleare and irresistible soever the evidence and arguments were that should be produced. He that hath but half an Eye may see a designe in the whole management of the change: And although he assures us with a teste me ipso, that he is not biassed by worldly interests, and private ends, he must allow discreet persons the liberty of their p. 2Faith in that particular, and not take it amisse, if seeing the feeblenesse of his Arguments, and their insufficiency for the producing of such a change, they suspect it was done by the power of interest, which is so secret an affaire, and its methods so crypticall, and the waies of serving it so various, that no wise man will believe it impossible, and I am sure the contexture of his Discourse, and the manner of his p…ocesse doth not render it at all incredible: And these considerations inclined me to silence: But on the other side when I considered, that the hand of Ioab sufficiently appeares in the penning of this Epistle, that it was a collection of the strength of more Learned Writers, and a conjunction of abler heads then his own, who were resolved in this occasion and instance, to represent what could in briefe be said to perswade unsetled persons to change their Religion; and (whatever other mens opinions are) what a reverend esteem the Author hath of it, who tels us he saw reason enough to believe it could not be Answered pag. 88. and that he challengeth it as a piece of justice to shew him his errors; I thought it not amisse to take some notice of it, knowing that if what I should say were unsuccessefull to him, yet it would not be unacc…ptable to God, (since we are a sweet savour of God in them that believe and in them that perish) and that if I were not an instrument of Gods mercy to him, in reducing him to the truth from which he hath revolted, yet I should be an instrument of Gods Justice, and a witnesse on Gods behalfe to leave him without excuse.

In one thing I must crave Mr Everards pardon, if I do not take his Counsell in Answering him foreign and setting down each of his Paragraphs before the severall Answers: It is a course which I confesse I do not approve of in the answering of other Authors, because it runs a man into personall contests, and petite animad▪ p. 3versions, and catching at little advantages, and so expends the answerers paines, and the readers patience, and the buyers mony to no purpose, and if I did like it in some others, yet really he must excuse me if I do not esteem him so classicall an Author, nor his Epistle so weighty a Discourse, as to deserve such solemne consideration: Yet this I shall promise him (and I call God to witnesse it) that I shall not wilfully decline any part of it, wherein his strength may lie, but shall indeavour to the utmost of my poor skill, to single out such things as are most plausible and considerable, and such, as if they be solidly Answered, the rest will fall of course, or need no further trouble.

What I have to say, I shall reduce to two heads. 1. Personall. 2. Dogmaticall. The first I shall passe over in few words, because it concernes not the merits of the cause, and yet it is not convenient wholly to neglect it, because it is set forth foreign, and M^r Everard (whom I would by no meanes deprive of his due praise) hath shewed wit and art in it, something therefore must be said to disabuse such as are too apt to be deceived with good words and faire speeches, and the influence of examples: And if there be some seeming harshnesse in my expressions, it must not be ascribed to my temper (which my friends will assoyle me from) or principles, or hatred of M^r Everard, (a person known to me nec beneficio, nec injuriâ) but to the discharge of my duty (which is to rebuke such as he is foreign sharply) and the necessary caution of others; My personall reflections shall onelyonly be two, The first upon the quality of the person; The second, The occasion and manner of the change.

1. As for the quality of the person, I must confesse I am not at all surprized with the Apostacy (for so I must …all it with S^t Paul, 1 Tim. 4.1. and 2 Thes. 2.3.) of a person p. 4of his character, as we have it drawn by his own pen, pag. 4. When I profest my selfe against Infant-Baptisme, I had run through almost (if not altogether) all the severall Professions of Christianity then appearing in this Kingdome. It is no new thing that a giddy headed man should get a fall: It is no more then was long since foretold, and this day in this person those Scriptures are fulfilled which tell us, that the unlearned and unstable should wrest the Scripture (as this Epistler most horribly doth) to their own destruction, 2 Pet. 3.16. That such as received not the Truth in the love of it, should be given up to strong delusions to believe lies, 2 Thes. 2.10, 11. that such as were …ver learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth should be led away, 2 Tim. 3.6, 7. that evill men and seducers (as he now acknowledgeth he was) should wax worse and worse, deceiving and b…ing deceived, vers. 13. that unstable soules should be beguiled, 2 Pet. 2.19.

It is not at all strange, that he that despised the persons, vilified the function, contemned and forsook the guidance of able and faithfull Protestant Ministers, by whom he might have been easily antidoted against this Infection, should be betrayed into the hands of Romish Priests: It is not strange that he that loved to wander should antiquum obtinere, and having passed thorough all the varieties which England affords, should gratify his temper and follow his inclinations to see what newes at Rome: In the meane time it concernes all Protestants, and especially persons of the same complexion and condition, with fear and reverence to behold the just and tremendous judgment of God upon unsetled and unstable Christians, and such as are given to change, whilest they see these smaller rivulets of lesser errors leading to the dead Sea of damnable delusions: And as we have many wofull instances of poore deluded Soules, that having wandred from party to party, from opinion to opinion, p. 5from congregation to congregation, have at last been swallowed up, some in the gulfe of downright Atheisme, others of the besotting dotages of the Quakers; so we have here an instance of one, whom the same wildnesse and wantonnesse of opinion hath betrayed to Popish impostures.

The second personall reflection concernes the occasion and manner of his change which in briefe is this, as himselfe represents it pag. 5, 6, &c. He falls into the company and acquaintance of a Lay-Papist (which he had been allwaies told and so supposed that they were an ignorant Generation) and he proposeth and presseth an Argument, which the Captaine could not Answer, and therefore submits and borrowes two or three Popish Books from that Gentleman (viz. the question of questions, Fiat Lux, and Knots answer to Chillingworth) and so the work is done, my Captaine is conquer'd, and become a Papist, or (stilo novo) a Roman Catholick: Upon this relation I shall take the boldnesse to make these following Animadversions.

1. In generall, It is very observable how easily he gives up the cause, how valiantly the Captaine fought in the field I know not, but sure I am, if he fought at the same rate that here he disputes, no man could desire an easier adversary: Happily because he was about to commence into a beliefe of the unbloody Sacrifice of the Masse, he was resolved his Antagonist should not have a bloody victory: I shall adventure to commend this patterne as an effectuall receit to make Papists, and (that you may see it is a foreign if not a foreign it will indifferently serve to make Turks, Jewes, Pagans, or Hereticks of any kind: Let a person unlearned or unstudied in the point he debates (such as none that read this relation will deny this Author to have been unlesse they be such themselves) enter the lists with some able p. 6Champion of the adverse party (a Character which the Captaine himselfe ascribes to his then Antagonist) and when he meets with an objection that himselfe cannot Answer, let him conclude it unanswerable (which our Author did) and read two or three such Books as his Adversary shall put into his hand, if this do not speedily and effectually worke the cure, he may be given over for desperate.

2. Though to determine that this supposed conversion was a plotted businesse, may seem an intrusion into the Divine prerogative to judge the heart, yet this I may safely say, that it looks so like a plot, that it requires more then an ordinary charity to believe it was not: For as the Philosopher well observes, no man must (and no serious man will) forsake a solid and well grounded Truth, for some subtill objection suggested by a crafty disputer, which he cannot answer; If it was not a designed thing, how can it be imagined, that in a matter of Salvation and damnation, he should be so grossely negligent in the use of means to come to the knowledge of the Truth and the answering of his Objection? Otherwise who can believe that he would not have addressed himself to some able Protestant Minister or Scholar to see whether he could Answer it, (unlesse peradventure, through the pride of his heart he scorned the advice of Ministers, and thought himselfe wiser then his Teachers, and then no wonder such pride had a fall) or would he not by the direction of some knowing Protestant have rather searched into some Protestant Books for an Answer, (as here he falls upon the reading of Popish Authors by the advice of a Papist) if he really were a Protestant at that time when he pretended to be so? for if this Captaine had understood those controversies, and spent that time in the reading of the solid Books of excellent Protestant Authors, and grounding himselfe in the Principles of Religion, p. 7which he spent in talking and teaching others, and scribling of idle Pamphlets, and railing at Learned and Godly Ministers; these objections which through his ignorance and unacquaintednesse with those points seemed new to him, would have been discovered to him as they are to others, to be but coleworts not twice but twenty times sod; and Arguments long since exploded.

3. To this let me adde, the wonder is the greater, and the designe more credible, to consider that his conversion should be wrought by such Authors: as Fiat Lux, and Knots Answer to Chillingworth: The former, nothing but an heap of words and an empty sound, which if stript of all its gauderies, and rhetoricall flashes, (apt to take none but children in understanding) and all the weight of reasons were pickt out and brought together, it might (without such Art as was shewed about Homer) be put into a Nut-shell; unlesse happily that was the Argument that convinced him, that the Author tels us (us I say who are English-men and remember the Marian Persecution, and the Irish Massacre, and the bloodinesse of the French Leaguers, and the barbarities of High and Low Germany, and the late Ferities of Piemont) that the Pope is a very honest Gentleman that never did any harme.

And for Knots infidelity unmasked, that man that shall take that Book for a solid confutation of M^r Chillingworth, must have lost both reason and conscience; (for the losse of one of them will hardly serve turne) by which you may see the Captaine was prepared for a change, and like soft-Wax ready to receive the impression. And this is all I shall say concerning the quality of the person, and the manner of his change; I shall now come to the Dogmaticall part.

p. 8The first and principall thing will be to consider the force of that Discourse which did the work, which though it be a very silly one, yet is commensurate to many mens capacities, and meeting with an ignorant proud or loose Protestant, sometimes is the meane of their perversion.

The Popish Gentleman asked me (saith my Author) whether I was so certainly and infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion, that it was not possible for me, or for those who taught me Christianity to be mistaken therein; and he gave me this reason for his question, that otherwise, as to me, Christianity could be no more then probably true, and we could not condemne the Iew, or Turke, or Pagan, since they were as well perswaded of their severall wayes, as we could be of ours, upon a fallible certainty, and for ought we knew, (not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity) some of them might be in the right, and wee in the wrong way, for it is possible you may be mistaken, pag 5, 6.

This is that, that did the deed, and this is the shield of Hercules, or rather the sword of Goliah, by which they sometimes do execution upon an ungrounded or ungodly Protestant, which therefore it will be worth while a little to insist upon.

1. Let it be observed, what rare Champions the Papists are for the Christian cause, and what a singular course they take for the Conversion of Jewes and Turks and Pagans: For more clearnesse I shall represent it in a Syllogisticall forme: If the Church of Rome (i.e. the Pope and a Councell) be not infallible, a Jew, or Turke, or Pagan are as well perswaded of their severall waies, as we of ours, these are the Authors words: But the Church of Rome (whether you mean the Pope or Councel or both) is not infallible. This I hope hath been made evident enough from the foregoing discourse, Ergo, a p. 9Jew, or Turk, or Pagan are as well perswaded of their several wayes, as we of ours: a glorious Conclusion! and most true of Italian Christians: Turks and Pagans are as well perswaded of their wayes, as they are of Christianity. Nor is it without cause that so many Authors (some of them Popish) complain so much of the swarms of Atheists in the Church of Rome; for certainly this is as compendious a way to Atheisme as can lightly be imagined; to hang the verity of Christianity and the Pope's or Councels Infallibility upon the same pin; and consequently those learned Papists, who doubtless many of them laugh in their sleeves, to see so credulous and simple a world to believe the latter, can easily shake off the sence of the former.

2 Let us examine a little the strength of this pretty Proposition: That if we be not infallibly assured of the truth of Christianity, Jewes, and Turks, and Pagans are as well perswaded of their wayes, as we of ours. What a mad assertion is this, that nothing is credible, but what is infallibly certain, and that there is no difference between probabilities and improbabilities, and yet such Whirlpools and quick sands must they needs sink into, that give up themselves to the conduct of Popish guides and principles. I am not infallibly certain, that there is such a place as Iamaica, (for it is possible all Geographers may mistake, and all Travellers may lye, unlesse his Holinesse should chance to make a voyage to see:) therefore by this doughty argument, I am as certain, that there is a Sea-passage to China by the North. I am not infallibly sure, that the Sun is bigger then a Bushel, (for Epicurus thought it no bigger, as Cicero informes us:) Therefore (it seems) I am as certain that there is a World in the Moon, or in every Star (as some Philosophers held.) I am not infallibly certain of the existence and atchievements of Alexander the p. 10Great; by this argument it will follow, that I am no lesse sure of the history and adventures of St. George of England. What if I be not infallibly sure of the truth of the Christian Religion, may there not be such clear probabilities, and cogent evidence, that none but a mad man can deny it? What if in a frosty morning I should find 2 or 3 verses written upon a glasse window, will any man in his right wits doubt, that some man or other writ them? and yet it is not impossible (because it implies no contradiction) that the Frost (which oft times carves out various and curious figures) should some time or other have a lucky hit, and fall into a vein of Poetry. Or what if I see a Calf in a field, will any sober man question whether it came from a Cow, because I am not infallibly certain it did not drop out of the Clouds, as once one did? In like manner, if I be not simply infallible (taking the word in a strict and proper notion) of the Truth of Christian Religion, yet certainly it may suffice against any Turk, or Jew, or Pagan, or Papist either, who in this argument, as in many other things, are confederate with them, whose Reason makes him a person fit for Discourse, that there are so great and many and pregnant evidences, that no man can deny without forfeiture of his reason, discretion, and modesty, and all the principles of humanity.

3 If this argument be cogent, and besides the certitudo objecti, the infallibility of the thing, there be required a certitudo subjecti, the infallibility of the Person, to be satisfied, (which here is contended for;) then not onelyonly the Pope and Councel, but every particular Christian must have this gift of Infallibility, (an ampliation of the priviledge which his great Ghostly Father will never allow,) for mark it, that is the thing which the Catholick Gentleman urged, and where with my Captain was gravelled: He asked me (saith he) whether I was sure and certain, p. 11—and whether I was so certainly and infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion, or else (said he) as to me Christianity was but probably true, else it is possible you may be mistaken: and at this rate do they use to talke to such as they desire to Proselyte. By all which it appears, that the infallibility must be particular in every individual person, that would be satisfied himself, or would convince another of the Truth of Christianity. I am not ignorant of a shuffling artifice, which this Catholick used in confounding two things together, necessary to be distinguished, as no wonder to meet with confusion of language in the builders of Babel, whilst he (too cunning for twenty of these Novices) states the businesse thus: He asked me (saith my Author) whether I was so certain, —that it was not possible for me, or for those who taught me Christianity, to be mistaken in this, p. 5. Here lies the mystery of Iniquity, and here was the blind cast before the eyes of this unequal combatant, which he had neither wit enough to understand himself, nor humility enough to learn from others. But I shall endeavour to bring this Fox out of his hole by this Argument: Either a subjective certainty or infallibility of belief of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians, or it is not: if it be not necessary, then in vain do Papists urge this argument, and boast so much of it, as unanswerable; whereas now they give it up, and confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians, and Infallibility necessary onelyonly for the Pope or Councel: and so the poor Captain hath lost his Infallibility, and had best think of his old military word, As you were, for here the cord is cut asunder, by which he was drawn over to Rome, for now the Protestant stands upon even ground (at least) with the Papist. For suppose, for once, contradictions were reconciled, and the Popish opinion of the Churches infallible authority were true in it self certitudine objecti; p. 12so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the Infallible authority of the Scripture true in it self, and certitudine objecti, as the most desperate Papists do grant, Stapleton, and Bellarmine, and all. The Scripture (say they) is Divine, and true, and certain in it self, but not quo ad nos: therefore hitherto there is no difference: now to proceed. If it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist, that he hath such probable evidence of this doctrine of the Churches Infallibility, why should it not be as sufficient a foundation for a Protestant, that he hath such (nay infinitely more▪ probable evidence of the doctrine of the Scriptures Infallibility? since the evidence of the latter is granted by the Papists themselves, and the evidence of the former not onelyonly denyed and disputed down by the Protestants, but also questioned by their own Authors, as I have shewed at large. This question I challenge the whole club of Jesuites, (which happily contributed to this Epistle) solidly to answer. But now on the other side, if they will retire to the other part of the Dilemma, and say, That a subjective Infallibility is necessary for particular Christians, then every Papist in England not onelyonly hath a Pope in his belly, but hath got his Crown also upon his head, and communicates with him in that great Prerogative of Infallibility: and truly I must do them justice; without doubt every Papist in England is as infallible as the Pope himself.

4. But if nothing will satisfie but Infallibility, let us a little enquire into it, what it is, and where it lies, & what infallible and irresistible demonstrations the Romanists have for this grand principle, for which a man must put out the eye of his reason, and forsake the conduct of the Scripture, and depose the holy Spirit from his Royalty. Certainly it is madnesse in the highest to put us off with conjectures, and suppositions and imagined probabilities in so important an affaire, upon which all the rest depends, p. 13and to which all must strike saile; so then the question will be this, whether this pretence of Infallibility be not a gratis dictum, a crude and bold assertion, or rather, whether it be evidenced with such strength and clearnesse, as to compell the assent of all reasonable persons: And here I shall do the Captain and the Popish cause this right, as to consider it in its most advantageous notion. If there be any Infallibility, most certain it is, that it is in the Pope and general Councel together, which is the most plausible and received opinion of the Church of Rome. And here it is that our English Apostate, Mr. Cressy, in the last Edition of his Book, centers; and here also the Captain casts anchor: The Prelates of the Church (saith he) though as men they are fallible, yet when assembled in a general Councel with their supreme Pastor, they are still made infallible by the assistance of the same holy Ghost, who was as well promised to them as to the Apostles.

Now for this notion, I might refer the Captaine and the Reader to what I have said and proved in the foregoing …reatise, which when he, or any of his Fathers shall solidly answer, it will be time enough then to consider it. But because this is the sole foundation upon which the Papists build all the rest, and Mr. Cressy adjures all Protestants, that omitting or deferring all particular disputes with Catholicks, they would examine this point, Sect. 2. Chap. 19. and because I am resolved by God's help to search and try where the strength of this Sampson lies, (if there be any in it) I shall a little farther consider it; and if I find his arguments proportionable to his confidence, and that he is as solid in proving it, as he is daring in asserting it, surely he will do the Christian world an inexpressible favour, and infinitely oblige all Protestants, and he will find us far from the madnesse of fighting against God and our own soules. But since all is not Gold p. 14that glisters, and our Savour hath commanded us to try the Spirits, and to prove all things, and not to believe men, saying, Lo here is Christ, or, Lo there is Christ; they must not take it amisse, if, after such evident discovery of their manifold impostures, we dare not take all things upon trust from them, nor swallow down so great a morsell without chewing, and enquiring into it.

It seems to be granted on both sides, and the nature of the thing requires it, That this being a grand principle should have the greatest evidence, which things of that nature can bear: and such indeed they pretend for it. So Mr. Cr…ssy tells us, That as this controversy was of infinite importance, Providence hath suitably furnished us with means of satisfaction —infinitely more copious, evident, and powerful, then in any other besides. Exomolog. …ct. 2. chap. 18. And again: That which I undertake to make evident to J. P. is; that the Church speaking by a general Councel, confirmed by the Pope, is an infallible guide, (and that with more evidence then he can produce for the Scripture it self.) Appendix to his Exomologesis chap. 4. num. 9. It is well that Saying and Doing are two things, or else the Protestant cause had been quite in the dust. If Mr. Cressy make this good, his worke is done, if not, it will concern him to remember from whence he is fallen, and repent of his Apostacy. So now we are come to the point, whether the Churches Infallibility be so evidently proved, as they pretend? They affirm, and I deny it: and the grounds of my denial have been a principal part of the foregoing discourse. I shall forbear repetitions, as much as is possible, and shall here only give two arguments to shew, That this pretended evidence of of the doctrine of Infallibility is but one of their foreign, and a piece of their usual artifice, to give us confident affirmations in stead of evident proofs.

My first reason is taken from the inevidence of this p. 15doctrine to themselves, and many of their own Brethren. What a desperate assertion is it, to ascribe greater evidence to the Churches Infallibility, (which is denied by many of their own Authors,) then to the Divinity of the Scripture? (whose evidence is so great, that both Protestants and Papists universally acquies…e in it) I have already represented the differences and dissatisfactions of their own Authors in this, supposed to be, most evident point. And certainly, it can be nothing but want of evidence, which hinders the assent of those, whose interest so powerfully obligeth them to it. Particularly I have shewed the vanity of that pretence of agreement between their divided Authors in the Infallibility of the Pope and a Councel together, and that the several Partisans, howsoever they put them both together in name and shew, yet in truth they ascribe the Infallibility entirely to the one or other, either to the Pope alone, or to the Councel alone, and to the other onelyonly in dependance thereupon. Infallibility is not partly in the Pope, and partly in the Councel, but wholly in the Pope, (say the Jesuites,) and from him communicated to the Councel, who are infallible no farther then they have his consent and concurrence. And on the other side it is wholly in the Councel, and in the Pope onelyonly by participation from them, (say the Gallican Papists, and Anti-Jesuitical party, and of this mind were those Councels that undertook the censuring and removing of Popes themselves.) And consequently, the Infallibity of Councels not being evident to the Jesuites and their party, and the Infallibility of the Pope not being evident to the French Papists, and many others, it follows, that there is no evidence at all in either, nor in both together, their own Authors being Judges. For if I can prove to a Jesuite, That the Pope in Cathedrâ is not infallible, he will (and by his principles must) grant, That the addition of a Councel doth not p. 16make him infallible. And if I can prove to a French Papist, that a general Councel rightly called and constituted is not infallible, he will (and by his principles must) acknowledge the Pope's consent cannot render them infallible: so that indeed if either be disproved, both are disproved.

Nor doth any thing render this evidence more darke, and the Romish cause more contemptible, then the consideration of those poor Fig. leaves, wherewith Mr. Cressy seeks to cover his Mothers nakednesse in this particular. For when Mr. Chillingworth urged this very argument against their infallible Judge, that themselves were divided about it, who it was, whether Pope or Councel &c. all that Mr. Cressy answers ad rem, is this; That these different Authors of theirs are all agreed in that decision of the Councel of Trent, It belongs to the Church to be Iudg of the true sense of the holy Scripture: an answer so desperate, that it shews that man, who could acquiesce in it, to be, if not a Papist by interest rather then Conscience, yet at least one given up by God to those strong delusions, threatned to the Followers of Antichrist, 2 Thes. 2. among whom he hath now listed himself. And doth this indeed end the differences? doth he offer that for an Answer, which his Adversary before had acknowledged? and is this all the relief they have towards the ending of all differences, and the satisfaction of their consciences? When Alexander was asked, To whom he would leave his Empire? and he answered; To the best: since he did not at all determine, who this best was, I think no man in his wits will say, this was a likely or effectual way to end the differences among the Graecians: It is true the Captains were all agreed in genere, that it should be left to the best; but some thought one best, others another, and so the dissensions continued among them, and were not at all healed by that general agreement. In the very same p. 17manner, although they be agreed in the general, that the Church must judge, so long as they continue at variance, and have implacable feuds about it who this Church is, they are not one whit nearer agreement. Suppose in former times a question arose between the Senate and Emperor of Rome, which was the chief power, and supreme Judge of all Civill controversies; and the Subjects of the Empire were highly divided about it, some ascribing the supremacy to the Emperor, others to the Senate: would Mr. Cressy say, the Romanes are agreed, because they were all united in this, That the supreme power was to end all their controversies? Suppose 3 or 4 Competitors to a Kingdome, and the inhabitants thereof severally divided about them; will any man on this side Bedlam say, they are all agreed, because agreed in this generall, that the King must rule? or must not every man acknowledg, that this agreement signifies but little, so long as they differ about this, which is that King? And is not this the very case of the Church of Rome? They are all agreed (forsooth) not one dissenting voice among them: but how? why they are agreed that the Church is the judge. But, Mr. Cressy, the great difference is behind, who is the Church? the Pope, say some, a Councel say others, a Pope and Councel together say a third sort, (and the (several assertors of each opinion confute and destroy the rest,) and all that hold any of these opinions are universally esteemed good Catholicks, saith Mr. Cressy in his Append, ch. 4. num. 7. So they are good Catholicks that dispute down the Pope's Infallibility, and they good Catholicks too that dispute down the Infallibility of Councels, and (for the reason before mentioned) they good Catholicks, that reject the infallibility of both together. And therefore tis a m…st impudent position, which Mr. Cressy layes down, (and the Papists are obliged to owne,) That the doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is so evident, p. 18that the Prot…stants are inexcusable, and foreign, that do not receive it: out of thy own mouth will God judge thee, O thou unfaithful Servant, who hast thus expressed thy self in another place; To my understanding there is some inhumanity in urging Protestants to more then Catholicks will be obliged to, or to thinke that to Protestants prepossessed with passion and partiality, that can be made evident, which is so far from being evident to some Catholicks, that they renounce it. Appendix to the Exomologesis, ch. 4. num. 7.

To this might be added, as a farther demonstration of the inevidence of this point even to the Romanists themselves, those secret checks which they meet with from their own consciences in the assertion of this supposed Infallibility, discovered by their haltings, and corrections, and tergiversations, and self-contradictions in explication of this new phaenomenon. For however Mr. Cressy mounts this Infallibility so high, that it must not yield to Scripture it self, yet both himself elsewhere, and their other Authors every where are contented with a far lower proportion. Bellarmine (whom Mr. Cressy rights and approves) in his comparison of the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture, gives the preheminence to Scripture in five several respects. See Cressy sect. 2. ch. 21. Truth, and our obligation to believe it, is in an higher degree in Scripture, then in the decisions of the Church. Cressy Appendix chap. 5. n. 2. And this Infallibility of the Church, though they will not suffer us to call it humane and moral, yet they dare not assert it to be Divine, but onelyonly after a sort, and in some manner Divine, as the Author of Laua's labyrinth informes us. And this Infallibility they farther confesse is not in way of immediate revelation or inspiration from God, but in the way of argumentation and discourse. And here too they are wonderful cautious▪ for it is acknowledged by Bellarmine and p. 19Stapleton, and subscrib'd by Mr Cressy, That the Church is fallible in the premises, but infallible in the conclusion. Cressy ubi suprà, and sect. 2. chap. 32. and Append. chap. 5. In the decisions of the Church, the simple conclusion decided is onelyonly accounted infallibly true, not so the principles upon which it depends, or reasons by which it is proved. Really these Romish Priests are admirable fellows in all things: Admirable Builders! Vitruvius himself might learn Architecture from them, for they can teach him how to build a solid and durable Edifice upon a rotten foundation: Admirable Logitians! Aristotle might go to School to them, and learn such Lessons as were above his apprehension, for it is resolved, he must blot out his Axiomes, Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem, and, Non debet esse plus in conclus…ne quàm in praemissis, and Ex falsis nil nise falsum: The Colledge of Jesuites at Rome are ready to make good the contrary against him, when Plato's great year shall bring him and them together upon the Stage. Admirable Divines! that have outdone their Lord and Master, and in spight of whatsoever is said by him Luk. 6.43, 44. will, it he please, maintain a dispute with him upon this Thesis, That a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit, and that of thornes men may gather figs, and of a Bramb…bush grapes: and this shall be not probably defended, but infallibly demonstrated. For it were a silly thing to think, that they that are infallible Divines should be but fallible Disputants. But to return: The inevidence of this notion of the Churches Infallibility may sufficiently appear from Mr. Cressy's own expressions, (which have been observed by others) who by the evidence of the Truth was forced to this acknowledgment, That Infallibility is an infortunate word, that Mr. Chillingworth hath combated it with too great success, so that I could wish (saith he) the word were forgotten, or at least laid by, whereas all, that understand any thing, know, that it p. 20was not the word, but the thing which he combated; and his arguments were not nominal against the Title, but real against the thing it self. It is true, since this passage was published and taken notice of, Mr. …ressy (having doubtlesse been severely school'd by his Superiors for such a dangerous passage) is grown more cautious, and hath stretched his wit (and I fear his conscience too) to palliate his assertion, and make an honourable retreat: and he honestly acquaints us with his design, i. e. being crafty to catch the Protestants with guile. Sect. 2. ch. 21. He that reads the Appendix to the second Edition of his Exomologesis, will easily discern the trepidations of a guilty conscience, whilst sometimes you shall find him tacitly denying the Churches Infallibility properly so called, and contenting himself with great Probability in the room of it: at other times you will meet him crying up this Infallibility in express or equivalent terms, and in most places having no salvo for himself but this; That his assertion, and the Protestants disputation did proceed upon the mistaken notion of Infallibility, which the Protestants advanced to an higher pitch then ever the Church of Rome did, and so fought against an image that themselves had set up: which is so notorious a falsehood, that if Mr. Cressy's wit, and memory, and conscience had not all failed him together, he could hardly have run into it; since all Protestants of any note ever did, and particularly Mr. Chillingworth doth dispute against the Churches Infallibility, onelyonly in that sense and degree which Mr. Cressy upon maturest advice in this second Edition hath thought fit to expresse in these words: That God will preserve his Church in all truth, so as to secure all believers, that she can neither deceive them, nor be deceived her self. sect. 2. chap. 21. Did ever any Protestant, that understood himself, or the point pretend to more? Not Mr. Chillingworth I am sure. They all knew and granted, that abolute infallibility p. 21was Gods Prerogative, and neither pretended by the Church of Rome, nor was that opinion by Protestants fastned upon them: The onelyonly question was, whether God did vouchsafe such infallible guidance to the Church, that she could not erre in her decrees, and decisions; This Papists affirmed, and Protestants denied: and let me adde, that this Infallibility is as high as was ever ascribed to the Prophets or Apostles and Penmen of the Holy Scripture: And although their infallibility be said to be larger or greater extensivè, because in them it reached to all sentences, and words, and Arguments, yet the Romanists themselves cannot say it is higher or greater intensivè, and the Articles of Faith or conclusive decisions decreed by Councels, are in their opinion as infallible, as the same are when they are laid down in the Scripture. This was the Notion M^r Chillingworth combated against, with so great successe as Cressy confesseth.

The second Argument to prove the inevidence of this notion of the Churches infallibility, I shall take from the impertinency and feeblenesse of those crutches or reasons wherewith they indeavour to support it: I observe the summe and strength of what he hath to say in this point is reducible to five heads.

The first and great pretence is this, Take away Infallibility and you destroy all Authority; all Authority, that is not Infallible is meer Faction and Rebellion, and Authority that reacheth onelyonly to the outward appearance, or the purse Cressy Appen: ch. 7. num. 2. And elsewhere Infallibility and Authority are in effect all one as applied to the Church, Ibid c. 5. n. 14. And the assertions of the Churches Authority which are frequent in the Fathers Mr Cressy urgeth as if they had been directly levelled at the Churches infallibility, Exomolog. Sect. 2. chap. 19. Nay, so daring is this man in his Argument, that not contented with his p. 22own pretended satisfaction in it, he will needs obtrude the same opinion upon that Noble Lord Falkland (which it is sufficiently known he abhorred) viz. that if the Catholick Churches Authority and Infallibility were opposed all other Churches must expire: The Authority of the English Church would be an airy fantasme &c. Append. chap. 6. num. 9.

For Answer, I durst appeale to the conscience of this very man, but that Apostates in the Faith do at the same time make shipwrack of a good conscience: let any Romanist that is not prodigall of his damnation, seriously consider the grosse falshood of this bold supposition. What! no Authority without Infallibility? Belike there is no Authority in the King, because no Infallibility. He will say Civill Authority is but externall; But Ecclesiasticall reacheth the conscience, and commands the beliefe of the inward man: Mr Cressy knew this to be a gratis dictum and justly denied by Protestants, and therefore he should have proved it, but crude suppositions and imperious dictates do passe among Romanists for solid demonstrations: Yet againe I would aske Mr Cressy whether the Assembly of the Clergy in France have Authority over that Church, or no: If he deny it I refer him to his brethren there for an Answer: If he grant it, then Authority may be without Infallibility: Againe I aske him whether the Pope without a Councell have Authority over the Church or no: If he deny it, 'tis at his perill; if he affirme it, then his Argument is in great jeopardy: For Protestants are allowed to disbelieve the Popes personall Infallibility: And he confesseth (I gave you his own words before) that good Catholicks deny it and dispute against it: Yet once more, When generall Councels have been called to determine the pretensions of Anti-Popes, or to depose usurping Popes, or when they have had differences with the Popes, p. 23I demand whether these Councels had any Authority or no? To say they had none, or that their Authority was but an airy fantasme I think Mr Cressy will not dare, and if they had, then either a Councell without the Pope is Infallible (which most Learned Papists now deny, and if Mr Cressy be of another mind let him tell us) or Authority may be without Infallibility.

In a word that the World may see the complexion of an Apostates conscience, This very man will grant that there is an Authority in the Superiour over his Convent, in every Bishop over his Diocesse, in ever Generall over his order, and a weighty Authority too (as their vassals feel by sad experience) yet I hope these are not Infallible, E. the more impudent is he that argues f…om Authority to Infallibility.

A second Argument is much of the same complexion, taken from the stile and practise of generall Councels which was to propose their Doctrines as infallible truths, and to command all Christians under the paine of Anathema, and eternall damnation to believe them for such: That Authority which should speak thus not being Infallible, would be guilty of the greatest tyranny and cruelty, and usurpation that ever was in the World. Append. chap. 4. n. 9.

This hath been fully answered before, and therefore I shall here content my selfe with these two reflections.

1. The utmost of this Argument (abstracting from the invidious expressions he here clothes it with, that it may have in tenour what it wants in strength) would be no more then this: That generall Councels in such a way of proceeding were mistaken and were liable to error: A proposition which he knew very well the Protestants did universally own, and I hope well may, since the Jesuites (so great a part and support of the Roman Church) p. 24have and do acknowledge that generall Councels and their decrees are not infallible untill the Popes consent be added, yet such Councels (as is notoriously known) have used to put their Anathema's to their decrees before the Popes assent was given: And yet forsooth (if you will believe a man that hath cast away his Faith) this Argument is more evident then we can produce for the Scripture it selfe (for so he saith, ibid.)

2. These Anathema's do not at all prove that such Councels either were or thought themselves Infallible: It is true, it is an Argument they thought one of these two things, either that the Doctrine proposed by them was Infallibly true (as indeed they did) or that their Authority was infallibly certaine (which they never pretended) either of these were a sufficient ground for such Anathema's; and therefore his Argument is infirme proceeding à genere ad speciem, animal est, E. homo. They owned Infallibility E. they owned it in their Authority: Particular Pastors have a power to Anathematize and do so in case of Excommunication of Hereticks. Are they therefore infallible? If it be said they do it onelyonly in pursuance and execution of the decrees of Councels: I Answer: If such persons (confessedly fallible) may Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines delivered in Councels, because supposed to be Infallibly true, why may not the same persons Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines expressely delivered in Scripture, which all grant to be infallibly true? Againe, if we look into the Records of Councels wee shall find that this practise of Anathematizing was not onelyonly in use in generall, but also in particular aud Provinciall Councells which are confessed to be fallible: E. Mr Cressy look to your Arguments and conscience better; once more, The Popes Anathemas a…l the World rings of, yet you have seen his Infallibility is denied by many and Learned Papists, and p. 25they too such as are universally esteemed good Catholicks, saith Mr Cressy Append. chap 4. num. 7. Therefore how durst he say, Anathema's are evidences of Infallibility?

The third Argument is taken from the promises of Infallibility made to this Church. This Doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is the most expresse in Scriptures, saith Mr Cressy Sect. 2. chap. 26. n. 5. I suppose he told us so upon the same account that the old Painter wrot under his picture, This is a Lion, for fear some should have mistaken it for a Bull, for truely if he had not said it was most expresse there, any rationall man would have sworn the contrary.

I confesse I thought Mr Cressy (as well as Mr White and other Traditionall Doctors) had been sick of those pretences, and sufficiently discovered the impertinency of them to their purpose: and really when I read over the Scriptures quoted by him to prove this Infallibility, and consider how insignificant they are to his businesse, and how plainly, and fully, and frequently they have been answered by Protestants, (which he doth not here reply to) I must not dissemble that I find a great difficulty to believe his conscience could be satisfied therewith, sure I am whilest he was a Protestant (if he understood himselfe) he would have entertained such proofs with; contempt: I dare confidently say that most of the Scripture-allegations produced by the Quakers (in defence of their absurd and ridiculous opinions) are every whit as pertinent as any that are here cited: It is true they are materiall to that purpose to which they are cited by the Fathers, viz. to prove the Churches perpetuity and just Authority; but for Infallibility, how far the Fathers were from believing that I hope hath been made sufficiently evident from the foregoing Discourse, where also particular Answers have been given to their Arguments p. 26from these places, which when they solidly vindicate, it will deserve, and (foreign) shall have our consideration. At present I shall content my self with this generall animadversion.

Those Scripturall promises pretended for the Churches Infallibility, either they do of themselves, without the Churches sence and exposition, evidently and solidly prove the point they are brought for, or they do not; if they say they do, then other passages of Scripture (undoubtedly farre more plaine and positive for diverse doctrines rejected by the Papists) do of themselves, without the Churches sence and exposition prove those points they are brought for, and so Scripture may decide controversies; if they say not, then the Churches Infallibility must be supposed, before it can be proved from those Tex…s, which is I confesse agreeable to the Roman-Catholick way of Disputation, and fit for them that cannot endure reason should be judge, but I am sure it will never satisfie any man that hath any care of his conscience or Salvation: But I can tell the Reader good newes, and that which is strange too among Romanists, who use to confute Protestants by the meer naming of those Texts that have been substantially vindicated an hundred times. Mr Cressy hath one Chapter entitled the Validity of such Texts &c. so it is called, but I doubt it was the Printers mistake for invalidity, as will appeare upon perusall: He offers but one Argument for proofe of this Capitall Assertion, upon which all the Papacy depends, and it is this: The Antient Fathers do usually Argue against their Hereticks and Schismaticks from those promises, that Christs Church should continue for ever, and that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against her: Now (saith he) if these promises of Christ be not Infallible and absolute and that Church Visible: What then? then woe to the poor Fathers, then the Writings of these Fathers p. 27will prove to be the most foolish, impertinent, jugling, yea blasphemous and p…rnicious discourses that ever were. So Cressy Sect. 2. chap 28. that is to say (if we take the notion out of this odious dresse) they used fallacious Arguments: Very good! And is this that, that satisfied Mr Cressy's conscience? O the modesty of the man! you see a little thing satisfies him; but if he will cheat himselfe, let him not think to cheat us with such ridiculous Arguments.

1. The utmost of what would follow is that the Antient Fathers whose Writings are extant were Fallible, and liable to mistakes: A Proposition which I have formerly proved, and the Popish Doctors themselves agree with us therein, I suppose Mr Cressy will not dissent.

2. If upon every impertinent and unconcluding Argument produced by Fathers, Councels, or Popes, against supposed Hereticks, I should make this inference that they were all Juglers, Blasphemers, &c. Mr Cressy would think it a very harsh censure: When their great Lords and Masters argue at this rate (as he knowes who did) Arise Peter kill and eat, and here are two Swords: Ergo, the Pope hath civill and Spirituall power over all men: They that are in the flesh cannot please God: E. Priests should not be married: God made man after his own Image: E. Images are lawfull. Will Mr Cressy now say these were all Juglers, Blasphemers, &c? and their Writings the most foolish, impertinent, pernicious Discourses that ever were? either then let Mr Cressy qualify his censure there, or apply it here.

3. If the Fathers were supposed infallible, yet they might use impertinent and unconcluding Arguments: You must remember our Masters the Romanists while they assert the infallibility of the Pope and Councell, they cautiously distinguish between the conclusion and p. 28the mediums or Arguments to prove it: I will onelyonly mind you of him whom they all so highly approve and applaud i. e. Stapleton (whom Mr Cressy followes and the rest of them) who (as you saw) limits this infallibility to the Conclusion, not to the premises or Argument: So if the Fathers were infallible (as you see and the Papists confesse they are not) yet this being onelyonly in the Conclusion, it will not at all secure them from impertinency and error in their Arguments or mediums used to confirme the conclusions, which is all that this Discourse of Mr Cr…ssy pretends to prove: So now judge whether the Printer was not a knave (for sure the Author could not be so since he is a Benedictine) to set in the front of this Argument, The Validity, &c.

But you know non omnia possumus omnes: Peradventure M^r Cressy is a better respondent then opponent, and though he cannot at all prove his own assertion, yet he will at least solidly Answer his Adversaries: But alas! here he is so jejune that it moves my pitty; for when Mr Chillingworth pleaded that these promises were onelyonly conditionall, if Christians should make use of Gods means —The Church should continue: Hereto (saith Cressy) the answer is very ready, Oh the benefit of a ready wit when attended with an easy Conscience! 1. There is no warrant from any circumstance in those Texts for such a new interpretation.

I will not ingage in that Argument, onelyonly I will referre a parallel place to his consideration: It is said particularly concerning Jerusalem (which never was said concerning Rome) I have hallowed this house—to put my name therein for ever, and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually, 1 Kings 9.3. And it is again repeated concerning that house, that the Lord had said, In Ierusalem shall my Name be for ever, 2 Chron. 33.4. Then (if he have a conscience) let him Answer, whether there be not p. 29as much warrant from these Texts to prove this promise to Ierusalem to be infallible and unconditional, (which they grant it was not) as from the other Texts to prove them to be so to the Church of Rome. He need not take day to answer it.

His second Answer is wholly ad hominem, (and the other you will say was little ad rem,) That Mr. Chillingworth applies this to future times onelyonly, not to past or present, and therefore it concernes not the dispute in hand about the Romane Catholick Church, which all English Protestants acknowledg to be a true Church of Christ. Just so they would perswade their Proselytes, that all Protestants grant that theirs is a safe way, and Salvation to be had ordinarily in the communion of their Church; whereas neither the one nor the other are true. But what if Protestants do, and Mr. Chillingworth did grant their Church to be a true Church, doth it therefore follow, these Texts were pertinently alledged to prove it? or did Mr. Chillingworth say, these promises were absolute for time past or present, and conditional onelyonly for the future? no such matter: but these are onelyonly his own dreams, and shufflings, who (pro more) when he cannot answer his Adversary, indeavours to blind his Reader. I have onelyonly one thing more to observe upon that which (he tels us Mr. Chillingworth saw it) That if there were such promises of Indefectibility, none could challenge them but the Romane Church, since she onelyonly claims them, all others lay down their claime. But that also is no more solid then the rest: for since this promise of Indefectibility is general and indefinite, it no more belongs to Rome then to any other particular Church: neither have they any more interest in the promise, because they boldly claime the Monopoly of it, (since an Usurpers claime gives him no just Title to the thing.) Nor have other Churches the lesse interest in it, because their conscience and modesty p. 30will not suffer them to appropriate it to themselves, (for though they extend this promise of Indefectibility to the whole Church, yet they reap the comfort and benefit of it, in as much as they are true members of that Church, and not upon any local or particular consideration.)

There is a fourth argument behind, taken from the Tradition or testimony of the present▪ Church: but this I have discoursed at large, and I hope discovered the folly of that new device: thither I refer the Reader.

A fifth argument there is, and that is all I find in Mr. Cressy, (for I have diligently searched him, and God is my witnesse I have indeavoured to single out the strongest and most plausible passages in him, which I had not answered before,) and that is taken from the Churches Unity: One Church th…re cannot be, without one faith; nor one faith, where differences are irreconcileable; and no reconciling of differences, but by an Authority, and that infallible. Append. ch. 6. n. 3. And again: The Sun shines not more clear (I suppose he means in the Cloysters of his Convent) then that there is no possible Vnity without Authority, nor no Christian Vnity without an Infallible Authority. ch. 7. n. 2.

Ans. Very well: it being premised, That their onelyonly infallible Authority is, as Mr. Cressy states it, the Church speaking by a general Councel confirmed by the Pope, Appen. chap. 4. num. 9. then, if this argument be solid, let Mr. Cressy take what follows: Then there was neither one Church, nor one Faith, for the first 300 years, when there was no general Councel: then when the Pope dies, or his Sea is vacant other wayes (as it oft hath been) and when there is no Councel (as now there is none) there is no Unity in the Church of Rome: what thinks this man of the Gallican Church, which (unlesse they be throughly Jesuited) do still hold (as they used to do) that the Pope, personally considered, is not infallible, p. 31but onelyonly with a general Councel: will he justify it in the Assembly of the French Clergy, that they have at this day no unity among them, and no way to reconcile their differences, because they have no infallible Authority? But I shall not wast my time any longer with these impertinent and miscalled arguments: I shall leave the point with this short Memorandum, That it is a plain evidence of the desperatnesse of their cause, that all the great wit, and vast learning, and deep cunning of the Romish Doctors can furnish them with no better arguments then these. And since this is all that Mr. Cressy can pretend for his Apostacy, I would intreat him in his next to furnish me with some Answers to those that suspect his Change was not from Conscience, but Discontent or Passion, or Worldly Interest, (as affairs then stood:) for I confesse I am at a losse, and know not what to say for him; and the rather, because the pretended motives of his Conversion are so ridiculously absurd, and incredible, among which I find two that deserve a special remark. One is the scandalous personal qualities of Luther and Calvin, which, if all that he saith of them were true and material, (as it is either notoriously false, or inconsiderable,) yet it amounts to nothing against the Protestant cause, since though we own them for eminent persons, and worthy instruments, yet we readily acknowledge, they were lyable to error, and subject to passions and infirmities, no lesse then other men; nor did we ever make them the pillars and grounds of the Gospel, or the foundation and rule of our Faith. But that this should occasion his Change, I confesse is beyond the faith of Miracles to believe. This is prodigious, That the supposed mistakes or miscarriages of two particular Protestant Doctors should really have greater influence to turn him from the Protestant Religion, then the real Blasphemies, and abominable filthinesses of their Masters and Pillars p. 32of their Faith and Church, viz. the Popes, should have to alienate him from the Popish Religion: and these things not feigned by Adversaries, (as most of their Calumnies against Luther and Calvin are) but acknowledged by their own Authors, who have left us a particular account of the several sorts of their villanies: so many Blasphemers, as Iohn 13. Iulius 3. &c. so many Hereticks, as Boniface 8. Iohn 23. so many Conjurers, as Sylvester the second, and his Successors for many successions; so many Whoremongers, so many Sodomites, Poysoners, Incestuous, and what not? 150 Popes (saith Genebrard) rahter Apostatical then Apostolical persons. And yet this tender-conscienced man, who knew all these things, and could bear with all this, and a thousand more such infirmities in the Popes, was so squeamish, that he was not able to endure the scandals of Luther and Calvin. And another motive he addes, not at all inferior to the former, viz. The bloudy commotions of the Calvinists, and the sanguinary Lawes and cruel execution of them upon Catholick Priests in England: And this was a great offence to him, who was well acquainted with the Massacres of France, of Germany, and the Low countries, and the English too in Popish times, who knew the history of the barbarous cruelties of the Inquisition torments, who himself had been an eye and ear…witnesse of the inhumane butcheries of above one hundred thousand innocent Protestants in Ireland. But all this did not move the good man at all: he could swallow Camels, but a Gnat hath choaked him. O Divelish Hypocrisy! But God will not be mocked, and I hope men that have any sense will not easily be deceaved to believe the sincerity of that mans Conversion, which is brought on by such ridiculous Motives. But to return.

For a close of this great point, I shall leave three things to the consideration of any discreet and conscientitious p. 33Reader, and particularly of our two English Apostates, with whom I am now treating, if they have any sense of Eternity or Conscience left.

1. That the principal Texts of Scripture, and arguments urged by them and others for the infallibility of the Pope and Councel together, either prove nothing to their purpose, or prove more then they would have or dare assert, i. e. they prove either the Pope or Councel to be infallible by themselves, and without any reference to the other, and are accordingly pleaded by each party for their opinion. As for instance: Thou art Peter, upon this rock &c. I will give unto thee the keyes &c. And Si… mon — I have prayed, that thy Faith fail not: and the like. If these Texts prove any Infallibility, the prove they Infallibility of the Pope, or St. Peter's Successor, whether with or without a Councel. So on the other side, the Texts of Scripture pleaded for the Infallibility of Councels from what was said to or of all the Apostles: H… that heareth you, heareth me. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us. Where two or three are gathered together. I am with you to the end of the world: If these Texts prove any Infallibility, they prove the Infallibility of all the Governours of the Church, and Successors of the Apostles, at least when they are assembled together, without any special reference to the Pope, who is but one of them. And because it is sufficiently evident, that these places do not prove the infallibility of those, of whom they are acknowledged primarily and formally to speak, (which is so evident, that we have thousands of the most learned and resolved Papists consenting to us herein, as is before proved,) it is therefore a strange presumption to pretend these places cogent proofs of the infallibility of them, of whom these Texts are confessed not to speak save onelyonly by implication: and consequently the infallibility of Pope and Councel together, (which is the chief retreat of the most subtile p. 34and cautious Papists) is destitute of solid proof, and an ungrounded assertion.

2… If all that these men say were granted, that a general Councel confirmed by the Pope were the infallible Judge, yet since there is now no such thing, (nor like to be,) as a general Councel in the Church of Rome, but the Pope stands upon his own legs, therefore the Church of Rome at this day is not infallible▪ and hath no infallible Judge, and no way to end their controversies, nor any advantage above Protestants therein. If they say, the Pope hath the assistance and concurrence of general Councels in their writings and Decrees, I answer: The infallible Judge, which they plead for, must according to their principles be a living judge, and therefore requires the existence of the Councel, as well as of the Pope. I would aske Mr. Cressy this question: Is the Pope infallible in his exposition and application of the Decrees of Councels, or no? if he be, then the Pope alone is infallible without a Councel, (which himself confesseth is a proposition so harsh, that Protestants should not be urged to acknowledge it:) if he be not, then they have no infallible judge at Rome at this time, foreign.

3. Since the present Romanists have now no Anchorhold but the Pope's Infallibility, (for general Councel there is none,) and by Mr. Cressy's argument, if there be no Infallibility, there is no Authority, and therefore no Unity, and therefore no Faith: I shall desire the Reader to reflect upon the character of that person, who is so boldly asserted the Supreme Infallible Judge of all controversies in Religion: I will not take it from Protestants (least they should be thought partial,) but as it is drawn by a Papist & he too one non è multis, one so eminent for learning and prudence, and trustiness, that he was imployed by the French Bishops to manage that great affaire against the Jesuits at Rome: it is St. Amour, in that famous & p. 35known book, his Journal concerning the Transactions at… Rome, relating to the five Propositions controverted between the Molinists and Iansenests, where it is left upon Record, in perpetuam rei memoriam, That when he sollicited the Pope (Innocent the Tenth) to decide that controversy, and to that end presented a paper to him, desiring him to read it, the Pope (saith my Author) would not receive and read it, because he said this would engage him further, and oblige him to too great toyles, as he knew the discussion of this matter required, even of such as had applyed themselves to that study all their time, but much more pains must it cost him then others; because (said he, they are the Popes own words) it is not my profession, besides that I am old, I have never studyed Divinity: Part. 3. chap. 12. And yet this is the ground and pillar of Truth, this is the prime subject of Infallibility, the great Judge of all controversies, (to whom Scripture, Reason, Spirit, all must vaile,) whose Decisions must be taken for the Oracles of God. And the same Pope Innocent the Tenth tels this story of a predecessor of his, Clement the 8. who (saith he) after he had caused this matter (viz. the question between thē Iansenists and Iesuites) to be debated in his presence for a long time by the most excellent men, after he had studied them himself with very great care, (so that as he remembred, some toook occasion thereby to say, that Clement the 8. began very old to study Divinity,) yet he could not at last decide any thing therein, but was fain to impose a perpetual silence upon both sides. This is the man that must infallibly decide all controversies, that could not decide this, and we (for…ooth) must all venture our soules upon his unerring guidance, that is not convinced of it himself, and our Papists most impudently assert the Pope's Infallibility, who modestly acknowledged his own ignorance and insufficiency. These things I hope may abundantly suffice for the demolishing of the grounds of their Faith, I must p. 36now speak something to the establishing of ours. The rather, because the Captain requires it in his Answerer, not to proceed in the way of Negatives, not to rest in pulling down, but to assert what we would establish. And Mr. Cressy takes notice of Mr. Chillingworth and his book, That he was better in pulling down buildings, then raising new ones, and that he hath managed his Sword much more dexterously then his Buckler; and that Protestants do neither own and defend the positive grounds which Chillingworth laid, nor provide themselves of any safer Defence. Exomolog. sect. 2. chap. 3. num. 4.

To which it might suffice in general to reply, that if once the grounds of their Faith be demolished, and their great pretensions of supreme and infallible Authority subverted; if it be proved, that neither the Pope, nor Councels, nor Church of Rome be infallible, theu the Protestant Churches at least stand upon even ground with the Church of Rome, and whatsoever they can reasonably pretend for the stablishing of their Faith, will tend to the securing of ours; and if Protestants have no solid and sufficient foundation for their Beliefe, neither have the Papists any better: and then one of these 2 things will follow: Either that Scripture, Reason, and the concurring testimony of former Ages, and Churches, and Fathers are a firme Basis for a Christians Faith, independently upon the churches authority, and infallibility, (and this is a certain Truth, though utterly destructive to the church of Rome,) or else (which I tremble to speak, and yet these desperate persons are not afraid to assert,) that the Christian Faith hath no solid ground to rest upon, (I mean without the Churches infallible Authority, which is now supposed to be discarded and disproved.) Now here it must be confessed, that some Protestants expresse themselves too unwarily in the point, whereby they give the Adversary some seeming advantage and p. 37occasion to represent our Doctrine to their ignorant and deluded Proselytes, as diversified into three or four severall and contrary opinions, about the judge and rule of Faith, which some are said to ascribe to the Scriptures, o…ers to the Spirit of God within them, others to reason, and others to universal… Tradition, whereas indeed all these are really agreed, and these are not so many severall judges or rules, but all in their places and orders do happily correspond to the constitution of the Protestant ground of Faith, which I shall make thus appeare by the help of a threefold distinction.

1. VVe must distinguish between the judge and rule of Faith, which the Papists cunningly, and some others inconsiderately confound, for instance: If I should assert the Church to be the Judge, or Reason to be the judge, yet the Scripture is the rule to which the Judge is tyed, and from which if it swerve, so far forth its sentence is null.

2. VVe must distinguish between Judge and Judge, and here we must take notice of a triple Judge according to the triple Court, forum coeli, forum Ecclesiae, forum conscientiae, the Court of Heaven, the Court of the Church, and the Court of Con…cience. Accordingly there are three Judges.

1. The Supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all controversies, and that is God and Christ who appropriates it to himselfe t… be the alone Law-giver, Iam. 4.12. And this is so proper to God, that the blessed Apostles durst not ascribe it to themselves, (however their successors are grown more hardy) not for that we have dominion over your Faith, 2 Cor. ….24. This judge is Lord over all both in the Church and in the conscience, which are all subordinate to him.

2. There is an externall and politicall Judge, placed by God in the Church, and these are the Governors p. 38whom Christ hath placed in and over the Church: and these are subordinate to the Supreme Judge, who if they really contradict His soveraigne Sentence and higher Authority, and require things evidently contrary to the will of their and our master, must give their subjects leave to argue with the Apostle Peter (and I tell you it was an unhappy accident that S^t Peter should furnish the Protestants with such an Argument, as would puzzle all his Successors to Answer) Whether it be right in the sight of God to harken unto you more then unto God, judge ye, Acts 4.19.

3. There is an internall and secret Judge, placed by God in every particular person, and that you may call Reason or Conscience; for as God hath made every man a reasonable Creature, and capable to judge of his own actions, so he hath not given that faculty (no more then the rest) to be for ever suspended, and wrap… in a Napkin, but to be duly exercised, nor would he have men like bruit beasts that have no understanding, but every where calls upon them to Judge: I speak to wise men, judge ye what I say, 1 Cor. 10▪ 15. And the service God requires of every man must be foreign reasonable service, Rom. 12 1. And every man must be ready and able to give a reason of the hope that is in him, 1 Pet. 3.15.

3. We must distinguish between an instrument and an argument. And here lies the Golden mean by which a man may avoid those contrary Heresies both equidistant from the Truth, I mean the Socinian on the one hand, and the Papist on the other, whereof the former would make reason a soveraigne, un…versall judge to which even Scripture it selfe must vaile: And some go so high that I remember one of them faith: If the Scripture should say in expresse termes, That Christ is the most High God, I should not believe it (because utterly p. 39repugnant to reason) but seek some other sence of those words. And the latter (the Romanists) would quite put reason out of office, and in terminis submit to a blind or implicit obedience without any examination, whereas the truth lies between both. Reason or Conscience is not an Argument (I meane in matters of Faith purely such) that is, I do not therefore believe such a Doctrine of Faith to be true, because my reason or conscience, in it selfe and by vertue of rationall and extrascripturall Arguments tels me it is true (for this were to make my reason the rule and standard of Truth) but my reason or conscience believes such a thing to be true, because it reads or hears such Arguments and evidences from the Scripture as are the undoubted foreign of the Truth. And thus reason is the instrument by which I apprehend the Argument which compels my beliefe: So againe the Spirit of God (as in this controversy it is taken for the gifts or graces of a believing Soule) or its ordinary suggestions in my mind are not the argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine, (for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods, and I am commanded to trie the Spirits and not to believe every Spirit) but it is the instrument (as I may so speak) by which I am enabled to understand the weight and force of those Arguments which are recorded (suppose) in the Scriptures, or rather to speak most properly, reason is the instrument, and Gods Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discerne those linearnents of Truth which God hath drawn in Scripture or elsewhere, whence alone the Arguments for proof of the Truth are derived: So now the state of the question is reduced to a narrow compasse, and I shall lay it down in these Propositions.

1. Supreme and Infallible judge upon earth we know none, and I hope from what hath been said and proved p. 40at large it appeares that there is none, at least the Pope and Councell and Church of Rome is none.

2. An externall politicall judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteeme, The true and rightfull Governors of the Church orderly Assembled, and proceeding regularly in Councels (whether lesser or larger) are the externall judge, whose decisions are to be highly valued, whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted, yet three Cautions wee must interpose. 1. That this Judge is not infallible, but subject to error. 2. That this Judge being subject to an higher Authority, and tied to an higher rule, if its decisions or commands be manifestly repugnant to that superior Authority and rule, they are not to be received and obeyed. 3. That this Judge is constituted by God in the Church, not for the command of mens consciences, but for the regulation of their actions, and for the preservation of the peace of the Church, which is not violated by mens inward and unknown sentiments, but by their externall demeanor and sensible effects of them: And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church.

3. Every mans own reason and conscience is judge for himselfe, and for the guidance of his own actions: State it in this manner, and I know no hurt at all in making reason a Judge: Christ himselfe when he Preached in the World he propounds the Articles of Faith to the reasons of his hearers, and calls upon every one of them to judge (so far as concerned his own apprehensions or actions) Luke 12.57. Yea, and why even of your selves judge you not what is right. Christ no where commands his hearers blindly to submit to the decrees of the present judge their Church, the high-Priest and Councill, but calls upon them to judge for themselves, to beware of the Leaven, i.e. the false Doctrine of their Rulers, Matth. 16.12. p. 41and (which is more) refers his own Doctrine to their searching, which is an act of reason, Ioh. 5.39. Search the Scriptures? But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dimsighted in matters of Faith, therefore something farther is necessary. Therefore

Prop. 4. That reason may be a competent judge of matters of Faith: It is necessary that it be assisted and elevated by the spirit of God, whereby of the rationall he is made a Spirituall man, and eo nomine a fit judge of such affaires. 1 Cor. 2.15. He that is Spirituall Iudgeth all things. As that a man may exactly see those Heavenly Bodies which are at a great distance from us, it is necessary to look upon them thorough a Glasse, without which a man could not discerne many of them: So are the aides of Gods spirit to help our purblind reason, which without these could not discerne things afarre off, according to 2 Pet. 1▪9.

Prop. 5. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Infallible rule and ground and touchstone of Faith, by which both Churches and all particular persons are to be regulated in their faith and manners, from which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged, to which all are perfectly subordinate, by which all the opinions of men and decisions of Councels are to be examined, and they that swerve from and are opposite to this rule, are ipso facto null and void, and so to be esteemed by all Christians. I rather call it a rule then a judge, because there is an foreign in the word, the appellation of judge by common use being appropriated to persons, but it is the voice and writing of our Soveraigne Lord and judg by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees.

Propos. 6. Uniuersall Tradition rightly understood (viz. the concurring testimony of all Churches, and ages, and persons in their Writing… left us) is of great use and p. 42force, and is the Vehiculum or Channel by which that Scripture, (which alone is our rule) is conveyed to us. But here I must adde these two Cautions.

1. Tradition though necessary to convey the rule to us, yet is no part of the rule. I must here distinguish between res tradita the thing delivered, and traditio the Tradition or delivery of it: If Tradition be understood in the former sence (as the Papists understand it) for certaine unscripturall Doctrines delivered by Tradition, we know no such thing, and by comparing the boldnesse of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weaknesse of their proofes and evidences, we plainly discerne they can make out no such thing: But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery it selfe, or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture, we confesse it is of great use and in some sort necessary, to bring the rule to us, yet (as I say) it is no part of the rule: As that bread which nourisheth me, it is necessary that it be brought to me in some Basket or other Vehiculum, yet it is the Bread alone, not the Basket which nourisheth me: The VVater of such a remote but excellent Spring which quencheth my thirst could not come to me, if there were not a channel to convey it, yet it is the VVater alone which refresheth me, not the channel. The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the onelyonly rule by which our forreigne plantations are governed, and to which such as are judges there are tyed (yea so farre tyed that if those Judges should impose contrary commands, as for example; If they should command the people to rebell against the King, they are bound not onelyonly to examine their commands, but to disobey them) But it is altogether necessary that there should be a ship wherein such Acts or decrees should be conveyed to them; yet it were a very absurd thing to say the Ship is a part of the rule, though the p. 43Papists (whilest from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule) do apparently runne into the same solecisme. In a word, Tradition was not appointed by Christ as a part of that ground upon which we were to build our rule, by which we were to try particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith, but was necessary, not… ex instituto Christi, but ex natura rei, and from the condition of humane affaires, there being no other way (without a new revelation) possible or imaginable to convey the Gospell and Scriptures to those that were to live so many hundred years after the first publication of it: Tradition being to us, that which Eyes and Eares were to them that were Eye-witnesses of his convincing miracles, and Eare-witnesses of his irrefragable discourses, that is neither their Eyes and Eares were, nor to us Tradition is the Argument and ground of our Faith, but a necessary meane or instrument to convey those Arguments and grounds of Scripture which were convincing and satisfactory.

2. This Tradition is no Act of Authority, but onelyonly of testimony, not at all peculiar to the Church or generall Councels, but common to all antient VVriters: Yea let it be observed as a very materiall consideration in this point, so far is the Capacity of a Church from being necessary to the validity of this Tradition and Testimony, concerning the great rule of our Faith the Holy Scriptures, that the Testimony and Tradition of such as neither are the Church nor any part of it, but enemies to it (I meane Jewes and Heathens) are in some respects more considerable, according to that known maxime—Testimonium adversarii contra se est validissimum. It being one of the best Arguments (and at this day so urged both by Protestants and Papists) for the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and particularly of the Gospell, that the truth of those Historicall relations of Christs miracles was acknowledged p. 44by the most Learned Jewes and Heathens that lived in antient times: And by those considerations we may discerne the vanity of that triviall calumny of the great differences among Protestants about the rule of Faith and judge of Controversies, whereas by what hath been said (which is no other then the common Doctrine of the Protestant Churches and Writers, however sometimes they seem to differ in modo explicandi) it appeares how all these severall things concurre like so many Stones fitly compacted together to make up the building of our Faith; which (that I may in few words present it to the Readers review) is this:

The Scripture is the Object, the onelyonly rule and standard of Faith, by which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged, the res creditae, and the ratio cred…ndi. Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh this rule to us and our times: Reason is the instrument by which I apprehend, or the eye by which I discerne or see this rule: The spirit of God is the Eye-salve that anoints mine Eye and inables it to see this rule: The Church is the interpreter (though not infallible and authentick) the witnesse, the guardian of this rule, and the applier of the generall rules of Scripture to particular cases and times and circumstances.

And things being thus stated (which is really the sence of Protestants in this great point, as it were easy to shew from the confessors of our Churches and the Treatises of our most and choicest Authors) is it not at all difficult to blow away with a breath those pitifull cavils, whereby they indeavour to perplex the mind of ignorant or prejudiced persons, lest the light of the Gospell should shine into their minds. One thing is worth our Observation, That diverse of the Popish arguments do wholly arise from, and depend upon, either some in commodious expressions of some Protestant Writers, or p. 45some false exposition put upon them by the adversaries; As for instance, when they argue against the Scripture from the nature of a Judge, that a Judge must heare parties, must not be mute, but passe sentence, &c. All these and many such cavillations are thus silenced by saying that which is true, that it is an foreign and figurative expression when we call Scripture a Judge, in as much as it is the voice or writing of our Judge, and indeed it is a rule: So their Arguments against the judgment of reason, either have no weight in them at all, or else depend upon a scandalous and untrue suggestion, as if the Protestants made reason the Judge in a Socinian sence: So their Arguments against the Spirits being judge do proceed I doubt from a willfull mistake (for in their Learned Writers it cannot be ignorance) as if the Protestants submitted Scripture and reason and all to the judgment of the spirit in themselves in an Enthusiastick notion, which is so farre from being true, that they try and judge of the spirit by the Word according to Apostolicall prescription. This being premised, I come now to treat with my Captaine, and weigh his Arguments that have any colour or appearance of truth in them.

And first he argues against reasons being the judge of Controversies: Concerning which let me be bold to say thus much, That the Papists themselves do make reason judge of Controversies as farre as the Protestants do, though both the one and other tye up this judge to a rule. If it be said the Protestants make the reason of every particular man judge, (which indeed they do, in the sence forementioned and for their own actions) so do the Papists make the reason of the Pope or a Councell the judge, For when they say the Pope or Counsell is the Judge of Controversies: I would know what it is in them, if not their reason which is the judge; as it is their reason which examineth and heareth and considereth, p. 46so sure, it is the same reason which concludeth and judgeth, so that the question between the Papists and Protestants is not whether Reason be the judge, but whether the reason of particular persons, or the reason of the Pope or Councell.

The Arguments which he urgeth against the judgment of reason are so irrationall that it is sufficient confutation to mention them.

1. (Saith he) Reason must submit to the Judge, E. it is not the Judge. Answ. It is true, supreme Judge it is not, but subordinate and tied to rule: Protestants assert no more.

2. The Judge must be Infallible; but reason is Fallible, Ergo: Answ: The Major is a pitifull petitio principii, They that help'd him to make his Book will tell him what it meanes.

3. If reason were Judge, a man might please God without Faith, for reason would teach us sufficiently how to please God. Answ: The same Argument will overthrow his Church: If the Church be the Judge, then a man may please God without faith, for the Church teacheth us sufficiently how to please God.

4. If Reason be Judge we must not believe what we do not understand.

Answ: Non sequitur, For this Judge is tied up to a Law and rule which commands us to believe what we do not understand.

But I am sick of such wofull Arguments, though the poore Captaine hath no better, and therefore I will quit that work and come to that which is more materiall viz. To try whether he hath any better against the Scripture: And here also I shall do his cause that right as with him to take into consideration what is said by M^r Cressy in his Exomologesis, which I am the more willing to do, because if the Popish cause have any strength in it, and if the p. 47Doctrine of the Scripture alone being Judge and rule of Controversies be untrue and indefensible (as they pretend it is) we may expect the demonstration of it from a man of his wit and learning and experience in the Controversy, as having thoroughly considered all pretensions and arguments of both parties, and taken in the advice of the most famed Doctors of the Romish Church: But I must not dissemble that I was wofully disappointed in the perusall of M^r Cressy's piece, and whereas I expected something solid and substantiall, or at least very plausible, which I might have some ground in charity to believe might give at least a colour for his change, I find little in him worthy of consideration, but what hath allready received satisfactory Answers: Yet because the cause affords no better Arguments, I shall briefly consider what he and the Captaine and his assistants deliver in this matter.

That the Scripture is not the onelyonly rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies, is the Proposition they attempt to prove, and their Arguments are those which follow.

Arg. 1. Scripture cannot be this Judge and Rule, because it did not answer its end, for they that own this Judge disagree among themselves, Everard Epist. p. 33. Scripture doth not reconcile them. Thus Cressy, by this rule it is impossible that ever Controversies should be ended, Sect. 2. chap. 4. n. 1.

Answ. Scripture might be (as really it was) designed instituted and ordained for the ruling of mens Faith and the judging and deciding Controversies, though through the depravednesse of men, this end might not be obtained: If this Argument have any weight in it, I may upon the same ground argue thus: Preaching of the Gospell was not instituted for the salvation of the World, because it doth not answer its end, but proves to many a favou… p. 48of death: Or the Law of God was not instituted by God for a rule of life, because it doth not obtaine its end, and men will not be ruled by it: In a word let it be observed, If this Argument prove any thing, it proves what the very Papists deny, that the Scripture is not so much as a part of the rule, neither of Faith nor manners, for still according to the present Argument it doth not Answer its end, for there is no one controversy in Faith, which Scripture alone decides, so as to silence all differences, which is the thing pretended necessary to a Judge of Controversies. For the further discovery of the impertinency and vanity of this Argument, however it is their Goliah which they boast most of, I shall offer them this Dilemma relating to that power of ending all differences among Christians which they suppose was necessary for, and by Christ committed to the Judge of Controversies, Either (I say) that power is absolute, unconditionall and effectuall, and if so, there could be no Heresies, Schismes, or differences in the Christian World, which we see is most false; or it is a conditionall power sufficient of it self for the ending of differences, though frustrable and impedible in its effects by the ignorance or perversenesse of men (which is the reall truth) And in this sense the Scripture may be judge, i. e. there is enough in it said and clearly delivered, by which all Controversies might be ended, if men would be humble, studious, and self-denying: and in the former sense the Church of Rome is no judge of Controversies. Peradventure it will be said that all men are bound to submit and hearken to all the decrees of the Church of Rome, and when they do so submit, it is an effectuall meane to end all differences: In the very same manner and upon farre better grounds I say of the Scripture, that all are bound to submit and hearken to all its Councels and decrees, and when they do so, it will effectually end all Controversies: p. 49If it be further said, that the Church hath a power of coercion to compel dissenters to submit: I Answer either that coercion they speak of is spirituall by Church censures & excommunication, &c. or civill by corporall penalties death, &c. If they understand it of civill coercion, that is not at all necessary nor intrinsecall to an Ecclesiasticall judge of Controversies, otherwise the Apostles (who had not this civill power:) Nay Christ himselfe (who denies that he was judge or ruler) should not be such a Judge, and the Church for the first 300 years had no judge of Controversies: Nay, the Papists themselves in pretence at least abjudicate this from the Church, and referre it wholly to the Civill Power: If they speak of a Spirituall coercion, then the Scripture hath such a power of inflicting Spirituall penalties upon its violaters and contemners, such as obduration, and ejection from the presence of God, and such excommunication as the other is but a shadow of it: And whether they speak of one or other, the Protestant Judge of Controversies is not destitute of either advantage: If it be remembred that the Protestants own an Ecclesiasticall Politicall Judge, whi…h Judge although their modesty will not suffer them to pretend to Infallibility, and a power to oblige all people to receive all their decrees though anti-Scripturall, without enquiry; and though they say with the Apostle, they have their power for edification, not for destruction. 2 Cor. 13.10 and they can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth, and though it is their advice to their people, which was the counsell of the Apostle to his people. 1 Cor. 11.1. Be followers of me even as I also am of Christ: Yet they have a power to explaine and maintaine the Doctrines of the Scripture, and they acknowledge a power in the Magistrate by civill sanctions and penalties to suppresse and restraine such as shall corrupt the Truth and infect peoples soules with the poyson of Hereticall p. 50Doctrines. And this may abundantly serve for Answer to their Achilles or principall argument which makes such a noise in the world.

Arg. 2. Scripture cannot be a perfect rule, because some books of Scripture are lost, and it is the whole Scripture which is this rule.

Ans: 1. Then Tradition also cannot be a rule, for diverse Traditions are lost as Cressy confesseth, Sect. 1. ch. 8. n. 5. and all the Papists acknowledg.

Answ. 2. It doth not at all appeare that any one of those Books are lost which concerned controversies of Faith, or the rule of Life; All which to this day hath been proved is this, That some Books Written by Holy men and Prophets are lost: But it is a vaine imagination, without the shadow of a proofe, that all which was written by such men was a part of Canonicall or Divine Scripture, for we read that the Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, which inspired them not at all times, but onelyonly when he pleased, there being this difference between the spirits inspiration of Christ and all other Holy men, that it was in Christ without measure, and without difference of time, but in the Apostles it was a gift, confined to such seasons and proportions as God saw fit for them. Is any man so absurd as to think that every letter which a Prophet or Apostle might write about any private affaires was a part of the Sacred Scripture? Or if Solomons Herball were extant, must it needs be admitted into the Canon of the Sacred Scripture? Or how can they prove (and if they do not prove it, this Argument is impertinent) that the Histories which Ioshua, or Nathan, or Samuel, or Gad, &c. might or did write concerning the Warres of the Lord, or the Civill transactions of the Kingdomes of Israel and Iudah must needs be a part of the Canon? Or did the temporary transient and extraordinary inspirations of p. 51the Holy-Gost deprive them of their common gifts and faculties? And was the capacity of a Prophet inconsistent with that of an Historian? or because Balaam was once inspired, must we needs Canonize all that afterwards he spake, if it were extant? or because Hannah was once inspired, 1 Sam. 2. and Simeon, and Elizabeth Luk. 1. did ever any man, unlesse in a dream, imagine that all their after Discourses were Canonicall?