The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 6

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 6

p. 161CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition.

Of the unwritten Word, and the necessary Ingredients of it. The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved. The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions. No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith. In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine. Of Tradition being known by its own light, and the Canon of the Scripture. The Testimony of the Spirit, how far pertinent to this Controversie. Of the use of reason in the resolution of Faith. T.C'^s. Dialogue answered, with another between himself and a Sceptick. A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine, and into the Books. Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture. Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not infallible. T.C'^s. Blasphemy in saying otherwise. The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted. Of the nature of infallible Certainty, as to the Canon of Scripture; and whereon it is grounded. The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated.

YOu begin this Chapter with as much confidence,§. 1. as if you had spoken nothing but Oracles in the foregoing. Whether the Bishop or you were more hardly put to it, let any indifferent Reader judge: If he did, as you say, tread on the brink of a Circle; we have made it appear, notwithstanding all your evasions, that you are left in the middle of it. The reason of his falling on the unwritten Word, is not his fear of stooping to the Church, to shew it him, and finally depend on her Authority; but to shew the unreasonableness of your proceedings, who talk much of an unwritten Word, and are not able to prove any such thing. If he will not believe any unwritten Word, but what is shewn him delivered by the Prophets and Apostles, I think he hath a great deal of reason for such incredulity, unless you could shew him some assurance of any unwritten Word, that did not come from the Apostles. Though he desired not to read unwritten Words in their Books, which is a wise Question you ask; yet he reasonably requested some certain evidence of what you pretend to be so, that he might not have so big a Faith as to swallow into his belief, that every thing which his adversary saies is the unwritten Word, is so indeed. If it be not your desire he should, we have the greater hopes of satisfaction from you; but if you crave the indifferent Reader's Patience, till he hear reason from you, I am afraid his patience will be tyred, before you come to it. But, whatever it is, it must be examined.

Though your discourse concerning this unwritten Word, be as the rest are, very confused and immethodical, yet I conceive the design and substance of it lyes in these particulars, as will appear in the examination of them.

1. That there is an unwritten Word, which must be believed by us, containing such doctrinal Traditions, as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical.

2. That the ground of believing this unwritten Word, is from the Infallibility of the Church, which defines it to be so.

3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such an unwritten p. 162Word, which is warranted by the Church: under each of these I shall examine faithfully what belongs to them in your indigested discourse.

The first of these is taken from your own words; where you tell us, That our Ensurancer in the main Principle of Faith concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God, P. 66 ch. 6. n. 1.is Apostolical Tradition; and well may it be so, for such Tradition declared by the Church, is the unwritten Word of God. And you after tell us, That every Doctrine, which any particular person may please to call Tradition, is not therefore to be received as God's unwritten Word, but such doctrinal Traditions only, as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical, which are consequently God's unwritten Word. So that these three things are necessary ingredients of this unwritten Word. 1. That it must be originally Apostolical, and not only so, but it must be of Divine Revelation to the Apostles too. For otherwise it cannot be God's Word at all, and therefore not his unwritten Word. I quarrel not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten Word, if you could prove it; for it is evident to me, that God's Word is no more so, by being written or printed, than if it were not so: for the writing adds no Authority to the Word, but only is a more certain means of conveying it to us. It is therefore God's Word, as it proceeds from him; and that which is now his written Word, was once his unwritten Word: but however, whatever is God's Word, must come from him, and since you derive the source of the unwritten Word from the Apostles, whatever you call an unwritten Word, you must be sure to derive its pedegree down from them. So that insisting on that point of time, when this was declared and owned for an unwritten Word, you must be able to shew, that it came from the Apostles, otherwise it cannot be owned as an Apostolical Tradition. 2. That what you call an unwritten Word, must be something doctrinal; so you call them your self doctrinal Traditions, i. e. such as contain in them somewhat dogmatical or necessary to be believed by us: and thence it was, this Controversie rose from the Dispute concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures, as a Rule of Faith, Whether that contained all God's Word, or all matters to be believed or no; or, Whether there were not some Objects of Faith, which were never written, but conveyed by Tradition? 3. That what is thus doctrinal, must be declared by the Church to be an Apostolical Tradition; which you in terms assert.

§. 2.According then to these Rules we come to examine the Evidences by you produced for such an unwritten Word. For which, you first produce several Instances out of S. Austin, of such things which were in his time judged to be such, i. e. doctrinal Traditions derived from the Apostles, and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first you instance in,C. ep. fund. c. 5. is that we now treat, That Scripture is the Word of God, for which you propose the known place wherein he affirms he should not believe the Gospel, but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto. But this proves nothing to your purpose, unless you make it appear, that the Authority of the Church could not move him to believe the Gospel, unless that Authority be supposed to be an unwritten Word. For, I will suppose, that S. Austin, or any other rational man might be sufficiently induced to believe the Gospel, on the account of the Churches Authority, not as delivering any doctrinal Tradition in the nature of an unwritten Word, but as attesting that Vniversal Tradition, which had been among all Christians concerning it. Which Universal Tradition is nothing else p. 163but a conveying down to us the judgement of sense and reason in the present case. For the Primitive Christians being best able to judge as to what Authentick Writings came from the Apostles, not by any unwritten Word, but by the use of all moral means, it cannot reasonably be supposed, that the successive Christians should imbezzle these Authentick Records, and substitute others in the place of them. When therefore Manichaeus pretended the Authenticalness of some other writings, besides those then owned by the Church, S. Austin did no more than any reasonable man would do in the like case, viz. appeal to the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church; upon the account of which, he saies, He was induced to believe the Gospel it self, i. e. not so much the Doctrine, as the Books containing it. But of this more largely elsewhere. I can hardly excuse you from a falsification of S. Austin's meaning, in the ensuing words, which you thus render: If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church, he would neither believe the Scripture, nor the Church; whereas it appears by the words cited in your own Margin, his meaning is only this,Ibid. If you can find (saith he) something very plain in the Gospel concerning the Apostleship of Manichaeus, you will thereby weaken the Authority of those Catholicks, who bid me, that I should not believe you; whose Authority being weakned, neither can I believe the Gospel, because, through them, I believed it. Is here any like what you said, or at least would seem to have apprehended to be his meaning? which is plainly this. If against the consent of all those Copies which the Catholick Christians received, those Copies should be found truer, which have in them something of the Apostleship of Manichaeus; this must needs weaken much the Authority of the Catholick Church in its Tradition, whom he adhered to against the Manichees; and their Authority being thus weakned, his Faith, as to the Scriptures delivered by them, must needs be much weakned too. To give you an Instance of a like nature; The Mahumetans pretend, that in the Scripture there was anciently express mention of their Prophet Mahomet, but that the Christians, out of hatred of their Religion, have erased all those places which spake of him: Suppose now, a Christian should say, If he should find in the Gospel express mention of Mahomet's being a Prophet, it would much weaken the Authority of the whole Christian Church; which being so weakned, it must of necessity weaken the Faith of all those who have believed our present Copies Authentick, upon the account of the Christian Churches Authority. Is not this plainly the case S. Austin speaks of; and, Is it any more than any man's reason will tell him? Not that the Churches Authority is to be relyed on as judicially or infallibly, but as rationally, delivering such an Universal Tradition to us. And, might not S. Austin, on the same reason, as well believe the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel, when they were both equally delivered by the same Universal Tradition? What you have gained then to your purpose from these three citations out of S. Austin, in your first Instance, I cannot easily imagine.

Your second Tradition is, That the Father is not begotten of any other person. S. Austin's words are,§. 3. Tom. 2. ep. 11… ▪Sicut Patrem in illis libris nusquam Ingenitum legimus, & tamen dicendum esse defenditur. We never read in the Scriptures, that the Father is unbegotten; and yet it is defended, that we must say so. And had they not good reason with them to say so, who believed that he was the Father by way of exclusion of such a kind of Generation as the Eternal Son of God is supposed to have? But, Must this be an Instance p. 164of a doctrinal Tradition, containing some Object of Faith distinct from Scripture? Could any one, whoever believed the Doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture, believe or imagine any other? that though it be not in express terms set down in Scripture, yet no one that hath any conceptions of the Father, but this is implied in them. If it be therefore a Tradition, because it is not expresly in Scripture, Why may not Trinity, Hypostasis, Person, Consubstantiality, be all unwritten Traditions, as well as this? You will say, Because, though the words be not there, yet the sense is: and I pray, take the same Answer for this of the Father's being unbegotten,

Your third is, Of the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary: This indeed, S. Austin saith, is to be believed fide integra, but he saith not, divinâ; but, Do you therefore make this a doctrinal Tradition, and an unwritten Word? If you make it a doctrinal Tradition, you must shew us, what Article of Faith is contained in it; that it was not looked on as an unwritten Word, will appear by the disputations of those Fathers, who writ most eagerly about it, who make it their design to prove it out of Scripture. Those who did most zealously appear against the Opinion of Helvidius, were S. Hierom, and S. Ambrose, of the Latin Church, S. Austin only mentions it in the places by you cited: Of the Greek Church Epiphanius, and S. Basil. And yet every one of these contends to have it proved out of Scripture. S. Hierom enters his dispute against Helvidius upon those terms of confuting him out of Scripture;Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt ut ipsis quibus adversum nos usus eft testimon…is revincatur. Advers. Helv. prim. Sed ut bec quae scripta sunt non …egamus, ita … quae non sunt scripta renuimus: Natum Deum esse de Virgine credimus, quia legimus; Mariam nupsisse post partuns, non cr…dimus quia non legimus. Hierony. advers. Helv. To. 2. p. 6. col. 1. ed. P. 1533. and towards the conclusion of that discourse, see what a friend S. Hierom is to doctrinal Traditions. As, saith he, we deny not the things which are written, so we embrace not the things which are not written. We believe the Incarnation, because we read it; we believe not the Marriage of Mary after her delivery, because we read it not. St. Ambrose, V. Ambros. Tom. 3. ep. 9. Basil. 1555.in his Epistle to Theophilus and Anysius, where he first mentions this Opinion, argues against it wholly from the Testimony of Scripture;Epiphan. haeres. 78. Tom. 1. l. 3. edit. Petav. and the unreasonableness of the thing. To the same purpose Epiphanius discourseth of this subject, whose utmost Arguments are only probabilities;Aug. de haeres. 84. Whether the Antidicomariani were the same with Helvidians, as S. Austin supposeth: Or, Whether they were the Disciples of Apollinarius, who broached the same Doctrine in the East, at the time Helvidius did in the West, as others suppose is not material to our purpose;V. Vasquez in 3. p. Thom. tom. 2. disp. 1…. c. 6. but this latter seems to be the Opinion of Epiphanius: Who in his Epistle, written in Confutation of that Opinion, chargeth the first Authours of it with great Ignorance of the Scriptures,Epiph. haeres. 78. sect. 7. p. 1038. and urgeth many places to prove the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary; and therefore did not look on it as an unwritten Word. St. Basil, in his discourse concerning the Humane Generation of Christ, falls upon this Subject,Homil. 25. p. 509. Tom. 1. and goes about to prove it from the importance of foreign which (saith he) although it seems to speak some circumscription of time, yet it really denotes foreign, an indefinite time, as in that, I will be with you alwaies to the end of the world. foreign. Ibid.But he ushers in this discourse with this remarkable Expression; Although this be no hinderance to the Doctrine of Piety; for till the Oeconomy of her delivery was p. 165accomplished, her Virginity was necessary; but what became of it afterwards is not pertinent to this mystery: however, because the ears of those who love Christ, will hardly entertain this, that Mary ceased to be a Virgin, we suppose these proofs sufficient for it. Judge then, whether S. Basil did believe this to be a Doctrine of Faith, or an unwritten Word.Not. in Basil. To. 3. p. 49. es…. Paris. 1638. This Testimony Fronto Ducaeus, is much troubled with, and would go about to prove this to be an Article of Faith, from the Councils of Constantinople and the Lateran; in the first of which she is only called foreign. But doth that note it to be an Article of Faith? As for his evasion of this Testimony, it is so impertinent, that I shall not repeat it, although he voucheth Vasquez for the Authour of it. It cannot be denied, but that afterwards S. Basil produceth a Tradition for it concerning Zachary's placing the Virgin Mary, after her delivery, among the Virgins, for which he was slain of the Jews, between the Temple and the Altar. But, we may guess at the credit of this Tradition, by what S. Hierom saith of it,Comment. in Matth. 23. Tom. 9.Matt 23 that it came ex Apocryphorum somniis and withall, gives a sufficient lash at all Traditions, by reason of this in the next words. Hoc quia de Scripturis non habet auctoritatem, eâdem facilitate contemnitur, quâ probatur. Which having no Authority from the Scriptures, it is as easily contemned as produced. And, think you not then, that S. Hierom was a great friend to your doctrinal Traditions, and unwritten Word? But, say you still, The Virginity of Mary must be an Article of Faith, because, those who denied it are called Hereticks; and S. Augustine calls Helvidius his Opinion, blasphemy. But, though Helvidius be listed among the Hereticks, yet, I suppose, you will not say that all who are listed in those Catalogues are defined to be Hereticks by the Catholick Church? It is very apparent, that any one who seemed to broach any new fancies, and thereby disturbed the Churches Peace, were called Hereticks by them.Ubi supra. And Vasquez confesseth that Aquinas calls it an Errour, and not an Heresie in Helvidius. If it were so, he was not the first Authour of it; for, Tertullian is not only cited by Helvidius for it, and S. Hierom casts away his Testimony, as of a man out of the Church, In 3. p. Thom. …om. 2. q. 28. art. 3. cap. 7.but Vasquez confesseth he delivers it so often, that Pamelius could make no antidote for those places. One would therefore think, that one so near the Apostles as Tertullian was, might easily have learned such a Tradition, and so great a friend to Virginity as he was (while a Montanist) should not have been apt to believe the contrary. That which was accounted Blasphemy in Helvidius, was the rashness of his assertion, which seemed dishonourable to the Blessed Virgin, and not as though he did thereby overthrow any Article of Faith. For the other part of your Tradition, that she was a Virgin in the Birth of Christ, you will find it a greater difficulty to make it out to have been believed as a Tradition, much less as an unwritten Word. For not only Tertullian, but Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Theophylact oppose you in it; and judge you then, whether this were owned as a constant Tradition or no. But it is not worth while to insist upon it.

Your fourth Instance is, concerning the Rebaptization of Hereticks. Concerning which, two things are to be considered, The Custome it self, §. 4.and the Right and Law on which that Custome was grounded. In the places by you cited out of S. Austin, it is plain, he speaks of the Custome and Practice of the Church, which (saith he) did not use the Iteration of Baptism, Contra D…natist. l. 2. c. 7.which Custome, he believed, did come from Apostolical Tradition; as many other things which are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in following Councils, yet because they are observed by the Vniversal Church, are p. 166believed to be delivered, and commended by them. To the same purpose is the other Testimony. But what is this to doctrinal Traditions, concerning matters of Faith? That there were many Ecclesiastical Customes observed in the Church as Apostolical Traditions, I deny not, but that is not our present Question. If you therefore enquire into that which is only doctrinal in this case concerning the right and lawfulness of Practice in this case, that he fixeth wholly upon the Scriptures. The Practice of the Church in admitting Hereticks without baptizing them again, might be known by Tradition, but whether the Church did well or ill in it, must be by S. Austin's own confession determined out of Scripture. And in that latter place by you cited, there is mentioned no such thing as an unwritten Word, or that the Apostles had left any command that Hereticks should not be baptized again. Nihil quidem exinde praeceperunt Apostoli, are his own words; there being then neither written nor unwritten Word for it, S. Austin takes the likeliest course he could think of, which was, from the Custome of the Church, to judge most probably what was most agreeable to the Apostles minds. But still, when he comes to urge most home against the Donatists, he makes his recourse to the Scriptures. Ex Evangelio profero certa documenta. l. 1. c. Donatist cap. 6. Quid sit perniciosius, utrum non baptizari an rebaptizari, judicare difficile est, veruntamen recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam, ubi non ex humano sensu sed ex divinâ auctoritate rerum momenta pensantur, inveni… de utrâque re Domini sententiam, nempe in Scripturis. l. 2. c. 14. Huc accedit quia benè perspectis ex utroque latere disputationis rationibus, & Scripturarum Testimoniis, potest etiam dici, Quod veritas declaravit hoc sequimur. l. 4. c. 7. vid. l. 4. c. 24. l. 5. c. 4. l. 6. c. 1. l. 5. c. 23. c. 26.And offers to prove the matter in dispute from them, and would have all tryed by the ballance of the Lord. And expresly saith, It is against the Lords command, that those who have had lawful Baptism already, should be rebaptized. So that we see, S. Augustine did not himself think it a sufficient proof of Apostolical Tradition, that it was a Custome of the Church, unless he did likewise produce certain evidence out of Scripture for the confirmation of it. Neither then will your fourth Instance prove what it was brought for.

Your fifth concerning Infants Baptism, you have given us occasion to consider largely already; your sixth depends upon that; your seventh is only a rite of the Church. To your eighth I answer, Though the Tradition of the Church be a great confirmation of the Apostolical Practice in observation of the Lords day, yet that very Practice, and the ground of it, are sufficiently deduced from Scripture. Among all these Instances therefore, we are yet to seek for such a doctrinal Tradition, as makes an unwritten Word. But, methinks an Authour, who would seem so much versed in S. Augustine, might, among all these Instances, have found out one more, which would have looked more like a doctrinal Tradition, than most of these, which is, the necessity of the Eucharist to baptized Infants: The places are so many, and so express in him concerning it, that it would be a needless task to produce them. I shall only therefore referr you to your Espencaeus, who hath made some collection of them. When you have viewed them,Espenc. de Eucharist. ad O…at. l. 2. c. 12. I pray bethink your self of some convenient Answer to them, which either must be by asserting, that S. Augustine might be deceived in judging of Doctrinal and Apostolical Traditions; and then to what purpose are your eight Instances out of him? Or else that might be accounted an Apostolical Tradition in one age, which may not in another; and then, since, according to your judgement, the present Church is infallible in every age, that was infallibly an Apostolical Tradition in one age, which infallibly is not so in another. Which leaves us in a greater dispute than ever, what these Apostolical Traditions are, when the p. 167Church in several ages doth so much differ concerning them.

After you have, in your way, attempted to prove such unwritten Words, or doctrinal Traditions, you fall upon a high charge against his Lordship,§. 5. and not without a severe reflection on all Protestants, in these words. It is so natural to Protestants to build upon false grounds, that they cannot enter into a Question, without supposing a falshood; so his Lordship here feeds his humour, and obtrudes many. It is well yet,P. 6…. his Lordship meets with no worse entertainment than all Protestants do: You think all Protestants still build upon false grounds, because not super hanc Petram, and that they still suppose falshoods, because they suppose your Church fallible, whether she undertakes to explain written, or define unwritten Words. But, whether his Lordship feeds his humour in obtruding falshoods, or you yours in calumniating, will appear upon examination. You say, He makes Bellarmine, and all Catholick Doctors, maintain, that whatever they please to call Tradition, must presently be received by all as God's unwritten Word. Upon which you go about to vindicate Bellarmine, by repeating his distinctions concerning Traditions, viz. That some are Divine, others Apostolical, and others Ecclesiastical, and that some belong to Faith, others to Manners. But all this doth not serve your turn. For 1. His Lordship doth not deny, that Bellarmine useth these distinctions, but reduceth all these several Traditions under the same common title de Verbo Dei non scripto; and that his design therein, is to impose upon unwary Readers, that all the Traditions mentioned by him, are God's unwritten Word. Upon which, his Lordship had good reason to go about to undeceive them, and to make it appear so evidently as he hath done, that Tradition, and God's unwritten Word, are not convertible terms; both because there may be justly supposed to have been many unwritten Words, which were never delivered over to the Church; and that there are many things which go for Traditions in your Church, which have no shadow of pretence from an unwritten Word. 2. There may be yet further cunning in all this; for, although Bellarmine and you distinguish of Traditions, Divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical; yet when you come to put the difference between these, I suppose you would not leave it to every particular person, to judge which of these Traditions is of these several natures, but the Church must be judge of them. So that a Tradition is Ecclesiastical, when your Church will have it so, that is, when it is disused among you, as the three dippings in Baptism, the participation of Eucharists by Infants, &c. But when any Tradition is still in use by your Church, then your Churches Practice being in this case a sufficient Definition as to all those things so used by your Church, they must be accounted Apostolical, if not Divine. 3. Of what kind or nature soever these Traditions are supposed to be, whether Divine, Apostolical, or Ecclesiastical, prove any of them to contain any thing necessary for Faith and Salvation, and you will then come near an unwritten Word. Your Ecclesiastical Traditions you discard your self from being such, inform us then what Divine and Apostolical Traditions those are which are founded on such an unwritten Word? Whether any of your Ecclesiastical Traditions contradict God's Word, or no, is not here a place to examine; we are now enquiring, Whether there be any such thing as an unwritten Word at all, which contains any matter necessary for us to believe, or practise. The only pretence you have here for it, is, That we believe by Divine Faith, that Scripture is God's VVord, and that there is no other VVord of God to assure us of this Point, but the Tradition delivered to us by the Church, and that such p. 168Tradition so delivered, must be the unwritten VVord of God. How far we are to believe Scriptures to be the VVord of God, with Divine Faith, will be throughly examined in its due time; and likewise how far any VVord of God is necessary for the Foundation of this Faith: only I cannot here but take notice, what it is which makes a Tradition be the unwritten VVord of God; and what becomes then of your former distinction concerning Traditions? for we see, that which makes them the VVord of God, is their being delivered by the Church; so that let their Authour, Nature, or Matter be what it will, according to this Principle any Tradition being delivered by your Church, becomes an unwritten VVord. So I come to the second Proposition.

§. 6.2. That the ground of believing any unwritten word, is the Infallibility of your Church defining it to be so. For you say, As the Church was Infallible in defining what was written, P. 68. n. 2.so is she also infallible in defining what was not written. And so she can neither tradere non traditum, nor can she be unfaithful to God, in not faithfully keeping the depositum committed to her trust: Neither can her Sons ever justly accuse her of the contrary, but are bound to believe her Tradition, because she being infallible, the Tradition she delivers can never be against the Word of their Father. The substance of all which, is that which I laid down as your Proposition, That the ground of believing any Tradition to be Apostolical, or any unwritten word is your Churches Infallibility in defining it to be so. Which being built on a Principle, I have already manifested to be so fallacious and uncertain, I might, without further trouble, quit my hands of it: but I shall, however, shew how inconsistent this is with the Rules of the Ancients, for discerning when Traditions are Apostolical, and when not. The great Rule we meet with among the Ancients for judging Apostolical Traditions, is that of Vincentius Lyrinensis, Commonit. c. 3.In ipsâ item Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnoperè curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubi que , quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est: hoc est enim verè proprie que Catholicum. If this be a certain Rule to judge of Catholick and Apostolical Traditions by, viz. That which hath been held every where, alwaies, and by all; then the judgement of your Church cannot be the infallible definer of Apostolical Traditions, unless you will suppose that your Church only can tell us, what was held every where, alwaies, and by all: And if your Church alone can infallibly determine what Traditions are Apostolical, to what purpose should we be put to such a VVild-goose chase, to enquire Vniversality, Antiquity, and Consent in all things which pretend to be Traditions. But to any reasonable man, as to any thing which pretends to be a matter necessary to be believed or practised, which is not expresly revealed in Scripture; this Rule of Vincentius seems very just and equitable, that before we believe it necessary, it be made appear, that it was universally believed by Christians to be so, and that in all ages. And I assure you, I am so far convinced of the reasonableness of this proposal, that if you will make out any of those things controverted between us, such as Invocation of Saints, VVorship of Images, Transubstantiation, Adoration of the Eucharist, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Pope's Supremacy, &c. by these Rules, and make it appear to me, that these were held by all Christian Churches, at all times, or have Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent; I shall be very inclinable to embrace what your Church would impose upon me. But when I know how impossible a task this is, I do not at all wonder that you should quit this formerly magnified saying of Vincentius, and resolve all into the Infallibility of the present Church. But hereby we see, p. 169how far you are from the judgement of Antiquity, as to this very point of the tryal of doctrinal Traditions, since you can see no security any where but in your selves, and your Churches Infallibility; I will therefore reduce the Controversie yet shorter: prove but this Infallibility of your Church in defining the written and unwritten VVord by these Rules of Vincentius, Vniversality, Antiquity and Consent, and I will yield you all the rest. But what unreasonable men are you, if you must be Parties and Judges too; or if we must believe an unwritten VVord, because your Church is infallible; and believe your Church infallible, because that is an unwritten VVord. And well may you call it so; for, search the whole Book of Scriptures, and all the Records of the Primitive Church, and you find nothing at all of it. We see plainly then, you are resolved to be tryed by none but your selves, and so you are Catholicks, because you say, You are so; and, your Church infallible, because she pretends to be so.

3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be resolved into an unwritten VVord, which is defined by your Church to be such. This is that,§. 7. for whose sake all your other discourse is brought in, and is the main thing to the purpose: Although you pretend likewise to a power in your Church, to declare what Christ said when he held his peace. (But, Are you sure your Church will be infallible in that too?) For when his Lordship had said, That where-ever Christ held his peace, and that his words are not registred, no man may dare without rashness, to say, They were these or these: You very gravely add, That his Lordship must give you leave to tell him, P. 68.you must bind up his whole assertion with this Proviso, but according as the Church shall declare. Your Church then must declare when Christ held his peace, and when he did not; when he spake so, that others might hear him, and when he did not; when any thing was taken notice of that he said, and when not. But when it is apparent Christ both spake, and did much more than ever was written, how well doth your Church acquit her Office in being Christ's Remembrancer? And therefore I believe your Church will be guilty of the same rashness with any private person in, S. Augustine's Opinion, In offering to determine what Christ said▪ when either he held his peace, or his words are not registred. As for those things which you mention for Traditions, P. 69.not contrary to God's written Word, which yet are not an unwritten Word, such as the Ceremonies of Baptism by you mentioned, they are therefore not pertinent to our purpose, because they are only rites and ceremonies, and our discourse is about doctrinal Traditions; neither yet if I would spend time in the enquiry, could you derive them from Apostolical Tradition, notwithstanding what either you, or Bellarmine say. But the substance of all you have to say, pertinent to your purpose, is, That though every Tradition be not God's unwritten VVord, yet it being necessary for us to believe the Scripture to be the VVord of God, we must believe it either for some word written or unwritten, or we shall have no Divine Faith at all of the Point, because all Divine Faith must rely upon some VVord of God. This being a great novelty with you, that is, something like Argumentation, it obliges me to take a little more particular notice of it. Any one that considers the force of this Argument, will find, that it lyes wholly upon your notion of Divine Faith: for it appearing unreasonable to you, that our belief that the Scripture is the Word, should be resolved into the written Word it self; therefore you find out an unwritten VVord of God for a Divine Faith to fix it self upon, which can be nothing but some VVord of God. To this therefore I answer, that when you say, It is necessary we must believe p. 170the Scriptures to be the VVord of God with Divine Faith, this Divine Faith must be taken in one of these three senses; either first, that Faith may be said to be Divine, which hath a Divine Revelation for its Material Object, as, that Faith may be said to be a Humane Faith, which is conversant about natural causes, and the effects of them: And in this sense it cannot but be a Divine Faith, which is conversant about the Scripture, because it is a Divine Revelation: Or secondly, a Faith may be said to be Divine, in regard of its Testimony, or Formal Object; and so that is called a Divine Faith, which is built on a Divine Testimony, and that a Humane Faith which is built on a Humane Testimony: Thus I assert, all that Faith which respects particular Objects of Faith, supposing the belief of the Scriptures, is in this sense Divine, because it is built on a properly Divine Testimony; but the Question is, Whether that Act of Faith which hath the whole Scripture as its Material Object, be in that sense Divine or no. Thirdly, Faith may be said to be Divine, in regard of the Divine Effects it hath upon the soul of man; as it is said in Scripture, to purifie the heart, overcome the world, resist Satan, and his Temptations, receive Christ, &c. And this is properly a Divine Faith; and there is no Question, but every Christian ought to have this Divine Faith in his soul, without which the other sorts of Divine Faith will never bring men to Heaven. But it is apparent, that all who heartily profess to believe the Scriptures to be the VVord of God, have not this sort of Divine Faith, though they have so firm an assent to the Truth and Authority of it, that they durst lay down their lives for it. The Assent therefore, we see, may be firm, where the effects are not saving: The Question now is, Whether this may be called a Divine Faith in the second sense, that is, Whether it must be built on a Testimony infallible? For clearing which, we must further consider the meaning of this Question, How we know Scripture to be Scripture? which may import two things, How we know that all these Books contain God's VVord in them? Or secondly, How we know the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Divine? If you then ask me, Whether it be necessary that I believe with such a Faith as is built on Divine Testimony, that these Books called the Scripture, contain the principles of the Jewish and Christian Religion in them (which we call God's VVord) I deny it, and shall do so, till you shew me some further necessity of it than you have done yet; and my reason is, because I may have sufficient ground for such an Assent, without any Divine Testimony. But, if you ask me, On what ground I believe the Doctrine to be Divine, which is contained in those Books; I then answer affirmatively, On a Divine Testimony; because God hath given abundant evidence, that this Doctrine was of Divine Revelation. Thus you see, what little reason you have to triumph in your Argument from Divine Faith, inferring the necessity of an unwritten VVord of God. But, the further explication of these things must be reserved, till I come to the positive part of our way of resolution of Faith. I now return.

Having, after your way (that is, very unsatisfactorily) attempted the vindicating your resolution of Faith,§. 8. from the Objections which were offered against it by his Lordship; you come now to consider the second way propounded by him for the resolving Faith, which is, That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known, P. 69. n. 10.as by divine and infallible Testimony, by the resplendency of that light which it hath in it self only, and by the witness it can so give to it self; against which he gives such evident reasons, that you acknowledge the Relator himself hath sufficiently confuted it, and you agree with him in the Confutation. P. 69. n. 3.Yet herein you grow very angry with him, for p. 171saying, That this Doctrine may agree well enough with your grounds, in regard you hold, that Tradition may be known for God's VVord by its own light, and consequently the like may be said of Scripture. This you call aspersing you, and obtruding falshoods upon you. Whether it be so or no, must appear upon examination. Two Testimonies are cited from A. C. to this purpose, the first is, Tradition of the Church is of a Company, which by its own light, shews it self to be infallibly assisted. Your Answer is, That the word [which] must properly relate to the preceding word Company, and not to the more remote word Tradition. But what of all this? Doth any thing the less follow, which the Bishop charged A. C. with? For it being granted by you, That there can be no knowing an Apostolical Tradition, but for the Infallibility of the present Church; the same light which discovers the Infallibility of that Company, doth likewise discover the Truth of Tradition. If therefore your Church doth appear infallible by its own light, which is your own confession, May not the Scripture as well appear infallible by its own light. For is there not as great self-evidence, at least, that the Scripture is infallible, as that your Church is infallible? And therefore that way you take to shift the Objection, makes it return upon you with greater force: For, I pray tell me, how any Company can appear by its own Light to be assisted by the Holy Ghost, and not much more the Holy Scripture to be divine? Especially seeing you must at last be forced to derive this Infallibility from the Scriptures. For, you pretend to no other Infallibility, than what comes by a promise of the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost. How then can any Company appear by its own Light, to be thus infallibly assisted, unless it first appear by its own Light, that there was such a Promise? and how can that, unless it antecedently appear by its own Light, that the Scripture, in which the Promise is written, is the VVord of God? You tell us,P. 70. A. C'^s. intention is only to affirm, That the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility, which ever accompany her, and may very properly be called her own Light. How well you are acquainted with A. C'^s. intention, I know not, neither is it much matter: for, granting this to have been his intention, may not the Scripture be known by her Motives of Credibility, as well as the Church? and do not these accompany her, as much as the Church? and may they not be called her Light, as properly as those of the Church? It is plain then, by all the senses and meanings you can find out, in the very same, that you say the Church may be known by her own Light, the Scripture may much more; and therefore you have no reason to quarrel with his Lordship or affirming it.

The second Testimony produced, is, That a Tradition may be known to be such by the Light it hath in it self; in which (you say) you find not one word, of Tradition being known by its own Light. But, who are so blind as those who will not see? I pray, what difference is there between a Tradition being known to be such by its own Light, and a Tradition being known by its own Light? Yes, say you, known to be such, implies, that is, to be God's unwritten Word; but are not doctrinal Traditions, and an unwritten Word, with you the same thing? Can therefore a Tradition be known to be an unwritten Word by its own Light, and not be known to be a Tradition by its own Light? Nay, How can it possibly be known to be an unwritten Word, unless it first appears to be a Tradition? for Tradition containing under it both those that are unwritten Words, and those that are not; it must, in order of nature, be known to be a Tradition, before it can be known to be the other: As I must first know you to be a living Creature, before I can know you to be a reasonable Creature; and, I may much sooner know the one than the p. 172other. You do therefore very well when you have given us such occasion for sport to give us leave to laugh at it, as you do in your next words.

§. 9.But before you leave this point you have some graver matter to take notice of, which is, that you desire the reader to consider what the Relator grants, viz. That the Church now admits of St. James and St. Judes Epistles, and the Apocalypse, which were not received for diverse years, after the rest of the New Testament. From which you wisely inferr, That if some Books are now to be admitted for Canonical which were not alwayes acknowledged to be such, then upon the same authority some Books may now be received into the Canon, which were not so in Ruffinus his time. And therefore the Bishop doth elsewhere unjustly charge the Church of Rome, that it had erred in receiving more Books into the Canon, then were received in Ruffinus his time. To which I Answer. 1. By your own confession then, the Church of Rome doth now receive into the Canon more Books then she did in Ruffinus his time; from whence I enquire, whether the present Church of Rome were Infallible in Ruffinus his time in determining the Canon of the Scripture? If not, then the present Church is no Infallible propounder of the Word of God, and then all your discourse comes to nothing. If she were Infallible then, she cannot be now, for now she determins otherwise as to a main point of Faith than she did then; unless you will say, your Church can be Infallible in determining both parts of a contradiction to be true. 2. Is the integrity of the Canon of Scripture an Apostolical tradition or no? I doubt not, but you will say, It is; if so, Whether were these Books which you admit now and were not admitted then, known to be of the Canon by this Apostolical tradition? If not, by what right come they now to be of the Canon? if so, then was not your Church in Ruffinus's time, much to seek for her Infallibility, in defining what was Apostolical tradition, and what not? 3. Your main principle on which the lawfulness of adding more books to the Canon of the Scripture is built, is, That it is in the power of your Church judicially and authoritatively to determine what books belong to the Canon of the Scripture, and what not, which I utterly deny. For it is impossible that your Church, or any in the world, can by any definition make that Book to be Divine, which was not so before such a definition: For the Divinity of the Book doth meerly arise from Divine revelation. Can your Church then make that to be a Divine revelation, which was not so? All that any Church in the world can do in this case, is, not to constitute any new Canon, which were to make Books Divine which were not so, but to use its utmost diligence and care in searching into the authenticalness of those Copy's which have any pretence to be of the Canon, and whether they did originally proceed from such persons, as we have reason to believe had an immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost; and, according to the evidence they find, the Church may declare and give in her verdict. For the Church in this case is but a Jury of grand Inquest to search into matters of Fact, and not a Judge upon the Bench to determine in point of Law. And that is the true reason, why the Books of the New Testament were gradually received into the Canon, and some a great while after others, as St. James, St. Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse; because at first, the Copyes being not so publickly dispersed, there was not that occasion ministred to the Church for examination of them; upon which, when by degrees they came to be more publick, it caused scruples in many concerning them, because they appeared no sooner: especially if any passages p. 173in them seemed to gratifie any of the Sects then appearing; as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Novatians; and the Apocalypse, the Millenary's: But when upon a through search and examination of all circumstances, it did appear that these Copyes were authentical, and did originally proceed from Divine Persons, then they came to be admitted and owned for such by the Vniversal Church, which we call being admitted into the Canon of the Scripture. Which I take to be the only true and just account of that which is called the constituting the Canon of Scripture, not as though either the Apostles met to do it, or St. John intended any such thing by those words in the end of the Apocalypse (for that Book being as much lyable to question as any, how could that seal the Canon for all the rest) much less, that it was in the power of any Church or Council, and least of all of the Pope, to determine what was Canonical, and what not: but only that the Church upon examination and enquiry, did by her Universal reception of these Books, declare it self satisfied with the evidence which was produced, that those were true and authentick Copyes which were abroad under such names or titles, and that there was great reason to believe by a continued tradition from the age and time these Books were written in, that they were written by such persons, who were not only free from any design of imposture, but gave the greatest Rational evidence, that they had a more special and immediate assistance of Gods Spirit. You see then, to how little advantage to your Cause you made this digression.

As to the third way propounded for resolving the Question,§. 10. How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God, viz. by the testimony of the Holy Ghost; three things you object against the Bishops discourse about it; First, Pag 70, 71.that his discourse is roving and uncertain. 2. That notwithstanding his brags he must have recourse to a private spirit himself. 3. That though the Bishop would seem to deny it, diverse eminent Protestants do resolve their Faith into the private spirit. This being the substance of what you say, I shall return a particular Answer to each of them. For the first you tell us, He delivers himself in such a roving way of discourse, as signifies nothing in effect as to what he would drive at. No? that is strange, when that which his Lordship drives at, is, to shew how far this opinion is to be allowed and how far not, which he is so far from roving in, that he clearly and distinctly propounds the state of the question and the resolution of it: which in short is this,P. 71, 72. If by the testimony of the spirit be meant any special revelation of a new object of Faith, then he denies the truth of it at least in an ordinary way, both because God never sends us to look for such a testimony, and because it would expose men to the danger of Enthusiasms: but if by the testimony of the Spirit be meant the habit or the act of Divine infused Faith, by vertue of which they believe the object which appears credible, then he grants the truth but denyes the pertinency of it, because it is quite out of the state of the question, which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this object credible, against all impeachment of folly and temerity in believing, whether men do actually believe or not. And withal adds, P. 74. n. 12.that the question is of such outward and evident means, as other men may take notice of, as well as our selves. Judge you now, whether this may be called roving; if it be so, I can freely excuse you from it in all the discourses I have met with in your Book, who abhorre nothing more then a true stating, and methodical handling any question.

But yet (say you) the Bishop cannot free himself from that imputation of recurring to the private Spirit, against any that should press the business home. p. 174Sure you refer us here to some one else who is able to press a business home, for you never attempt it your self; and instead of that, only produce a large testimony out of A. C. That he did not acquit the Bishop wholly of this. Whether he did or no is to little purpose, and yet those very words which his Lordship cites, are in your testimony produced out of him. Only what you add more from him, that he must be driven to it; that his Lordship denies, and neither A. C. or you have been able to prove it.

But though the Bishop seems not only to deny any such private revelation himself, but will not confess that any Protestants hold it; yet (you say) there can be no doubt in this, since Calvin and Whitaker do both so expresly own it. But according to those principles laid down before, both these testimonies are easily answered. For, 1. Neither of them doth imply any private revelation of any new object, but only a particular application of the evidence appearing in Scripture to the conscience of every Believer. 2. That these testimonies do not speak of the external evidence which others are capable of, but of the internal satisfaction of every ones conscience. Therefore Calvin saith,Institut. l. 1. c. 7. sect. 4. Si conscientiis optimè consultum volumus, &c. if we will satisfie our own consciences; not, If we will undertake to give a sufficient reason to others of our Faith.Controv. de Script. q. 3. c. 1. So Whitaker, Esse enim dicimus certius & illustrius testimonium quo nobis persuadeatur hos libros esse sacros, &c. There is a more certain and noble testimony by which we may be perswaded that these Books are sacred, viz. that of the Holy Ghost. 3. Neither of these testimonies affirm any more, than the more judicious Writers among your selves do. Your Canus asserts the necessity of an internal efficient cause, by special assistance of the Spirit moving us to believe, besides and beyond all humane authorities and motives, Id statuendum est, authoritatem humanam & incitamenta omnia illa praedicta, sive alia quaecun que adhibita ab eo qui proponit fidem, non esse sufficientes causas ad credendum ut credere tenemur; sed praeterea opus est interiori causá efficiente, i. e. Dei speciali auxili… moventis ad credendum. Locor. theol. l. …. c. 8. Resp. ad 4. arg. l 2. c. 8. sect. Jam si hac.which of themselves are not sufficient to beget Faith, and this (a little after) he calls, Divinum quoddam lume… incitans ad credendum, A divine light moving us to believe; and again, Interius lumen infusum à Spirit… Sancto, An inward light infused by the Spirit of God. There is nothing in the sayings of the most rigid Protestants is more hard to explain or vindicate from a private revelation then this is: if, as you say, one would press it home. Nay hath not your own Stapleton, Calvins very phrase of the necessity of the secret testimony of the Spirit that one believe the testimony and judgement of the Church concerning Scripture. Arcanum hoc divini Spiritûs testimonium prorsus necessarium est, ut quis Ecclesiae testimonio ac judicio, circa Scripturarum approbationem credat. Triplicat. advers Whitak. cap. 3.And is there not then as much danger of Enthusiasm in believing the Testimony of your Church, as in believing the Scriptures? Nay, doth not your Gregory de Valentiâ rather go higher then the testimonies by you produced out of Calvin and Whitaker on this very subject, in the beginning of his discourse of the resolution of Faith. It is God himself, saith he, in the first place, which must convince and perswade the minds of men of the truth of the Christian Doctrine, Et verò Deus ipse imprimis est qui Christianam doctrinam, at que adeò Scripturam sacram veram esse, voce revelationis suae, & intern… quodam instinctu & impulsu humanis mentibus contestatur at que persuadet; ut in eâ ipsâ scripturà multis in lo…is est expressum, & praeclare à Prospero Aquitanico explicatur. De An…lysi fide… l. 1. c. 1.and consequently of the Sacred Scriptures, by some inward instinct and impulse; as it appears from Scripture it self, & is fully explained by Prosper. If you will then undertake to clear this inward instinct and impulse upon the minds of men, whereby they are perswaded of the truth of Christianity and Scripture, from Enthusiasm and a private spirit you may as easily do it for the utmost which is said by Calvin, or Whitaker, or any other Protestant p. 175Divine. This therefore is only an argument of your desire to cavil, and as such I will pass it over. For what concerns the influence which the Spirit hath in the resolution of Faith, it will be enquired into afterwards.

The last way mentioned in order to the resolution of Faith, is,§. 11. that of Reason, P. 74. n. 13.which (his Lordship saith) cannot be denyed to have some place to come in, and prove what it can. According to which (he tells us) no man can be hindred from weighing the tradition of the Church, the inward motives in Scripture it self, all testimonies within, which seem to bear witness to it; and in all this (saith he) there is no harm: the danger is, N. 14.when a man will use no other scale but reason, or prefer reason before any other scale. Reason then, can give no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his Faith, that the Scripture is the word of God infallibly; yet Reason can go so high, as it can prove that Christian Religion, which rests upon the authority of this Book, stands upon surer grounds of nature, reason, common equity, and justice, then any thing in the world, which any Infidel, or meer naturalist, hath done, doth, or can adhere unto, against it, in that which he makes, accounts, or assumes as Religion to himself. This is the substance of his Lordships discourse about the use of Reason; in which we observe,

1. That he doth not make reason a means sufficient to ground an infallible belief, that Scripture is the Word of God. And therefore you are guilty of notorious oscitancy, or willful calumny, in telling us, That natural reason is introduced by the Bishop for that end. By which we may guess at the truth of what you say at the end of your interlocutory discourse between the Bishop and the Heathen, that you have not wronged him, P. 72. l. 9, 1….P. 75. l. 5.by either falsly imposing on him, or dissembling the force of his arguments, wherein you are so guilty, that the only extenuation of your crime had been, never to have professed the contrary. For you give us a hopeful specimen of your fair dealings at your entrance on this subject.

2. Though reason cannot give a supernatural ground whereby to resolve Faith as to the Scriptures being Gods Word Infallibly; yet reason may abundantly prove to any one who questions it, the truth and reasonableness of Christian Religion. By which if you please, you may take notice of a double resolution of Faith: the one is, into the truth and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Christianity considered in it self; and the other is, into the Infallible means of the conveyance of that Doctrine to us, which is the Scripture. When therefore his Lordship offers to deal with a Heathen, he doth not as you, either sillily or wilfully, would make him say, That he would prove Infallibly to him, that the Bible is Gods Word, but that Christian Religion hath so much the advantage above all others, as to make it appear, that it stands upon surer grounds of nature, reason, common equity and justice, then any thing in the world, which any one who questions it doth adhere unto. Which I think is a thing that no one, who understands Christian Religion, would be afraid to undertake against any Infidel of what sort or nature soever. These things being premised, your grand piece of Sophistry in the dispute between the Heathen and the Bishop, whom you so solemnly introduce at a Conference about Religion, doth evidently discover it self. Wherein, you bring in your learned Heathen, P. 72. n. ….as one desiring satisfaction in matter of Religion; but being not verst in Christian Principles, desires to be satisfied by the evidence of natural reason; which when the Bishop hath condescended to; your very next thing is, that your Heathen understands by his Lordships Book, that the sole foundation of our Faith is a Book p. 176called the Bible; which saith he, you tell me must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it, to be the undoubted Word of the true God, before I can believe any other point of Religion as it ought to be believed. As to which, your Heathen sees no ground to assent that it is Gods Word. But by this way of management of your dispute, we may easily discern which way the issue of it is like to go. Doth his Lordship any where undertake to prove this in the first place Infallibly to a Heathen, That the Bible must be Infallibly believed to be Gods Word? No, he offers to prove, first, the excellency and the reasonableness of the Christian Religion considered in its self. From whence you might easily conceive how the dispute ought to be managed; shewing first, that the precepts of Christianity are highly just and reasonable, the Promises of it such as may induce any reasonable man to the practice of those Precepts; and that the whole Doctrine is such, as may appear to any considerative person to have been very wisely contrived: That there is nothing vain or impertinent in it, but that it is designed for great and excellent purposes, the bringing men off from the love of sin, to the love of God; that it is impossible to imagine any Doctrine to be contrived with more advantage for promoting these ends, because it represents to us the highest expressions of the Kindness and Goodness of God to man, and that the Promises made by God were confirmed to the world by the death of his only Son; That since mens natures are now so degenerate, God hath made a tender of Grace, and divine assistance, whereby to enable men to perform the excellent duties of this Religion. That those things which seem most hard to believe in this Doctrine, are not such things as might have been spared out of it (as though God did intend only to puzzle mens reason with them) but they are such mysteries, as it is impossible the wit of man can conceive they should have been discovered upon better reasons, or for more excellent ends; as, that a Virgin should conceive by the immediate power of God, to bring him into the world, who should be the Saviour of it; That there should be a resurrection of bodies, in order to a compleat felicity of them who obey this Doctrine; and so for others of a like nature: that supposing it possible such things should be, it is impossible to conceive they should be done upon better grounds, or for better purposes than they are in Christian Religion. This being now a short draught or Idea of Christianity, is the first thing which I suppose any learned or inquisitive Heathen or Infidel should be acquainted with; if he finds fault with this, let him in any thing shew the incongruity or unreasonableness of it. If he acknowledge this model of the Doctrine reasonable, his next scruple is, Whether this be truly the Model of it or no; for that end I tell him, We have a Book among us, which is, and ever hath been, by Christians, taken for granted, to comprize in it the Principles of Christian Religion; I bid him take it, and read it seriously, and see if that which I have given him as the Idea of Christian Doctrine, do not perfectly agree with that Book. I do not bid him presently absolutely and infallibly believe this Book to be God's VVord, which is a very preposterous way of proceeding; but only compare the Doctrine with the Book, as he would do a body of Civil Law, with the Institutes of it; or the Principles of any Science, with the most approved Authors of it. If after this search, he be satisfied, that the representation I gave him of Christian Religion, agrees with those Books we call the Bible; he yet further adds, that he acknowledges the Principles of our Religion to be reasonable; but desires to be satisfied of the Truth of them; I must further enquire, Whether he doth believe any thing else to p. 177be in the world, besides what he hath seen and heard himself? I may justly suppose his Answer affirmative; I then demand upon what grounds? A. VponUpon the certain report of honest men, who have seen and heard other things than ever he did. But why do you think honest mens reports to be credible in such cases? A. Because, I see, they have no design or interest to deceive me in it. Will you then believe the report of such men, whom, I can make it appear, could have no interest in deceiving you? A. I can see no reason to the contrary. Will you then believe such men, who lost their lives to make it appear, that their Testimony was true? A. Yes. Will you believe such things, wherein persons of several Ages, Professions, Nations, Religions, Interests, are all agreed that they were so? A. Yes, if it be only to believe a matter of fact on their Testimony; I can see no ground to question it. That is all I desire of you, and therefore you must believe that there was in the world such a person as Jesus Christ, who dyed, and rose again; and, while he lived, wrought great miracles to confirm his Doctrine with; and that he sent out Apostles to preach this Doctrine in the world, who likewise did work many miracles, and that some of these persons the better to preserve and convey this Doctrine, did write the substance of all that Christ either did, or spake, and withall penned several Epistles to those Churches which were planted by them. These are all matters of fact, and therefore on your former Principle you are to believe them. There are then but two Scruples left, Supposing all this true, yet this doth not prove the Doctrine Divine; nor the Scriptures, which convey it, to be infallible. To which I answer, 1. Can you question, Whether that Doctrine be Divine, when the person who declared it to the world, was so divine and extraordinary a person, not only in his conversation, but in those frequent and unparalleld Miracles which he wrought in the sight and face of his enemies, who, after his death, did rise again, and converse with his Disciples, who gave evidence of their fidelity in the Testimony they gave of it, by laying down their lives to attest the Truth of it? Again, Can you question the Divinity of that Doctrine, which tended so apparently to the destruction of sin and wickedness, and the power of the evil Spirit in the world? For, we cannot think he would quit his possession willingly out of the bodies and souls of men; that therefore which threw him out of both, must be, not only a Doctrine directly contrary to his interest, but infinitely exceeding him in power: And that can be no less than Divine. But still, you will say, Is it not, besides all this, necessary to believe these very Books, you call the Scripture, to be divinely inspired; and how should I know that? To that I answer, 1. That which God chiefly requires from you, is, the belief of the Truth and Divinity of the Doctrine; for that is the Faith which will bring you to obedience, which is the thing God aims at. 2. If you believe the Doctrine to be True and Divine, you cannot reasonably question the Infallibility of the Scriptures. For, in that you read, that not only Christ did miracles, but his Apostles too; and therefore their Testimony, whether writing or speaking was equally infallible; all that you want evidence for, is, that such persons writ these Books, and that being a matter of fact, was sufficiently proved and acknowledged before. Thus you see, if we take a right method, and not jumble things confusedly together, as you do, what a satisfactory account may be given to any inquisitive person; first, of the Reasonableness; next, of the Truth; and lastly, of the Divinity, both of the Doctrine, and the Books containing it, which we call the Scripture.

p. 178§. 12.Let us now again see, How you make the Bishop and Heathen dispute. The substance of which, is, That you make your Heathen desire no less than infallible evidence that the Bible is God's VVord by conviction of natural reason; whereas his Lordship attempts only to make the Authority of Scriptures appear by such Arguments, as unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable, if they weighed them with indifferency. For, though, saith he, this Truth, That Scripture is the VVord of God, is not so demonstratively evident à priori, P. 77. n. 15.as to inforce assent, yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments, both from the Light of Nature it self, and Humane Testimony, that he must be very wilful and self-conceited, that shall dare to suspect it. And sure any reasonable man in the world would think it sufficient to deal with an adversary upon such terms. But, saies your Heathen, A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthened with but probable Arguments, since that which is but probably true, may also be said to be but probably false. Which being a thing so often objected against us by your party, must be somewhat further explained. How far Infallibility may be admitted in our belief, may partly be perceived by what hath been said already, and what shall be said more afterwards. That there is, and ought to be the highest degree of actual Certainty; I assert as much as you: But, say you, The very Arguments being but probable, destroy it: To which I answer, by explaining the meaning of probable Arguments, in this case; whereby are not understood such kind of Probabilities, which cannot raise a firm Assent, in which sense we say, That which is probable to be, is probable not to be; but by Probabilities are only meant such kind of rational Evidence, which may yield a sufficient foundation for a firm Assent, but yet notwithstanding, which an obstinate person may deny Assent. As for Instance, if you were to dispute with an Atheist concerning the Existence of a Deity, which he denies, and should proceed with you just as your Heathen doth with the Bishop. Sir, All that Religion you talk of, is built only upon the belief of a God, but I cannot be infallibly convinced by natural reason, that there is such a one. You presently tell him, that there is so much evidence for a Deity, from the works of nature, the consent of all people, &c. that he can have no reason to question it. But still he replies, None of these are demonstrations, for notwithstanding I have considered these, I believe the contrary; but demonstrations would make me infallibly certain; these then are no more but probable Arguments, and therefore since it is but probably true, it may be probably false. How then will you satisfie such a person? Can you do it any otherwise, than by saying, that we have as great Evidence as the nature of the thing will bear, and it is unreasonable to require more? Unless you will tell him, it is to no purpose to believe a God, unless he believe it infallibly; and there being no infallible Arguments in nature, he must believe it on the Infallibility of your Church. And do you not think, this were an excellent way to confute Atheists? But when we speak of probable Arguments, we mean not such as are apt to leave the mind in suspence, whether the thing be true or no; but only such as are not proper and rigid demonstrations, or infallible Testimony, but the highest Evidence which the nature of the thing will bear, and therefore may cause an undoubted Certainty of Assent. As it is in all matters of fact; for, Will you say, that it is as probable, that there is not such a place as Rome, as that there is, because the only Argument you have to be convinced of it, is but in it self a probability, which is the fame and report of people. It is a piece therefore of great weakness of judgement, to say, That there can be no certain Assent, where there p. 179is a meer possibility of being deceived. For there is no kind of Assent in the humane understanding, as to the existence of any thing, but there is a possibility of deception in it. Will you say, because it is possible all mens senses may deceive them, therefore there can be no certainty of any object of sense? And, as well may you say it, as destroy any certainty of Assent in Religion, where you suppose a possibility of being deceived. But, if I be not much deceived (though I suppose you will account it a grand Paradox) an Assent may be as firm and certain upon moral grounds, as upon a demonstration, that is, when the matter is capable of no more than moral grounds. For, the reason why we suspend Assent, is the unproportionateness of the evidence to the matter to be proved: So, when the matter is capable of more evidence than is produced, and I know it to be so, my understanding cannot firmly assent on such evidence; but when the matter is capable of no more than moral evidence, and I know it, I may as firmly assent to the Truth of such a thing, as to the Truth of a clearer thing, upon clearer evidence. Thus I may as firmly assent, that there are such places as the East and West-Indies, upon the constant report of men, as that the three angles of a triangle, are equal to two right angles: I say not, the evidence is the same, but that the Assent may be as firm. You cannot then destroy the certainty of Assent, which is required to Christian Religion, by telling men, that the Arguments they rely on, are but moral Arguments: And by this, you may see, there may be a degree far beyond probability in the Assent, where the Arguments in themselves considered, may be called probable; or rather, that Moral certainty may be a most firm, rational, and undoubted certainty. Your following discourse between the Bishop and Heathen, P. 73.run upon the former mistake, as though his intention were to prove first the Bible to be God's Infallible Word, before he would prove Christian Religion to be true, which I have already shewed you, is a mistake, which appears sufficiently by his own words, of proving the Christian Religion to stand upon surer grounds than any other Religion; not only than that one which the Heathen believed, but any other in the world: and therefore your Objection is answered, that for all this, a third Religion may be truer than both. Your remaining discourse proves nothing at all, but on the former Supposition; and therefore, supposing his intention be to prove Christianity to be True and Divine, his Argument from the power of it over the Devil, follows plainly enough. And when he mentions the evidence of it out of Scripture, he doth not suppose the belief of it as an infallible Word of God, but only as of any other history, and therefore is far from such a petitio principii, as you imagine. That which the Bishop saith, may reasonably be supposed, as a Principle in Divinity (as there are postulata in other Sciences) is not the Infallibility of the Doctrine, or Revelation, but the Credibility of both, in order to further Conviction concerning their Infallibility; for, unless the Credibility of it be first assumed as a Principle, men will not use the means in order to conviction of its Infallibility. And in this sense he doth not contradict himself, nor unsay what he had said before; and that this was his sense, appears by the last words of that discourse, That a meer natural man may be thus far convinced, that the Text of God is a very credible Text. Thus we see,P. 80. n. 18. how much, notwithstanding your protestation to the contrary, You have wronged the Bishop, both by falsly imposing on him, and dissembling the force of his Argument: And how unjust that imputation is, That if his Doctrine had been held in the Primitive Church, it would have laid the world under an impossibility of being converted to Christianity; whereas I have shewed how p. 180consonant his way is, as I explained it, both to reason, and the proceedings of the Primitive Christians in the conversion of learned Heathens.

§. 13.But since, you will needs set the Bishop to convert a learned Heathen, I will see what an excellent faculty you have according to your Principles of satisfying an Atheist, or a Sceptick in Religion, whom, for your sake, I will suppose more desirous of satisfaction, than commonly such persons are. Let us see then how he accosts you.

Scept. Sir, I understand by a great Book of yours, that you have only taken the right course to convince such persons as my self, who are a little doubtful concerning the received Principles of Religion in the world; for the wisest I have conversed with, of those who own those things, do offer only to prove them by Reason and Arguments, which, I understand, you decry, as a way to make all men such as I am: but that you have an excellent recipe for men under my distemper; for you promise them no less then Infallible certainty in all things you require them to believe, which is a thing I have been so long seeking for, and have yet so unhappily mist of, that I cannot but rejoyce in meeting with such a healing Priest, who offers nothing short of Infallibility in all matters of Religion.

T. C. Sir, I question not, but before you and I part, I shall cure those distorted joynts of your mind, and instead of being a Sceptick, make you a sound Catholick. For indeed it is true, what you say, That those who would convince you by reason, do but offer to make you more a Sceptick than you are, at least, you can have no Divine Faith at all upon such principles; but if you will follow my counsel, I doubt not but to make you Infallibly certain in the things we require you to believe.

Scept. I see then there is hope of a cure for me; but I pray tell me what that is I must be Infallibly certain of, and by what means I shall attain it. I would therefore in the first place be Infallibly certain of the being of God, and the immortality of souls, for these I take to be the principles of all Religion.

T. C. You take a wrong method, you should first enquire after the means of this Infallible certainty, for when once you have got that, it will make you Infallibly certain of what ever you desire; but as long as you use still so much reason, as to demand Infallible certainty in principles before conclusions, there is little hopes of your being a true Roman Catholick. But I must tell you, this is not the way: You must first believe the Church, and then you may believe any thing.

Scept. But would you have me attain Infallible certainty, without any reason that is Infallible? But because you quarrel with my method, I will yield to yours, but let me desire to know first, What those things are which I must believe upon this Infallibility? and then, Whether nothing short of this Infallible certainty will serve in order to Faith? for if so, I must confess my self not only a Sceptick but an Infidel.

T. C. All objects of Faith must be believed with Infallible certainty, and nothing short of that can be true Faith, for true Divine Faith must rely on Divine Authority, or some Word of God: now because you cannot rely on Gods written Word for the Divine Authority of it self, you must rely on some Divine unwritten Word; which can be no other but what is delivered by the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church.

Scept. I was in hopes, you intended my cure, but now I perceive you aim at making me worse; for I never heard so many things uttered in a breath with so great confidence, and so little shew of reason; that if I were not a Sceptick already, I should commence one now. You tell me p. 181indeed very magisterially, that I cannot believe without Infallibility, because Faith must rely on a Divine Testimony; this Divine Testimony is not in Scripture (as you call it) but in the Infallibility of your present Roman Church; I find my doubts so increase by this discourse of yours, that they all croud so to get out, I know not how to propose them in order, but as well as I can. You tell me the ground why you require Infallible certainty, is, because Faith must rest on Divine Authority, and that this Authority must be that of your Church, which you say is Infallible: these things therefore I desire of you, first, to shew how your Churches Authority comes to be Divine. 2. How her Testimony comes to be Infallible. 3. How I may be Infallibly certain of this Infallibility. 4. Supposing the Catholick Churches Testimony to be so, how such a Sceptick as I am, should know your Roman Church to be that Catholick Church.

T. C. Your first question is, How our Churches Authority comes to be Divine? I see there is little hopes of doing good on you, that ask such questions as these are; you ought quietly to submit your Faith to the Church, and heartily believe all these things without questioning them; for I must tell you, such kind of questions have almost ruined us, and hath made scrupulous men turn Hereticks, and others Atheists: but since I hope your questions may go no further then my answers, nor be any better understood, I must tell you; That though we say, that it is necessary that Divine Faith must rely on Divine Authority because that seems to promise Infallibility; yet when we come to our Churches Testimony, we dare not for fear of the Hereticks call it Divine, but Infallible and in a manner, and after a sort Divine, hoping they would never take notice of any Contradiction in it, but still we say, As far as concerns precise Infallibility, it is so truly supernatural and certain, that it comes nothing short of the Divinest Testimony; but yet this is not Divine, though it be by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost, and yet is no immediate revelation; but still it is so much, as if the Church should erre, Gods veracity may be called in question assoon as the Churches.

Scept. I took you for a Priest before, but now I take you for an absolute conjurer: but I confess, I like this discourse well, for I perceive your Religion is built on such grounds, as you never intend should be understood, wherein I commend your discretion; for these distinctions will doubtless do your work among silly and ignorant people, which are a great part of mankind and much the greatest of your Church. I am therefore infinitely satisfied with this answer to my first question; answer but the rest so, and I promise you to be less a Sceptick then ever I was.

T. C. to your second, How her Testimony comes to be Infallible; because I perceive you are an understanding person, I will acquaint you with our way. The Hereticks trouble us with this question above all others: for they presently cry out, If you know the Scripture to be Infallible by the Church, and the Church Infallible by Scripture, we run into a Circle; and this we know as well as they, but do not think fit to let the people know it, and therefore we tell them of things being known in themselves and to us, between the formal object and the Infallible witness, between the principal cause and a condition prerequisite, between proving of it to Hereticks and to our selves; but I see some of my brethren of late have been much beholding to some things with vizards upon them called Motives of credibility, and the generality are so frighted with them, that they will rather say they are satisfied then ask any more questions; but if they do, these do so little in truth belong to our Church, that then we storm, and sweat, and p. 182cry out upon them as Atheists, and that it is impossible they should believe any Religion who question them; and if that doth it not, then we patter over the former distinctions as we do our prayers, and hope they are both in an unknown tongue.

Scept. Well, I see you are the man like to give me satisfaction; I pray to your third question, How I may be Infallibly certain of this Infallibility?

T.C. that is a question never asked by Catholicks, and if we find any propounding it whom we hoped to proselyte, we give them hard words and leave them; for because we offer to prove our Infallibility by only motives of credibility, they presently ask us, Whether our Infallibility be an Article of Faith? if it be, then they may believe an Article of Faith without Infallible certainty, and then what need our Churches Infallibility? and then to what end do we quarrel with their Faith for being built on greater motives of credibility? which being such untoward questions we see there is no good to be done on them and so leave them: but in our Books we are sure to cry out of the fallibility and uncertainty of the Faith of Protestants, because they acknowledge their Churches not Infallible, and cry up our Church because she pretends to it; if they ask, How we prove it, we seek to confound the state of the question, and run out into the necessity of an unwritten Word, or bring such motives as hold only for the Primitive and Apostolical Church, and make them serve ours too. If all this will not do, we have other shifts still, but it is not yet fit to discover them.

Scept. To your fourth Question (and then I will tell you my judgement) How your Church comes to be called or accounted the Catholick Church?

T. C. For this, though it seems strange to the Hereticks, how a part should be called or accountd the whole, yet to all true Catholicks, who must wink hard that they may see the better, we make no great difficulty of it: for we tell them the Pope is Christs Vicar, and it is the head which gives the denomination, and so Catholick is nothing else but a name to denote persons who are in our Church; and if they question this, they thereby are out of the Church, and so under damnation; But for the sturdy Hereticks who deride our thunderbolts, we are put to a greater trouble, and are fain to gather all the citations of the Fathers against the poor Donatists and apply them to the Hereticks, and what ever they say belongs to the Catholick Church we confidently arrogate it to our selves, as though our Church now were the same with the Catholick Church then: and chiefly we have the advantage of the Protestants by this, that whatever corruptions they charge us with, they had the good hap to be almost generally received at the time Luther appeared, and upon this we thunder them with the succession and visibility of our Church; as the Samaritans were much to blame they did not serve the Israelites so, after their return from captivity; for they had a continual succession in the same place, and a greater visibility than the Israelites under their bondage; but yet we had the advantage of them by a larger spread, a longer prescription, and a fairer shew.

Scept. Sir, I am hugely taken with these discourses of yours, and easily perceive (whatever they that believe Christian Religion to be true think) that you are men of wit and parts; and understand your Interest, I mean your Religion. I understand now throughly, to what intent it is you say, that Those who build their Faith on rational grounds, go about to destroy Religion. I confess, you have taken the only way to reclaim me from any thing of Scepticism. I suppose you understand my meaning, as I do yours.

p. 183In this discourse I pretend not, as you did, to deliver his Lordships words, and so wrong him by falsly imposing them on him in another sense then he intended them, but collect from your former managery of this Controversie, what your real sense and meaning is, and how excellent a way this is, instead of reclaiming Atheists to make them so. If I have mistaken your meaning, I pray speak more clearly, and then we shall think you mean honestly; but as long as you walk so much in the dark, you will give us leave to suspect your design is either upon our purses or our Religion. I now return to your Church-tradition.

You begin your sixth Section with a fair Supposition and carry it on accordingly, which is of a Child brought up in your Church, §. 14.who is commanded to believe the Scriptures, P. 7. n. 6.and all other Articles of Faith on the Authority of your Church, whom you suppose to dye without once looking into the Scriptures: Your question is, Whether he had saving Faith or no; if so, then the Churches Authority is a sufficient ground for Infallible Faith; if not, then he had none at all, and consequently could not be saved. I answer, We pry not into Divine secrets, on which account we dare not pronounce of the final condition of such who through ignorance cannot be acquainted with Gods written Word; we therefore say, that an hearty assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel is the Faith which God requires, and if this Faith lead men to obedience to Gods will, we assert the sufficiency of it for salvation, and not otherwise; for Faith is not therefore saving, because built on an Infallible ground, as you fondly seem to imagine; but when it attains its end, when it brings men to a hearty obedience to the precepts of the Gospel. And if some among you, may believe that which is in it self true, but upon weak and insufficient grounds, as the advantages of education (which are much rather the foundation of the Faith of such a one as you speak of, then any Infallibility supposed by him in the Church) yet such and so great is the goodness of God, that if a Faith standing on such grounds do attain its end, that is, make such a one Universally holy, we deny not, but God may accept of it for Salvation. But still we say, such a Faith is so far from being Infallible, that it is not built on any sufficient or satisfactory ground, for the motive of it is that, which may be false as well as true; for he that assents to any thing on the Authority of any Church, before he doth judge whether her Authority be to be relyed on absolutely or no, may believe a falshood assoon as truth upon that Authority; and the more he makes this his foundation, the more he is in danger of being deceived. As suppose a Child brought up in Turky and instructed in that Religion; he is told that he must without examination believe Mahomets Alcoran to be Divine; and he must neither doubt of this, nor of any other Article of Faith, universally received among Mahumetans: may not such a one as invincibly believe the Authority of the Turkish Church (if we may call it so) as your Child doth the Authority of your Church? Where then lies the difference? you see plainly, it cannot be in the Motive to Faith, for the Authority is supposed equally Infallible in both; but it lies in the evidence of truth in one Religion above the other, and this requires something more then the Authority of the Church, viz. judgement and diligent examination. And then Faith is built on a sure ground. Remember then, that we enquire not what abatements God makes for the prejudices of education in believing or not believing any Religion; nor how God intends to deal with them, who through age or other invincible prejudices are uncapable of judging the evidence of truth in any Religion; but what are the certain p. 184grounds of Faith, which sober and understanding men may and ought to build their belief of true Religion upon. But you proceed, and suppose your young Christian to live, and apply himself to study, and becomes a learned man, and then upon the Churches recommendation betakes himself to the reading the Scriptures, upon which by the light he discovers in it he finds the Faith he had before, was but a humane perswasion and not a Divine Faith, and consequently that he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian belief, and so was out of the state of Salvation; from whence (you say) will spring gripes and torture of spirit among Christians. And why so? What, because they discern greater reason to believe then ever they did, must they find gripes and torture of spirit? I had thought, the more light men had found, i. e. the more reason for believing, the more peace and contentment they had in their minds. And so I verily believe it is: but probably your meaning is, This Doctrine will cause gripes and torture of spirit in those who have no other foundation of Faith, but your Churches authority, and never enquire after more: If it does so, much good may they do them; and I verily believe, Such doubts may tend more to their satisfaction at last, than their present security; and a Doctrine which tends to convince the world of the folly and unreasonableness of such a kind of implicite Faith, the unsuitableness of it to the nature of Religion in general, but more especially the Christian (whose great commendation is, that it puts men upon so much searching and enquiry into the truth of it) would tend more to the good of the Christian world, than any of those soft and easie principles which you seek to keep men in obedience by, and that I am afraid more to your Church than to Christ. Why then such a Doctrine should cause needless gripes and tortures of spirit, I cannot imagine: it must certainly be a great confirmation to the mind of any good man to see still further reason for his Faith, by which it grows more radicated and confirmed. Or would you have a man disquiet himself, because he is not still a Child? much such a kind of thing this is, that a mans mind must be tortured, because his Faith grows stronger; for we assert that there are degrees in Faith; which you who make all Faith Infallible cannot do, unless you suppose an Infallible thing may grow more Infallible. And if all true Faith be Infallible, how can men pray for the increase of Faith, unless they pray for the increase of their Infallibility; which is a prayer, I suppose, not many in your Church are allowed to make, for then what becomes of your Popes prerogative, when not only every one among you is supposed to be Infallible, but hopes as well as prayes to be more Infallible, which is more then your Pope or your Church dares pretend to.

But whether Doctrine tends more to inward gripes and tortures of spirit, yours or ours, let any reasonable man judge; for we assert that true Faith is capable of degrees of augmentation, but you assert that there is no Divine Faith but what is Infallible; when therefore men by reflection upon themselves are so far from finding such an Infallibility in their assent, that they combat with many doubts and fears, as we see the Apostles did even after the resurrection of Christ; you must pronounce that the Apostles when they questioned Christs resurrection from the dead had no Divine Faith at all: for it is plain they were far from an Infallible assent to it, when Christ upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, Mark 16▪ 14.Mark 16:14because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. Were they Infallible in their assent then or no? I hope you will not contradict it so much as to say so; or had they no Divine Faith then at all? what not p. 185S. Peter, for whom Christ prayed that his Faith should not fail, and from the indesectibility of whose Faith you derive that of the Pope (but here you may see what a certain Foundation you have for it, when it is so apparent here, that S. Peter's Faith did fail, and that as to so important an Article of Faith, as Christ's own Resurrection; for certainly, S. Peter was one of the eleven.) Nay, Doth not Christ upbraid them for their unbelief, in not believing them that had seen him after he was risen? We see then, Christ chides them for not resolving their Faith into a humane and moral Testimony: If you had been there, no doubt you must have told him, He was mistaken in the nature of Faith, which could rest on nothing but an infallible Testimony; and unless he shewed you by sufficient Motives, that those persons who saw him risen, were infallible, for all his haste you were not bound to believe him. But, whether Christ or you be the more infallible, judge you. We see our Blessed Saviour requires no more Assent, than the nature of the thing will bear; nay, he upbraids those who will not believe upon Moral and Humane Testimony; but you say just the contrary, as though you were resolved to contradict him: But that is sufficient Argument to all Christians, of the falsity and folly of your Doctrine, which tends to no other end, but to make all considering men Scepticks, or Atheists. For, when you lay it down as a certain Maxim, that no Faith can be Divine, but what is infallible; and they find no such Infallibility in the grounds or the nature of mens Assent, What then follows, but those worst sort of gripes and tortures, such as argue an inward Convulsion of mind, and bring men to a greater Question, Whether there be any such thing, as that you call true Divine Faith, in the world. You go on with your Catechumen's discourse, who must suppose, Either that the Church taught, that he was to believe Scripture infallible, upon her own infallible Testimony, or not; If so, then he reflects, that this Church hath plainly deceived him, and all others, who believed upon that Supposition, and so exposed them all to the hazard of eternal damnation; and therefore was no True Church, but a deceiver. P. 75▪ 76▪From whence (say you) he gathers, that her recommendation of Scripture, is as much as nothing, and so at last, is left to the sole Letter of Scripture, and so must gather from thence its Authority, or there can be no means left him on the Bishop's own Principles, to believe infallibly that Scripture is Divine, and the True Word of God. This discourse of yours consists of three Absurdities, which will follow upon one of your Churches questioning her Infallibity. 1. That then your Church will be guilty of Imposture. 2. Then the Churches Testimony signifies nothing. 3. That then the sole Letter of Scripture must assure men of its Divine Authority. For the first, I must confess him whom before you supposed a Child, to be now grown to years of understanding, since he doth so wisely reflect on himself, as to your Churches gross Imposture, in her pretence of Infallibility; and, no doubt, it is one of the greatest which hath been known in the Christian world, which you cannot your self deny, supposing that it be not true that she is infallible. For, Can there be any higher cheat in the world, than under a pretence of Infallibility, to impose things upon mens Faith, which are contrary to the Sense and Reason of mankind, to keep them from that inward satisfaction, which their souls might find from a serious consideration of the excellent nature of Christian Religion, and a diligent practice of it, to contradict thereby the very scope of Christianity, which courts our esteem, by offering it self to the fairest tryal; when, I say, under this pretence Christian Religion is apparently dishonoured, the welfare of mens souls hindered, and the greatest corruptions obtruded, without possibility p. 186of amendment of them, excuse your Church from Imposture if you can; for my part, I cannot, nor any one else who throughly considers it. For the second; it will follow indeed, that the Testimony of your Church is as much as nothing, as to any infallible Foundation of Faith; but yet it may be of great use for conveying Vniversal Tradition to us, and so by that delivering the Scripture into our hands, as the infallible Rule of Faith. To the third; it by no means follows, that there is nothing but the sole Letter of Scripture left to convince us of the Divine Authority of Scripture; I hope the working Miracles, fulfilling Prophecies, the nature and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Scriptures, are all left besides the bare letter of Scripture; and these, we say, are sufficient to make us believe, that the Scripture contains the infallible Word of God.

Now your profound Christian begins to reflect on the Bishops way, which is (say you) That the Testimony of the Church is humane and fallible, §. 15.and that the belief of the Scripture rests upon the Scripture it self. But, it will be more to our purpose, to hear the Bishop deliver his own mind, than to hear you so lamely deliver it;P. 83. which, in short, he summs up thus. A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church, as by the first informing, inducing, perswading means, to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God: But, when he hath studied, considered, and compared this Word with its self, and with other writings, with the help of ordinary grace, and a mind morally induced, and reasonably perswaded by the voice of the Church, the Scripture then gives greater, and higher Reasons of Credibility to it self, than Tradition alone could give. And then, he that believes, resolves his last and full Assent, that Scripture is of Divine Authority, into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self, though found by the help of Tradition without, and Grace within. This is the substance of his Lordship's Opinion, against which we shall now consider what your Discourser hath to object.

P. 76.1. The first, is from the case of ignorant and illiterate persons; such, who either through want of learning could not read the Scripture, and examine, or else made little use of it, because they supposed they might have infallible Faith without it; What then becomes of millions of such souls, both in former and present times? To that I answer; Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence, be so great in all ages, as is not to be justified, because all men ought to endeavour after the highest waies of satisfaction, in a matter so nearly concerning them (and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church, that she doth so much countenance this ignorance, and neglect of the Scripture) yet for such persons, who either morally, or invincibly, are hindered from this capacity of examining Scripture, there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon. For, although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see, and read the Scripture, yet, as many as do believe, do receive the Doctrine of it, by that sense by which Faith is conveyed, that is, Hearing; and by that means they have so great certainty, as excludes all doubting, that such Doctrines, and such matters of fact, are contained in these Books, by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine, and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it. For the Light spoken of in Scripture, is not a Light to the eye, but to the mind; now the mind is capable of this Light, as well by the ear, as by the eyes. The case then of such honest illiterate persons, as are not capable of reading Scripture, but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them, is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles preach this Doctrine before it was writ. For, p. 187whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake, becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things, which are certainly conveyed to us, by an unquestionable Tradition: So that nothing hinders, but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do, only those are conveyed to them by the ear, which are conveyed to others by the eyes. But, if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate, as not to understand any thing, but that they are to believe as the Church believes; do you, if you can, resolve their Faith for them; for my part, I cannot, and am so far from it, that I have no reason to believe they can have any.

2. The second thing objected by your discourser, is, That if the Churches judgement be fallible, then much more ones own judgement is fallible. And therefore, if, notwithstanding all the care and pains taken by the Doctors of the Church, their perswasion was only humane and fallible; What reason hath any particular person to say, That he is divinely and infallibly certain by his reading the Scripture, that it is Divine Truth. But, 1. Is there no difference between the Churches Perswasion, and the Churches Tradition? Doth the Bishop deny, but the perswasion of the Doctors of the Church, is as infallible, as that of any particular person? But this he denies, that they can derive that Infallibility of the grounds of their Perswasion into their Tradition, so as those who are to receive it on their Testimony, may be competent Judges of it. May we not then suppose their Tradition to be humane and fallible, whose perswasion of what they deliver, is established on infallible grounds? As a Mathematician is demonstratively convinced himself of the Truth of any particular Problem; but, if he bids another believe it on his Testimony, the other thereby hath no demonstrative evidence of the Truth of it, but only so great moral evidence, as the Testimony of that person carries along with it. The case is the same here: Suppose those persons in the Church in every Age of it, have to themselves infallible evidence of the Divinity of the Scripture, yet when they are to deliver this to be believed by others, unless their Testimony hath infallible evidence in it, men can never have more than humane or moral certainty of it. 2. It doth not at all follow, that if the Testimony of the Church be fallible, no particular person can be infallibly assured of the Divinity of the Scripture, unless this assurance did wholly depend upon that Testimony; indeed, if it did so, the Argument would hold, but otherwise it doth not at all. Now, you know, the Bishop denies that the Faith of any particular person doth rest upon the judgement of the Church; only he saith, This may be a Motive and Inducement to men, to consider further; but that which they rely upon, is, that rational evidence which appears in the Scripture it self.

3. He goes on, and argues against this use of Tradition, thus, If the Light of the Scripture be insufficient to shew it self, unless it be introduced by the recommendation of the Church; How came Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Husse, &c. to discover this Light in it, seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world, &c?

Sure your Discourser was not very profound in this, that could not distinguish between the Authority of Vniversal Tradition, and the Authority of the present visible Church, or between the Testimony of the Church, and the Authority of it. Shew us where Luther, Calvin, &c. did ever reject the Authority of an uncontrouled Vniversal Tradition, such as that here mentioned concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God: Shew us where they deny that Vse of the Testimony of those Churches, whose Authority p. 188in imposing matters of Faith they denied, which his Lordship asserts, viz. to be a means to introduce men to the knowledge and belief of the Scritures; and, unless you shew this, you do nothing.

4. He argues against that Light in Scripture, because it is not sufficient to distinguish Canonical Books from such as are not so; For (saies he) Had not the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years, as much reason and ability to find this Light in Scripture, as any particular person? Yet many Books which do appear to us to be God's Word, by their Light, did not appear to be so to them by it, till they were declared such by the Catholick Church. I answer, 1. Where doth his Lordship ever say, or pretend, that any person, by the Light contained in the Books, can distinguish Books that are Canonical, from such as are not? All that can be discovered, as to particular Books in question, is, the examination of the Doctrine contained in them by the series of that, which is in the unquestionable Books; for, we know, that God can never speak contradictions: but still this will only serve to exclude such Books as contain things contrary, but not to admit all which have no Doctrine contrary to Scripture. 2. The reason why the Primitive Fathers questioned any Books that we do not, was not because they could not discover that Light in them, which we do; for neither can we discover so much Light in any particular Book, as meerly from thence to say, It is Canonical; but there was not sufficient evidence then appearing to them, that those Copies did proceed from Apostolical persons; and this was therefore only an Argument of that commendable care and caution which was in them, lest any Book should pass for Canonical, which was not really so. 3. When the Catholick Church declared any controverted Book to be Canonical; Did not the Church then see as much Light in it as we do? but that Light which both the Church and we discover, is not a discriminating Internal Light, but an External Evidence from the sufficiency, and validity of Testimony. And such we have for the Canonical Books of the Old Testament; and therefore you have no cause to quarrel with us, for receiving them from the Jewish Synagogue; For who, I pray, are so competent witnesses of what is delivered, as they who received it? and the Apostle tells us, That to the Jews were committed the Oracles of God.

5. Hence your discoursing Christian argues, That if one take up the Scripture on the account of Tradition, then, if one should deny S. Matthew's Gospel to be the written Word of God, he could not be accounted an Heretick, because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be God's Word. Whether such a person may be accounted a Heretick in your sense, or no, I am sure he is in S. Paul's, because foreign, self-condemned, and that for the very contrary reason to what you give, because this is sufficiently propounded to him. I pray, tell me, What way you would have such a thing sufficiently propounded as a matter to be believed, that this is not propounded in? Would you have an unquestionable evidence, that this was writ by one of Christ's Apostles, called S. Matthew? so you have. Would you have all the Churches of Christ agreed in this Testimony in all Ages from the Apostles times? so you have. Would you have it delivered to you by the Testimony of the present Church? so you have. What then is, or can be wanting, in order to a Proposition of it to be believed? Why, forsooth, some infallible, authoritative sentence of the present Church, which shall make this an Object of Faith. See what a different mould some mens minds are of from others! For my part, should I see, or hear any Church in the world, undertaking such an office as that, I should be so far from thinking it more p. 189sufficiently propounded by it, that I should not scruple to charge it with the greatest presumption and arrogance that may be. For, on what account can it possibly be a thing credible to me, that S. Matthew's Gospel contains God's written Word any further, than it is evident that the person who wrote it, was one chosen by Christ, to deliver the summe of his proceedings, as an Apostle, to the world? And therefore I have no reason to think, he would deceive men in what he spake or writ: The only Question then is, How I should know this is no counterfeit name, but that S. Matthew writ it? Let us consider, what possible means there are to be assured of it. I cannot imagine any but these two; Either that God should immediately reveal it either to my self, or to some Church to propound it to me; or else, that I am to believe those persons who first received those Copies from his hands, by whose means they were dispersed abroad in the world, from whence they are conveyed by an unquestionable Tradition down to us. Of these two, chuse whether you please: if the first, then particular immediate Revelations are necessary to particular persons, to have such an Object of Faith sufficiently propounded to them, and then the Church cannot authoritatively pronounce any Books of Scripture to be Canonical, without immediate Revelation to her, that this Book was written by such a person, who was divinely assisted in the writing of it. And this you have denied before to belong to the Church. If you take up with the second, the unquestionable Testimony of all Ages, since the Apostles; then judge you whether S. Matthew's Gospel be not sufficiently propounded to be believed; and consequently, Whether any one who should question or deny it, be not guilty of the greatest peevishness and obstinacy imaginable. From hence we may see, with what superfluity of discretion the next words came from you; Nay, hence it follows, that even our blessed Saviour, P. 77.who is Wisdom it self, would have been esteemed by all the world, not a wise Law-giver, but a meer Ignoramus and Impostor. For shame, man, forbear such insolent expressions for the future, and repent of these. For, Must Christ's Wisdom be called in question, and he liable to be accounted an Ignoramus and Impostor; if he doth not make your Church infallible? I have told you often before, how much your Doctrine of Infallibility tends to Atheism, and now you speak out. For the meaning of your words plainly, is, If God hath not entrusted your Church with a full and absolute power to declare what is his will, and what not, Christ was an Ignoramus and Impostor. For that is the substance of your next words. For, had he not framed, think you, a strange and Chimerical Common-wealth, were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power, to give an authentical and unquestionable declaration, which is the true and genuine Law. Now, it is evident from all your discourse foregoing, you only plead for this full and absolute power in your Church; and judge you then what the consequence is (to all those who cannot see any shadow of reason for this your pretended Infallibility) neither more nor less, than that Christ is liable to be accounted by all the world an Ignoramus and Impostor: Nay, that they are fools, who account him not so, if they do not believe this present Infallibility of your Church; for it is apparent (say you) that he hath ordered his Common-wealth worse than ever any one did. And now let any that consider what pitiful silly proofs you have produced for this present Infallibility, (nay, such, that I am confident, that you cannot think your self you have in the least measure proved it) then judge, what thoughts of Christ you are forced to entertain your self upon your own Argument, viz. as of an Ignoramus and Impostor. Hath not your Infallibility p. 190lead you now a fine dance? Is not this the way to make Faith certain, and to reclaim Atheists? I had thought it had been enough for your Canonists, to have charged Christ with indiscretion, if he had not left a Vicar on earth; but now, it seems, the profound Philosophers, learned Divines, and expert Historians (for such a one, you told us, your discoursing Christian was supposed by you to be in whose name these words are spoken) do charge Christ with folly and imposture, if he hath not made your Church infallible. For, shift it off, as you can, you cannot deny but that must be the aim of these words: for you are proving the necessity of an infallible Declaration by the present Church, in order to a sufficient Proposition of the Scripture to be believed; and it is notorious you never pretend that any Church hath any share in this Infallibility, but your own; And therefore the consequence unavoidably follows, that since there can be no sufficient Proposition, that the Scripture is to be believed without this infallible Testimony; since no Church pretends to this Infallibility, but yours; since, without such provision for the Church, Christ would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver, but a meer Ignoramus and Impostor; What then follows, but that if your Church be not infallible, He must be accounted so? And if you dread not these consequences; I hope all Christians do, and have never the better thoughts of your Infallibility for them.

6. Let us see, how he comes closer to the matter it self; and examines how this Light should be Infallible, and Divine, supposing the Churches Testimony to be humane and fallible. P. 77.The substance of which, is this, If the Church may erre, we may suppose she hath erred in testifying some Books to be God's Word; in that case, Books that were not God's Word, would be equally recommended with those that were: And that it would be impossible for any particular person, by reading them, to distinguish the one from the other. To which I answer 1. It is all one with you to suppose a Church fallible, and suppose that she hath erred. To put a case of a like nature. The Testimony of all mankind is fallible; May you therefore suppose that all mankind hath erred in something they are agreed in? The Testimony of all those persons who have seen Rome, is fallible; May I therefore question whether they were not all deceived? But of this, afterwards. 2. When you speak of the Church erring, Do you mean the Church in every Age since Christ's Coming, concerning all the Books of Scripture? or, the present Church, concerning only some Books of Scripture? If you suppose, the Church of all Ages should be deceived, you must suppose some, who were infallible, should be deceived; those were the Apostles in writing and delivering their Books to the Churches of their time, or else you must suppose all the Apostolical Churches deceived in taking those Books to have come from the Apostles, which did not; And is not this a congruous Supposition? Well then, if it be unreasonable to suppose the Apostolical Churches deceived, and impossible to imagine the Apostles deceived, in saying, They writ what they did not: Where then must such an universal-errour as this, come in? Or, Is it not equally unreasonable to suppose all the Christian Churches in the world should be deceived, without any questioning of such a deceit, supposing but the goodness and common providence of God in preserving such records, and the moral industry used by Christians, in a matter of such importance? It is therefore a very absurd and unreasonable thing to imagine, That all the Churches of Christ, in all Ages, should erre in receiving all the Books of Scripture. Let us then see, as to the present Churches erring, as to particular Books? 1. Either the Records of former Ages are p. 191left to judge by, or no? If they be, as certainly they are, we thereby see a way to correct the errour of the present Church, by appealing to these records of the Church in former times? if they be not left, how could any of these Books be derived from Apostolical Tradition, when we have no means to trace such a Tradition by? 2. Supposing only some Books questioned, or that the present Church erres only in some particular Books; then it appears that there remains a far greater number of such Books, whose Authority we have no reason at all to question, and by comparing the other with these we may easily prevent any very dangerous errour; for if they contain any Doctrine contrary to the former, we have no reason to believe them; if they do not, there can be no very dangerous errour in admitting them. Thus you see how easily this errour is prevented supposing the Churches testimony not only fallible, but that it also should actually erre in delivering some Books for Canonical, which are not so: but supposing a Church pretends to be Infallible and is believed to be so, and yet doth actually erre in delivering the Canon of Scripture, what remedy is there then? for while we look on the Churches testimony as fallible, there is scope and liberty left for enquiry and further satisfaction, but if it be looked on as Infallible, all that believe it to be so are left under an impossibility of escaping that errour which she is guilty of. And the more dangerous such an errour is, the worse the condition is of all such who believe the Churches Testimony Infallible. Now this is that we justly charge your Church with, that while she pretends to Infallibility, she hath actually erred in delivering such Books for Canonical which are not so, as hath been abundantly manifested by the worthies of our Church. The remainder of this discourse of yours concerning knowing Canonical Books by the light in them, is vacated by our present answer; and so is the other concerning Apostolical traditions by our former, upon that subject. As to that Scruple, How the light should be Infallible and Divine, when the Churches Testimony is humane and fallible, it signifies nothing unless the light be only supposed to rise from the Testimony, which his Lordship denies.

7. The judgement of the Fathers is inquired into concerning the present subject; out of whom only Irenaeus and St. Augustin are produced,§. 16. as affirming in many places, That the Tradition of the Church is sufficient to found Christian Faith even without Scripture, and that for some hundreds of years after the Canon of Scripture was written. But must we stand only to the judgement of these two concerning the sense of the Primitive Church in this present Controversie? We may easily know the judgement of the Fathers, if two such lame Citations as these are, are sufficient to discover it. But your unhappiness is great in whatever you undertake: If you meddle with reason, you soon find how little it becomes you: if you fly to the Fathers, they prove the greatest witnesses against you; as will appear in this debate, if we first examine the citations you produce, and then shew how fully and clearly these very persons whom you have picked out of all the Chorus do deliver themselves against you.Iren. l. 3. c. 4. The first citation is that known one, out of Irenaeus, Quid autem, si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias? Cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes barbarorum, qui in Christum credunt, sine chartâ & atramento scriptam habentes salutem, & veterem traditionem custodientes.concerning those barbarous nations who believed without the Scriptures, adhering to the Tradition of the Apostles, having salvation written without Paper and Ink. But what it is you would hence inferr, I cannot imagine, unless it be one of these two things; 1. That if we had no Scriptures left us, it would be necessary for us to believe on the account of Apostolical p. 192Tradition; that is▪ that the grounds of our Faith were so clear and evident of themselves, that though they had never been written, yet if they had been conveyed by an unquestionable Tradition from the Apostles, there had lain an obligation on us to believe the Doctrine of Christ. But, is this our case? hath not God infinitely better provided for us, when (as your other witness St. Augustine speaks) Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions or speeches, Quicquid Servator de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. De Consens. Evang, l. 1. c. ult.he commanded his Apostles and Disciples as his hands to write. Christian Religion is now no Cabala to us, God hath consigned his will over to us, by Codicills of his own appointing; and must we then be now in the like case, as if his Will had never been written at all? 2. But what if the barbarous Nations did believe without the Books of Scripture; what doth that prove, but only this; that there may be sufficient reason to believe in Christ where the Scriptures are not known? Is that contrary to us who say, The last resolution of Faith is into the Doctrine of Christ as attested by God: now if that attestation be sufficiently conveyed, there is an obligation to believe; but withall we say, that to us who enjoy the Scriptures as delivered down to us, the only certain and infallible conveyance of Gods Word to us is by them. So that the whole Christian world is obliged to you for your civil comparison of them, with those Barbarians who either enjoyed not the Scriptures, or in probability were not able to make use of them, as being probably ignorant of the use of letters. 3. Doth Irenaeus in these words say, that even these Barbarians did believe upon the Infallible Testimony of the present Church? No; he mentions no such thing, but that they believed that Tradition of Doctrine which was delivered them from the Apostles. I ask you then; Suppose at that time some honest but fallible persons should have gone into Scythia, or some such barbarous places, and delivered the Doctrine of the Gospel, and attesting the matters of fact as being eye-witnesses of Christs Miracles, Death, and Resurrection, whether would these Barbarians have been bound to believe or no? If not, then for all I know, Infidelity is a very excusable sin; If they were, I pray tell me what it was their Faith was resolved into; was it an infallible testimony of fallible men? And the same case is, of such who should preach the same Doctrine from these eye-witnesses in another Generation, and so on; for although there might be no reason to question their testimony, yet I suppose you will not say, It is Infallible? so that still this makes nothing for your purpose. 4. Who better understood Irenaeus his mind, than himself? let us therefore see what he elsewhere tells us is the foundation and pillar of our Faith who have received the Scriptures. Non per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimas, quàm per eos, per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc praeconiavé…unt, postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradidérunt, f…ndamentum & columnam fidei nostrae …uturum. Iren. l. 3. cap. 1.Doth not he tell us, but three Chapters before this, That we have received the method or Doctrine of our Salvation, from those persons who preached it; which by Gods command they after delivered in the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pilla… of our Faith. Could any thing be more fully spoken to our purpose than this is? Whereby he shews us, now the Scriptures are consigned unto us, what that is which our Faith must stand upon: not the Infallibility of the Church, but that Word of God which is delivered to us. This therefore he elsewhere calls the Vnmoveable Canon of our Faith, Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 69. Augustin. 2. cont. Donat. cap. 7.as S. Augustine calls it Divinam stateram, the Divine ballance we must weigh the grounds of our Belief in.

p. 193By which we may guess, what little relief you are like to have from your second witness St. Augustin. Two citations you produce out of him; and, I question not, but to make it appear, that neither of those Testimonies do make for you; and those very Books afford us sufficient against you.

The first is out of his Books of Christian Doctrine, which lest we should think not pertinent, you care not to produce it; but we must. A man who strengthens himself with Faith, Hope, and Charity, and retains them unshaken, needs not the Scriptures, Homo ita que fide, spe, & charitate subnixus, eáque inconcussè retine…s, non indiget scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos. Ita que multi per haec tria, etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt. De Doctr. Christianâ l. 1. cap 39.but only to instruct others: for by these three, many live without Books in a desert. His meaning is, that he who hath a principle of Divine life within him, which discovers it self in the exercise of those three Graces, needs not so much the external precepts, because that inward principle will carry him to actions suitable to it; only, for convincing or instructing others, these Books are continually useful; but for themselves, those good men who first through the fury of their persecution were driven, and after others, who, in imitation of that piety they shewed there, did withdraw into remote places, did live in the exercise of their Religion without them. But what is there in all this to inferr, that not the Scriptures but the Infallibility of the Church is the foundation of Faith? Doth St. Augustine suppose that men may have Faith, Hope, and Charity, without believing: or that men may believe without the Scriptures, when in the precedent Chapter he hath this remarkable expression concerning Faith, That it will soon stumble, Titubab…t autem fides, s… divinarum scripturarum vacillat auctoritas. De Doctr. Christ. l. 1. c 38.if the Authority of the sacred Scriptures be weakned: and doth not this imply that Faith stands on the Authority of the Scriptures as its proper foundation? But this were pardonable, if the very design of all that Treatise did not so evidently refute all your pretensions, as nothing can do it more effectually. For can you possibly perswade any reasonable man to think, that St. Augustine dreamt of any such thing, as the Infallible Testimony of the present Church to be the ground of Faith, who when he purposely discourseth concerning the Christian Doctrine, the principles of it, and the best means to understand it, never so much as mentions any such thing; but on the contrary directs to no other but those you call Moral and Fallible means. For understanding the principles of Christian Doctrine, he shews us the several natures of things, some to be enjoyed, some to be used, and others both: that the main thing we are to enjoy is God, and therefore begins with him as our last end in whom our happiness lies, and then shews the means to come to this enjoyment of God, by explaining the principles of Faith and the efficacy of it. In his second Book he shews how we may come to the sense of Scripture, and first discovers the nature of signs which represent things, and of letters which are signs of words, and since there are diversities of tongues, how necessary the translation of Scripture is into them (a good citation for you to justifie your Bibles and Prayers in an unknown language with) and then shews what great reason there was, why there should be some doubtful and obscure places left in Scripture, to conquer our pride by industry, and to keep the understanding from nauseating, Ad edomandam labore superbiam, & intellectam à fastidio revocandum, cui facilè investigata plerum que vilescunt. l. 2. c. 6.which commonly slights things that are easily understood. Then shews what preparation and disposition of soul is requisite for Divine wisdome, and so comes to the understanding the Scriptures: for which, first is requisite a serious and diligent reading of them; in order to which p. 194he must carefully distinguish such as are Canonical from such as are not; and for judging of these, he never so much as mentions, much less sends us to the Infallible Testimony of the Roman Church, but bids us follow the Authority of the most Catholick Churches among which those are, In Canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholica…um q…amplurium au…toritatem sequa…ur, inter quas sane illae sunt, quae Apostoli … sedes habere, & epistolas accipere …eruerunt. l. 2. c. 8.which are worthy to be call'd Apostolical See's, and had Epistles sent to them. What Authority then had the Church of Rome to judge of Canonical Scriptures, more then Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, &c. To be sure then, St. Augustin was not of our Discourser's mind, as to the judgement of Canonical Books: and why should he send men to those Churches which received the Epistles, but that there they were like to meet with greater satisfaction as to the authenticalness of the Copies of those Epistles? After this, he gives directions for understanding hard places, First by diligent reading and remembring the plainest places; In iis enim quae apert… posita in Scriptur… sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, mores que vivendi. l. 2. c. 9.for in them (saith he) are found all those things which contain matters of Faith and Practice. An excellent citation for you for several purposes, especially when you would prove the obscurity of Scripture, the necessity of an Infallible Judge, or your Doctrine of Fundamentals out of St. Augustin. And then bids them compare obscure and easie places together, to understand the proprieties of words, to get knowledge in the Tongues, to compare Versions, Antecedents and Consequents, to be skil'd in all humane Arts and Sciences, these and several other instructions to the same purpose are the scope of his following Books. Would any one now, but T. C. have ventured so unluckily upon this Treatise of St. Augustin above all others, to prove the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony as necessary to Faith by? Could any Protestant have delivered his mind more punctually and plainly than he doth? And can you, or any one else that doth but look into that Book, imagine that St. Augustin ever imagined, that any such thing should ever be thought of in the world, as that the Testimony of the Church of Rome must be owned as the Infallible foundation of Faith, and the Infallible Interpreter of Scripture? But this it is, to converse with the Fathers only by retail, as they are delivered out in parcels to you with directions upon them what use they are for, by Bellarmin and such Artists as himself. This is, instead of quoting the Fathers, to challenge them; and you see they are not afraid to appear, though to your shame and confusion.

But for all this you have a Reserve in St. Augustin still: let us see what quotation that is, which lies so in Ambuscado behind the hedges, and is so loath to come out. There is good reason for so much reservedness; for when we come to search, we find only bushes instead of Souldiers. I have throughly examined the place you referr us to, and cannot meet any thing the least pertinent to your purpose, unless the question of the Lawfulness of Hereticks Baptism, De Baptism. c. Donatist. l 5. c. 24.prove your Churches Testimony to be Infallible. But it may be, it is but a venial mistake of a Chapter or two, forward or backward, and there we may find it. Which when I look into, I cannot but suspect that some Protestant had trepanned you into this Book and place of St. Augustine; there being scarce any Book or place in him more begirt with Arguments against you than this is. I was at first fearful you had quoted Fathers at a peradventure; but upon my further considering the place, I soon rectified that mistake. I will therefore reckon you up some of the most probable Citations out of St. Augustins Books of Baptism p. 195against the Donatists, and choose which of them you please to prove the necessity of an Infallible Testimony of the present Church as a foundation of Faith by? I suppose, that you intended is in the Chapter but one following, where St. Augustine Cites that passage of Cyprian, That we ought to recurre to the fountain, Quod autem nos admonet, ut ad fontem recurramus, i. e. ad Apostolicam traditionem, & inde canalem in nostra tempora dirigamus, optimum est, & sine d…bitatione faciendum. l 5. c. 26.i. e. to Apostolical Tradition, and thence derive the channel into our own times; this, saith St. Augustin, is the best, and without doubt to be done. No doubt you think you owe me great thanks for finding out so apposite a place for you, so near that you intended; but, before we have done with it, you will see what little reason you have to thank me for it: The place you see is cited by St. Augustin out of Cyprian in whose Epistle it is, to Pompeius against Stephanus Bishop of Rome: we therefore consider,Cypr. ep. 74. that it was Stephen who pleaded custom and tradition, to which Cyprian replies, Whence comes this Tradition, Vnde traditio haec, utrúmne de Dominic… authoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandatis & epistolis veniens? Ea enim esse facienda quae scripta sunt testatur, &c. Si in Evangelio pr…cipitur, aut in Apostolorum epistolis aut Actibus invenitur, observetur etiam sancta haec traditio.doth it descend from the Lords Authority, or from the Commands and Epistles of the Apostles, for those things are to be done which are there written? And again, If it be commanded in the Gospel, or the Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy Tradition be observed. We see then what St. Cyprian meant by his Apostolical Tradition, not one Infallibly attested by the present Church, but that is clearly derived from Scripture as its fountain: and therefore brings in the foregoing words on purpose to correct the errours of Traditions, that, As when channels are diverted to a wrong course, we must have recourse to the fountain; so we must in all pretended Traditions of the Church, run up to the Scriptures as the fountainhead. And whereas Bellarmins only shift to avoid this place of Cyprian, is, by saying that Cyprian argued more errantium, i. e. could not defend one errour but by another; see how different the judgements of St. Augustine and Bellarmin are about it: for St. Augustin is so far from blaming it in him, that he saith, Optimum est & sine dubitatione faciendum, i. e. It was the best and most prudent course to prevent errours. And in another place where he mentions that saying of Cyprian, It is in vain for them to object Custom, who are overcome by Reason, Proinde, inquit, frustra quidam qui ratione vincuntur, Consuetudinem nobis objiciunt, q…asi consuetudo major sit veritate; aut non id sit in spiritualibus sequend…m quod in melius suerit à Spirit… Sancto revelatum. Hoc planè verum est, quia ratio & veritas consu…tudini p…aeponenda est Aug. de baptism. c. Donat. l. 4. c. 5.as though custom were greater than truth; or as though that were not to be followed in spiritual things, which is revealed by the Holy Ghost. This, saith St. Augustin, is evidently true, because reason and truth is to be preferred before custom. He doth not charge these sayings on him as Bellarmin doth, as part of his errours, but acknowledgeth them and disputes against his opinion out of those principles. And when before, the Donatists objected the authority of St. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization, What kind of answer doth St. Augustine give them? the very same that any Protestant would give. Who knows not that the sacred Canonical Scripture of the Old and New Testament is contained within certain bounds; Quis a…tem nesciat Sanctam Scripturam Canonicam, tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis co…tineri, eam que omnibus p…sterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi, ut de illâ omnino dubitari & disceptari non possit, utrum verum, vel utrum rectum sit; quicquid in eā scriptum esse constiterit. l. 2▪ de bapt. c. Donat. cap. 3.and ought so far to be prefer'd before the succeeding writings of Bishops, that of that alone we are not to doubt or call in question any thing therein written, whether it be true and right or no. But, as he saith in the following words, All the writings since the confirmation of the Canon of Scripture are lyable to dispute, and even Councils themselves to be examined and amended p. 196by Councils. Think you then, that St. Augustin ever thought of a present Infallibility in the Church? or if he did, he expressed it in as odd a manner as ever I read: How easily might he have stopt the mouths of the Donatists with that one pretence of Infallibility? How impertinently doth he dispute through all those Books, if he had believed any such thing? It were easie to multiply the Citations out of other Books of St. Austin, to shew how much he attributed to Scripture, as the only rule of Faith; and consequently, how farr from believing your Doctrine of Infallibility. But these may suffice to shew, how unhappily you light on these Books of St. Augustine for the proof of your opinion out of the Fathers.

The last thing your Discourser objects against his Lordships way, is, If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture, §. 18.how can I ever be Infallibly certain, that she hath not erred de facto, and defined some Book to be the Word of God, which really is not his Word? To which I answer. If you mean by Infallible certainty, such a certainty as must have some Infallible Testimony for the ground of it, you beg the question: for I deny any such Infallible Testimony to be at all requisite for our believing the Canon of Scripture, and therefore you object that as an inconvenience, which I apprehend to be none at all. For I do not think it any absurdity to say, that I cannot believe upon some Infallible Testimony, that the Church hath not erred in defining the Canon of Scripture. If by Infallible certainty you mean such a certainty as absolutely excludes a possibility of deception; you would do well, first to shew how congruous this is to humane nature in this present state, before you make such a certainty so necessary for any act of humane understanding. But, if by Infallible certainty you mean only such as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting upon the consideration of the validity and sufficiency of that Testimony I am to believe the Canon of Scripture upon; then I assert, that upon making the Churches Testimony to be fallible, it doth not at all follow, but that I may have so great a certainty as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting concerning the Canon of Scripture. For when I suppose the Churches Testimony fallible, I do not thereby understand, as though there were as great reason to suspect her deceived, as not, (nay, I say there can be no reason to suspect her deceived); but by that I understand only this, that the Church hath not any supernatural Infallibility given her in delivering such a Testimony, or that such Infallibility must be the foundation of believing the thing so delivered. For whether I suppose your particular Church of Rome, or the Catholick Church to be supernaturally Infallible in her Traditions, there will be the same difficulty returning, and an equal impossibility of vindicating our Faith from the entanglements of a Circle. For still the question unavoidably returns, From whence I believe such a supernatural Infallibility in the Church? For in that it is supernatural it must suppose some promise on which it depends, that promise must be somewhere extant, and that can be no where but in Scripture; therefore when I am asked, Why I believe the Canon of the Scripture to be true; if I answer, Because the Tradition of the Catholick Church is Infallible, the question presently returns, Since humane nature is in it self fallible, whence comes the Church to have this Infallibility? If I answer, By the assistance of Gods spirit, I am presently asked, Since no man by the light of nature and meer reason can be assured of this; how know you that you are not deceived in believing such an assistance? If to this I answer, Because God who is Infallible hath made this promise in his Word, I am driven again to the first question, How I know p. 197this to be Gods Word, and must answer it as before, Upon the infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church. Thus we see, how impossible it is to avoid a Circle in the supposition of a supernatural Infallibility in the Churches Tradition. But, if no more be meant but a kind of rational Infallibility (though those terms be not very proper) i. e. so great evidence, as, if I question it, I may, upon equal grounds, question every thing which mankind yields the firmest Assent to, because I cannot imagine, that so great a part of the wisest, and most considerative part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment (especially supposing a Divine Providence) then I freely and heartily assert, We have such a kind of rational Infallibility; or rather the highest degree of actual Certainty concerning the Truth of the Canon of Scripture; and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto, erred in defining it. Thus I have followed your discoursing Christian through all his doubts and perplexities, and upon the result, can find no ground at all either of doubting concerning the Scripture, or of believing the Testimony of your Church, or any, to be an infallible ground of Faith. Your next passage, is, to tell us how his Lordships Dedalian windings (as you finely call them) are disintricated: A happy man you are at squaring Circles, and getting out of Labyrinths. P. 78.And thus it appears in the present case. For when his Lordship had said, That the Tradition of the Church is too weak, because that is not absolutely Divine; you repeat over your already exploded Proposition, that there may be an infallible Testimony which is not absolutely Divine; which, when I have your faculty of writing things, which neither you, nor any one else can understand I may admit of; but till then, I must humbly beg your pardon, as not being able to assent to any thing which I cannot understand, and have no reason to believe. And withall, contrary to your second Answer, it appears, That if the Testimony of the Primitive, were absolutely Divine, because infallible, the Testimony of the present Church, must be absolutely Divine, if it be infallible.

The rest of this Chapter is spent in the examining some by-citations of men of your own side chiefly,§. 19. and therefore it is very little material as to the truth or falshood of the present Controversie; yet, because you seem to triumph so much assoon as you are off the main business, I shall briefly return an Answer to the substance of what you say. His Lordship having asserted the Tradition of the Primitive Apostolical Church to be Divine, P. 81. n. 20.and that the Church of England doth embrace that as much as any Church whatsoever, withall adds, That when S. Augustine said, I would not believe the Gospel, Ego verò Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. Aug. l. 1. c. ep. fund. c. 5.unless the Authority of the Catholick Church moved me; some of your own will not endure should be understood, save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only; and some, of the Church in general, not excluding after Ages: but sure to include Christ and his Apostles. In your Answer to this, you insult strangely over his Lordship in two things. First, That he should say Some, and mention but one in his Margent. 2. That that One doth not say, what he cites out of him. To the first I answer, you might easily observe, the use his Lordship makes of his Margent, Ibid. n 7.is not so much to bring clear and distinct proofs of what he writes in his Book, but what hath some reference to what he there saies; and therefore it was no absurdity for him to say in his Book indefinitely some, and yet in his Margent only to mention Occham. For, when his Lordship writ that, no doubt his mind was upon others, who asserted the same thing, though he did not load his p. 198Margent with them. And, that you may see, I have reason for what I say, I hope you will not suppose his Lordship unacquainted with the Testimonies of those of your side, who do in terms assert this. That I may therefore free you from all kind of suspicion; What think you of Gerson, when, speaking of the greater Authority of the Primitive Church than of the present: he adds. And by this means we come to understand, Et sic aperitur modus intelligendi illud Augustini, Evangelio non crederem, nisi me authoritas Ecclesiae compulisset. Ibidem enim Ecclesiam sumit, pro primitivâ congregatione fidelium eorum, qui Christum viderunt, audiêrunt, & sui testes fuerunt Gerson. lect. 2. de vitâ spirituali a…. Coroll. 7.what S. Augustine said, I would not believe the Gospel, &c. For there, saith he, he takes the Church for the Primitive Congregation of Believers, who saw and heard Christ, and were witnesses of what he did. Is not this Testimony plain enough for you? But, besides this, we have another as evident, in whom are those very words, which his Lordship, by a lapse of memory, attributes to Occham: For Durandus plainly sayes, That for what concerns the approbation of Scripture by the Church, it is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles times, Hoc autem quod dictum est de approbatione Scriptur… per Ecclesiam, intelligitur solum de Ecclesiá quae fuit tempore Apostolorum, qui fuërunt repleti Spiritu Sancto, & nihilominus vidêrunt miracula Christi & audierunt ejus Doctrinam. & ob hoc fuërunt convenientes testes omnium quae Christus fecit aut d… cuit, ut per eorum testimonium Scriptura, continens facta & dicta Christi, approbaretur. Durand. l. 3. dist. 24. q. 1. sect. 9.who were filled with the Holy Spirit, and withall, saw the Miracles of Christ, and heard his Doctrine; and on that account were convenient witnesses of all which Christ did, or taught, that by their Testimony, the Scripture containing the actions and speeches of Christ, might receive approbation. Do you yet desire a Testimony more express and full, than this is, of one who doth understand the Church exclusively of all successive to the Apostles, when he had, just before, produced that known Testimony of S. Augustine? You see then, the Bishop had some reason to say, Some of your Church asserted this to be S. Augustine's meaning; and therefore your Instances of some, where but one is meant, are both impertinent and scurrilous. For, where it is evidently known, there was but one, it were a Soloecism to say some; as to say, that some of the Apostles betrayed Christ, when it is known, that none but Judas did it. But, if I should say, that some Jesuits had writ for the killing of Kings, and in the Margent should cite Mariana, no person conversant in their writings, would think it a Soloecism; for, though I produce him for a remarkable Instance, yet that doth not imply, that I have none else to produce, but only that the mentioning of one, might shew I was not without proof of what I said. For your impudent oblique slander on the memory of that excellent Prelate Arch-Bishop Cranmer, when you say, If a Catholick to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury, should say, Some of them carried a holy Sister lockt up in a Chest about with them, and name Cranmer only in the Margent; His memory is infinitely above your slyest detractions; and withall, when you are about such a piece of Criticism, I pray, tell me, what doth some of them relate to. Is Primacy the name of some men? Just as if one should disgrace the See of Rome, and say, Some of them have been Atheists, Magicians, debauched, &c. Though, I confess, it were a great injury in this case, to cite but one in the Margent, unless in pity to the Reader; yet, you may sooner vindicate some of them from a Soloecism in Language, when the See of Rome went before, than any of them from those Soloecisms in manners, which your own Authours have complained of.

But, say you, What if this singular-plural say no such thing, as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie? P. 79.I have already granted it to have been a very venial mistake of memory in his Lordship of Occham for Durandus; p. 199in whom those very words are which are in the Margent of his Lordships Book, as appears in the Testimony already produced. I acknowledge therefore, that Occham in that place of his Dialogues, doth speak of the Catholick Church of all Ages, comprehending the Apostles and Evangelists in it; and in this sense he saith, that place of S. Augustine is to be understood. But, what advantage this is to your cause, I cannot imagine. For, what if the Catholick Church be taken in that comprehensive sense, to include not only the Apostles, but the Church successively from their times? Doth it hence follow, That it is not day though the Sun shines? Or rather, Doth it not follow, That you are not so quick-sighted as you would seem to be? And, Whether his Lordship or you come nearer the meaning of Occham's words, let any one judge. For they who speak of the Church in that comprehensive sense, do only suppose the Infallibility to have been in the Primitive Apostolical Church, but the successive Church to be only the chanel of conveyance of that Testimony down to us, and so they say no more than we do. Thus Driedo expounds that place of S. Augustine; who understands it of the Catholick Church, which was from the beginning of the Christian Faith, Augustinus cum dicit, ego Evangelio &c. intelligit de Ecclesiá Catholicá quae fuit ab initio Christianae fidei, secundum seriem successionis Episcoporum crescens ad haec us que tempora, quae san… ▪ Ecclesia complectitur Collegium Apostolorum. Driedo. Tom, 1. l. 4. cap. 4.increasing according to the course of succession of Bishops to these times, which Church comprehends in it the Colledge of Apostles. Do you think that these men did believe a present Infallibility in the Church? If so, To what end are they so careful to carry it so high as the Apostles? Whereas, on your Principle we can have no Assurance concerning any thing that the Apostles did or said but only for the Infallibility of the present Church. You must therefore understand the present Church exclusively of the Apostolical Church; and therefore if S. Augustine be understood in their sense, he is far enough from serving your purposes. But, say you, It is evident, that S. Augustine must speak of the Church in his time, because he speaks of that Church which said to him, Noli credere Manichaeo, which was not true of the Apostolical Church? But, Why might not the Apostolical Church be a reason to S. Augustine, not to believe Manichaeus, because he found no footsteps of his Doctrine in the Records of that Church? Again, suppose he means the present Church, Doth he mean the infallible Testimony of the present Church? Might not the Testimony of the Church, supposing it fallible, be sufficient for what S. Augustine saith of it? I doubt it not: And, you seem to have no great confidence in this Testimony your self, when you add, That though it be a point of Faith to believe that the Church is infallible, in delivering Scripture to us, yet it is not a point of Faith, that her Infallibility is proved out of the cited place of S. Augustine. But, when you say, it is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self, what Text do you mean? S. Augustines, or the Scriptures? If S. Augustines, you would do well to shew, by what engines you force Infallibility out of his words; if the Scriptures, What becomes of our good Motives of Credibility?

When his Lordship objects, That according to your Principles, §. 20.the Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitive, P. 81. n. 21.you very learnedly distinguish, That if he means, the one must be as truly and really infallible, quoad substantiam, as the other, you grant it: But if he mean, P. 80.the one must be as highly and perfectly infallible, as the other, quoad modum, you deny it. Very good still! It seems there are higher and lower degrees in Infallibility. I pray tell us, What that is which is more than infallible? p. 200The present Church (you say) is infallible, but not so highly and perfectly infallible, therefore there must be degrees in Infallibility; and since the lowest degree is infallible, that which is highly infallible, must be more than infallible. Again, What difference is there between the substance and the mode in Infallibility; I had thought, the substance of Infallibility had layn in the mode; and I should rather think Infallibility it self to be a mode of Apprehension ▪ then talk of substances and modes in it. But, it may be, you mean such kind of modes of Infallibility, as absolute and hypothetical. If you do so, explain your self by them; and that we may better understand your meaning, shew us whether the Church be at all capable of absolute Infallibility; if not▪ What difference there is in degrees between the hypothetical Infallibility of the present and Primitive Church, supposing both infallible in delivering their Testimony, and no otherwise. For you yet again add, Of the Churches Testimony being infallible, but not simply Divine, but it is the infallible Testimony of a desperate cause, to have but one bad shift, and to use it so often.

Because you would be apt to say, That upon his Lordships rejecting the Infallibility of Tradition, he left no use at all of it; He therefore tells you, P. 82.Notwithstanding that, it is serviceable for very good ends, that it induces Infidels to the reading and consideration of Scripture, and that it instructs novices, and doubters in the Faith; which two ends (you say) fall short of the end of Tradition; For (say you) it founds and establishes Believers, even the greatest Doctors of the Church; for which you cite again this same place of S. Augustine. But did not his Lordship tell you, that some of your own understood that very place, either of Novices or Infidels: For which, besides the Testimony of some of your own party, he adds this reason, because the words immediately before are, If thou find one qui Evangelio nondum credit, which did not yet believe the Gospel, What wouldst thou do to make him believe? Ego vero non, &c. To which you very prudently say nothing.

Concerning Jacobus Almayn's Opinion, That we are first, and more, bound to believe the Church than the Scripture; you would seem in terms to disavow it, though very faintly; it is not altogether true; and hope to salve it by a distinction of priority of time and nature: and you acknowledge, That in priority of nature we are first bound to believe the Church, and, I suppose, in priority of time too, if we believe the Scripture for the Churches sake: Yet, you would not have it said, That we are more bound to believe the Church than Scripture; but it is not what you would have properly said, but what follows from that antecedent, which Jacobus Almayn puts. It is certain, saith he, that we are bound to believe all things contained in the Sacred Canon, upon that account alone, because the Church believes them; therefore we are first, and more, bound to believe the Church than the Scripture, which is so evident a consequence, that nothing but shame would make you deny it.

Touching Almayn's and Gerson's reading compelleret for commoveret, his Lordship saith, That Almayn falsifies the Text notoriously; you say, No; but you had rather charitably think, they both read it so in some Copies; his Lordship produceth a very ancient M.S. for the common reading, you none at all for that, but only the concurrent Testimonies of some Schoolmen, who must be confessed to be excellent Criticks, and well versed in ancient M.SS. unless where they met with a little Greek, or some hard Latin words; and among whom, the mistake of one would pass current for p. 201want of examining Copies, let the Reader therefore judge, whether Judgement be more probable: But, I think it not worth while to say more about it.

In your vindication of the Authority of Canus, you make use of a very silly piece of Sophistry; for, say you, Though he make Infidels and Novices in the Faith, to be convinced by the Authority of the Church; yet, you say, It doth not follow, that he makes the said Authority a fallible, but a certain and sure way to make them believe it. But, 1. The Question is, Whether Canus doth understand that place of S. Augustine, of Infidels and Novices or no? 2. Suppose he sayes, It is a sure way, Doth it therefore follow, that it is an infallible way? Is nothing certain but what is infallible? I hope you are certain that the Church of Rome is the Cacholick Church; but, Are you infallible that she is so? If you advance all certainty to Infallibility, or bring down all Infallibility to Certainty, every Christian is as infallible as your Church is: For, I make no question, but that every good Christian is certain of the Grounds and Principles of his Religion. The same thing you return upon again (after to little purpose you multiply words about Canus and Stapleton's Testimonies.) For, say you, because S. Augustine speaks of a sure way, therefore he must mean an infallible way, as though what was not supernaturally infallible, was presently unsure. I pray, tell me, Are you sure that two and two make four? Yet, I hope you will not say, You are supernaturally infallible that they do so. I hope, you are sure, there is a Pope at Rome, and a goodly Colledge of Cardinals there; but, Are you infallible in this? It is not then certainly the same, to deny a thing to be infallible, and to make it unsure: And, you are either very weak, or very wilful, in saying so. In what sense this so much controverted place of S. Augustine, is to be understood, will be afterwards discussed; and whether it be intended wholly for Infidels or no: only I shall take notice now, how, in the last words of this Chapter, you would again inferr Infallibility from undoubted certainty. For, say you, the Church, in S. Augustine's time, esteemed her self undoubtedly certain, that the Gospel was the infallible Word of God; for otherwise she might be deceived her self, and deceive others in commanding them to believe that to be God's Word, which was only the word of man: But, What is it you would inferr from all this? For we believe the Church as undoubtedly certain, as may be, that the Scriptures are God's Word; yet we are far enough from believing that her Testimony now is supernaturally infallible.