The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 8

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 8

p. 235CHAP.VIII. The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture.

Some general considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture. No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law; if there had been, no necessity there should be under the Gospel. Of St. Basils Testimony concerning Traditions. Scripture less lyable to corruption than Traditions. The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical, when not. The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility. His Lordship doth not falsifie A. C's words, but T. C. doth his meaning. Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order. T. C's. miserable Apology for them. The particular texts produced for the Churches Infallibility, examined. No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves. The similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials, rightly stated.

THE main design of this Chapter being to prove the Infallibility of the Church from the Testimonies of Scripture;§. 1. before I come to a particular discussion of the matters contained in it, I shall make some general Observations on the scope and design of it, which may give more light to the particulars to be handled in it. 1. That the Infallibility you challenge to the Church, is such as must suppose a promise extant of it in Scripture: Which is evident from the words of A. C. (which you own) to his Lordship, That if he would consider the Tradition of the Church, not only as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men, in which sense the Authority of it is humane and fallible, but as the Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit; in that sense he might easily find it more than an Introduction, indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive. Whence I inferr, that in order to the Churches Testimony being an Infallible Motive to Faith, it must be believed that this company of men which make the Church, are assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit; Now I demand, Supposing there were no Scripture extant, (the belief of which you said before in defence of Bellarmine, was not necessary to salvation) by what means could you prove such an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholick Church in order to the perswading an Infidel to believe? Could you to one that neither believes Christ, nor the Holy Ghost, prove evidently that your Church had an assistance of both these? You tell him that he cannot believe that there is a Christ or a Holy Ghost ▪ unless he believes first your Church to be Infallible, and yet he cannot believe your Church to be Infallible, unless he believes there are such things as Christ and the Holy Ghost; for that Infallibility, by your own confession, doth suppose the peculiar assistance of both these. And can any one believe their assistance, before he believes they are? If you say, as you do, By the motives of credibility you will prove your Church Infallible. But (setting aside the absurdity of that which I have fully discovered already) Is it possible for you to prove your Church Infallible, unless antecedently to the belief of your Churches Infallibility, You can prove to an Infidel the truth of these things?

1. That the names of Christ and the Holy Ghost, are no Chimerical Fancies and Ideas, but that they do import something real: otherwise an Infidel p. 236would speedily tell you, these names imported nothing but some kind of Magical spells which could keep men from errour, as long as they carried them about with them. That as well might Mahomet, or any other Impostor, pretend an infallible assistance from some Tutelar Angels, with hard Arabick names, as you of Christ, and the Holy Ghost unless you can make it appear to him, that really there are such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost; and when you have proved it to him, and he be upon your proof inclinable to believe it, you are bound to tell him by your Doctrine, that for all these proofs, he can only fancy there are such Beings, but he cannot really believe them, unless he first believes your Church infallible. And when he tells you, He cannot, according to your own Doctrine, believe that Infallibility, unless he believes the other first, Would he not cry out upon you, as either lamentable Fools, that did not understand what you said, or egregious Impostors, that play fast and loose with him, bidding him believe first one thing, and then another, till at last he may justly tell you, that in this manner he cannot be perswaded to believe any thing at all. 2. Supposing he should get through this, and believe that there were such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost, he may justly ask you, 1. Whether they be nothing else but such a kind of Intellectus Agens, as the Arabick Philosophers imagined, some kind of Being which did assist the understanding in conception? You answer him No, but they are real distinct personalities of the same nature and essence with God himself; then he asks, 2. Whence doth this appear? for these being such grand difficulties, you had need of some very clear evidence of them: If you send him to Scripture, he asks you, To what end? for the belief of that must suppose the Truth of the thing in Question, that your Church is infallible in delivery of this Scripture for Divine Revelation. But he further demands, 3. Whence comes that Church which you call Infallible to have this Assistance of both these? Do they assist all kind of men to make them infallible? You answer, No. But, Do they assist, though not all men separately, yet all societies of men conjunctly? You answer, No. Do they assist all men only in Religious actions, of what Religion soever they are of? Still you answer, No. Do they assist then all men of the Christian Religion in their societies? No. Do they assist all those among the Christians, who say, they have this Assistance? No. Do they thus assist all Churches to keep them from errour? No. Whom is it then that they do thus infallibly assist? You answer, The Church. But what Church do you mean? The Catholick Church. But, which is this Catholick Church (for, I hear, there are as great Controversies about that, as any thing.) You must answer confidently, That Church which is in the Roman Communion, is the true Catholick Church. Have then all in that Communion this Infallible Assistance? No. Have all the Bishops in this Communion, it? No. Have all these Bishops this Assistance, when they meet together? Yes, say you, undoubtedly, if the Pope be their Head, and confirm their Acts. Then it should seem to me, that this Infallible Assistance is in the Pope, and he it is whom you call the Catholick Church: But surely he is a very big man then, is he not? But, say you, These are Controversies which are not necessary for you to know, it sufficeth that the Catholick Church is the subject of Infallibility. But, I had thought nothing could have been more necessary than to have known this: But I proceed then, How comes this Catholick Church to have this Infallible Assistance? Cannot I suppose that Christ and the Holy Spirit may exist without giving this Assistance? cannot I suppose that Christian Religion may be in the world, without such an p. 237Infallibility? Is this Assistance therefore a necessary, or a free Act? A free Act. If a free Act, then, for all you know, Your Catholick Church may not be so assisted: No, (you reply) you are sure it is so assisted. But, Whence can you be sure of an arbitrary thing, unless the Authours of this Assistance have engaged themselves by Promise, to give your Catholick Church that Infallible Assistance? Yes, that they have (you reply) and then produce Luk. 10.16. Mat. 28.20. Joh. 14.16. But, although our Infidel might ask some untoward Questions still; as, How you are sure these are Divine Promises, when the knowledge that they are Divine must suppose the thing to be true, which you would prove out of them, viz. that your Church is infallible? Supposing them Divine, how are you sure, That, and no other, is the meaning of them, when from such places you prove, that your Church is the only Infallible Interpreter of Scripture? But, I let pass these, and other Questions, and satisfie my self with this, That it is impossible for you to prove such an Infallible Assistance of Christ and the Holy Spirit, unless you produce some express Promise for it.

2. This being impossible, it necessarily follows, That the only Motives of Credibility, which can prove your Church Infallible, must be such as do antecedently prove these Promises to be Divine. This is so plain and evident a Consectary from the former, that it were an affront upon humane understanding, to go about to prove it: For, if the Infallibility doth depend upon the Promise, nothing can prove that Infallibility, but what doth prove that Promise to be True and Divine: True, or else not to be believed; Divine, or else not to be relyed on for such an Assistance; none else being able to make a promise of it, but the Authour of it. As therefore my right to an estate as given by Will, depends wholly upon the Truth and Validity of that Will, which I must first prove, before I can challenge any right to it; So your pretence of Infallibility must solely depend upon the Promises which you challenge it by. By which it appears, that your attempting to prove the Infallibility of your Church, by Motives of Credibility, antecedent to, and independent on the Scripture, is vain, ridiculous, and destructive to that very Infallibility which you pretend to. Which, being by a free Assistance of Christ and his Spirit, must wholly depend on the proof of the Promise made of it. For, if you prove no Promise, all your Motives of Credibility prove nothing at all, as I have at large demonstrated before, and shall not follow you in needless repetitions.

3. No right to any priviledge can be challenged, by virtue of a free Promise made to particular persons, unless it be evident that the intention of the Promiser was, that it should equally extend to them and others. For the Promise being free, and the Priviledge such as carries no necessity at all along with it, in order to the great ends of Christian Religion; it is intolerable Arrogance and Presumption to challenge it, without manifest evidence, that the design of it was for them, as well as the persons to whom it was made. Indeed, in such Promises which are built on common and general grounds, containing things agreeable to all Christians, it is but reasonable to inferr the universal extent of that Promise to all such as are in the like condition. Hence the Apostle inferrs, from the particular Promise made to Joshua, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee; the effect of it upon all believers. Although, had not the Apostle done it before us, it may seem questionable on what ground we could have done it, unless from the general reason of of it, and the unbounded nature of Divine Goodness, in things necessary for the Good of his People. But in things arbitrary, and such as contain special p. 238Priviledge in them, to challenge a right to a Promise of the same Priviledge, without equal evidence of the descent of it, as the first Grant, is great presumption, and a challenge of the Promisor for partiality, if he doth not make it good. Because the pretence of the right of the Priviledge goes upon this ground, that it is as much due to the Successor, as to the Original Grantee.

4. Nothing can be more unreasonable, than to challenge a right to a Priviledge, by virtue of such a Promise which was granted upon quite different considerations from the grounds on which that right is challenged. Thus I shall after make it evident, that the Promise of an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost, had a peculiar respect to the Apostles present employment, and the first state of the Church, that it was not made upon reasons common to all ages, viz. for the Government of the Church, deciding Controversies, Foundation of Faith, all which Ends may be sufficiently attained without them. But, above all, it seems very unreasonable, that a Promise made to persons in one office, must be applied in the same manner to persons in a quite different office; that a Promise made to each of them separate, must be equally applied to others only as in Council; that a Promise made implying Divine Assistance, must be equally applied to such, who dare not say, that Assistance is Divine (but infallible, and after a sort Divine) that a Promise made of immediate Divine Revelation, and enabling the persons who enjoyed the Priviledge of it, to work miracles to attest their Testimony to be infallible, should be equally applied to such as dare not challenge a Divine Revelation, nor ever did work a miracle to attest such an Infallible Assistance. Yet all this is done by you in your endeavour of fetching the Infallibility of your Church, out of those Promises of the assistance of Christ and his Spirit, which were made to the Apostles. These general Considerations, do sufficiently enervate the force of your whole Chapter, which yet I come particularly to consider.

His Lordship tells A. C. That in the second sense of Church-Tradition, he cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority, §. 2. Sect. 16. n. 26.till A. C. can prove that this company of men (the Roman Prelates and Clergy he means) are so fully, so clearly, so permanently assisted by Christ, and his Spirit, as may reach to Infallibility, much less to a Divine Infallibilility, in this or any other Principle which they teach. In answer to this, you tell us,P. 98. n. 1. That the Bishop declines the Question by withdrawing his Reader from the thesis, to the hypothesis; from the Church, to the Church of Rome. But, Is it not sufficiently known to all persons who deal in this Controversie, what you mean by the Catholick Church in this Controversie, that it shall not be lawful for his Lordship in a Parenthesis, to shew where you place this Infallibility, but he must be charged with declining the Question? This only shews a desire to cavil at little things, when you were unable to answer greater. Besides, in the way you take of proving the Churches Infallibility by the Motives of Credibility, there is a necessity even in this Controversie, of declaring what that Catholick Church is, which must be known by these Motives; and therefore you have no cause to look upon this as running away from the Question. That A. C. after a long and silent attention, did meerly, through the heat of his zeal, become earnest in this business, to do his Adversary good. I must believe it, because you tell me so, though I see no great Motive of Credibility for it. And on that account did desire him, to consider the Tradition of the Church, as of a Company of men infallibly assisted. For such assistance (you say) is necessary as well to have sufficient p. 239assurance of the true Canon of Holy Scripture, as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof. But this is as easily denied as said. We wait therefore for your proofs.

That which only seems here intended for that end, is, That when the Relator had said, The Prophets under the Old Testament, P. 91. n. 26.and the Apostles under the New, had such an Infallible Divine Assistance; but neither the High Priest with his Clergy in the Old, nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New, since the Apostles, ever had it. To this you reply, That the like assistance (with the Prophets and Apostles) the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament, as we gather out of Deut. 17.8, &c. P. 97. n. 1.Where in doubts the people were bound, not only to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy, but to submit and stand to their judgement. Much more then ought we to think, that there is such an obligation in the New Testament; which could not stand without Infallibility. Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in Points of Faith, amongst all the different Christians that deny it.

Two things the force of this argument lyes in. 1. That there was Infallibility in the High Priest and his Clergy under the Law. 2. That if there were so then, there ought to be so now. Both these must be considered.

1. That there was Infallibility in the High Priest and his Clergy under the Law, which you prove from Deut. 17.8. Because there the people were not only to have recourse to them, but to submit and stand to their judgement. This argument in form, is this. Where there is to be not only a recourse, but an obligation to submission, there must be Infallibility; but there were both these among the Jews, as to the High Priest and his Clergy; ergo. You may see how forcible this argument is in a like case: Where there is to be not only a recourse in matters of difficulty, but an obligation to submit and stand to their judgement, there must be Infallibility; but to the Parliament of England there ought to be not only a recourse in matters of difficulty, but a submission to their judgement; therefore the Parliament of England is as infallible as the High Priest and Clergy under the Law, by the very argument by you produced. The same will hold for all Courts of Justice. But, Can you by no means distinguish between an obligation to submission, and an obligation in conscience to assent to what is determined as infallibly true? Is every person in all judiciary Cases, where submission is required, bound to believe the Judges sentence infallible? If so, we need not go over the Alps for Infallibility, we may have it much cheaper at home: But, I suppose you will reply, The case is very different, because in the Text by you produced, 1. Not Civil Matters, but Religious are spoken of. 2. That not any Civil Magistrates, but the High Priest and his Clergy are the Judges mentioned. 3. That not every kind of Judgement, but an Infallible Judgement is there set down. But, if every one of these be false, you will see, what little advantage comes to your cause by this Testimony; which I shall in order demonstrate.

1. That this place speaks not of Religious Causes, as such; but of Civil Causes, i. e. not of matters of Doctrine to be decided as true or false, but matters of Justice to be determined as to right and wrong. Not but that some things concerning the Ecclesiastical Polity of the Nation might be there decided; for it was impossible in a Nation, whose Laws depended on their Religion, to separate the one from the other: But, that the Judgement given there, did not determine the truth and falshood of things, so as to oblige mens consciences to believe them; but did so peremptorily decide them, that the persons concerned were bound to acquiesce in that determination. p. 240For the proof of this, one would think, the very reading of the place were sufficient.Deut. 17.8.Deut 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgement, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversies within thy gates, then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse, &c. Which words are so generally expressed, on purpose to take in all manner of controversies which might rise among them, whether civil, criminal, or ceremonial. And herein God makes provision against any rupture which might be among them upon any emergent Controversie, by establishing a Court of Appeals, to which all such causes should be brought, in which the lesser Courts could not agree. For that seems to be the main scope of the words, by the following expression of Controversies within thy gates, by which it seems evident, that the Controversies were such as could come to no resolution in those inferiour Courts which sate in the Gates of the Cities; by which it appears, that these could be no momentous Controversies of Religion, which never came under the cognizance of those inferiour and subordinate Courts. By these words then God doth erect a Supreme Court of Judicature among them, to which they might appeal, not only in case of injury, but in case of difficulty; and those lesser Courts, as well as particular persons, were to submit to the Decree of the great Sanhedrin, sitting in the place which God should chuse, which was Shilo first, and Hierusalem after. And thence Maimonides so often saith, That the establishment and coagmentation of all the Israelites, did depend upon this place; for hereby God set up such a Tribunal, to which the last Resort should be made, and from whose determinations there should remain no further appeal. And according to the Tradition of the Jews, these appeals were to be gradual, i. e. in case any Priest should be to seek as to any Ceremonial Cause, as that of Leprosie, brought before him, he was to take advice of the Court of the Triumvirate where he lived; if that did not agree, then he was to appeal to the lesser Sanhedrin of 23. in the neighbour-City, if there it could not be ended to the Sanhedrin of 23. at the entrance of the Mount of the Temple; if not there neither, then appeal was made to the Great Sanhedrin, whose sentence was final and peremptory, and was instead of a Law in the Case.

2. You are greatly mistaken in supposing that all this is spoken of the High Priest and his Clergy: I deny not but express mention is made of the Priests and Levites, as those who were supposed most acquainted with all matters of difference which should happen among them; and therefore were probably the greatest part of the great Sanhedrin (for it is a groundless fancy to suppose two distinct Courts, the one Civil, and the other Ecclesiastical among the Jews.) Nay the High Priest himself was so far from being the constant President of this Court, that, if we believe the Tradition of the Jews, he was not admitted to sit there, without the same previous examination and tryal which others underwent. Indeed, in the decay of the Jewish Polity, in the time of the Assomanean Family, the chief Civil Power was in the hands of the High Priest, on which account he might then preside in the Sanhedrin, but that is nothing to this place, where mention is made vers. 9. of the Priests and Levites, and then of the Judge, which is, in case God should raise up among them an extraordinary person, who should be Judge over Israel, then the appeals might be to him; but otherwise v. 10. they were to do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse, shall shew thee, which was the great Sanhedrin. According therefore to the sentence of this Court, p. 241whether pronounced by a Priest, or other, they were to act; and they that refused were punished with death.

3. Whoever the persons were, who gave this Sentence, yet it was not looked on as Infallible; for it is not said, Whosoever doth not believe the judgement given, to be infallibly true; but, whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it. And the man that will do presumptuously, Deut. 17.12.Deut 17:12and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall dye. Besides, we are so far from reading of any promise of Infallibility made to the High Priest and his Clergy, or to the Sanhedrin, that God himself doth suppose a possibility of errour in the whole Congregation of Israel, Levit. 4.15. And all along the Books of the Prophets, we see how much God chargeth the Priests with Ignorance, and forsaking his way. And, I pray, Where was that Infallibility of the High Priest and his Clergy, not only when our blessed Saviour was condemned by him, and the Sanhedrin both; but in that time, when Israel for a long season had been without the True God, 2 Chron. 15.3.2 Chr 15:3and without a Teaching Priest, and without Law. So that we see what very little relief you have out of this place for the Infallibility of the High Priest and his Clergy. But, suppose we should grant them Infallible, and that Infallibility proved from this place, What is that to us? Might not you as well challenge the Oracular Responses by Vrim and Thummim to belong to you, as the High Priests Infallibility, supposing he had any? If God thought it fit to make them Infallible, and gave such express command concerning obedience and submission to their judgement, Is it not very reasonable to think, that under the Gospel there should be express mention made of the subject of this Infallibility, the place whither we should resort for final judgements, as there is here? Nay, had it not been far more necessary to have specified and determined these circumstances, since they are of such vast importance for the peace of the Christian world? How easily had all our debates been ended, if God had said any where in the New Testament, When any Controversie of Faith ariseth, go to the place which I shall chuse, viz. Rome, and there enquire the Judgement of the Bishop that shall sit there, and whatever he determines, that believe as infallibly true; if we had met with any thing so express, nay, that had any seeming tendency this way, How readily should we submit our Controversies to his determination? But, when there is so little ground or foundation for it there, that you are fain to deduce your Infallibility, from Gods settling a Court of Appeals among the Jews; Can you think that we are presumptuous, and deserve to be cut off, if we do not believe? For, for all that I know, you may challenge the sanction of the Law, as well as the Priviledge of it; and your former practises would perswade us, that you believe the Sanction to be as valid as the other.

But (say you) the infinite dissentions and divisions among those that deny it, make this necessary. 1. I pray, Doth your pretence of Infallibility put an end to all your divisions? Nay, Are there not many among your selves, raised meerly on the account of this Infallibility? Have not many among you, grown so weary of it, that they have wished the name had never been mentioned? Are not others so ashamed of the thred-bare impertinent places of Scripture, commonly produced, that they have ventured the censure of your Church for disowning them, and have sheltered themselves under the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition? Have not some ingenuously confessed, that there is no avoiding the circle on the common grounds? Are those no differences at all concerning the subject of Infallibility, p. 242and the Superiority of Pope and Council? Happy men! that have so many coincident distinctions, and such agreeing differences! 2. Were there not dissentions and divisions in the Apostles times? And, had it not been, think you, much better for the Apostle, instead of saying, There must be heresies or divisions among you, that they which are approved, may be made manifest, have told them, There must be an Infallible Judge among you, that there may be no heresies or divisions? If you had been at his Elbow, what prudent advise you would have given S. Paul for ending all the divisions in the Corinthian, Colossian, Galatian Churches, &c! You must have told him, that it was to very little purpose to wooe them by the many arguments he useth to exhort them so often to unity, and chide them as carnal, while they had dissentions, when one word of an Infallible Judge had ended all of them. But, poor S. Paul knew of no such thing, which made him give as good counsels, as the Spirit of God directed him to; but alas, they were but sorry things in comparison of an Infallible Judge. Give us leave therefore to reckon our selves among those Primitive Christians, who knew no more than we of any such way to end differences, as Infallibility in a constant Judge, for all they had dissentions and divisions among them as well as we.

But you are very angry with his Lordship for taxing this pretence of Infallibility with Insolency, P. …7.and a design to lord it over the Faith of Christendom. And therefore tell him, You go no further than Christ himself leads you by Promises made of this Infallibility; That is the thing in question, and must not be taken upon the trust of your Infallibility, in interpreting the places by you alledged. When you can prove the Pastors of your Church, to be as Infallible as the Apostles were, and to have the same Spirit which they had, I shall as little suspect them of Lording it over others as the Apostles: but if it appear quite otherwise as to the Pastors of your Church; name, if you can, a greater Insolency, than to usurp a power of prescribing to the Faith of the Christian world. As to what follows concerning your Churches Testimony, being again Infallible by the assistance of Christ and his Spirit, and yet not Divinely Infallible, it is so subtle and Scholastical a distinction, that I now begin, not to admire Your so often using it; for I see plainly, if that wedge, how blunt soever, doth not rive asunder the knot, it is like to remain for any thing you have to say to it.

His Lordship having given one Instance of the Insolency of your pretence of Infallibility, §. 3.by the dangerous errours which your Church doth hold, particularly in equalling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God, which (saith he) is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church, and which frets upon the very Foundation it self, P. 92.by justling with it. But, being well acquainted with the Arts of your party in making a great noise with the Fathers, and particularly in this Controversie, with a citation out of S. Basils Books de Spirit▪ Sanct. ad Amphilochium, and especially those words, parem vim habent ad pictatem, speaking of Traditions; he therefore in his Margent so far takes notice of them, as to return this threefold Answer to to them. 1. That he speaks of Apostolical Tradition, and not the Tradition of the present Church. 2. That exceptions are taken at this Book as corrupted. 3. That S. Basil makes Scripture the Touchstone of Tradition. To this you return a Threefold Answer.P 97. 1. That 'tis true, he speaks of Apostolical Traditions, but of such as were come down to their present times. 2. That the Exceptions against the Book are unreasonable. 3. That S. Basil doth not make the Scripture so to be the touchstone of Tradition, as that Scripture must needs therefore p. 243be of greater force and superiour dignity than that of Tradition. Because therefore this is the chief place in Antiquity which is produced on your side in behalf of Traditions, it will deserve a more careful examination in the particulars by you mentioned.

1. You acknowledge that he speaks of Apostolical Traditions, and such as the present Church judged Apostolical; now you say that the present Church is infallible in judging Apostolical Traditions, and what Traditions are so judged are necessary to be practised. Now I pray consider what difficulties and self-contradictions you have brought your self into, by acknowledging these Traditions to have been judged Apostolical by the present Church. For either that Church at that time was not infallible in judging Traditions, and so the present Church of every age is not Infallible; or if that was infallible, yours is not; for your Church differs from the Church in St. Basils time about these very Traditions by him mentioned, your Church not judging them Apostolical. Which will appear by an inspection into those things which are here accounted Traditions by him. Among which he not only mentions signing believers with the sign of the Cross, praying toward the East, the oyl and the abrenunciation used in Baptism, S. Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27. Tom. 1.but the consecration of the person to be Baptized, the standing at prayers untill Pentecost, and above all, the trine immersion in Baptism, all which he saith come foreign, Out of a secret and unpublished Tradition, which our Fathers preserved in a quiet and silent manner. Are these three last then acknowledged by your Church now for Apostolical Traditions or no? Nay doth not your Roman Catechism absolutely pronounce the trine immersion to be unnecessary for baptism. How can that become unnecessary, Catechism. Rom. de baptis.which was once infallibly judged to be an Apostolical Tradition? Either the Church then was out in her judgement, or your Church out in hers? and choose whether of those you have the more mind to? either of them will help you to contradict your self.

2. There want not sufficient reasons of suspecting that Book to be corrupted. You say Erasmus was the first who suspected it. Not the first who suspected corruption in St. Basils writings. For Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine Council charged some Latinizing Greeks with corrupting his books against Eunomius, Concil. Florent▪ Act. 20.Acts 20protesting that in Constantinople there were but four Copies to above one thousand which had the passages in them, which were produced by the Latins. But suppose Erasmus were the first: was he not so in discovering the genuine and supposititious writings of several others of the Fathers. We must therefore enquire into the reason which Erasmus had of this suspicion; Who tells us in his Epistle to John Dantiscus the Poland Embassadour, that by that time he had gone through half this work, he discerned a palpable inequality in the style, sometimes swelling to a Tragical height, and then sinking into a vulgar flatness, having much more of ostentation, impertinent digressions, repetitions, than any of St. Basils own writings which had alwaies a great deal of vigour, simplicity and candour, with great evenness and equality, &c. And although this argument to all that know the worth of that excellent person, especially in his judgement of the writings of the Fathers will seem by no means contemptible, yet we have much greater reason for our suspicion than this meerly from the stile. For if you believe St. Basil was a man who knew how to speak consistencies, that he would not utter palpable and evident contradictions in his writings; you will have no reason to applaud your p. 244self in this as a genuine piece of St. Basils, at least for the latter part of it. For whereas you make this the force of his words, That unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety, with the written Word: You could hardly have named so many words which bear a greater face of contradiction to a multitude of testimonies in his unquestionably genuine writings. For, is it not St. Basil who saith, That it is a manifest falling from the Faith, foreign. Basil. de verâ ac piâ fide. Tom 20. p. gr. lat. p. 386. foreign. Hom. 29 de Trinit. Tom. 1. foreign. In Ethicis. Reg. 16 v. Tom. 2. foreign. Ib. reg. 80. c. 22.and an argument of arrogancy, either to reject any point of those things that are written, or to bring in any of those things that are not written? Is it not St. Basil who bids a man Believe the things that are written, and seek not the things that are not written? Is it not the same St. Basil, who saith, That every word and action ought to be confirmed by the testimony of Holy Scripture, for confirmation of the Faith of the good, and confusion of the evil? Is it not he who urgeth that very place to this purpose, Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin; then whatsoever is without the Holy Scripture, being not of Faith, is sin. Which at least must be understood of such things which men have an opinion of piety and necessity in the doing of. These and many other places may be produced out of his genuine writings attesting the clean contrary to what you produce this place for. What then must we think of him? Must we say of him as he did of Gregory Thaumaturgus, that he spoke some things not foreign but foreign,Basil. ep. 64. not as though he believed them; but for disputation sake, because they served his purpose well? Or rather, have we not much greater reason considering the contrariety of …he Doctrine, as well as inequality of style, to follow Erasmus his judgement concerning this Book? Especially considering that Bellarmin himself,L. 4. de V.D. c. 7. De Amiss. Grat. l. 1. c. 13. who slights Erasmus his judgement herein; yet, when he is pinched with a citation out of his Asceticks, calls the sincerity of that Book into question, because he doth not therein seem to admit of unwritten Traditions, which (saith he) ad Amphilochium he doth strenuously defend. If therefore he may question another Book for not agreeing with this, we may more justly question this for disagreeing with so many others. Thus you see, it is not meerly the style, and that only on the judgement of Erasmus, which makes this Book suspicious. And from those citations produced out of other writings of St. Basil, the (3.) thing evidently appears, viz. That he so makes the Scripture the touchstone of all Traditions, as that Scripture must be incomparably of greater force and superiour dignity, than any unwritten Tradition whatsoever. But Whether Stapleton in his testimony meant primarily Apostolical Traditions, or others, is not worth the enquiring.

Concerning what follows, as to the sincerity and agreement of ancient Copies of Scripture, §. 4.and the means to be assured of the integrity of them, I have sufficiently expressed my self already. Only what you add concerning the integrity of Traditions above the Scripture, being new, deserves to be considered. For, (say you) universal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age: Ib…d. n. 2.and it seems much more incident to have errours s…ip into writings of so great bulk as is the Bible, which in their Editions pass only through the hands of particular men, then that there should be errours in publick, universal, and immemorial Traditions, which are openly practised throughout Christendom, and taken notice of by every one in all ages. And from hence you instance in St. Johns Epistle, or St. Lukes Gospel, which being p. 245originally written to particular persons, must be at first received as authentical upon their credit: but, on the other side, Apostolical Traditions (for which you instance in the Observation of the Lords day, Infant-baptism, use of Altars, &c.) in their prime Institution and practise being publickly practised and owned by the Apostles; it was incomparably harder, morally speaking, to doubt in the beginning of these Traditions, then whether St. Johns Epistle, or St. Lukes Gospel were really theirs or no. Whence we see some Books that were written by Apostles were questioned for some time, but these and such like Traditions, were alwayes owned, as truely and really descending from the Apostles. To which I answer, 1. If you prove not some Tradition thus universally owned and received which we have no record of, or ground for the observation of from Scripture, you speak nothing at all to the purpose; but two of those you instance in, Observation of the Lords day, and Paedobaptism, we have as much as is requisite for the Churches practise from Scripture it self; for the other, Of the Vse of Altars, it were a work becoming you to deduce the History of them from the Apostolical times, beginning at the foreign, or upper room where the Apostles met after Christs Ascension, and so tracing them through all the private houses and Synagogues in which the Christians in the Apostles times had their solemn Assemblies for Divine worship; thence bringing down the History of them carefully through all the persecutions, and producing evidences to that purpose, out of Tertullian, Origen, Minutius Felix, and Arnobius, only blotting out non where they speak of Altars and Temples among Christians, and telling us that some Protestants had corrupted their Books; that where they utterly disown them, they did highly magnifie them; that where they seemed to speak most against them, it was not to let the Heathens know that they had them: By this means indeed you are like to acquaint us with some Vniversal Tradition less lyable to corruption and alteration than the Scriptures. For this of Altars is the only thing by you mentioned, which seems any thing to your purpose, the other two being sufficiently proved from Scripture; which acquaints us so much with Apostolical practise, as to yield abundant reason for the practise of following Ages. You do well therefore to wrap up all other such Traditions as might vye with the Scriptures for integrity, with a prudent &c. For you cannot but know that this game of Tradition is quite spoiled, if we offer to come to particulars. But it is a fine thing in general to talk of the impossibility of corrupting such a Tradition as had its rise from the practise of the Apostles, and was by them delivered to succeeding ages, and so was universally practised by all Christians as derived from the Apostles; but when we put but that sullen demand, that such a thing as hath no evidence in Scripture may be named which was so universally received and owned as the Scriptures are, how many put off's, and &c.'s. do we meet with all? For fear of being evidently disproved in the particular instanced in. 2. If there be so much greater evidence for Tradition than Scripture, whence came the very next ages to the Apostles to be so doubtful as to Traditions, which yet were agreed in receiving the Scripture? I speak not of such things, which we have not the least evidence the Apostles ever thought of, much less universally practised, (such as we contend the things in controversie between you and us are) but in such things which undoubtedly the Apostles did practise, so as that the Christians of that Age could not but know such a practise of theirs. As in that Controversie which soon rise in the Church, about the day of the Observation of Easter; what contests soon grew p. 246between the Asian and Roman Christians about this, both equally pretending Apostolical Tradition, and that at the least distance imaginable from the Apostolical times? For Polycarpe professed to receive his Tradition from St. John, as those at Rome from St. Peter. If then Traditions be so uncapable of falsification and corruption, how came they to be so much to seek, as to what the Apostolical Tradition was in the very next age succeeding the Apostles? What, Could not those who lived in St. Johns and St. Peters time know what they did? Could they be deceived themselves, or had they an intent to deceive their posterity? If some of them did falsifie Tradition so soon, we see what little certainty there is in the deriving a Tradition from the Apostles: if neither falsified, then it should seem there was no universal practise of the Apostles concerning it, but they looked on it as a matter of indifferency, and some might practise one way, and some another. If so, then we are yet further to seek for an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles, binding succeeding Ages. For can you possibly think the Apostles did intend to bind unalterably succeeding Ages in such things which they used a Liberty in themselves? If then it be granted, that in matters of an indifferent nature the Apostles might practise severally as they saw occasion, How then can we be certain of the Apostles universal practise in matters of an indifferent nature? If we cannot so, we can have no evidence of an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles, but in some things which they judged necessary. But whence shall we have this unquestionable evidence, first that they did such things, and secondly, that they did them with an apprehension of the necessity of them, and with an intention to oblige posterity by their actions? By what rule or measure must we judge of this necessity? By their Vniversal practise? but that brings us into a plain Circle; for we must judge of the necessity of it by their Vniversal practise, and we must prove that Vniversal practise by the necessity of the thing. For, if the thing were not judged necessary, the Apostles might differ in their practise from one another. Whence then shall we prove any practise necessary, unless built on some unal…erable ground of reason, and then it is not formally an Apostolical Tradition, but the use of that common reason and prudence in matters of a religious nature: or else by some positive Law and Institution of theirs; and this, supposing it unwritten, must be evidenced from something distinct from their practise, or else you must assert, that whatever the Apostles did, they made an unalterable Law for; or lastly, you must quit all Vnwritten Traditions as Vniversal, and must first inferr the necessity, and then the Vniversality of their practise from some record extant in Scripture, and then you can be no further certain of any Vniversal practise of the Apostles, then you are of the Scriptures: by which it will certainly appear that the Scripture is farr more evident and credible, then any Vniversal unwritten Tradition.

A clear and evident Instance of the uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions in things not defined in Scripture is one of those you instance in your self, viz. that of Rebaptizing Hereticks which came to be so great a Controversie, so soon after the Apostolical Age. For though this Controversie rose to its height in St. Cyprians time, which was about A. D. 250. yet it was begun some competent time before that. For St. Cyprian, in his Epistle to Jubaianus, where he gives an account of the General Council of the Provinces of Africa and Numidia consisting of seventy one Bishops, endeavours to remove all suspicion of Novelty from their opinion, For (saith he) it is no new or sudden thing among p. 247us to judge that those ought to be baptized, who come to the Church from Hereticks; for now many years are past, and a long time, since, under Agrippinus,Apud nos autem, non nova ant repentina res est, ut baptiza…dos censeamus …os qui ab haereticis ad Ecclesiam veniunt; quando multi jam anni sunt, & longa aetas, ex quo sub Agrippin… convenientes in unum Episcopi plurimi hoc statuerint, at que exinde in hodiern…m diem tot millia haereticorum, &c. Cyprian. ep. 73. the Bishops meeting together did determine it in Council, and thousands of Hereticks have voluntarily submitted to it. How far off could that be from the Apostolical times, which was done so long before Cyprians? And, although S. Augustine (as it was his interest so to do) would make this to have been but a few years;De baptism. C Donat. l. 4. yet we have greater evidence both of the greater antiquity, and larger spread of this Opinion. Whereby we may see, how little the judgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis is to relyed on as to Traditions, who gives Agrippinus such hard words, for being the first who, against Scripture, Agrippinus omnium mortalium primus contra Divinum Canonem, contra universalis Ecclesiae regulam, contra sensum omnium consacerdotum, contra morem at que instituta majorum, baptizandos eos qui ab haereticis ad Ecclesi…m venirent, censuisse. Commonit. l. 1. cap. 9.the Rule of the Vniversal Church, the judgement of all his Fellow-Priests, the custom of his Ancestors, did assert the rebaptization of Hereticks. How little Truth there is in what Vincentius here saies, and consequently, how little certainty in his way of finding out Traditions, will appear from the words of Dionysius of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Philemon and Dionysius concerning this subject. For therein he asserts, That long before that custom obtained in Africa, the same was practised and decreed in the most famous Churches both at Iconium, Synada, and other places. foreign, &c. Ap…d Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 7.Sir 50:7On which account this great person professeth, that he durst not condemn their Opinion who held so. Whether this Synod at Iconium were the same with that mentioned by Firmilian, is not so certain, but, if it were, that can be no argument against the Antiquity of it. For, although Firmilian say, That we long ago, meeting in Iconium, from Galatia, Cilicia, and the neighbour Regions have confirmed the same, Quod totum nos jam pridem in Iconio qui Phrygiae locus est collecti, in unum convenientibus ex Galatiâ & Ciliciâ, & caeteris proximis regionibus confirmavimus. Cypr. ep 75. Ubi pronomen Nos non de ipsius Firmiliani personaâ, sed potius de ejus decessoribus accipiendum est. Vales. not. in Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.viz. that Hereticks should be baptized; yet, as the learned Valesius observes, the pronoune We, is not to be understood of Firmilian's person, but of his predecessors; and therefore checks both Baronius and Binius for placing that Synod, A. D. 258. We see therefore, this Opinion was so largely spread,Verum etiam omnes serè (Ecclesiae) quae in Oriente magno numero Christianam pietatem profitebantur. Rigalt. not. in Cyprian. p. 145. that not only the Churches in Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania favoured it, but almost all the Eastern Christians. For Dionysius in an Epistle to Xystus, who succeeded Stephanus at Rome, wherein he pleads for Moderation as to this Controversie, and desires him more throughly to consider the weight of the business, and not proceed so rashly as Stephanus had done; he tells him in conclusion, that he writ not this of himself, but at the request of the several Bishops of Antioch, Caesarea, Aelia, Tyre, Laodicea, Tarsus, &c. Nay, and as it appears by Firmilians Epistle, they made no question but this custom of theirs descended from Christ and his Apostles: For telling Cyprian, that in such places where the other custom had been used, they did well to oppose truth to custom; Caterum nos veritati & consuetudinem jungimus, & consuetudini Romanorum, consuetudinem sed veritatis opponimus; ab initio hoc tenentes, quod à Christo & ab Apostolo traditum est. ep. 75. Cypr. p. 164. ed. Rigalt. V. etiam Basil. ep. primâ Canon. ad Amphilochium. Tom. 2. p. 759.But we (saith he) joyn truth and custom together, and to the custom of the Romans, we oppose the custom of truth, holding that from the beginning, which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles. p. 248And therefore adds, Neither do we remember when this practice began, seeing it was alwaies observed among us. And thence charges the Church of Rome, in that Epistle, with violating that, and several other Traditions of the Apostles. But Vincentius Lyrinensis still takes Stephens part; and all that he hath to say, is, That that is the property of Christian modesty and gravity, Id que esse proprium Christianae modestiae & gravitatis, non sua posteris t…a…ere, sed à majoribus accepta servare. Ibid.not to deliver their own Opinions to their posterity, but to retain the Tradition of their Fore-fathers. As though the other side could not say the same things, and with as much confidence as they did: but all the Question was, What that Tradition was which they were to retain? The one said one thing, and the other another. But, as Rigaltius well observes, Vincentius speaks very truly and prudently, Quae san… sunt à Vincentio verissimè ac prudentissimè pron…nciata, si non alia si…t à majoribus tradita, quàm quae majores ab Apostolis susceperant: Caeterùm, sub nomine ac personâ majorum, per fatuos aut Sophist…s, asinina aut Sophistica pro. Apostolicis traderentur. Rigalt. observ. in Cyprian. p. 147.if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors, but what they had from the Apostles; but, under the pretence of our Ancestors, silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions. And whether this doth not often come to pass, let the world judge. Now therefore, when these persons on both sides had incomparably greater advantages of knowing what the Vniversal Apostolical Practice was than we can have, and yet so irreconcilably differ about it, what likelihood or probability is there, that we may have greater certainty of Apostolical Tradition, than of the Writings of the Apostles? Especially in such matters as these are, in which it is very questionable, Whether the Apostles had any occasion ministred to them, to determine any thing in them. And therefore when Stephen at Rome, and those of his party pleaded custom, and consequently, as they thought, Apostolical Tradition; it was not irrationally answered on the other side by Cyprian and Firmilian, Cypr. ep. 74, 75that that might be, Because the Apostles had not occasion given them to declare their minds in it, because either the Heresies were not of such a nature as those of Marcion and Cerdon, or else there might not be such returnings from those Heresies in the Apostolical times to the Church; which being of so black a nature, as to carry in them such malignity, by corrupting the lives of men by vicious practices, there was less probability either of the true Christians Apostatizing into them, or the recovery of such who were fallen into them. To this purpose Firmilian speaks,Quantum ad id perti…eat quod Stephanus dixit, quasi Aposto…i eos qui ab haeresi veniant, baptiz…ri prob buer…nt, & hoc custodiendum posteris tradiderint, plenissimè vos respondistis; Neminem tam stultum esse, qui hoc credat Apostolos trad…d…sse▪ quando etiam ipsas b…reses constet execrabiles ac detestandas post…a extitisse. Firmil. ep. Cypr. 75. That the Apostles could not be supposed to prohibit the baptizing of such which came from the Hereticks, because no man would be so silly, as to suppose the Apostles did prohibit that which came not in question till afterwards. And therefore S. Augustine, who concerned himself the most in this Controversie, when he saw such ill use made of it by the Donatists, doth ingenuously confess, That the Apostles did determine nothing at all in it; Apostoli autem nihil quidem exinde praecepêrant sed consu…tudo illa quae opponebatur …, ab corum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est: sicut sunt multa quae un…v…rsa tenet Ecclesia, & ob hoc ab Apostol…s praecepta benè creduntur, quanqu…m scripta non rep…riantur. Aug. c. Donat. l. 5 c. 23.but however (saith he) that custom which is opposed to Cyprian, is to be believed to have its rise from the Apostles Tradition; as there are many other things observed in the Church, and on that account are believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, although they are no where found written. But, what cogent argument doth S. Austin use to perswade them this was an Apostolical Tradition? He grants, they determined nothing in it, yet would needs have it believed, that an Vniversal Practice of succeeding ages, should imply p. 249such a determination, though unwritten. But, 1. The Vniversal Practice we have seen already, was far from being evident, when not only the African, but the Eastern Church did practise otherwise, and that on the account of an Apostolical Tradition too. 2. Supposing such an Vniversal Practice, How doth it thence follow, that it must be derived from the Apostles; unless it be first proved, that the Church could never consent in the use of any thing, but what the Apostles commanded them? Which is a very unreasonable supposition, considering the different emergencies which might be in the Churches of Apostolical and succeeding times, and the different reasons of practice attending upon them, with that great desire which crept into the Church of representing the things conveyed by the Gospel in an external symbolical manner, whence, in the second Century, came the use of many baptismal Ceremonies, the praegustatio mellis & lactis, as Tertullian calls it, and several of a like nature, which, by degrees, came into the Church: Must we now derive these, and many other customs of the Church necessarily from the Apostles, when, even in S. Austins time, several customs were supposed to be grounded on Apostolical Tradition, which yet are otherwise believed now. As in that known Instance of Infants Participation of the Eucharist, which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent; and, for all that I know, the arguments used against this Tradition by some men, may as well hold against Infant-Baptism; for there is an equal incapacity as to the exercise of all acts of reason and understanding in both: and, as the Scripture seems to suppose such acts of grace in one as have their foundation in the use of reason, it doth likewise in the other, and I cannot see sufficient evidence to the contrary; but if that place, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Joh. 3.5.John 3:5taken in the sense of the Fathers, doth imply a necessity of Baptism for all, and consequently of Children; that other place, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Joh. 6.53.John 6:53Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, taken likewise in the sense of the Fathers, will import the necessity of a participation of the Eucharist by Infants as well as others. I speak not this with an intention to plead either for this, or for the rebaptizing Hereticks, but to shew the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions; some things having been taken for such, which we believe were not so, and others which could not be known whether so or no, by the ages next succeeding the Apostles. And therefore let any reasonable person judge what probability there is in what you drive at, that Apostolical Traditions may be more easily known than Apostolical Writings.

By which it appears, (3.) How vain and insufficient your reasons are,§. 5. Why Traditions should not be so liable to corruption as the Scriptures. 1. You say, Vniversal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age; and it seems more incident to have the Bible corrupted than them, because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men; whereas universal and immemorial Traditions, are openly practised and taken notice of by every one in all ages. To which I answer, 1. That you give no sufficient reason why the Bible should be corrupted. 2. And as little why Traditions should be more preserved than that. Two Accounts you give why the Bible might be corrupted by errours, because of its bulk, and passing through the hands of particular men. But, Do you think it a thing impossible, or at least unreasonable, to suppose that a Book of no greater bulk than the Bible, should, by the care and vigilancy of men, through the assistance of Divine Providence, p. 250be preserved from any material corruptions or alterations? Surely, if you think so, you have mean thoughts of the Christians in all ages, and meaner of Divine Providence: For, you must suppose God to take no care at all for the preservation of a Monument of unspeakable concernment to the good of mankind; and you must conceive the Christians, in all ages, to be stupendiously careless and negligent, either in transcribing, or reading the Scriptures, which could suffer errours to slip into them, without discovery of them. Do you think that the Christians had no higher esteem of the Scriptures, than of the Vse of Altars, or any other of your immemorial Traditions; but, say you, The one were publick, and the other passed through the hands of particular men. It should seem then, their Altars were upon high places, but the Scriptures were only read in corners, never any such thing being publickly read as the Bible, so that any alteration might be there, and no notice at all taken of it. The poor African Bishop found the contrary to his sorrow, who was in such danger from the people, for altering but one word according to S. Hieroms Translation, as S. Austin reports the story. But, suppose it passed through the hands of particular men, Was it therefore more liable to be corrupted? I should think just the contrary; unless you could suppose all those particular men to agree in corrupting it, which, considering the difference of opinions, capacities, and interests, is a most unreasonable supposition; that some verbal and literal mistakes might slip in, you might rationally imagine, but that therefore any great corruptions should creep into it, argues your mean thoughts both of Gods Providence, and the care of the Christian world. Well, but still it is impossible to corrupt your Traditions. It were a much harder matter to free your Traditions from being corruptions themselves of the purity of the Christian Church. And why so hard for them to be corrupted? Because recorded in Authours of every succeeding age. I had thought, all Books of equal, or much bigger bulk than the Scripture, had been as liable to corruption as that; but it seems not. If a Book be written of Traditions, the very Traditions will preserve it pure, though as big as that Livy, Quem mea vix totum bibliotheca capit: But that is not all, it seems, these Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age: Unhappy men we, that cannot find them there! I wish, instead of writing Controversies, you would write the history of these Traditions; but, be sure to deduce them through the Authours of every succeeding age; and, I suppose, you mean, ever since the Apostles. I shall then indeed believe Popish Traditions to be no Novelties, but not before. But, let us grant this: Were not the Scriptures attested by the same Authours? No, It seems, they were agreed about all Traditions, but not so about the Scripture. And the reason is, Because the Scriptures were first delivered to private men, as S. John's Epistle, and S. Luke's Gospel; but Traditions had an universal practice. But, Can you suppose it otherwise, but that particular Books must be first delivered to private men? Would you have them delivered only to General Councils, or the Pope and his Cardinals? It seems, S. John was to blame for not directing his Epistle to the Pope, instead of Gaius; and S. Luke his Gospel to a General Council, instead of Theophilus; for then we might have had Infallible Certainty of them; but now it is a plain case, we can have no more than Moral Certainty that ever they were theirs. But, for this trick, it seems, they fared the worse; for some Books were doubted of, for many years, in particular Churches. It is well yet, they were not discarded by your Catholick Church, because the Apostles did not put their Books into your hands to recommend p. 251them. But what if some Books, by some men, were for some time doubted of, which yet were afterwards universally received upon sufficient evidence? Why then (say you) Tradition hath much advantage of Scripture? How so? Was no Tradition, which would be accounted universal, doubted of by any men at any time? No (say you) it is impossible it should, for universal Traditions were universally practised at all times. Now you speak home; and nothing wants to the proof of it, but only to let us know, What these Vniversal Traditions are, which were so universally practised in all ages, containing things different from Scripture, which are recorded in the Authours of every succeeding Age. Your offer is so fair, that my request shall be very short; name them, and prove them, and I will believe you, but not before. So much for this, which, though a digression in this Chapter, yet is not from the design of this discourse.

Setting aside therefore your discourse about A.C's. Pen being troubled, §. 6.in which is nothing worth our notice; I come to the main dispute of this Chapter, which is, Whether the Promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles, are to be restrained to their own times, or to be extended to the present Church in all ages? We assert the former, and you the latter. For which you produce this argument, That from these very places, Christians do inferr, that the Church shall never fall away and perish. P. 99. n. 3.For if the assistance be not to preserve the succeeding Church, at least from some kind of errours infallibly; it may, notwithstanding all the assistance he allows it here, fall into all kind of errours one after another, and so by degrees, the whole Church might fall into a general Apostacy, and thereby perish. There must therefore be some kind of infallible assistance in the Apostles successors, by virtue of these Promises. But, 1. Is it all one to say, There shall alwaies be a Church, and to say, That Church shall alwaies be infallible? Those, who from the places in question, do prove, that the Church shall never quite fall away, do not dream of a present Infallibility in your sense, but that there alwaies shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world: And, Cannot you possibly conceive, that there should be such a number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility? To help therefore your understanding a little; suppose that all the members of the Roman Church should in one age be destroyed (and, according to your former Principle, that if a Church may erre, we cannot be certain but that it doth erre; because this may be, we cannot be certain but that it is) but we only make the supposition: Do not you think that there would be still a number remaining, who profess Christianity, of the Greek and Protestant Churches? yet, I hope, you will not say, that these were infallible. There may be then a number of Christians, who are not infallible; and that is all which is meant by saying, That the present Church is infallible in Fundamentals, viz. that there shall alwaies be a Church, for that which makes them a Church, is the belief of Fundamentals; and if they believe not them, they cease to be so. That therefore which being supposed, a Church is, and being destroyed, it ceaseth to be, is the formal constitution of it; but thus it is as to the Church, the belief of Fundamentals makes it a Church, and the not belief of them makes them cease to be a Christian Church; I speak of an Essential, and not of an Organical Church; and, I know not who those persons are, who, out of those places, do inferr the perpetuity of an Organical Church; nor, if they did, doth it thence follow, they must suppose an Infallible Assistance, beyond an Essential to make p. 252it an Organical Church. For I cannot imagine what necessity can be supposed of Infallibility, in order to that which may be sufficiently constituted without it. 2. I answer, the perpetuity of the Church doth rather argue the Infallibility of the Promise then of the Church. Which if you did consider, you would not certainly inferr Infallibility from a promise of Perpetuity. For all the Infallibility supposable in this case is an Infallibility of Accomplishment of the Promise made. As in a clear and parallel Instance of that Promise, Gen. 49.10.Gen 49:10The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, untill Shiloh come. Taking it in the most received Interpretation among Christians, that the Jewish Polity should remain till the dayes of the Messias; doth this inferr, that there should be a continual Infallibility in the Jewish Polity, because there was a Promise made of its perpetuity? When God saith, In Jerusalem have I set my name for ever, doth it follow that Jerusalem should be alwayes Infallible? But how would you triumph beyond all reason, if you had but any thing like such a promise for Rome, as that is for Jerusalem? Supposing then that the Promises by you insisted on, should be so far extended, as to imply a perpetuity of a Christian Church what doth that argue, but only this, that to make it appear that Promise is Infallibly true, there shall alwaies be a succession of Christians in the world. 3. Suppose I should grant that the being of a Christian Church doth suppose the assistance of Gods Spirit, is there no assistance, but what is Infallible? If not, no one can be a Christian without Infallibility; For we speak of no other assistance, but what is necessary to make men Christians; for, what makes them such severally, take them conjunctly makes them a Church. But if you, besides what assistance is requisite to make them Christians, do suppose somewhat more to make them a Church, I pray name what it is; and whatever it be, it will not be owned by such who inferr a perpetuity of a Church out of these places. But if in order to that no more be meant, (as no more can be meant) then what is necessary to make men Christians then Infallibility will grow so cheap and common, it will not be worth challenging by you for your Church. 4. Suppose I grant this assistance to be Infallible, doth all Infallible assistance make an Infallible Testimony? I am sure not in their sense, who say the Church is infallible in Fundamentals, for they never offer to assert that the present Church is Infallible in defining what are Fundamentals, and what not. And this is the only Infallibility in question, viz. Such a one as makes the Testimony of those who have it Infallible. For such a kind of assistance was that of the Apostles, which is only the thing enquired after. If you can therefore prove such an Infallibility in your Churches Testimony, as the Apostles had, you do something; but what is short of this, is nothing at all to the purpose. 5. Suppose I should grant the Testimony of the Catholick Church to be Infallible, yet all these concessions were nothing for your advantage, unless you could as evidently prove that your Church is the only Catholick Church. Which that you can never do, will appear when we come to that question. 6. Suppose I should yield the Catholick Churches Testimony to be Infallible, and your Church to be the Catholick Church; yet all this is far from proving Pope, or Council, or both to be Infallible. For, By what means come they to claim the Infallibility as belonging to them which is given to the Church? by what deeds are the conveyances settled of the priviledges of the Church to them? Where is it ever said in Scripture, or in the least intimated, that the Promises made to the Church are to be understood of the representative p. 253Church? The Apostles had this Promise in their personal capacities made to them, and not in a representative; how comes then the Promise to be understood of a representation afterwards? Thus you see, that you are at least six removes from any title to claim this Infallibility from these Promises by: and therefore you have little hopes that your claim should be admitted upon so slender a title.

From this therefore at present you fly off, to the vindicating A. C. from asserting Infallibility belonging to all the Doctors and Pastors of the Church;§. 7. which yet is a very good design to vindicate a man from his own words. For are they not as express as may be, viz. That there is the Promise of Christ, and his Holy Spirits continual presence, Luk. 10.16. Matth. 28.19, 20. Joh. 14.16. not only to the Apostles, but to their Successours also, the lawfully sent Pastours and Doctors of the Church in all Ages. To which his Lordship saith, Here's a deal of Infallibility indeed, and yet errour store. You presently cry out,Pag. 94. Pag. 99. But what shall we say to an Adversary that forges what Chimerical doctrine he pleases, and then fights against it. What Chimerical Doctrine is that which he forges? doth he not relate A. C's. words? and do you, or can you, deny them to be his words? But say you, This was not his meaning. I suppose you mean, That his words as they are, are not defensible, and therefore you must have a foreign for them: which is, That he did not understand these words of every Doctor apart, but of Pastors and Doctors lawfully assembled in Oecumenical Councils. But, 1. Are Pastors and Doctors never lawfully sent, but when they are in Oecumenical Councils? for it is plain A. C. speaks of them as lawfully sent. 2. Have Pastors and Doctors met in Oecumenical Councils in all Ages? I would you could prove a truly Oecumenical Council in any Age; but sure you never pretend to it in all Ages, yet if A. C's. words have any sense in them, they speak of such an Infallibility, as belongs to the Church in all Ages. And therefore this plaister is a great deal too narrow to cover the sore. But say you, Every Authour is to be understood to mean by his words, what they will properly bear; and is consonant with the meaning of his other words. I most freely grant you this and all that follows, if you will prove it impossible for any man to speak non-sense, or contradictions; But I can more easily prove it very possible for a man to speak things which contradict one the other, which I have sufficiently proved from your own dear self in this very Discourse of Infallibility. What follows concerning the Jesuits pretence of Infallibility to themselves (proved by his Lordship, from the words of the Apologist, to whom Casaubon replies in his Epistle to Fronto Ducaeus, which are these, Let day and night—life and death be joyned together, and then there will be some hope that Heresie may fall upon the person of a Jesuite) is very well worth the observing, were it only for that rare and incomparable answer, which you make to them. In which, it is hard to guess whether your ingenuity or your wit surpass the other. Rabbi Casaubon, foreign, must help him out. Pag. 100.An Apologist saith Casaubon averres, 'tis impossible for a Jesuite to err. Who is this Anonymus Apologist? A Jesuite or a Minister? for an Apologist and a Jesuite, are no more convertible terms, than a Jesuite and a Minister. How shall we know then, whether this nameless Apologist was a Jesuite, or a Minister personating a Jesuite? The Gospel will tell us: Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos. O rare Drollery! doth this pass for wit at Rome? or must we think you speak these words in good earnest? If so, your Ignorance is more then ordinary in these matters. For to pass by your unworthy reflection on that excellent p. 254person Isaac Casaubon, whose memory is as farr above your detraction, as his learning beyond your reach; and, to let go your scurrilous Greek Proverb, foreign (which some will tell you was Greek for a Jesuite) are you really so Ignorant, that you did not know whether the Apologist, whose words are cited, were a Jesuite or a Minister? What not he, who professedly undertakes the Vindication of the Jesuites? not he, who was so seriously recommended by Fronto Ducaeus a Jesuite himself? not he, who industriously vindicates Ribadeneira, Scribanius, Emanuel Sa, Bellarmin, and others, in their doctrine which doth most reflect on the Power and Authority of Princes? not he, who extolls Father Garnet who was executed in England for the Gunpowder-treason, yet for all this not he known to be a Jesuite? Are you yet to seek? Apply but your own rule of the Gospel to what is said already, and by those fruits you cannot but know him to be a Jesuite.

§. 8.But now, notwithstanding the sufficient answers which have been so often given to the places produced for the proof of the Churches Infallibility out of Scripture, You thought it no needless trouble in A. C. to mention them, and much less in your self to vindicate them from the Bishops Interpretation: The places are Luk. 10.16. He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me. Matth. 28.20. I am with you alwaies to the end of the world. Joh. 14.16. The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever. That which you would inferr from these places, is, That an Infallible assistance is promised to the Church in all ages, not in its diffusive sense but representative, viz. in the Pastors and Doctors assembled in Council. The substance of his Lordships answer to these places, is in these words; These promises were made of continual presence and assistance, that I grant; P. 93. n. 28.and they were made to the Apostles and their Successors, that I grant too, but in a different degree. For it was of continual and Infallible assistance to the Apostles, but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance, but not Infallible. To this you return no answer in general, but endeavour to evince the contrary from the particular places, by disproving his Interpretations of them. To the first therefore Luk. 10.16. He that heareth you heareth me, &c. His Lordship answers, That this was absolutely true in the Apostles, who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ; but it was to be but conditionally true in their Successors, i. e. so long and so farr as you speak my words and not your own. For where the command is for Preaching, Matth. 28.20.Matt 28:20the Restraint is added. Go, saith Christ, and teach all Nations: but you may not Preach all things that you please, but all things which I have commanded you. The publication is yours, the Doctrine is mine; and where the Doctrine is not mine, there your publication is beyond, or short of your commission. Pag. 101.To this you reply, That this is rather to pervert our Saviours words, than to Interpret them, is manifest. And the reason you give, is, Because a Sectary, who denies the Apostles Infallibility as well as the Churches, might apply this restraint to the Apostles themselves, as well as he now applies it to their Successors. But they are strange kind of Sectaries indeed who deny the Apostles Infallibility, and my memory doth not serve me with any such who asserted Christs Infallibility and denyed the Apostles; but if there be any such Sectaries, let us know them, that we may then say, There are some in the world who believe great absurdities as well as you. However let us for the present, take this for a supposition, that any men might do so; whether then they might not say, the Apostles were only Infallible when they spake Christs words and not their own, i. e. delivered his p. 255Doctrine and not any other. No doubt they might, and said very well in it too. And if these be the Sectaries you mean, I am one of them my self; For I believe, the Apostles were no further Infallible then as they delivered Christs Doctrine to the world, and I suppose there are many such Sectaries besides my self. But all the difference then between the Apostles and their Successors was this, that those who heard the Apostles Doctrine had ground to believe them Infallible in what they delivered for Christs Doctrine; but we have no ground to believe so of any Church since the Apostles times, that it is Infallible in delivering the Doctrine of Christ to others. The promise then of Infallible assistance as made to the Apostles doth imply that Gods Spirit would be so with them, that they should deliver nothing for the revealed will of God or the Doctrine of Christ, but what was really and truly so. And if you can from this or any other place prove such an Infallible assistance to the Church of all ages, you do something, but not otherwise. But for this particular place, He that heareth you heareth me; I have something more yet to say, which may manifest how wholly impertinent it is to your purpose. 1. It seems to me very questionable, whether any such thing as Infallibility be at all implyed in this place: and then certainly from hence you cannot inferr a successive Infallibility in the Church. And the reasons why I question it, are, 1. The Apostles themselves had not that continual Infallible assistance of the Spirit of God till after Christs Ascension, when the promise of Christs sending his Spirit upon them was remarkably accomplished, Will you say then they had Infallible assistance by the Spirit, before the promise of that Infallible assistance was made to them? If then the Apostles themselves had not such a continual Infallible assistance, much less the LXX. Disciples who are here spoken of. 2. The message they were sent upon did not at all require any Infallible assistance, for it was only a preparative message, they not being sent to deliver fully the Doctrine of Christ, but to tell them, The Kingdom of God is at hand, or nigh unto you, ver. 9, 11. i. e. that blessed state of things under the Messias is now ready to be revealed to you: the whole design therefore of that commission of the LXX. Disciples and the Apostles, when they were first sent abroad, was of the same nature with John Baptist's, viz. to prepare people for the reception and entertainment of that Doctrine which Christ should deliver to them. Now what Infallible assistance can be supposed necessary in order to this? 3. The words imply nothing of Infallible assistance in them. For when Christ saith, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me: the plain meaning is no more than this, They which hearken to your message, and believe the truth of what you say, do therein manifest their readiness to hearken to me, and consequently will receive my Doctrine, when it is delivered to them; but they who despise this message of yours, the affront they offer you, reflects most on me who sent you; and they shall find to their sorrow, that in rejecting me they reject God too, who will punish them severely for it: which, that it is the meaning of the words, will very easily appear to any one that considers the scope and design of the place. Now is it not possible for any to declare their respect to Christ by receiving his Messengers, without believing those Messengers to be Infallibl… ▪ If that be possible, then what kind of Infallibility can you hence inferr? 2. Suppose I should grant these LXX Infallible in what they delivered, yet nothing can be hence drawn for the Churches continual Infallibility, because of the p. 256different reason of one from the other, and that will appear in these things. 1. These were immediately sent abroad by Christ himself, when there were no Infallible writings containing this Doctrine, made by himself or his Apostles. And was there not then much more reason for such an Infallibility then there can be now? 2. These had sufficient evidences to attest that Infallibility, by that power of Miracles, which they had in curing diseases and casting out of Devils, ver. 9.—17. And therefore those they were sent to had sufficient inducement to believe such an Infallibility, if they had pretended to it; when therefore you can prove the like of your lawfully sent Doctors and Pastors, either a-part or in a General Council, you may then from hence argue some thing toward that Infallibility, but not before.

In your following words you acknowledge a difference in applying this text to the Apostles and their Successors, For it was true in every one of the Apostles apart, but it is not so in every one of the succeeding Pastors; and for this you give these Reasons, 1. Your adversaries and you are agreed in it, viz. That the Pastors apart are fallible. 2. 'Tis manifest by experience, that many eminent Pastors have not only been erronious, but heretical. 3. There is universal Tradition for it. 4. Plain Scripture for it, that even from themselves there should arise some that should speak perverse things. These reasons I acknowledge to be so true, that, if you had expressed the Pope himself in them, you could not have proved his fallibility better, then by Experience, Consent, and Scripture. But yet you have two Reserves in a Corner, which marr all the rest, viz. that from these places you make General Councils infallible, and, according to your most received perswasion, the Pope too. Do you so indeed? and from these places ? and both of them Infallible, whether they agree or not? But if our reasons be not stronger against any such Infallibility deducible from these places, than yours are for it (for I have not seen any) I am content to blind my understanding so much, if I can, as to believe what you say, That to give reasons against your exposition is impossible. Pag. 102.But as your reason in all other things is weak, so in this it appears, that either your ignorance or your confidence is intolerable.

§. 9.The next place, is, Matth. 28.20. I am with you alwaies, even unto the end of the world. To which his Lordship saith, Yes most certain it is, present by his spirit; Pag. 96.for else in bodily presence, he continued not with his Apostles but during his abode on earth. And this promise of his spiritual presence was to their Successors; else why to the end of the world? The Apostles did not, could not live so long; But then to the Successors, the Promise goes no further, than, I am with you alwaies, which reaches to continual assistance, but not to Divine and Infallible. What say you now to this? Why forsooth, It is the same answer as before, and therefore deserves no further refutation. But doth it not deserve some further proof of your Infallibility from this place? Or are you content to let it go, because you cannot but see, that a spiritual presence and not infallible is hereby promised, either to the Apostles or their Successors, although from other places it appears, that the spiritual presence of Christ with his Apostles did extend to so high a degree, as to make them infallible in what they delivered for the Doctrine of Christ, but no place of Scripture doth assert so much of the Churches infallibility. It is well then that you grant, that St. Gregory did not believe any infallible assistance in the Pastors of the Church; but (you say) he understood it of them apart, to make which probable, you must produce some other p. 257places, where he saith otherwise of them in Council. But how a gracious presence of Christ with his Church, which you grant Rhabanus Maurus meant by this place, should suppose a conjunctive infallibility of the Pastors as a necessary foundation and support of the Church diffusive, I confess is beyond my understanding; but at least you say, it denies it not: neither doth it deny that you or I are infallible; but doth it therefore follow that we are so? What places you produce (or rather bid us go seek for out of the Fathers) to prove that they, in effect, (it seems then, not evidently) do attribute infallibility to the Church (but by no means Divine infallibility, for this is more than the third time that you have forbid the Banes between those two words Divine and Infallible) will to any that reads them appear to be capable of proving no more than the Perpetuity of a Church in the world; but if any of them can do any better service, I doubt not, but we shall again meet with them, and therefore shall adjourn their consideration to a more convenient place. To prove that any of the Fathers have denyed this place to extend to infallibility, is a very unreasonable thing which you put the Bishop and his party upon, because they only deliver what they conceive the meaning of places to be, without reflections on any Heresies, but such as were most prevalent in their own times. And if your Church had in their time challenged Infallibility from such places, you might have heard of their Negative, which at present you put us unreasonably to prove.

Your answer to John 14.16. only is,§. 10. that it must be understood in some absolute sense; and doth not his Lordship say so too, viz. in regard of Consolation and Grace. But if you say, there can be no other absolute sense, but an infallible assistance, you would do well to prove it and not barely to suppose it: and so likewise, what follows as to John 16.13. (which his Lordship justly restrains to the Apostles alone) you tell us, That you contend, that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart, it is also to be understood in relation to their Successors, assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church. That you contend, we grant; but we say, it is without sense or reason. And therefore come to examine what you produce for it. Your first reason,P. 103. n. 5. Because the Representative of the Church in General Council, and the Bishop of Rome as Pastor of the whole Church, have equal power to oblige the Church to believe what they deliver, as each Apostle had, is utterly denied, and must be more then barely supposed as it is here. Your second, which you call the Fundamental reason of this Exposition is, in short,N. 6. That the preservation of the Church requires infallibility in future ages of the Church, as well as in the Apostles times, which is again utterly denied; And the next time you write, I pray prove your reasons well; and think not your confident producing things you know are denied by us, will serve for reasons against us. Before you can sufficiently prove that any rite of the Church, not mentioned in Scripture, had the Holy Ghost for its Authour, especially when contrary to a custome expressed in Scripture, you must do more then produce a single testimony of St. Augustine for it; who was apt to suppose the Holy Ghost might be pleased with such things, which the Church, though not therein infallible, might consent in the practise of. Which certainly is far from supposing the Church to have infallible assistance with it, in delivering Doctrines of Faith; because some things might be used in the Church which the Holy Ghost might be supposed not displeased with, which is the utmost can be made of your citation out of St. Austin.

p. 258It seems you were aware of that disparity between the Apostles times and ours, as to the pretence of Infallibility, because the Apostles were first to deliver this Doctrine to the world, and after to consign it by writing to future ages; from whence it were easie to inferr, there could not be that necessity of a Continual Infallible Assistance in the Church, because the Doctrine infallibly delivered by them is preserved in the Church by the Infallible Records of it. But to this your answer is considerable. What wise man (say you) would go about to raise a stately building for many ages, P. 104. n. 7.and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for a few years? Our Saviour the wisest of Architects, is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable building of the Church upon sand; which must infallibly have happened, had he not intended to afford his continual assistance also to the succeeding Pastors of the Church, to lead them, when assembled in a General Council, into all those truths wherein he first setled the Apostles. Whether you call this arguing for the Churches infallibility, or libelling against our blessed Saviour if he hath not done what you would have him, is hard to determine. I am sure, it is arguing ab absurdo with a witness; for if he hath not done, just as you fancy he should have done; he must venture to be accounted an Ignoramus and Impostor before, and here to do that which no wise man would have done, viz. build a stately Fabrick, the Church, upon the Sands. So it seems you account the Prophets and the Apostles: for if the Apostle may be credited,Eph. 2.20.Eph 2:20 we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone. And this is it you must mean by being built on the sand; for herein it is plain, the Church is built on these, viz. that Infallible doctrine which was delivered by them, but here is not one word or the least intimation of an inherent infallibility in the Church which was to be its foundation so as to secure it from all errour. And this (you say) must infallibly happen, if there be not the same infallibility in General Councils which was in the Apostles; for that I suppose must be the meaning of your last words, if they be to the purpose. But how groundless your pretence of the Infallibility of General Councils is, will appear when we come to that subject; but have you so little of common sense and reason with you, as to suppose the Church presently notwithstanding the Divine Revelation of the Doctrine of Christianity in Scripture to be built on Sand, if General Councils be not infallible? Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christianity, supposing there never had been any General Council in the world? What was the Church built on before the Nicene Council, only on Sand? surely the Wind and Billows of persecutions would then have easily overturned it. What if through civil combustions in the Empire there could never have been any Assembly's of the Bishops afterwards, must the Church needs have fallen to the ground for want of General Councils? But why, I pray, must the Infallibility of the Apostles be compared only to a foundation that can last but for few years? Do you suppose that these Apostles never did commit their Doctrine infallibly to writing; or that these writings of theirs did last but for a few years? without one of these, it is hard to find out your meaning by those expressions. If you deny either of them, I shall readily prove them: but if you affirm both these, (as if you are heartily a Christian you must do) with what face can you say that Christ, in making the Apostles infallible, did lay a Foundation but for a few years. But thanks be to God, although perverse and unreasonable men are alwaies quarrelling with the methods of Divine wisdom and goodness, this Foundation of the Lord standeth p. 259sure still; and, as long as the Infallible Doctrine of the Gospel continues, the Church will be built on a stedfast and unmoveable Rock, which will prove a much surer Foundation than the seven Hills of Infallibility. But this is your grand and fundamental mistake, to suppose a Church cannot continue without a vital inherent Principle of Infallibility in her self, which must be discovered by Infallible Directions from the Head of it: whereas we grant the necessity of an Infallible Foundation of Faith, but cannot discern either from Scripture, Reason, or Antiquity, that there must be a living and standing Infallible Judge, which must deliver and interpret those Infallible Records to us. We grant then Infallibility in the Foundation of Faith, we assert the highest Certainty of the Infallibility of that Foundation, we declare that the owning of that Infallible Foundation is that which makes men Christians (the body of whom we call a Church) we further grant, that Christ hath left in his Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity; but we deny that ever he promised such an Infallibility to be constantly resident in that Church, as was in the Prophets and Apostles; and that neither any intention of Christ, or any reason in the thing can be manifested, why such an Infallibility should be so necessary for the Churches preservation, that without it the Wisdom of Christ must be questioned, and the Church built on a sandy Foundation. Your citation of Vincentius Lyrinensis proves nothing but the Churches constancy in adhering to that Doctrine of Faith, which was delivered from the beginning; but how that should prove a Constant Infallibility, I cannot understand, unless it is impossible that there should be any Truth, where there is no inherent Infallibility. Thus we see, what very little success you have in the attempt of proving the Churches continual Infallibility from Scripture.

From hence you proceed to the consideration of the way,§. 11. How Scripture and Tradition do mutually confirm each other. His Lordship grants, That they do mutually, but not equally, confirm the authority either of other. P. 98. n. 3 …For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the authority of Church-Traditions, truly so called: but Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the authority of the Scripture. This (you say) is apparently false, but endeavour not to make it evident, that it is so: Only you say,P. 105. A. C. refused already to grant it. Et quid tum postea? Must every thing be false which A. C. refuses to grant? But let us see, whether his Similitude makes it out. For (saith he) 'tis as a Kings Embassadours word of mouth, and his Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other. Just so indeed (saith his Lordship) For his Kings Letters of Credence under hand and Seal, confirm the Embassadours authority infallibly to all that know his Seal and hand: But the Embassadours word of mouth confirms his Kings Letters, but only probably. For else, Why are they call…d Letters of Credence, if they give not him more credit, than he gives them? To which you make a large Reply. 1. That the Kings hand and Seal cannot confirm infallibly to a Forein King, who neither knows hand nor Seal, the Embassadours authority; and therefore this reacheth not the business, How we should know infallibly, that the Scripture is Gods Word. 2. That the primary reason, Why the Embassadour is admitted, is his own credit, to which correspond the motives of Credibility of the Church, by which the Letters of Credence are admitted. 3. That none can give authority to the Letters of Credence, or be infallibly certain of them, but such as infallibly know that hand and Seal. 4. That none can infallibly know that hand and Seal, but such as are certain of the Embassadours sincerity. But, Doth all this disprove p. 260what his Lordship saith, That though there be a mutual Testimony, yet it is not equal; for, although the Letters of Credence might be the sooner read and admitted of, on the Embassadours Reputation and Sincerity, yet still those Letters themselves, upon the delivery of them, may further, and in a higher degree, confirm the Prince he is sent to, of his authority to act as Embassadour. Supposing then, that there be a sufficient Testimony, that these Letters were sealed by the Secretary of State, who did manifest his Sincerity in the highest manner in the sealing of them; though a Forein Prince might not know the hand and Seal, yet upon such a creditable Testimony, he may be assured that they were sealed by the Prince himself. But then withall, if the Embassadour, to assure the Prince, offers his own life to attest the truth of his Credentials, and the Prince by reading the Letters, find something in them which could not be written by any other than that Prince, he then hath the highest certainty he can desire. This is the case between Tradition and Scripture; General Tradition at first makes way for the first admission of Scripture, as the general repute of an Embassadours coming doth for his access to the Prince; the particular Tradition of the Church, is like the Embassadours affirming to the Prince, that he hath Letters of Credence with him; but then, when he enquires into the Certainty of those Letters, those Motives of Credibility (not which relate to the person of the Embassadour) but which evidently prove the sealing of those Letters (as the constant Testimony of such who were present at it, the Secretaries and Embassadours venturing their lives upon it) must confirm him in that; and lastly, his own reading the Credentials, give him the highest Confirmation, i. e. The testimony of those who saw the miracles of Christ and his Apostles, and confirmed the Truth of their Testimony, by their dying for it, are the highest inducement to our believing that the Scriptures were sealed by God himself in the miracles wrought, and written by his own hand, his Spirit infallibly assisting the Apostle; but still, after all this, when in these very Scriptures we read such things as we cannot reasonably suppose could come from any but God himself; this doth in the highest degree settle and confirm our Faith. Therefore, as to the main scope for which this Similitude was used by his Lordship, it holds still; but your mistake lyes, in supposing that the Embassadours reception depended wholly on his own single Testimony, and that was enough to make any Prince infallibly certain that his Letters of Credence are true, which cannot be, unless he knows before-hand that Embassadour to be infallibly true, which is impossible to be supposed at his first reception. Yet this is plainly your case, that the Scriptures are to be infallibly believed on the single Testimony of the present Church, which is, to make the Embassadour himself give authority to his Letters of Credence, and set hand and seal to them. Whereas the contrary is most evident to be true. But then, supposing these Credentials admitted, the Prince transacts with the Embassadour, according to that power which is conveyed to him therein. And thus it is in the present case: Not as though a Prince treated every Envoy with equal respect to an Embassadour, no more ought any Pastors of the Church be received, but according to that power and authority which their Credentials, viz. the Scriptures do convey to them. We own therefore the Apostles as Gods immediate Embassadours, whose miracles did attest their commission from Heaven to all they came to; and no persons could pretend ignorance, that this is Gods hand and Seal; but all other Pastors of the Church we look on only as Agents settled to hold correspondency between p. 261God and VsUs, but no extraordinary Embassadours, who must be looked on as immediately transacting by the Infallible Commission of Heaven. When therefore the Pastor or Pastors of your Church shall bring new Credentials from Heaven, attested with the same Broad-seal of Heaven, which the Apostles had, viz. Miracles, we shall then receive them in the same capacity as Apostles, viz. acting by an Infallible Commission, but not till then. By which I have given a sufficient Answer to what follows, concerning the credit which is given to Christ's Legats as to himself; for hereby it appears they are to have no greater authority than their Commission gives them. Produce therefore an Infallible Commission for your Pastors Infallibility, either apart, or conjunctly, and we shall receive it; but not else. Whether A.C. in the words following, doth in terms attribute Divine and Infallible authority to the Church, supposing it infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, is very little material; for, Whether he owns it or no, it is sufficient that it necessarily follows from his Doctrine of Infallibility. For, How can the Church be infallible by virtue of those Promises, wherein Divine Infallibility, you say, is promised, and by virtue of which the Apostles had Divine Infallibility, and yet the Church not to be divinely Infallible? The remainder of this Chapter, which concerns the sense of the Fathers in this Controversie, will particularly be considered in the next, which is purposely designed for it.